Bill C-47

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) enabling the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to use electronic certification of tax and information returns and requiring taxpayers to file electronically in certain circumstances;
(b) doubling the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000;
(c) providing that any gain on the disposition of a right to acquire Canadian housing property within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(d) excluding from a taxpayer’s income certain benefits for Canadian Forces members, veterans and their spouses or common-law partners;
(e) exempting from taxation any income earned by the Band Class Settlement Trust in accordance with section 24.05 of the Settlement Agreement entered into on January 18, 2023 relating to the attendance of day scholars at residential schools;
(f) providing an additional payment of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit equal to double the amount of the regular January 2023 payment;
(g) providing for automatic, quarterly advance payments of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) allowing divorced and separated spouses to open joint Registered Educational Savings Plans and increasing educational assistance amounts under those plans;
(i) extending, by ‚three years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan and expanding the definition of “qualifying family member” to include a sister or a brother of the individual;
(j) allowing defined contribution registered pension plans to correct contribution errors and requiring that the contributions or refunds are reported to the CRA for the purpose of correcting the RRSP deduction limit;
(k) modifying reporting requirements in respect of reportable transactions, introducing reporting requirements for notifiable transactions and providing reporting requirements with respect to uncertain tax treatments, as well as extending the reassessment periods applicable to those transactions and creating or modifying penalties for non-compliance with those requirements;
(l) allowing the CRA to share taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(m) expanding the definition of “dividend rental arrangement” to include “specified hedging transactions” carried out in whole or in part by registered securities dealers;
(n) implementing the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(o) requiring annual reporting by financial institutions of the fair market value of registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(p) expanding the permissible borrowing by defined benefit pension plans; and
(q) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Tax Rebate Discounting Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that the international transportation of money benefits from Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) relief and other special rules in the same manner as a service of internationally transporting other kinds of freight;
(b) permitting a pension entity, in specific circumstances, to claim the pension entity rebate or an input tax credit, or to make the pension entity rebate election, after the end of the two-year limitation period;
(c) specifying that cryptoasset mining is generally not considered a supply for GST/HST purposes; and
(d) ensuring that payment card clearing services are excluded from the definition “financial service” under the GST/HST legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act in order to implement two measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 in order to temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at two per cent, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement after April 2024 and for which any payment is made after April 2024.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen the regime for dealing with complaints against banks and authorized foreign banks by, among other things, providing for the designation of a not-for-profit body corporate to be the sole external complaints body. It also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and related amendments to the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations .
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, provide for variable life benefits under a defined contribution provision of a pension plan and amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to, among other things, provide for variable life payments under pooled registered pension plans. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act .
Division 3 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering and to digital assets and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada information that is related to a disclosure made under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) ;
(b) strengthen the registration framework for persons or entities referred in paragraphs 5(h) and (h.1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , which are often referred to as money services businesses;
(c) create two new offences relating to persons or entities who engage in activities for which they are not registered under that Act and the structuring of financial transactions undertaken to avoid reporting obligations under that Act, as well as a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act;
(d) facilitate the sharing, between the Minister of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, of information that relates to their respective mandates; and
(e) authorize the Minister of Finance to issue directives to persons and entities referred in section 5 of that Act in respect of risks relating to the financing of threats to the security of Canada.
Subdivision A also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 amends the Criminal Code to provide for a new warrant authorizing a peace officer or other person named in the warrant to search for and seize digital assets, including virtual currency, as well as to expand the list of offences on the basis of which an examination of information obtained by the Minister of National Revenue under various tax statutes may be authorized. The subdivision also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to extend the expiry date of the General Preferential Tariff and Least Developed Country Tariff to December 31, 2034 and to create a new General Preferential Tariff Plus tariff treatment that will expire on the same date. The Division also aligns direct shipment requirements for tariff treatments under that Act with those that apply to free trade agreements.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the List of Countries entitled to Most-Favoured-Nation tariff treatment.
Division 6 of Part 4 allows the Bank of Canada to apply, despite sections 27 and 27.1 of the Bank of Canada Act , any of its ascertained surplus to its retained earnings until its retained earnings are equal to zero or the ascertained surplus applied to its retained earnings is equal to the losses it incurred from the purchase of securities as part of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Innovation Corporation Act . That Act continues the Canada Innovation Corporation, which was established under another Act, as a parent Crown corporation, sets out the Corporation’s purpose to maximize business investment in research and development across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada to promote innovation-driven economic growth and includes transitional provisions. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the authority to make Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments for another five-year period beginning on April 1, 2024 and makes a technical change to improve the accuracy of the programs. It also makes a technical change to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments. Finally, it provides for the publication of the details of all amounts authorized to be paid under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Economic Measures Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to strengthen Canada’s ability to take economic measures against certain persons.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to, among other things, enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Service Fees Act to, among other things, clarify the definition “fee”, exempt certain fees from the application of that Act, make certain exceptions in that Act applicable only with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board, make certain changes to the annual adjustment provisions and provide authority for the President of the Treasury Board to amend the regulations made under section 22 of that Act by taking into account the factors established by regulations.
It also amends section 25.1 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide for the application of sections 16 to 18 of the Service Fees Act to low-materiality fees, within the meaning of the Service Fees Act , that are fixed under section 24 or 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act .
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to allow the Minister of National Revenue to make available information to the Minister of Employment and Social Development that is necessary for the purpose of policy analysis, research or evaluation related to the administration of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to grant the Minister of Employment and Social Development the authority to collect and use Social Insurance Numbers for the purposes of administering or enforcing any Act, program or activity in respect of which the administration or enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code in respect of leave related to the death or disappearance of a child to, among other things, increase the maximum length of that leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks and to repeal paragraph 206.5(4)(b) of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person and, with regard to a claim made by the person other than at a port of entry, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may specify the documents and information to be provided and the form and manner in which they are to be provided.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may give instructions in respect of an application to sponsor a person who applies for a visa as a Convention refugee, within the meaning of that Act, or as a person in similar circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants may seek an order authorizing it to administer the property of any licensee of the College who is not able to perform their activities as an immigration and citizenship consultant;
(b) extend immunity against proceedings for damages to directors, employees and agents and mandataries of the College, among others;
(c) authorize the College to enter into information-sharing agreements or arrangements with any entity, including federal or provincial government institutions; and
(d) expand the areas in respect of which the Governor in Council may authorize the College to make by-laws.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that any person who is the subject of a notice of violation issued under either of those Acts has the right to request a review of the notice or the administrative monetary penalty set out in the notice.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) grant the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of that Act the power to collect biometric information from persons who make an application under that Act — and to use, verify, retain and disclose that information — in accordance with the regulations;
(b) authorize that Minister to administer and enforce that Act using electronic means, including by using an automated system; and
(c) grant that Minister the power to make regulations requiring persons who make an application or who provide documents, information or evidence under that Act to do so using electronic means.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs to take any measures on certain public real property that the Minister considers necessary to prevent, counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effect on persons, property or the environment.
Subdivision A of Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum liability for certain claims involving a ship of less than 300 gross tonnage;
(b) establish the maximum liability for claims involving air cushion vehicles;
(c) remove all references to the Hamburg Rules;
(d) extend the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 to non-seagoing vessels;
(e) provide for public notice requirements relating to the constitution of limitation funds under that Act;
(f) clarify that the owner of a ship is liable for economic loss related to fishing, hunting, trapping or harvesting suffered by an Indigenous group, community or people or suffered by a member of such a group, community or people; and
(g) expand the compensation regime of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund to include certain future losses.
Subdivision B of Division 21 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) expand the application of Part 1 of that Act in relation to certain pleasure craft;
(b) expand the exemption powers of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;
(c) allow the owner of a Canadian vessel to enter into an arrangement with a qualified person under which that person is the authorized representative of the vessel;
(d) give the Marine Technical Review Board jurisdiction to make decisions on applications for exemptions from interim orders;
(e) authorize the Governor in Council to incorporate by reference in certain regulations material that the Minister of Transport produces;
(f) broaden the Governor in Council’s power respecting fees, charges, costs or expenses to be paid in relation to the administration and enforcement of matters under that Act for which the Minister of Transport is responsible;
(g) increase the maximum amount of fines for certain offences;
(h) provide authority, in certain circumstances, for the Chief Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of registry and for the Minister of Transport to refuse to issue a pleasure craft licence;
(i) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting emergency services;
(j) authorize the Minister of Transport to, among other things,
(i) direct a master or crew member to cease operations,
(ii) authorize the Deputy Minister of Transport to make interim orders in response to risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(iii) direct a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority or place to authorize vessels to proceed to a place selected by the Minister; and
(k) permit designating as violations the contravention of certain provisions of Parts 5 and 10 of that Act and the regulations made under those Parts.
The Subdivision also makes a related amendment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .
Subdivision C of Division 21 amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to, among other things, establish the Vessel Remediation Fund in the accounts of Canada and provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with certain powers in relation to the detention of vessels.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to require air carriers to publish information respecting their performance on their Internet site;
(b) permit the sharing of information to ensure the proper functioning of the national transportation system or to increase its efficiency, while ensuring the confidentiality of that information;
(c) allow the Minister of Transport to require certain persons to provide certain information to the Minister if the Minister is of the opinion that there exists an unusual and significant disruption to the effective continued operation of the national transportation system;
(d) establish a new zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for a period of 18 months; and
(e) broaden the scope of the administrative monetary penalties scheme.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) broaden the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency to set fees and charges to recover its costs;
(b) replace the current process for resolving air travel complaints with a more streamlined process designed to result in more timely decisions;
(c) impose a greater burden of proof on air carriers where it is presumed that compensation is payable to a complainant unless the air carrier proves the contrary;
(d) require air carriers to establish an internal process for dealing with air travel claims;
(e) modify the Agency’s regulation-making powers with respect to air carriers’ obligations towards passengers; and
(f) enhance the Agency’s enforcement powers with respect to the air transportation sector.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency by a means of telecommunication, if that manner of presenting is made available at the customs office at which they are presenting themselves; and
(b) subject to the regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that baggage on board the aircraft is transported without delay to the nearest international baggage area.
The Division also makes a related amendment to the Quarantine Act .
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to, among other things, provide that the National Research Council of Canada may procure goods and services, including goods and services relating to construction and to research-related digital and information technology. It also establishes a new Procurement Oversight Board.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant an additional term for a patent if certain conditions are met;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the number of days that is to be subtracted in determining the duration of an additional term; and
(c) authorize the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court to shorten the duration of an additional term if the duration as previously determined is longer than is authorized.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to extend measures regarding therapeutic products to natural health products in order to, among other things,
(a) strengthen the safety oversight of natural health products throughout their life cycle; and
(b) promote greater confidence in the oversight of natural health products by increasing transparency.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, prohibit
(a) the sale of a cosmetic unless its safety can be established without relying on data derived from a test conducted on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal, subject to certain exceptions;
(b) the conduct of a test on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal if the purpose of the test is to meet a legislative requirement that relates to cosmetics; and
(c) deceptive or misleading claims, on the label of or in an advertisement for a cosmetic, with respect to testing on animals.
Division 29 of Part 4 enacts the Dental Care Measures Act .
Division 30 of Part 4 amends subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act , in response to the decision in R. v. Gorman , to limit the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail other than letters.
Division 31 of Part 4 expresses the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the issuing by His Majesty of a Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the applicable Royal Style and Titles.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board may incorporate a subsidiary for the purpose of providing investment management services to the Canada Growth Fund Inc. It also amends the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 to increase the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Finance for the acquisition of shares of the Canada Growth Fund Inc. and to provide that the Canada Growth Fund Inc. is not an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include the supervision of federal financial institutions in order to determine whether they have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; and
(b) expand the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ powers to issue directions to, and to take control of, a federal financial institution in certain circumstances.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Winding-up and Restructuring Act .
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest calculated in respect of an agreement or arrangement and to express that rate as an annual percentage rate. It also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 26, 2024, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund, for the purpose of administering amounts received as contributions to certain funding programs under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; and
(b) replace references to “tradeable units” with references to “compliance units”.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act .
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may administer any contract related to deposit insurance entered into by the Minister of Finance and to allow the Minister to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things,
(a) establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act instead of the Employment Insurance Section of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal; and
(b) eliminate the requirement for leave to appeal decisions relating to the Employment Insurance Act to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Nepean.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about the budget implementation act. Last month, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future.

It comes at an important moment for our country. Canada's economy has made a remarkable recovery from the COVID recession. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7. This is thanks to the hard work, resilience and ingenuity of Canadians. In fact, there are 865,000 more Canadian workers today than at the start of the pandemic. This shows that our strategy of keeping Canadians healthy and focusing on a jobs-based recovery is working. In fact, we have recovered over 128% of jobs lost during the pandemic, while the United States has recovered only 115%.

In the short term, however, Canada and the world face several headwinds. We face a slowing global economy, high interest rates and inflation. While the inflation rate in Canada has been consistently lower than for our economic peers, that is cold comfort to Canadians who feel the impact on their pocketbook every single day. It is important that we address these challenges. Fortunately, our budget provides a direct response.

It delivers billions of dollars to the public health care system, a prudent investment after coming through the most significant health care crisis we have faced in over 100 years. We go even further by investing in dental care for millions of Canadians, a measure that has already benefited over 250,000 children under the age of 12.

The budget provides important investments to build Canada's clean economy, creating even more good jobs for the middle class while ushering in a new era of economic prosperity for Canadians. In the future, when nations around the world look for new technology to help combat climate change, they will be able to turn to Canada.

The budget offers a responsible fiscal plan that will allow Canada to preserve the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This means that our country enjoys not only the strongest economic growth, but the strongest balance sheet in the G7, which is why we have retained our AAA credit rating. This allows us to provide new, targeted relief from inflation for those Canadians who need it the most.

I would like to pause here and share my thanks to all members of this House, who unanimously supported the Canada grocery benefit and the immediate $2-billion health transfer, which will help provinces and territories deliver the health services that Canadians deserve. Despite partisan differences, which too often make the highlight reel on the Internet or in the media, I am still encouraged and heartened by the fact that we can find ways to come together in this place and support Canadians when they need it the most.

Having said that, I would like to highlight measures in the budget implementation act that would make life more affordable for Canadians.

In Canada, inflation is coming down. It has actually declined for nine months in a row. It is currently at 4.3%, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will drop to 2.5% by the end of the year. While it is lower than inflation seen in the United States, Europe and other parts of the world, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put food on the table. That is why budget 2023 announced new, targeted inflation relief for the most vulnerable Canadians, to help support them with the cost of living.

The grocery rebate will help and provide support to 11 million Canadians and families, and it will also provide hundreds of dollars to over 50% of Canadian seniors.

In addition, we are helping the nearly 500,000 students who withdraw funds from their RESP by increasing withdrawal limits from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students.

We are helping workers by ensuring that tradespeople get the equipment they need, by doubling the allowable employment deduction for tools. These individuals are critical for building Canada's clean economy and supporting our plan to double the number of new homes built in Canada by 2032.

We are cracking down on predatory lending by proposing to lower the criminal interest rate from 47% to 35%, and we are imposing a cap on charges for payday loans.

Workers will also benefit from automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit. This will provide up to an additional $2,461 for a family to help cope with the rising cost of living.

In addition, we are increasing the amount Canadians can earn before paying a penny of federal income taxes to $15,000. Since we have formed government, that is $3,673 more that people can earn tax-free.

Combined with our previous programs, such as child care, the Canada child benefit, student grants and increased investments in retirement security, we are making sure Canadians have the resources they need to cope with global inflation.

We are also committed to helping the provinces and territories achieve better health outcomes for Canadians. The $2-billion Canada health transfer, which was delivered this week, will help deliver the high-quality, timely health care services that Canadians deserve. This funding will reduce backlogs and wait times for surgeries and will improve service levels in emergency rooms and pediatric hospitals. This funding builds on the $6.5-billion one-time Canada health transfer top-ups that the Government of Canada has provided throughout the pandemic, as well as the $196 billion we have committed over the next 10 years. This includes a guaranteed increase to the Canada health transfer of at least 5% for the next five years. With improved data and transparency and more financial resources, we are confident that premiers will have the tools they need to deliver the health care services that Canadians expect.

The other major investment that Canadians expect is in Canada's plan to grow our clean economy while creating high-paying and sustainable jobs. Budget 2023 builds on over $100 billion of investments in the environment and fighting climate change to position Canada as a global leader. We are well positioned to meet our emissions targets while creating the net-zero technologies the world will demand. We are doing this through the Canada growth fund, through the Canada innovation corporation, and by incentivizing investment in Canada's net-zero economy. These investments will create thousands of high-paying, sustainable jobs from coast to coast to coast while protecting our environment and fighting climate change at the same time.

We also need to fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. We are proposing to expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include oversight of federally regulated financial institutions to determine if adequate policies and procedures are in place to protect them from threats to their integrity and security, including from foreign interference. This will include new compliance and intervention tools available to the superintendent and to the Minister of Finance, underpinned by strong safeguards. The bill would also improve the sharing of compliance information between FINTRAC, OSFI and the Minister of Finance. Collectively, these measures will provide oversight to the financial sector and support a healthy and stable Canadian economy.

Speaking of stability, this is probably an appropriate time to outline how budget 2023 would also continue to support the people of Ukraine as they fight for their sovereignty, their democracy and democracy right around the world. This includes a $2.4-billion loan to the Government of Ukraine to support essential services, which brings Canada's commitment to over $8 billion to date.

The BIA would amend the customs tariff to extend the withdrawal of the most favoured nation preferential tariff from Russia and Belarus indefinitely. This means that the 35% general tariff will apply, placing them in the same category as North Korea. In addition, the budget implementation act would strengthen Canada's ability to pursue the assets of those who have enabled Russia's illegal war, and help to finance Ukrainian reconstruction.

Budget 2023 is our government's plan to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy that works for everyone. The budget implementation act is a foundational piece of this plan, from delivering new, targeted inflation relief for Canadians to helping with higher prices at the checkout counter, building our clean economy and creating good jobs. At a challenging time, in a challenging world, these are important investments to secure a bright future for Canadians and ensure that there remains no better place to be in the world than in Canada.

I implore all hon. members and all Canadians watching this at home to support the speedy passage of this bill so that we can get it working for Canadians as soon as possible.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, with whom I have the pleasure and privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Bloc Québécois was very concerned about one aspect of the most recent budget, and that is the employment insurance fund. We saw that the government was choosing to make contributors, workers and unemployed workers pay off the pandemic-related deficits. We are talking about $15 billion, in addition to $2 billion from last year.

We can see from the budget implementation bill introduced yesterday that the government is electing not to do anything about that and to make workers and unemployed workers pay by taking a total of $17 billion out of their pockets for an insurance plan that does not work.

How does my hon. colleague justify that decision?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate my colleague opposite. I would like to tell his constituents that we had a very elongated technical briefing on the BIA and he was the most active member in making sure he understood the over 400 pages that are involved in the act.

When it comes to employment insurance, I think it is really important that all of us support this institution, which was so helpful over the course of the pandemic and continues to be helpful. We have taken care to make sure we are addressing some of the concerns with respect to EI in the BIA, in this document, but I would note that we have also extended employment insurance and some of the benefits that we had during the course of the pandemic through to 2024. At the same time, we are providing better services at a lower rate than when the Leader of the Opposition was in charge of the file.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows, as a former municipal councillor himself, just as I am a former municipal councillor for Tofino, that municipalities shoulder a large majority of services and costs. However, they only collect 8% of the overall tax revenue.

The government just made a retroactive agreement with the RCMP to ensure that they get paid more. We know that our frontline law enforcement deserves to be paid more, and they deserve better training, especially de-escalation training. We also need to ensure they get supports when they are injured, especially with PTSD.

However, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities just met in the member's former hometown of Nanaimo. They were unanimous that the federal government needs to support local governments after the downloading of this retroactive funding. Unlike federal and provincial governments, which can run deficits, municipal governments have to run a balanced budget.

Will the federal government get back to the table with FCM and local governments to make sure they are not eating the costs of a deal they negotiated without consulting local governments?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, I have been to his riding, and I am originally from Vancouver Island. When I was elected to city council, it was on Vancouver Island.

I have had a couple of opportunities to interact with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I was recently at a housing summit, just a number of weeks ago. In fact, this week, on Monday, I was at an announcement with the president of the UBCM, which announced $103 million of new federal infrastructure money, which is going to over 45 different communities throughout the province.

The message is that the federal government is here to support municipal governments. In fact, looking at our investments since 2015, we have made historic and unprecedented investments that have directly benefited our municipalities.

Obviously the policing arrangements that the member opposite is referring to are negotiated by the federal government, and the cost is burdened by municipalities. I have had an opportunity to meet with police officers, both in my riding of Burnaby, as well as the District of North Vancouver. We always take their concerns very seriously.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation act. This is a challenging time in a challenging world. With every challenge comes an opportunity. It is in this context that I speak to this budget implementation act.

There are two main things in this budget for me. The first is that we would ensure that Canadians can continue to count on us to be there with our continued support to all vulnerable Canadians. The second is that we would also meet the challenges of today and tomorrow while building a Canada that is more secure and more sustainable, and ensuring that the prosperity we enjoy today will be available to future generations too.

Let us start with the challenging times. We all know that the pandemic hit not only Canada but also all the countries across the world. With the co-operation of Canadians, we managed to contain the pandemic to the best extent possible. We are one of the best countries in the world to have managed the pandemic this well.

The economy got hit, and 8.9 million working Canadians lost their jobs. We came out in support of them. We also supported more than half a million small businesses through the wage subsidy scheme and the small business account. As well, we managed through the pandemic with relatively fewer deaths compared to many other countries in the world.

Then came the war, the illegal invasion of Russia on Ukraine. This created a problem in the energy crisis across the world. It also gave rise to the rising crisis of food grains. We also had the problem of the supply chain issue due to the pandemic. There are a lot of shortages because the supply chains were disrupted across the world. We also realized the importance of self-reliance in that time, when critical goods were not being produced and were not available at the right time to all those who needed them.

Due to all of this, we faced inflation, which peaked to 8.1% in September 2022. However, during the last nine months, we have seen the inflation rate going down. Currently, it stands at around 4.3%. With all of this, we can still say that Canada has done relatively well. In fact, among G7 countries, we have the best economic growth. We have recovered 865,000 jobs more than there were before the pandemic.

These challenging times are also in globalization. Globalization, as we knew it for several decades, is on the way down. The multilateral agencies, such as WTO, on which international order-based trade depends, are also facing their own problems. With all the vacancies at the appellate body at WTO, it cannot even operate today due to non-cooperation by some key member states.

We are seeing that, the more bilateral free trade agreements taking place, free trade agreements among certain blocks taking place and the concept of friend-shoring is coming in. While these are challenges, they also provide opportunities for Canada. I will come to that a bit later.

We also had the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, our biggest trading partner, which was a game-changer. This Inflation Reduction Act, combined with the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, is close to one trillion dollars in legislation. They have rewritten the rules of industrial policy and industrial development in the United States.

The Inflation Reduction Act did affect many of the trading partners of the United States, but Canada was able to manage the bulk of it through effort brought by different levels of the government and the industrial bodies. Before the IRA became legislation, we were able to ensure that all North American manufactured vehicles are included in the incentives and subsidies proposed in that IRA.

At the international trade committee, when we were discussing the effects of the IRA on Canada, one trade union leader very aptly said that we cannot respond with every dollar to dollar to IRA, but we can respond smartly. That is what Canada has done, and that is what Canada would also be doing with this budget.

Canada is prosperous, and has been prosperous for a long time, due to our natural resources, such as oil, gas, minerals, metals and forestry products, and due to the hard work of several generations of Canadians, but the world is changing. The world is moving more toward a knowledge-based economy.

This knowledge-based economy makes a flat world out there. Canadians, especially the younger generation of Canadians, today face competition from all across the world, whether from Sydney, Australia; Tokyo, Japan; Shanghai, China; Mumbai, India; Frankfurt, Germany; or any other place. We all are facing the same competition in this digital world.

Even in this digital economy, we have invested. In last year's budget we came out with an investment of over $1.2 billion in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other advanced technologies. In this budget, we have committed $1.2 billion for space technology. If possible, I will touch on that a little later.

The other key thing is that the world is moving toward a clean economy. Between now and 2050, it is projected that about $100 trillion of private capital will be invested across the world in building the global clean economy, and that is where the opportunity lies for Canada. We have the opportunity to be a supplier of critical minerals and the entire supply chain. In the transition toward electrical vehicle industries, Canada can play a major role.

We are already seeing investments announced by major auto manufacturers in Canada. I believe even today there is going to be a very major announcement on battery manufacturing in Canada. We have seen the battery recycling plants coming up in Canada, and already Canada is projected to be one of the leaders for the supply of critical minerals required for this entire ecosystem. We need to see the processing of critical minerals also take place in Canada today.

We have a lot of opportunities on that front. However, we have a small issue with the new mines coming up to mine the critical minerals. There is a long regulatory process that is involved in that. For that, the federal government has come out with agreements with various provinces. For example, we have signed an agreement with the Province of Ontario where we can work together to align ourselves on the timelines, on the resources and on the regulatory approval process so we can deliver quicker, faster approvals, which are required to get the minerals from the ground for battery manufacturing.

As I mentioned, we would invest $1.9 billion in Canada's space agencies. This funding would support the development of new technologies and capabilities, including space robotics and exploration missions, as well as support for Canadian companies involved in the space industry.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member have to say to his constituents who, like mine, are struggling with high interest rates and mortgage rates?

Those who are renewing their five-year mortgages, or those who are on variable mortgages, are very much feeling the gut punch of the interest rate increases, which are the result of inflationary spending and the deficits of his government. These would not be abated in any way by the budget. This is ravaging household budgets, and when the mortgage costs and rents have doubled, that is having a huge impact on household budgets.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, inflation is the result of many things that are outside the control of government and indeed Canada. The pandemic, the illegal Russian war on Ukraine, the supply shortages, the pent-up demand, and the governments across the world investing, including Canada investing in Canadians, all resulted in inflation. It was quite high. It affected my constituents, and indeed all Canadians.

Inflation rose to 8.1% in September 2022, but during the last nine months, it has trended downwards. It is now at 4.3%. The interest rates introduced by the Bank of Canada to combat inflation have already started taking effect, and the Bank of Canada expects the inflation rate to go down to 3% soon. Hopefully, this will happen in the next 12 to 24 months; this would provide relief to all Canadians, including the hon. member's constituents and my own.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47.

Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead?

For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a budget implementation act covers many things that are required immediately. Some of the things that the hon. member mentioned need to be considered and voted upon in the current budget implementation act.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I just came from Kinngait, a small community of about 1,000 people. That community just suffered a rash of four suicides in a very short amount of time. At the same time, the budget proposes almost $1 billion to persuade indigenous peoples to engage in environmental assessment processes, which the member spoke briefly about.

Indigenous peoples are not getting the benefits they deserve for the resources from their lands that are being exploited. Is the Liberal government saying that it will continue to suppress and oppress indigenous peoples and continue to profit from their lands off indigenous peoples' backs?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about the number of suicides in this small community.

The track record of our government during the last seven and a half years shows how closely we work with the indigenous community. We have involved, consulted and worked with them for the benefit of the entire indigenous community. We have worked to provide them with all the assistance that is required to not only improve their health but also tackle the economic development that is very badly needed.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the intervention of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

My comments today lead off the comments of His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-47. That is the Liberals' budget implementation bill. The question before us is whether anything in this budget bill will actually be true when we look at the promises of the Liberals compared with the results.

I want to put the record spending in this budget plan into some historical context. I know the Liberals are a little challenged on math sometimes, so please bear with me. I hope they can follow it.

In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. During the election, he said that the government was not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of the GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Pierre Trudeau. Every single area of federal government spending increased, except defence spending, where Pierre Trudeau cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent $3 on paying the interest on his national debt.

Let us look at this another way. The deficit Pierre Trudeau ran in his last year of office was 8.3% of the GDP. Based on Canada's GDP in 2022, Pierre Trudeau's 8.3% of GDP deficit would be like an annual deficit of $157 billion today. His record was to drive Canada's debt from $262 billion when he became prime minister to $700 billion when he left office. Pierre Trudeau added $438 billion to Canada's debt, almost tripling it. This was from a Liberal leader who said he would not run deficits when he was first elected in 1968 and that the government was no Santa Claus.

I raise this because, as the adage goes, like father like son. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, 38¢ of every dollar that the federal government spent was to pay interest on the debt that he had built up. His policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. Interest rates rose to 21%.

Like his father, the current Liberal leader promised Canadians in his first election in 2015 that, even though Canada was running a robust growing economy and had a balanced budget left by the Harper government, he would run modest stimulus deficits. However, in 2019, it would be balanced. The platform that the Liberals all stood on in 2015 said: “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019” and “we will...reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”.

Did he have a balanced budget in 2019, as he promised and as his father also promised in his first term? No, he did not: like father like son. The Liberals produced a $20-billion deficit in 2019. Promises were made, and promises were broken.

Did the Liberals reduce their first fiscal anchor of 27% of the GDP? No, they did not. It was 31% in 2019, so another promise was made and broken.

In the new Liberal budget after 2019, there was no longer talk of a balanced budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio was the new fiscal anchor. It would remain the same during the four years of that fiscal plan, even though that meant they would be spending more. We know that at least the promise to spend more and not to balance the budget was true.

We then had an early and unnecessary election in 2021. What did the Liberal platform say then about promises for the country's finances? There was no talk of balanced budgets until perhaps 2050, but the Liberals did promise to drop the debt-to-GDP ratio from 48.5% in 2021-22. We should remember that in 2019, their campaign promise said that, in 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 31%, not 48%.

What does the bill project for this year? The budget set the cumulative spending for the next five years at a record $3.1 trillion. We should remember that, in the fall, they promised that the budget would be balanced. However, if these numbers are to be believed, and if they did not add more spending in the rest of their term, they would add another $130 billion to the national debt. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion. The Liberals project that interest on the national debt would rise from $44 billion a year to $50 billion a year in five years. This is if we can believe the interest rate projections in this budget. That $50 billion in interest is $10 billion more than we spend on national defence.

The budget includes $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses over the next five years. The Liberals project that inflation will be 3.5% in 2023 and roughly 2.1% thereafter. For this to happen, inflation would need to drop from 5.5% now to 2% in July and stay there for the next five years. This is not likely. The $3.1 trillion in spending, with massive deficits, would pour gasoline on the inflation fire. Therefore, these projected inflation rates are ridiculous.

In the last year of the Conservative government, federal government spending was $280 billion, with a $1.9-billion surplus. This year, the budget projects $456 billion in spending. That is up $176 billion, or 63%, since the Liberals took office. The fiscal framework projects the government spending to be $543 billion. This is if there is no further spending in the rest of their term. That is $263 billion more than in 2015, representing a 94% increase in spending. The increase alone is almost as much as the entire 2015 budget. Taxes have risen by $282 billion since 2015. We know it is not a revenue problem, because revenue has gone up by 92%.

At the end of the bill's plan, Pierre Trudeau and the son, the current Liberal leader, will have contributed $1.1 trillion to Canada's national debt. Pierre Trudeau always spent more than he promised. After eight years of the Liberals, the son has done the same. Promises were made, and promises were broken. Canadians simply cannot afford any more Trudeaus.

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

Mr. Speaker, history is an interesting teacher for us.

I want to point out to the hon. member that when Brian Mulroney took over as prime minister, the national debt was $200 billion. By the time he left, it was $514 billion, and that was without a pandemic. That was without an invasion of Ukraine. It seems that the Conservatives are following the same pattern of loving money more than people, looking at the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Where is the factoring in of the pandemic? Our inflation rate is coming down to pretty low levels compared with the rest of the world. However, where is the factoring in of the difficulties with supply chains and the external influences on our inflation rate?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney government produced an operating surplus by the second year of its mandate and an operating surplus every year after that. Every prime minister since Pierre Trudeau ran an operating surplus, except for the current Prime Minister.

In terms of pandemics, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that over half the spending done in the pandemic had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic itself. That is the fiscal irresponsibility of Liberals.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long, amends 59 statutes, in addition to amending the Income Tax Regulations, and contains 39 divisions. When he was elected in 2015, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not allow this kind of thing to happen. Almost eight years later, he is doing it again for the umpteenth time. What does my hon. colleague think of this?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is another promise made and broken. The Liberals were never going to do omnibus bills, but every single budget bill they have had has amended acts of Parliament that had nothing to do with the budget. They have done it yet again. Canadians have come to expect they cannot trust anything the Liberal government says, whether it is on the finances or how it is going to operate Parliament.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I appreciate working alongside the member on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank him for speaking about campaign promises. I was reflecting, as a fellow member on the fisheries committee, about the campaign promises of the Conservatives, and I am wondering if the member could clarify something.

The Conservatives campaigned on getting open-net fish farms out of the water, yet I am hearing very different discussions happening today. I am wondering if the member can clarify what the Conservative stance is currently on the importance of getting open-net fish farms out of the water. Furthermore, what are his thoughts on the fact that the current budget does not have a commitment to support all those impacted through this very necessary transition?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the fisheries committee with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, as well as her thoughtful interventions during the fisheries committee work we do together.

From our perspective, what we do is respect provincial responsibility first of all. Open net-pen farms or aquaculture in Atlantic Canada is a provincial responsibility in licensing. In British Columbia, it is a federal responsibility. The government has lost several cases in the B.C. courts over its handling of it. It committed to consulting with the industry, which it did not do. The fisheries minister previous to this one, whom I happen to have defeated, also promised, when she made the decision to remove the Discovery Islands fisheries, that there would be transition programs for the industry and the employees, and now the current government, of course, is silent on those promises.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a secret that I am sure you will keep to yourself. I went into politics because I care about keeping the public finances in respectable shape. I am a member of the opposition and, to put it mildly, I have had my work cut out for me when it comes to opposing the government's management of public funds, which has been anything but sound.

I will give a few examples. The debt-to-GDP ratio was already very high at 42.4%. Because of this government's inflationary measures, which are costing all Canadians dearly, the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 42.4% last year, has now reached 43.5%. The Liberals will surely say that that is not a lot and that it is normal, but we need to be careful. Let us remember what the Minister of Finance herself said in her budget statement in the House in November, just six short months ago. I would remind members that the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 42.4% to 43.5% this year.

Nevertheless, just six months ago, the finance minister said, and I quote, “let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced.” I will talk about that shortly.

She also said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe must [and will] be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.”

Her words are almost lyrical. They are words that I, for one, would have spoken with honour and dignity. However, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is second in command in this government and a contender for the top job, as everyone knows, said one thing and did exactly the opposite when the budget was tabled two weeks ago. That is what we are seeing with every number and every word in this omnibus bill that we are debating today.

The promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio has not been kept, and the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone up. The finance minister was so proud about a balanced budget at the economic update. She boasted that the budget would be balanced in five years and that there would even be a $4.5‑billion surplus. That is hogwash, because exactly the opposite is happening. This year, the deficit is more than $40 billion, which is completely unacceptable.

I would remind the House that those folks over there got elected in 2015, eight years ago, on what was admittedly a bold promise. They promised a shift to the left, and they have definitely delivered on that. They promised that if a Liberal government was elected, it would run small, strategic deficits for three years and return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. What happened was the exact opposite. The Liberals have run huge deficits over and over again, and the budget is far from balanced.

Balanced budgets are important. We cannot spend our lives, as individuals and families, perpetually living on credit. Sooner or later, we have to pay off our debts. If we do not pay now, we will have to pay eventually, or our children will be left to pay the price. A deficit leads to a debt, which leads to a bill that we pass on to our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay the price because we are living beyond our means today. Canada's debt is now $1,220,000,000,000. That is a lot of zeros. That is fitting, since there are a lot of zeros on that side of the House. Seriously though, Canada's debt is $1.220 trillion, which works out to $81,000 per family.

Every family now has $80,000 in debt that will be passed on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who have not even been born yet but who will have to pay it off. Today, we are spending $43.9 billion to service the debt compared to last year, when it was half that, $24.5 billion. That is a huge amount. It is double the budget of the Department of National Defence. I will repeat, this is money being sent to banking institutions to pay for past spending, not for any direct services to Canadians.

It is irresponsible to live beyond our means. Is it any surprise that this is happening, when we know that the leader of this government once said that deficits balance themselves? As far as I can tell, he is the only person on the planet in a position of authority who has made such a silly comment. Deficits do not in fact balance themselves.

The government's money does not grow on trees. The government has no money. The government gets its money from Canadian workers. That is something we must never forget.

Now, about taxes, we know that the carbon tax is going up. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, this directly affects all families. It costs them more than they get back from the government. The PBO says it could cost the average family between $402 and $847 more.

The Prime Minister and the minister boasted that they had listened to the Liberal caucus, that they had listened to members speaking out on behalf of their constituents. Guess why? They wanted to make sure that the tax hike on alcohol would not be too high. I am not going to judge them for not wanting to raise taxes on alcohol too much. They are within their rights. I just wish these members would show the same concern over the debt, the deficits and the bills we are leaving to our children and great-grandchildren.

We also see this government announcing income tax hikes. The increase amounts to $305 for workers earning an average of $66,000. The Canada pension plan will cost them an additional $255. Employment insurance will cost them another $50.

When we look at the key elements affecting all Canadian families, be it taxes, the deficits or the debt, and we look at the overall numbers, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, we see that this government has failed to do its duty to ensure responsible government. These people have never had a balanced budget. They have never paid attention to public spending. On the contrary, they continued to spend recklessly.

I want to share an anecdote. There is a section on Facebook called “Memories”. We can open it to see our memories. Facebook then shows us what we did last week or in previous years. This is the time of the year we debate the budget, so, every day, Facebook reminds me of the speeches I made or the questions I asked. The hallmark of this government is that it has no control over spending, it has no idea when it will return to a balanced budget and it always spends without restraint. However, when the Liberals were elected in 2015, they said that they would balance the budget by 2019. They did not do that. Six months ago, the minister projected a return to a balanced budget in five years. That is not happening.

Earlier, my colleague gave a history lesson about the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister. I want to talk about what happened next. In 1972, the Liberals won a minority government under Pierre Trudeau. The Liberals struck a deal with the NDP to keep them afloat for a while. This arrangement lasted until 1974. All of a sudden, a measure was rejected, leading to an election. When the election was triggered, the Liberals said they would not introduce price and wage controls to bring down inflation. After being elected on July 8, 1974, however, they did just that a year later. As my colleague said earlier, like father, like son. They say one thing and do another.

In closing, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to end inflationary deficits, high taxes, and the war on work, measures that would allow Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices, and affordable homes.”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism .

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.

Last month, here in the House, he said, “Our party's objective is not to take money away from the CBC”. However, his leader was quite clear about his contempt for our public broadcaster, even going so far as to beg Elon Musk to ridicule CBC/Radio-Canada.

Will the member opposite from Quebec, who was a Radio-Canada journalist himself, continue to support his leader, who wants to cut funding to CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have heard many contradictory statements that are not true. Let us remember that our plan calls for budget cuts to CBC but not to Radio-Canada.

The member's intervention gives me the opportunity to clarify the misinformation floating around in the last few days. The Conservative Party's goal is not to cut funding to Radio-Canada, which provides French programming across the country, but rather to take a completely different approach with CBC, which has a 4% audience share, whereas Radio-Canada has 25%.

That is not new. Need I remind members that the father of the Prime Minister wanted to literally shut down both CBC and Radio-Canada? Let us remember that, 20 years ago, Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien orchestrated the biggest budget cuts in the history of Radio-Canada, to the tune of $600 million. That is the Liberal Party's signature.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my regards to my hon. colleague for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I thank him for his speech. We might not always share the same values, but he always has something interesting to say during our debates in the House.

I want to ask him about something that is unclear to me, to see if he feels the same way. In her budget, the Minister of Finance announced funding of $80 billion for the economic transition, as it is called. A lot of upcoming tax credits are absent from the bill. No money for investments, subsidies or support is directly announced, but the infrastructure development is there. From the way things are presented, it appears as though the money earmarked for this will not be part of the budget framework and will be managed separately, outside government accounts. That means there will no longer be accountability to the House.

What does my hon. colleague think of that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to echo my colleague's remarks about me, I could say exactly the same thing about him and all of his hard work in the House of Commons.

On the substance of the issue, specifically, the Liberal approach and the fact that the $80-billion investment in tax credits for new measures will be without any parliamentary oversight, that is unacceptable.

I would remind members that our leader has always said that to have a green economy, we need to give the green light to green projects and encourage them by focusing on positive tax measures rather than making Canada a place where, unfortunately, when people invest, they face a lot of cuts. This is especially true when it comes to setting wages. Canadians pay too much in taxes, and this discourages investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns my constituents have right now is the growing concern of what is happening in our climate. They are seeing changes in their region that they have never seen before. They have been very clear that, when we step forward to address climate change, they want local responses, and they want to make sure good jobs are attached to that.

Of course, the NDP forced the government to make sure that, in its clean energy economy tax credits, there would actually be a tie to companies that pay better wages and have better working conditions. I am just wondering if the member is against this, as well as the other things that are in the budget.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, responding to environmental challenges is important to us. Climate change is a reality. That is why we are committed to giving the green light to green projects, precisely to accelerate access to green energy for Canadians and to cut red tape when it comes to developing lithium mines, for example. Lithium is needed for the electrification of transportation.

We know that there is lithium in Quebec and in several regions of Canada, but unfortunately, it takes a long time to make these investments. We want to give the green light to green projects to ensure that more Canadians have access to green energy.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill.

This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health.

When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party.

However, on seeing Bil C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not.

This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion.

I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries.

We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that.

Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough.

This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program?

That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions.

As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said.

Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47.

This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly.

Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill?

The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it.

I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment?

That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill.

In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria.

Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent?

Those are questions that I have.

Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning.

For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome.

Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.

However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear.

Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government.

The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come.

Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable.

The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly.

Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it.

We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there.

Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version?

Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome.

We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong.

Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague cover a wide range of issues in his speech. I did hear him ask why the Volkswagen plant that was announced today is not in Quebec and why it is in Ontario. As a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario, I am quite happy that the plant is located in Ontario, but as a Canadian, I would equally support it if the plant were located in Quebec or Alberta or any other province. Is the member not aware that the decision as to where the plant will be located is made by the company in question after consultations and discussions with the relevant province?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. When Ottawa decided to save the auto industry with $10 billion in 2008, we noted that Quebec did not receive the equivalent. When Ottawa decided to save Muskrat Falls with $10 billion, we noted that Quebec did not get the equivalent. When the Liberals chose to buy the pipeline in western Canada for tens of billions of dollars, we noted that Quebec did not get its share. We want to make sure that Quebec gets its share.

Quebec specializes in green energy and the green economy, that is, the economy of the future. Quebec had all the expertise it needed to have a successful battery plant, but that was not how it played out. To add insult to injury, it was the minister from Shawinigan who made this announcement with great fanfare in Montreal to say that the plant would not be in Montreal or the surrounding region, but in St. Thomas, Ontario. Good for them.

Could Quebec get some of these structural investments to develop its economy? The proof remains to be seen, unfortunately.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is full of failures; however, the most important issue for my riding is affordable housing. There are $5.5 billion in the budget, but there is only a plan to build fewer than 200,000 homes.

What does the member think of these government measures?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere.

We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette, with whom I have worked for many years now on tax fairness, trying to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share do pay their fair share.

I want to talk about mental health fairness, especially for first responders and military veterans in our country.

I got a message from Blair Meadows, who is a veteran and a strong volunteer and committed citizen at the Qualicum Beach Legion, in my riding. He talked about the important costs associated with PTSD service dogs for military police and first responders and that they need to be fully covered by the federal government, including training, maintenance and aftercare. As Mr. Meadows has pointed out, “These dogs are part of our medical care and well-being. Personally, my service dog saved my life and you can't put a price on that.” Others have said similar things. These dogs save lives. When it comes to the people who put their lives on the line for our freedom and democracy, who put the sacrifice on, the government has a duty to ensure that the costs associated with these dogs are covered. It actually saves our health care system money.

I know this is an issue for my good colleague from North Island—Powell River, which hopefully should be North Island—qathet if she gets her way with the electoral boundary commission, which she should, in the future. I would like to say to my colleague that this was not in the budget.

We saw the Conservatives cut a third of Veterans Affairs when it was under their watch.

The government has failed to deliver the critical services that Blair Meadows and many other veterans and first responders need. Does my colleague agree that this should be covered and that it actually saves money when it comes to the mental health care system in our country?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics.

Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance.

The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal.

Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec.

If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is always smart and sensible.

I would like to come back to the issue of employment insurance. The government is extending a pilot project that is not working at all and does not cover everyone.

How much does my colleague think it would cost the government to provide this help to people working in the seasonal industry so that there is no longer a spring gap? I am having a hard time understanding this lack of political will.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Manicouagan, and I commend her for all the work she does for the people she represents, including on the issue of employment insurance. Many people throughout Quebec and Canada, including her region, have seasonal jobs. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are.

Do we collectively want to make use of the land? Do we want people to be able to live and work in their region and flourish there? If so, then we have an EI system that is truly dysfunctional right now. It has not been reformed, and the government has been pushing back the reform every year since 2015.

On top of all the problems, there is the issue of the spring gap. There are not enough weeks of benefits for a person living off seasonal employment to have income all year round. A pilot project was rolled out, but once again there is insecurity. This is being put off for another year.

Will it be enough? Will it be as usual? This is the government's way of doing things. We are a little relieved that this initiative has been extended for a year, because the alternative would have been terrible for our regions, even though the problem is far from being resolved. How much would it cost to reform an insurance system that is broken? It will be a major investment for everyone, especially with a possible recession looming.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, when answering a question, my colleague stated that he was there, in Montreal, when the Liberal federal government announced the investment in a Volkswagen plant in Ontario. The announcement was made in Montreal. I was there.

I can tell my colleagues that many people looked confused. They wondered if St. Thomas was in Quebec, but in fact, it is in Ontario. It took several very long weeks to get the details, but the story finally appeared on the front page of the National Post this morning. I will come back to that.

My colleague and I were both elected in 2015, when this government came to power by promising small deficits for three years and a balanced budget in 2019. It obviously ignored that promise.

My question for my colleague is the following. Does he believe that $1.220 trillion in debt is a good thing? That works out to $81,000 per family. Does he believe that a constant increase in taxes is a good thing? What does he think of the deficit, which continues to increase and is being ignored by the government, which said that it would balance the budget in five years? What does he think of this government's management of public funds?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning. Is the government doing a good job of managing public finances? The answer is no. The government is not paying attention to the cost of the services that it is providing.

I will give some examples. Issuing a passport costs four times more than issuing a driver's licence when Quebec does it. Processing an EI claim costs two and a half times more than processing an application for social assistance in Quebec City. Resources are badly managed. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified what is indirectly a fiscal imbalance by pointing out that the flexibility is here in Ottawa. Instead of funding, say, health care in the provinces, the government is increasing the number of programs and interfering in jurisdictions. That is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about what the NDP can add to the budget. As we know, the Liberals have been in power for years. They are doing the same thing that the former Conservative government did. They refuse to take action to help people.

This time, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus, including the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, were able to work to ensure that we do not have to settle for the same budgets we have seen in the past, budgets that do nothing for ordinary Canadians, but instead give a big boost to the banks and big corporations, just as the Conservatives did. We can see in this budget and in Bill C‑47, which the NDP supports, that dental care has finally been added to the health care system for people across the country. We are talking about $13 billion over five years.

The reality is that, in every riding, no matter where it is located in the country, there are some 30,000 people without access to dental care. Thanks to pressure from the NDP, in a minority Parliament, we were able to ensure that in every riding, those 30,000 people—families, seniors, people with disabilities and young people—can have access to dental care. This is extremely important, and we are quite pleased. Canadians who understand the changes the NDP has made to the budget are also quite pleased because they will finally have the opportunity to have dental care.

That is not all. We exerted pressure on the government to double the GST credit. That is extremely important. Like the member for Burnaby South, I know that people are struggling right now and that they need help. The fact that 11 million families across the country will be able to receive double the GST credit to pay for groceries is going to help a lot because people are having a really hard time.

The NDP is also calling on the government to change our economy and to work harder to have a clean economy, particularly in light of all the challenges posed by climate change. Things clearly need to change. The NDP once again exerted pressure in a minority Parliament to invest in clean energy and for those investments to go toward unionized jobs that come with a pension plan and social benefits. That way, the government will help the whole community by investing in clean energy. The NDP believes that, when it comes time to invest, the investments must help the community. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing with the Liberal approach or what we saw with the approach of the former Harper government, as I mentioned earlier.

We also need, and this is important, to change the situation that exists in first nations communities across the country. The member for Nunavut has spoken about this at length. It is important to make investments there immediately. Last year, we were able to force the government to make these investments, but now we need to build this housing as soon as possible. The government tends to announce programs and then do nothing afterward. This is urgent. The member for Nunavut has told us this several times. We need to take action to bring in these investments and build housing as soon as possible.

There is another thing that I find disappointing, despite the fact that the government is finally closing a tax loophole that cost $600 million a year.

This is something the NDP has been calling for from day one. We obliged the government, forced them to do it. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, most of the loopholes remain in place for the ultra-rich, the wealthy, but also the corporations that benefit from these loopholes. I will come back to that.

The NDP has made a difference in this budget, there is no doubt. I have to speak of somebody I will call Joanne. After I was elected as a member of Parliament, she came to me. She works in the service industry for minimum wage. Her teeth were literally rotting out of her mouth. She was in tremendous pain.

There were no programs I could point to to help her, as is the case with so many Canadians, millions of Canadians across the country, who do not have access to basic dental care. When we look at the average, there are about 30,000 Canadians in each and every riding right across the country.

This constituent, one of my bosses, Joanne, simply had nowhere to turn. She was in great pain. As we know, so many Canadians have to go to emergency wards across the country. The estimated cost in Ontario alone is $1 billion for Canadians going to emergency wards for dental emergencies that they cannot receive treatment for.

The reality of having a dental care program in place, which children and their families, youth, people with disabilities and seniors could all access, in a few months' time would be an extraordinary improvement to our health care system. Tommy Douglas always said that the health care system needs to cover people from the top of their heads to the soles of their feet. The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, also believes this. That is why he has been pushing so hard for the dental care program to be put into place.

How could any member of Parliament vote against a dental care program that would help 30,000 of their constituents? I cannot understand where they are coming from, that they would choose partisanship and ideology over the important primary role we have as members of Parliament, in the House, to work to help the people we represent.

That is just one of a number of things that the NDP forced the Liberal government, in a minority Parliament, to deliver to Canadians. We have also forced a doubling of the GST rebate, the grocery rebate, to help Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table at this difficult time.

We pushed the government to invest in a clean energy economy that would create good, well-paying union jobs. The ability to organize makes a big difference, as we know. Whether we are talking about the private sector or the public sector, workers who are organized generally have a higher return, better benefits and normally, as well, access to pensions. That makes a difference not only in their lives, but also in their communities, as unions make a difference in communities across the country.

When members of Parliament stand in the House to say that they do not believe in unionized, organized labour, they are saying to their communities that they do not believe in money staying within the community. Unionized workers have better pay and benefits, and a right to a pension, which means more benefits circulating in the local economy. There are some members of Parliament who would say that they want money to instead go to wealthy corporations offshore, and that they want that money to go to high-priced consultants who would take that money offshore.

New Democrats understand that a local economy is built from the ground up. It starts with good wages. It starts with jobs that actually make a difference in the community. Those people who live in the community shop in the community and spend in the community. That benefits everybody in the community. That is a fundamental difference between us and some of the other parties in the House.

The final point I want to make before I start to talk about the elephant in the room is the issue of housing, particularly in indigenous communities. The member for Nunavut has been a strong and powerful voice in this regard, as have the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Edmonton Griesbach. The first nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada have been deprived of the right to housing, the right to have that roof over their head.

The government is moving far too slowly to provide the affordable housing that is fundamentally important for the future of our country. We push, and we add our voices to the voices of the members of Parliament for Nunavut, Winnipeg Centre and Edmonton Griesbach to say that we need to build that housing now.

The money that was pledged last year has not rolled out, and it needs to roll out now. The money that the government is promising in a couple of years needs to be moved up, and it needs to be treated with the sense of emergency that is certainly felt in indigenous communities right across this country.

I am now going to come to the elephant in the room, which is the similarity between Liberals and Conservatives. They have a brand coalition of wanting to conserve a privilege that deprives so many Canadians of the investments that are critical for their future. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us, just before the COVID pandemic hit, that over $30 billion a year goes to overseas tax havens from profitable corporations and the ultrarich. Members will recall that the Harper regime put that secret network in place to really ensure that as much money as possible could be taken offshore, and it is $30 billion a year, which the PBO said was a conservative estimate.

Now, at $30 billion, it means that over the last decade, $300 billion of tax money was taken offshore. This was put in place by the Harper regime and has been maintained by the current government. This is a coalition of the financially irresponsible, who are depriving Canadians of so many things.

That elephant in the room is something that needs to be dealt with. We have a Liberal government, and a Conservative government before it, refusing to ensure that every Canadian pay their fair share, including Canada's wealthiest corporations and Canada's richest citizens. They should pay their fair share of income tax. It is as simple as that.

A fair share of taxes should go throughout the spectrum and ensure that every Canadian pays their fair share. This would allow us the wherewithal to fund a whole range of things that are not funded now, whether we talk about the dental care plan, which the NDP has brought forward, or pharmacare, which we know would save $4 billion a year for Canadians generally.

The reality is that pharmacare, like our universal health care system and like dental care, makes a difference not only for the individuals and the families involved, their quality of life and their bottom line, but also for Canadian businesses. Our universal health care system has a competitive advantage of about $3,000 per employee for a Canadian business compared to an American business hiring that same employee, because in the United States, if they want to keep that employee, they are going to have to invest in a health care plan. In Canada, those businesses do not have to pay for health care, which is so important for their employees. Dental care makes a difference of hundreds of dollars. Pharmacare would be a difference of about $600 per person. Making that investment in pharmacare is not just smart for the families involved.

We hear the horrific stories from across the country, and the Canadian Nurses Association is telling us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they do not have the wherewithal to pay for the medication that will keep them alive. I have a constituent family who is paying $1,000 a month in heart medication. We cannot tell them that universal pharmacare would not make a big difference in their lives. They are having that tough choice every month of whether they are going to keep a roof over their heads or pay for their medication, and that is the case for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. Universal pharmacare would make a difference.

How do we ensure that the federal government can do that? Well, we have to start ensuring that we close the massive loopholes that lead to $30 billion every—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We clearly do not have quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let us do a count.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for getting government members to hear this. They need to hear from Canadians that they cannot keep sending $30 billion to overseas tax havens every year. Instead, they need to invest that money in health care and education, ensure that we have universal pharmacare, ensure that there is access to public education and ensure that every Canadian has a roof over their head at night and can put food on the table. They also need to transition to a clean energy economy. Liberals can do that if they close the loopholes, 30 billion dollars' worth a year. I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for telling the Liberals to come into the House.

I want to talk a bit about the dismal record of the Harper regime, because the member for Carleton, who is the new leader of the Conservative Party, basically seems to have a motto of “Elect me and I'll do even worse than Harper did.” I looked at what the Harper regime did over the course of that dismal decade. The overseas tax havens I talked about are largely the creation of the Harper regime. It put them into place, 30 billion dollars' worth, and now the Conservatives are saying they do not take responsibility for that.

What else did the Conservatives do? They forced people, manual labourers, to work longer. They basically deprived them of their pension. They ripped apart the environmental framework of this country; there is no doubt. They also ripped local offices away for veterans.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter when a veteran who is disabled has to travel hundreds of miles to get to a veterans office because the local offices have been closed. That is not something Conservatives should be laughing about at all.

That is what the record of the Harper government was: dismal and appalling. It put in place many of the cuts that we have seen, devastating the health care sector.

We reproach, of course, the Liberals for not closing all the loopholes so that we have the money to reinvest in health care. They are starting to do that slowly and grudgingly, but far short of what is actually required.

When we look at the Harper regime and the member for Carleton's pretension that he will do even worse than Steven Harper, I think Canadians have reason to be worried by his attacks on Radio Canada.

I have no idea why no Conservative member from Quebec has condemned these attacks on Radio-Canada.

CBC and Radio-Canada share sites and facilities across the country. It is absurd to say that they will dismantle the CBC but Radio-Canada will be protected. It is ridiculous, because these two organizations share their resources. If the CBC is abolished or dismantled, Radio-Canada will be dismantled.

Not one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus rose to say that they were against it. Why be elected as a francophone MP and serve in the Conservative caucus if they are not even capable of telling their leader that he is wrong, that he must stop this foolishness with CBC/Radio-Canada and he must stop threatening to crush CBC/Radio-Canada?

I hope that others will speak out, as did the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who clearly understood how the extremism of the member for Carleton had to be called out. I certainly hope that at least one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus will rise.

That is what the member for Carleton is promising. He would do worse than Harper. He would cut more than Harper did. He would keep in place the privileges that billionaires get in this country and the massive transfer of wealth and tax dollars, more than $30 billion a year sent overseas, rather than investing in Canadians.

Of course, colleagues know what an NDP government would do. They have seen some signs of that with 25 members of Parliament under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. What it would mean is investments in health care, investments in housing, investments in education and investments in our economy, as well as transitioning to a clean energy economy and cutting the privileges that, for far too long, the wealthy and Canada's most profitable corporations have enjoyed.

We would end those massive tax loopholes. We would end the gouging that Canadians are seeing in the telecom sector and the banking sector. We would make sure investments happen at the local level, and we would build a local green economy. Right across the country, we would build a Canada where everybody matters and where nobody is left behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide further thoughts in regard to the issue of health care and how important it was that we achieved the agreement to ensure we can provide ongoing support over the next decade to provincial and territorial jurisdictions. When I think of health care, I think of the core identity that Canadians hold very dear to their hearts. The expansion to include seniors, people with disabilities and now children up to the age of 18 is one of the ways we can deal with the issue of inflation, along with the grocery rebate that is being proposed.

Can he provide his thoughts, as he has to a certain degree already, on those two issues and the NDP's contribution to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, it is not an NDP “contribution”; we forced the government to do it. The government would not have done dental care without the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushing, in a minority Parliament, to make sure it happened. It would not have happened, and we know this.

I want to address the issue of dental care making a difference for people. The member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right, but what would make an even greater difference for people is pharmacare. The government has pledged, as a result of the NDP forcing it to, to put in place the infrastructure for universal public pharmacare. This is vitally important, but the government has to also come up with the resources to make that a reality.

The difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be absolutely enormous, and what it would do, as members well know, is take pressure off the health care system. We have universal health care, where we are sending people who cannot afford to pay for their medication back to universal health care because their medication is not being covered. What is it about that picture that the Liberals do not understand?

Yes, we forced the Liberals to do dental care, but we are going to be pressing equally hard on pharmacare, not only because it is equally essential to ensuring the quality of life for Canadians and a better competitive situation for our businesses, but also because it is just a basic question of the fundamental human right to health care in this country. It is about time Liberals listened and put that into place.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is on the public record having said that, if he did not receive a firm commitment from the Liberal government on pharmacare by December, he would end the supply arrangement they have. Clearly, there is not a single word about pharmacare in the budget, and in addition to that, on the second thing the NDP wanted, dental care, there are vague promises with no plan from a government that has shown over and over again it is incompetent to execute anything.

Will the member and his party quit supporting the government in raising the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, or will he end the supply agreement, because the government has not kept up its end?

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member and I enjoy working with her on Canadian heritage, but this is the complete emptiness of the Conservative dialogue. The Conservatives have offered one single idea in the past year, to buy Bitcoin, and we saw Bitcoin tank. If any Canadians had followed their advice, they would be ruined financially. That is the only idea Conservatives have brought forward, so I want to correct the record.

First, in terms of dental care, yes, there is a plan, and it is thanks to the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the NDP health critic, that there is a plan for rollout to ensure that people with disabilities, seniors and youth in that member's riding, about 30,000 strong, would have access to dental care by the end of the year. On pharmacare, the government has to deliver the legislation that both Liberals and Conservatives voted against two years ago, including the hon. member. Shame on all of them who voted against the Canada pharmacare act that I presented in the House.

That legislation would be only a first step, and that is why our warning is to say to Liberals that, if they really want to heed the quality of life for Canadians, the right to basic health care and the competitiveness of our businesses, it is time to start ensuring that the next steps after the adoption of the universal pharmacare bill would be done to put in place the financing criteria so that we can roll that out in the coming years.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his interesting speech and for all the work he does in the House.

On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which does two things. First, it doubles the GST credit cheque next July and, second, it transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health care with no strings attached.

I was extremely surprised and pleased to see that these two measures also appear in Bill C-47, which is before the House today. The government did not take them out of the omnibus bill, despite the passage of Bill C‑46 earlier this week. This means $4 billion instead of $2 billion to the provinces for health care, and a second grocery rebate cheque for people with low incomes.

Can the leader of the NDP assure the House that if the government ever realized its mistake and sought to remove that from Bill C‑47, the NDP would oppose that amendment, so the government could not make cuts to health care funding and the grocery rebate cheques?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, whom I was pleased to work with on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also appreciated his speech earlier.

I will start off by mentioning that I am not the NDP leader. I am the NDP House leader. I just had to make a slight correction there.

The NDP always makes sure that the benefits that Canadians count on continue to be there. That is why the member for Burnaby South worked to ensure that the GST credit was doubled a few months ago and has done so again with respect to this bill.

Certainly we will continue to keep watch, because we want Canadians across Canada, including in Joliette, to have the ability to pay for groceries.

Dental care is also very important in a riding like Joliette and across the country. We will continue to exert pressure for that to be implemented.

In my speech, I mentioned my constituent Joanne, who was experiencing a lot of tooth pain. By the end of the year, she will have access to dental care for the first time in her life as a senior. That is what we are bringing to the House when it comes to accountability.

The NPD continues to exert pressure for people like Joanne and millions of others who have been abandoned by the old parties.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for his real championing of so many things that give Canadians a better life. One of the things he has been championing is the green new deal, the idea that we have to have a transition to a cleaner future and leave no workers behind. Because of the NDP pressure on the government, we have significant funding for clean tech in this budget that is tied to good union wages so people can have a respectable life in this new future.

I wonder if my colleague could provide further comments on that and on whether this should be standard operating procedure for future government infrastructure funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has had a very strong voice in the House of Commons, speaking up for good jobs in the community. Whether he is talking about the South Okanagan, the West Kootenay or anywhere in Canada, he has been one of the foremost advocates of actually ensuring that government investments are put to work to ensure that people have good jobs. The member is right to point out that we have learned the lesson from other jurisdictions where subsidies to green energy had tended to be soaked up by CEOs. We certainly continue to see this with the oil and gas sector, where billions of dollars go and are largely taken by CEOs and do not go to actually providing benefits to workers.

This is the same principle we have brought in when it comes to the issue of the just transition to ensure we can put in place all the elements for clean energy to make sure that Canada is keeping up with the developments in the rest of the world. Those investments have to go to people who have good union jobs. That makes a difference in the community. It means more money stays in the community and it helps to create indirect jobs as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the Bloc member's concern regarding the issue of Bill C-47 versus Bill C-46. The member is quite right. We need to recognize that it has been a priority of this government to provide inflation relief in the form of a grocery rebate. That is why it was incorporated into Bill C-46. It is also the government's priority to try to get hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces with respect to health care. That was also incorporated into Bill C-46.

As the member pointed out, it is also in the budget implementation bill. This is because we could not get agreement for the quick passage of Bill C-46 through the House. We only recently got the agreement to pass it. Following this logic, the member will recall how long it can take to get a budget implementation bill through the House from the last time we had one.

As a good example of that, today, there has already been an amendment to the budget implementation bill moved by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is going to hold up the budget implementation bill. Recognizing the importance of getting that grocery rebate to Canadians and getting the transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces for our health care system, the government had to come up with Bill C-46 after we got agreement that we could get it passed in the House. That is the reason for this.

I know the member appreciates the explanation. I would even encourage the member to move the amendment so we can rectify the situation once we get to the committee stage. If I could, I would be the seconder.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and the members of the House that Bill C-46 passed all stages on Wednesday and that Bill C-47 was introduced in the House on Thursday. Therefore, there is no need to introduce amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think that intervention is more of an interesting point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has six minutes left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one would like to think that things could happen relatively quickly. One would be surprised, in terms of the degree to which we finally got the consensus to get it through the House, in order to be able to support Canadians.

I would point out something that is really obvious. This emphasizes the contrast between the government and the Prime Minister versus the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, we had a good-news announcement. The federal government is investing in the future, through Volkswagen, by bringing in a megafactory. This will likely be the largest factory in the country. It is estimated that we are talking about literally the size of not dozens but hundreds of football fields. It is a gigantic factory.

I can say that not only is the federal government at the table with this, but so is Doug Ford. He is investing both cash and future infrastructure to support it. There is a reason for that. It is the idea that this is an investment in workers, as well as an investment in the future.

I would like to quote something that the leader of the Conservative Party quoted in a tweet. This is his mindset on the issue: “there are no lithium mines, no lithium processing facilities and no lithium ion battery makers in Canada.” We are in essence, the quote says, “a minnow compared to the United States, Australia and especially China.”

Well, that is the mentality of the Conservative Party. It does not understand that this does not have to be the destination. Canada can be a world leader, and that is what this investment is going to do.

It is so short-sighted. Again, it is not that all members of the Conservative Party would think the same way as the leader of the party. Progressive Conservatives may not think the same way, and as I said, we have Doug Ford 100% onside and investing in it.

This is an opportunity for Canada to enter into that green world in a very real and tangible way. We can look at seeing future lithium mines. We can look into a future with many more areas of development. It is estimated that, within a decade, the federal and provincial investments will be returned more than tenfold.

The Conservatives have a tough time thinking of the future or realizing the benefits of an investment of this nature. We can think in terms of the direct, positive impact that this is going to have on the automobile industry in the province of Ontario or in Canada as a whole.

Yesterday, in the chamber, we were talking about the aerospace industry. Members from the Bloc, myself and others were talking about how the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have benefited. We talked about how important it was and is today that we support our aerospace industry, as we continue to do.

It is also important to support our automobile industry. We can think in terms of the future and the positive impact that this is going to have. I would hope that sometime between now and the next federal election, the Conservatives will have a flip-flop on their position on this issue. The net gains far outweigh the costs of what is being proposed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario today.

We need to start thinking about the bigger picture. We need to think of the quality middle-class jobs that will be there as we expand in an industry that is healthy for our province and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast. These opportunities may be in mining or parts distribution. All sorts of opportunities will be there going forward because of this investment. We will be working with the private sector, particularly Volkswagen, in building a state-of-the-art factory, potentially the single largest factory in Canada. We need to look at the tens of thousands of direct jobs, let alone the multiplying factor of indirect jobs.

I will continue the next time the bill comes up for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe the hon. member for North Island—Powell River has a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie inadvertently voted on Tuesday, March 21, and Wednesday, March 22, and should not have done so under paragraph (i) of section (o) of the motion adopted by the House on June 23, 2022.

I therefore ask that his votes from those dates be withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for that clarification, and we will make the proper adjustments.

It being 1:31 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today and speak about the budget implementation bill.

Today is a very special day in Parliament. Parliament is actually celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill, so I would like to wish everyone a very happy Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi is a very important part of the month of April, and here in Canada we celebrate Sikh heritage in the month of April. It does not matter where one goes in Canada; it is important to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity and Sikh heritage and the contributions they have made to our communities over the years.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Abbotsford, where we have the first gurdwara, which is still standing. It is a Canadian heritage site. Whether it is in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or out on the east coast, Sikh Heritage Month is a very important month of the year for people of Sikh faith and others who get engaged in recognizing and celebrating Sikh Heritage Month.

Earlier this month, the city hall of Winnipeg recognized Sikh heritage. Just last week, the Manitoba legislature had Turban Day inside the Manitoba legislature, and today here on Parliament Hill, as I indicated, we are celebrating Sikh Heritage Month and requesting people to put on a turban. It is with great pleasure that I put on a turban today.

I think of the importance of the khalsa and the minister providing the service. He posed a question: “What is Vaisakhi to you?”. Vaisakhi to me is very meaningful. It is about equality. It is about the khalsa. Back in 1999, I had the honour and privilege to introduce into the Manitoba legislature a recognition of the khalsa to recognize the importance of it, and just in February, I had the opportunity to travel to India. It is a beautiful country. I went to a few places, like Anandpur Sahib, where the khalsa was born, and the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I must say that at 1:30 in the morning, it is very surreal. When I was there, I could feel a spiritual presence.

The point is that, for me personally, it is all about faith and it is all about equality. It speaks volumes about Canada's diversity. When I think of Canada's diversity, I would suggest it is our diversity that is one of the greatest assets we have in society.

When we talk about the budget and think in terms of where the growth is within our budgetary measures, I believe we will find that Canada, as a trading nation, is very much dependent on world trade. When I think of world trade, I cannot help but think of some of our partners from the past and today, such as the United States, and the amount of trade that goes between our borders. I also think of the number of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last seven years. I believe that as a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements with other countries than any government before us.

India is a vast, beautiful country. Many, including me, would argue it will be an economic superpower in the future. The greatest asset we have here in Canada is indeed our diversity and people, in this case of Indian heritage, being able to look at ways we can enhance trade opportunities. That applies to many other communities. When we talk about diversity, today is Sikh Heritage Month, but we have Portuguese Heritage Month and Filipino Heritage Month, which is coming up in June.

We recognize Canada's diversity, and that diversity shines through in many different ways. It is more than just heritage clothing, if I can put it that way, or traditional wares. It is very much about opportunities, and Canada is laden with opportunities, going into the future, based on trade.

Now here we are with the budget implementation bill, and one would think I would be talking a lot about the grocery rebate. I know the grocery rebate is very important. It is actually incorporated into this legislation. It is one of the ways the Government of Canada is going to be assisting Canadians through a very difficult time.

We talk about inflation, and I have made the comparison in that past when we have talked about inflation in Canada that we are doing relatively well compared to other countries in the world, whether it is the U.S.A., many of the European Union countries or those in the G20. We are actually doing quite well. However, the government recognizes that we could do better to assist the population. One of the ways we would be able to accomplish that is the grocery rebate. That would put money in pockets. The budget implementation bill is there to ensure that we are able to administer the grocery rebate.

The good news is that, as we did not know how long it would take to get through the budget debate, we were able to build a consensus to pass Bill C-46, which would ultimately put in place the grocery rebate. Canadians can look forward to seeing not only that particular piece of legislation pass but the money being sent out.

On Friday, when I talked about one of the more recent announcements, the VW announcement, I talked about a difference, a contrast, between what the Conservatives in opposition believe and what the Government of Canada believes. Over the last number of years, we have put a great deal of effort into building the Canadian economy and supporting Canada's middle class. We have done that in a number of different monetary measures, through budgets, and legislative measures.

Let me give a good example of this that I started to talk about just last Friday. We had the announcement of what will be Canada's single largest factory, where we will be producing and manufacturing electric batteries. It is very much a thing of the future that will provide literally thousands and thousands of jobs. It will provide the opportunity for Canada to become a significant player in the manufacturing of electric batteries for automobiles.

When we look at how the Conservatives here in Ottawa are responding, we see it has not been very positive, even though Premier Doug Ford has also contributed to the plant, not only from a financial point of view but also by building part of the infrastructure that will be necessary. This factory, land-wise, will be hundreds of times the size of a football field. It is going to be gigantic in terms of its footprint in St. Thomas, Ontario. All of us will benefit from it.

The leader of the Conservative Party tweeted not that long ago and said that we do not have lithium mines and do not have batteries being developed. That seems to be the attitude of the Conservative Party, and it does not have to be the reality. The reality is changing because we have a government that has recognized the potential of the industry and the important role that the Province of Ontario in particular has played in the automobile industry. That was no doubt a huge attraction for Volkswagen. We will now see more lithium mining taking place in Canada. We now have an industry that will be able to grow, expand and provide both direct and indirect jobs in the future.

On the other hand, the contrast is that we do nothing. Had we done nothing, we would never have been able to land the Volkswagen deal, and that industry would continue to be dominated by countries like the U.S.A. and China. However, as a result of the Government of Canada recognizing that we can and should be a player, we are now going to see and reap the benefits.

Sure, there is a cost to this. However, that cost will be paid back tenfold in the next 10 years. It is worth the cost. This is an industry that will do exceptionally well, much like the aerospace industry, which we talked about last week. As I made reference to last Friday, all of us, like those in Quebec and my home province of Manitoba, benefit when a province is able to do well.

I am excited about the future because this budget implementation bill is there to support workers, to support our environment and to support consumers. It is there in a very real and tangible way. I would encourage all members to rethink their positioning and look at it as a way forward for Canada that will create middle-class jobs, the good jobs we want in our economy, and that will create opportunities and entrepreneurs well into the future.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as usual, my colleague's delight over his government's budget is patently obvious.

However, on one topic he was silent, and I know why. Of the budget's 250 pages, only one page addresses the housing crisis. That in itself is completely unacceptable.

In the week after the budget was tabled, the National Housing Council, the body created by the federal government to oversee its grand national housing strategy, brought up a very interesting point. Between 2011 and 2021, Canada lost 550,000 affordable housing units. Not only has the government failed to create new housing, but we lost 550,000 units in the span of 10 years.

The National Housing Council has suggested a highly practical solution, which is to create an acquisition fund to enable non-profit housing organizations to purchase private housing stock, take it off the private market and make it permanently affordable. It is a solution that everyone is talking about. Does my colleague think it is a good solution?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to put housing in the proper perspective. If we take a look at the early nineties, what we will find is that every political party inside this chamber, whether it was the Bloc, the Conservatives, the NDP or even the Liberals at the time, believed there was no role for Ottawa in national housing.

When we take a look at the nineties and see where we are today, this particular Prime Minister has made a commitment to housing second to no other in the last 60 or 70 years here in Canada, with a national housing strategy and literally hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars supporting a number of new housing start-ups, supporting groups like Habitat for Humanity and supporting and encouraging the development of housing co-ops. The national government has demonstrated very clearly that it does have a role to play in housing. It is exercising that role and is looking for stakeholders to come onside and support where they can to enhance and complement our housing stock and increase the size of it. I believe the federal government will continue to work in those efforts.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Winnipeg on his sartorial selections today. They look very good on him.

I have a question about the budget itself. The budget projects that this year, over $40 billion will go to interest on the debt, to wealthy bankers and bondholders. That is almost as much as the $50 billion being spent on the Canada health transfer.

How does the member justify the Liberals giving almost exactly the same amount to wealthy banks and bondholders as they are to Canadians for health care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are times when the government does need to be able to borrow. The best example of that was during the worldwide pandemic, when the government made the decision to be there to save jobs by providing things such as the wage subsidy program and loans for small businesses. It was there for Canadians in terms of CERB payments. When Canadians were not able to work because of the pandemic, the government stepped up and provided literally billions and billions of dollars of support. Yes, there was a cost to that, but the cost would have been far greater had the government chosen to do nothing.

With regard to the opening comments, I always appreciate the opportunity to showcase a turban because, for me, it is all about the equality of people. It is all about strength of faith. In many ways, since 1988, I have had the opportunity to get a better understanding of the importance of Sikhism.

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

Madam Speaker, the federal Liberals created the investing in Canada infrastructure program. My concern is around the allocation for British Columbia. It was not even close to enough. In fact, that money has been allocated already and it needs a new cost-sharing agreement.

This makes me think about the recreation facilities in my riding. Echo pool in Port Alberni was built in 1967, like many facilities across Canada. That facility needs to be replaced. In Parksville, there are aspirations to build a facility. On the west coast, the five central region nations and Tofino and Ucluelet are looking at building a facility.

We know how important recreation facilities are, not just for physical health but also for mental health and bringing communities together. I go to Echo pool and I often see a lot of people who have been injured at their workplace. They use it for rehabilitation. Seniors use it to maintain their health and stay active.

Will my colleague commit to replenishing that fund and advancing recreation facilities here in Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no government in the history of Canada has invested more money in infrastructure than this government has. The member raises a valid point in terms of community services that we do need to support wherever we can. That is one of the reasons we have seen members of Parliament within the Liberal caucus advocate for and be very successful at ensuring that we continue to invest in infrastructure, not just directly but also indirectly. Whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the direct support where Ottawa has a stakeholder, partner, province or municipality in order to expand upon infrastructure, we recognize the importance of it.

From a personal point of view, I think the city of Winnipeg needs a first-class basketball facility, and I support the basketball association and people like Manny Aranez who are trying to make that happen.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also would like to compliment my friend on his sartorial splendour today. I take particular notice of his mention of his recent visit to India. I understand there are unique challenges with trade with India and particular states within India. Can the hon. member comment on how we can address those challenges and how that will affect our economy going forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I chair the Canada-India Parliamentary Friendship Group, and we have representatives from the Conservatives, Liberals, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. We need to build the relationship between India and Canada, and enhance it. The Government of Canada has had ministerial visits. I think the Minister of International Trade was there in 2022.

There are so many opportunities between Canada and India. India is, as I pointed out, a superpower economically today and going into the future. Canada, unlike other countries around the world, is in a great position because of its diversity. Let us take hold, be proud and use our diversity to our strategic advantage. One of the ways the future of Canada can be bright is if we are able to enhance that relationship between Canada and India.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from our hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It is no surprise that housing is barely mentioned in Bill C-47. It was barely mentioned in the budget also. In fact, it was the opposite. The federal housing advocate said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”

In this bill, the federal government could have gotten serious about, for example, addressing the loophole for real estate investment trusts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now estimated we could direct $285 million over the next five years to build the affordable housing we need if we were simply to eliminate the tax breaks for REITs.

Can the member for Winnipeg North speak about whether he is going to put pressure on the government to bring about this change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a series of actions that the government has taken over the last number of years, from implementing the first-ever national housing strategy, to the issue of expanding housing co-ops, and everything in between. No government in recent history has given as much attention to the issue of housing as this government has.

However, the issue of resolving the housing crisis in Canada today goes far beyond Ottawa demonstrating leadership; it incorporates the importance of municipalities, provinces and the different stakeholders. They, too, have to step up to the plate. It can be done through zoning and the cost of doing paperwork. There are all sorts of issues.

What Canadians need to know and understand is that Ottawa is here. It is ready, it is investing and it understands the importance of housing. We are prepared to work the best way we can with the different partners in order to ensure that we can enhance the numbers and the quality of our housing stock.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak today. I will start with a quote from former president Ronald Reagan, who said, “Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”

Budget 2023 was a direct attack on Canadians, their hard work and the paycheques they try to bring home. What budget 2023 would do is not only tell Canadians how to live their lives, which this government is known for, but also, in some cases, ruin a lot of livelihoods as well.

This was a budget that was supposed to have fiscal restraint. The Liberals blew right through that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that they added an extra $69.7 billion in new gross expenditures. Those new expenditures are going to cost each and every struggling household an extra $4,200. This is a government that said it wanted to make sure it did not cross the line of debt-to-GDP ratio. Well, it blew right through that line, so far past it that the government cannot even see that line anymore.

This is a government that said it would be responsible and that it understood the pain of Canadians. Then, it turned around and jacked up its job-killing carbon tax to pile-drive Canadians with even more taxes, five to be exact, just this year. This is the government that said it is here to help people. I think this is as ridiculous as thinking that the NDP is still an opposition party.

Before I move on, Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with a great man, who we call the great boss from the great riding of Beauce.

When my family moved to Canada, there used to be a pretty good deal between Canada and its citizens. Today, after eight years of the Prime Minister and the Liberal-NDP government, that deal feels broken and so does Canada. One in five newcomers to our great country want to pack up and leave.

The number one reason for that is the high cost of living that has been caused by the Liberal-NDP government. It borrowed and spent more money than every single government before it combined. It made interest rates go up and that made the cost-of-living crisis even worse. The government is the architect of this inflationary fire, and the budget has thrown a $69.7-billion jerry can on top of the inflationary fire, which has made things even worse for Canadians.

My family moved here when I was young because we wanted to live the “Canadian dream”. My parents wanted us to have a safer future and a better education. They wanted us to be raised in a country where we could feel safe and where we could raise kids to feel the same way. However, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, that Canadian dream is nothing but a nightmare and a broken dream today.

Newcomers should want to flock to Canada, but Canada is not seen as a country where people can survive. It is not seen as a country that is even open for business. When we look at the budget, productivity is not going to grow because the government has done nothing to help support businesses and create an environment that would have more investment coming to it.

In fact, the number one complaint that we hear is that the regulatory burdens and the economic uncertainty that the government has created does not let good investment and good jobs come to Canada. The government would rather stand under its make-believe ideology on things like the job-killing carbon tax, which is driving people away. It is driving costs up. It is making everything more expensive, and Canadians are suffering for that.

Canada is one of the last destinations people want to come to today. That is clear when we hear that one out of five newcomers want to pack up and leave.

We can look at some of the disastrous policies that have caused so much pain on Canadians today.

Let us look at housing. When we moved to Canada, it was reasonable to find a house. Someone could get a job and put in the hard work. That was the deal Canada used to have. If people worked hard, they would see the fruits of their labour. That deal is broken today. Nine out of 10 young people say that affording a home is just a pipe dream now because of the rising cost of living.

Who can save for a down payment? Down payments have doubled. People have to spend double just to for a down payment on a house now. Rents and mortgages have doubled under the Prime Minister, after eight years of failed housing policies. It is impossible for young people to move out of their parents' basements today because of eight years of failed housing policies.

How does a government spend $89 billion on housing and the outcome is that rents and mortgages have doubled, and nine out of 10 young people say they will never be able to afford a home? How does a government spend so much to accomplish so little? It is on par for that government. It shows its incompetence every day. It does not stand with the common person. It does not want to make the lives of people easier. If it did, it would not have jacked up the cost of the failed carbon tax. It has accomplished so little on that as well.

We finally have an environment minister who admitted that the government misled Canadians all along about the failed carbon tax scam. For years, the government said that it was going to make the lives of people better. For years, it said that Canadians would get more back from this carbon tax scam in so-called carbon pricing rebates than what they would pay into it. We now have the Liberal environment minister admitting that this was misleading all along.

We requested a report from the PBO report and that report confirmed that more Canadians would pay more out of pocket in this scam than what they would get back in these phoney rebates. It is time for the Liberal-NDP government to stop causing Canadians, farmers and producers pain. It needs to scrap this scam, axe the carbon tax and let Canadians survive.

If we look at the price of groceries today, we see how the carbon tax has impacted how expensive they are getting. The government has done nothing to help with the inflation it has caused. It not only has caused this inflation, but it keeps adding more fuel to the fire, and the carbon tax is a clear example of that when we look at the price of groceries.

When me and my family, and many other newcomers, came to this country, we could not have imagined that in a single month 1.5 million Canadians would be visiting a food bank, a third of whom are children. One-in-five Canadians are skipping meals. One-in-five Canadians are saying that they are completely out of money. This is not the Canada that me and my family envisioned when we moved here.

However, hope is on the horizon. We have a new Conservative leader who will turn this hurt that the Liberal-NDP government caused Canadians into hope. We are going to do many things, the first of which is to get rid of the Liberal-NDP government. We are going to ensure that we bring home powerful Canadian paycheques. We are going to bring home lower prices for Canadians. We are going to get rid of this job-killing, failed carbon tax scam. Most important, we are going to bring in more homes that our young people and many others can afford. We are going to get the gatekeepers out of the way. We are going to ensure that Canadians keep more of their hard-earned paycheques in their pockets so they can make their own decisions and bring back the freedom our country so much deserves.

The Conservatives will restore safety to our streets, so people do not feel they are going to be attacked randomly. We keep seeing violent crime on the increase after eight years of the government. We need to bring home common-sense solutions for the common people. We need to return Canada to a place where we have elected officials who work for the people, who understand their pain and do not cause more pain. That is exactly what the Conservatives will do when our new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, becomes the Prime Minister of Canada. We will return Canada to being the freest nation in the world.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the carbon tax. I did some research in my riding in my home province of New Brunswick to see where this money went. We know that 90% is given back to those who pay into the carbon tax. We have 10% that will be reinvested into community projects and first nations communities. I think about the $300,000 that were given to a first nation in my province to do energy retrofits and ensure it did what it could to reach its environmental goals as well. I wonder if the member would not support projects like that.

When can we expect to see an environmental plan from the Conservative Party?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, we are still looking for an environmental plan from that side of the House. All we received was a tax plan that made gas, groceries and home heating more expensive. The Liberals sold this carbon tax scam to Canadians, saying that they would get more in their pockets than these phoney rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that wrong.

Therefore, if I were that member, I would update the talking points to say that a majority of Canadians will pay more into this scam than what they will get back. The Liberals sold this scam saying they would meet the targets they set for themselves, and they failed to do that. Emissions went up.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Let us see a plan from the Liberals first instead of this tax scam they have created to take more from Canadians.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk about the callousness of this budget.

This budget contains little or nothing for housing, at a time when Quebec and Canada are in crisis, when there is virtually nothing for seniors and when health transfers are meagre. Meanwhile, it does contain a provision to modernize or amend the Royal Style and Titles Act to confirm that the King of England is indeed the Canadian sovereign.

I find that somewhat surprising. In my view, it is even a bit insensitive, and it is offensive to many of my constituents. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member when he says that this offended many people. This budget definitely offended a lot of people. The government, which said it would be fiscally restrained and would try to be fiscally responsible, blew right through that and added $4,200 of cost on each and every Canadian household. This is a slap in the face to Canadians, who work so hard but are falling behind because of increased taxes put on by the Liberal-NDP government, which does not respect Canadians anymore. This budget is a slap in the face to them and a direct attack on their paycheques.

Conservatives would bring back common sense for the common people and make sure more Canadians can keep more in their pocket.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks about common sense, but he has not shared any today. In fact, what he has done is list all the economic violence of capitalism and the impacts it has on everyday Canadians.

When the member talks about the housing market, he never talks about the insatiable greed of the real estate investment trusts, of the speculators, of the big corporate gatekeepers who are crushing our housing market. In fact, housing prices will not come down until the government acts to curtail inflationary investor activity in the residential market.

Just like the leader of the Conservative Party, this budget refuses to take on greedy private sector gatekeepers who are driving up the price of housing for their own corporate greed. Why are the Conservatives focusing only on municipal permitting when there are so many greedy, capitalist, private sector gatekeepers responsible for the current housing crisis?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the problem is with the party that keeps supporting this inept, corrupt government and always props it up and makes things more expensive.

As the member likes to talk about socialism all the time, I would like to read him a quote from Margaret Thatcher, who said, “either you believe in capitalism, or you believe in socialism. Capitalism, as we know, creates wealth. Socialism, as we also know, creates poverty.” The clear example is today in Canada, when one in five Canadians is skipping meals and 1.5 million Canadians are visiting a food bank because of failed NDP-Liberal policies. When the two parties get together, they are doing nothing but causing more and more pain to Canadians and sending more of them to food banks.

We are going to turn these failed policies around when our leader becomes the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, which is part of the government's 2023 budget implementation. I am honoured today to follow my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is our party's official finance critic.

After much anticipation and hope that the expensive coalition would exercise some fiscal prudence, Canadians were once again presented with a budget that will spend more and deliver less.

My colleague went over numerous statistics in his speech about this legislation, but I think the most alarming one is the fact that this expensive coalition will tack on nearly $4,200 in additional costs to every household across Canada with its lackluster budget.

Canadians are tired of being bought by this Liberal government with one-time cheques and slogans every time a budget is presented. This is the case with the grocery rebate, for example.

Let us be honest with Canadians: This one-time cheque will do nothing to reduce the price of groceries for families. It is simply a doubling of the GST credit, presented as something it is not. We need to tackle the real source of the problem.

Take, for example, the way the government is increasing grocery prices with policies like the carbon tax, the tariff on fertilizer and other harmful policies. These policies are driving up the cost of food production and transportation across the country.

Bill C-47 also includes the health care transfers to the provinces, which are well below what the provinces and territories requested to provide the care that our fellow citizens and their families need.

My Liberal and NDP colleagues will say that I am not helping my constituents get dental care because I will not support this budget. However, that could not be further from the truth. I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that Quebec has not only had a day care program for many years, but it also already has a dental care program for our young children. It seems as though the current government is always lagging behind on these programs. It has been clear from the start that this government does not trust the provincial and territorial governments to implement the programs themselves and that the “Ottawa knows best” approach is the only way to manage these projects. If only the government had more faith in the provinces and, especially, more respect for their jurisdictions, it might be surprised to see what can be done without Ottawa getting involved.

I will now take a moment to talk about what I would have liked to see in this budget. First, there is nothing in the budget to help SMEs attract labour. The word “labour” is hardly used at all in this budget, which is hundreds of pages long.

In my riding of Beauce, the unemployment rate is currently below 1.9%. Our businesses are struggling to attract and retain workers. It is one of the biggest issues in my riding. A vast majority of businesses in my riding rely heavily on temporary foreign workers to fill gaps in their workforce. However, there was nothing in the budget to improve the program. The government must reduce the paperwork and red tape associated with all these programs.

What is worse, the government has allowed more than 150,000 public servants to go on strike, which means that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will have an even larger backlog and businesses will continue to close their doors because of the Prime Minister's inaction. It is as though this government does not understand just how time sensitive these jobs are. Many farmers and landscape companies in my riding, for example, will not have workers at the most important time of the year.

These businesses spend thousands of dollars recruiting foreign workers months before they are to arrive, but the government does not care. It has done nothing to reduce immigration delays.

That leads me to my next point. Where is the funding for Canadian agriculture in this budget?

After I took a close look at the budget with my staff, I discovered that our agriculture and agri-food sector was getting approximately 0.1% of the funds allocated in the budget. What a sad situation in which our country finds itself, when our government forgets where the food feeding our families and others around the whole world comes from.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was pleased to speak in the House to tell us that she had increased the limit for loans available to farmers. Does she not understand that farmers are already in debt up to their necks? They need programs that reflect the current reality so they can remain solvent and competitive on the international market.

Two weeks ago, in my riding, we heard the sad news that Olymel will permanently close its Vallée‑Jonction pork processing plant in December. In a municipality of approximately 2,000 people, Olymel employs 1,000 workers. This is devastating, and the entire region will be hit hard. The closure is the result of, among other things, a labour shortage that began several years ago. It will have a serious impact on the pork industry in Ontario and Quebec, as well as on a number of other industries.

A growing number of farmers and farms are struggling to survive in Canada. This government has abandoned this sector for far too long. Our country needs to take measures to support the agriculture and agri-food industry before it is too late. A Conservative government will be there for farmers and plant workers. We are prepared to make this sector the economic driver it should have been in this country a long time ago.

Finally, I would like to touch on something that was not mentioned whatsoever in the budget. The words “cellular connectivity” are not mentioned at all in this budget when we search the words. Since first being elected, I have been rising in the House to speak out about this problem. In the 40 municipalities in my riding alone, at least one sector in each town is poorly served by the cellular networks.

I would remind the government that people in the regions are not second class citizens. They pay just as many taxes as anyone else. These people who live in the regions, who contribute to the economy, are held back by the inability to get 21st century technology. How are we supposed to automate industries to make up for the labour shortage when a business owner has to go to the top of a hill to get one bar of service on his phone?

I therefore invite the government to have a look at the reporting done on this subject in March by many local journalists, including Éric Gourde at L'Éclaireur Progrès and Philippe Grenier at Radio-Canada.

It is unbelievable that people come close to dying because they cannot call 911. When people do manage to get into an ambulance, sometimes the paramedics cannot connect to the nearest local hospital because there is no cell signal.

Having an adequate cellular network in the regions is not a matter of equity; it is a matter of public safety. The government needs to make investments to address this issue and force the CRTC to compel the big telecom companies to develop their cellular networks throughout the regions—unless the government is still waiting for the provincial governments to get involved.

In closing, it is time for change in Canada. It is time to put Canadians first, not only in major urban centres, but also in the rural heartlands. That is why I will continue to rise in the House and be the voice of the residents of Beauce, to convey their message. A Conservative government will put Canadians first and prioritize common sense.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Conservative leader and his caucus have committed to supporting our $2-billion investment to save our health care system.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the Conservatives' recently announced policy on cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada. My colleague quoted a Radio-Canada reporter in his speech, so I imagine that he has a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada. What does he think of his leader's proposal to make cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a very simple concept to grasp for my colleague across the aisle.

Our leader's comments were very specific on the issue of protecting Radio-Canada. I think that Radio-Canada and the CBC are very different. Perhaps some management changes may be required.

However, I think we really need to face the facts. If we analyze my leader's thinking carefully, it is clear that preserving Radio-Canada in Quebec is not at all an issue, because it is intended to serve the francophone community throughout Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Beauce, who raised a lot of issues that have a direct impact on Laurentides—Labelle.

I am taking time to talk about agriculture and agri-food. After all these years and all the challenges related to maintaining supply management and keeping the industry as it is, one in 10 farmers are being forced to shut down. That is happening in my colleague's riding of Beauce just as it is in Laurentides—Labelle.

My question is this. Are my colleague and his party willing to support, in both the House of Commons and in committee, any assistance measure to save our agriculture and agri-food industry?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She is obviously preaching to the choir in asking me that question, because I was a farmer for over 45 years. I was a fourth-generation farmer and, today, a fifth generation has taken over our family business.

The current government must clearly indicate that it upholds and supports our agricultural industry. It is true that many farms are finding it increasingly difficult to find people to take over, and the economic context is unique.

My colleague mentioned supply management. In my speech, I talked about the closure of a pork processing plan. The pork industry is not supply managed. Some export markets closed, and so perhaps we need to support our farmers and processors in developing and conquering new markets.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and many of his Conservative colleagues have been talking about housing. I think one thing we all agree on in the House is that there is a crisis of unbelievable proportions related to housing in this country.

I live in Vancouver and have been there for close to four decades. The rise in house prices began in the mid-eighties, particularly after Expo, and then continued with the repatriation of Hong Kong back to China in the late 1990s and the Olympics in 2010. With each of these things, it became obvious that there was an inflow of foreign capital, from both corporate and foreign investment, that destabilized house prices in the Lower Mainland. It is at the point now where, for people who live and work there, the price of detached or even non-detached houses is completely divorced from what people actually make.

What specifically does my hon. colleague say a Conservative government would do to help provide real affordable housing for people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia? I would like to hear specifically what policy his government would advance.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am a former municipal councillor and I think that our leader, the member for Carleton, makes an important point when he talks about cutting red tape to ensure that municipalities can issue building permits faster. I live in Beauce, and our reality may not be identical, but housing is still a major concern.

I think that there should be less red tape. I have been here for four years, and I have been saying the same thing for four years. I hope that we will see some signals in that regard over the coming months.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C‑47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, which will help build a clean economy.

Today, the world's largest economies are making incredible strides not only in fighting the climate crisis, but also in restructuring, seizing the opportunities that this industrial shift represents for them and building clean industries. For that reason, budget 2023 includes innovative and substantial investments in building that economy right here in Canada.

Fighting the climate crisis is clearly the main objective of all major economies. However, by building a strong and inclusive economy by seizing these opportunities and using Canada's incredible resources to achieve great success in the economy of tomorrow, we are also investing in Canadian businesses, Canadian talent and Canadian workers.

Our Canadian plan uses a variety of useful measures to invest in this new clean economy. We have already spoken at length about certain clear and predictable investment tax credits. We are also providing strategic financing in sectors such as critical minerals and clean energy. By investing in these sectors, Canada will truly build its economy and increase opportunities for all Canadian workers. We are also investing in some more targeted sectors and projects of national and international significance, as we saw with the wonderful announcements about Volkswagen.

By making such significant investments for Canada, we are ensuring that we are not left behind. Currently, while all the other major global economies are investing massively in these sectors, the worst thing that could happen would be for Canada not to seize these opportunities and never have the chance to re-enter the race ever again. We must invest in transforming our economy, but also in these opportunities.

Budget 2023 truly ensures that a green Canadian economy is also a source of prosperity and jobs for the middle class, but also for more dynamic communities across the country. We cannot do it alone, however. This is going to require investment at the government level and beyond. I would like to take this discussion to the Canada growth fund. We know there are trillions of dollars in private capital waiting for these opportunities, waiting to be spent on building the clean global economy. Canada does have some rivals. We are all trying to attract the best capital from the private sector.

The recent enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act posed a major challenge for our budget. To be competitive within the North American economy, we really have to invest in our industries, since they will drive the clean economy. To succeed, we had to meet two challenges. The first was to encourage companies to take risks and invest in clean technologies, advanced technologies, here in Canada. The second was to keep up with the growing list of nations that are also using public funds to attract private capital, including the United States and the European Union. As we saw, the list does not stop there. Australia was also in the race, along with many other countries.

In budget 2022, we announced the government's plans to create the Canada growth fund, a $15‑billion arm's-length public investment vehicle that will help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy.

The thought behind that was to use investment instruments that absorb certain risks. This is all about attracting and encouraging private investment in some of the riskier projects, in new technologies, in companies, but also in low-carbon supply chains.

The 2022 economic statement announced more details on how the Canada growth fund would work, and this new investment vehicle was created in December.

The legislation introduced last week introduces amendments to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to allow the board, also known as PSP Investments, to provide investment management services for the Canada growth fund. As a significant part of the government's plan to decarbonize the economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional, independent investment team to make important investments. That is why we are pooling those services.

PSP Investments is already established as a federal Crown corporation, and it already has $225 billion in assets under management. It will be able to add assets for investments in the clean economy of tomorrow. Canada growth fund assets will be managed by PSP Investments, a separate and independent corporation. We like it that way.

The Canada growth fund will make investments that will catalyze substantial private sector investment in businesses and projects in Canada to help bring about that transformation I was talking about earlier, to grow the economy and to compete in the global net-zero energy market. Canada growth fund investments will help Canada achieve its national economic and climate strategy goals.

I see that time is running out. I talked about the Canada growth fund, which will be very important and strategic for both meeting our targets and capitalizing on these opportunities. However, I also wanted to talk about a problem we have in Canada. Canadian companies are not investing enough in R and D, and not at the same level as their peers. To meet this challenge, the budget proposes a new approach and creates the Canada innovation corporation. This was announced in budget 2022, but now several sectors are being brought together and the Canada innovation corporation's mandate is being expanded.

I do not have time to talk about it in detail, but the modernization of the National Research Council is very important too. It is another tool in the tool box that will help us achieve those objectives, which are to seize those opportunities and to join the global march toward a greener economy and a healthier planet.

Clearly, we have made smart investments that are good for Canadian workers, for businesses, for the Canadian economy and for our planet. I hope that all members in the House will join me in supporting the passage of this crucial piece of legislation.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this chamber I served with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. I had the opportunity to work in Pontiac with that organization, and I got to know some of the excellent farmers and rural folks in the member's riding.

I am curious what reaction to the budget the member is seeing from her own agricultural constituents, as 6.8% of Canada's GDP comes from the ag sector. I noticed that she voted against Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for farmers, as did most, but not all, of her colleagues, which I want to acknowledge.

There is almost nothing in this budget for agriculture. What reaction is she getting in her riding from her agricultural constituents?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is very simple: Carbon pricing does not apply to Quebec. I would also add that farmers in my riding are ahead when it comes to many green technologies. They are ahead of the government because farmers live off the land and they see climate change every day. They are concerned and they need new technologies, because the seasons are much more challenging. There are some real concerns in light of extreme climate change.

These farmers are ahead and they are not worried about federal carbon pricing, because it does not apply to them. Quebec has its own carbon pricing, which is quite good and accepted.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She spoke a lot about climate change. It is true that the government is making a lot of direct and indirect investments in the budget to help oil companies greenwash their record. The government is giving them money for carbon capture, a technology that is very controversial in the field. As we have said, there is almost nothing for housing, but the government is giving oil companies money.

Let us talk about oil companies' profits in 2022. Exxon Mobil made $56 billion in profit, Shell made $40 billion, TotalEnergies made $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion and BP made $27 billion. How can the government give money to these oil companies, which made a combined total of $200 billion in 2022, while completely forgetting about the housing crisis?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned housing. Last year's budget earmarked a huge amount of money for housing. That funding is currently being allocated to various programs. Many citizens, committed individuals and leaders in housing are looking at how those amounts can be allocated effectively to create more housing units across Canada.

Amounts were earmarked in last year's budget, and they are being allocated to various programs. It is really a matter of ensuring that those amounts benefit all Canadians.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac for focusing on climate change and what the government will do to combat climate change.

I would like to ask her about the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which is mentioned in the budget. Unfortunately, the budget does not say how much it will invest in that project, and I wonder if she could tell the House what kinds of investments it will make to ensure that this project does indeed go ahead so more communities can reduce their reliance on diesel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, the budget makes significant investments in clean energy. That is really the main point of my speech. Investments are needed in strategic sectors to ensure we have a clean economy, which must also be inclusive and bring prosperity to communities across the country.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a huge privilege to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑47 and discuss the implementation of the budget. I thank my hon. colleague from Pontiac for sharing her time with me this afternoon. I want to present the views of my constituents in Kings—Hants on the budget and speak about certain initiatives that are very important to my riding.

The budget essentially has three major pillars. The first is a focus on affordability. The second is a focus on health care supports for the provinces and territories to help improve health care across the country. The third is the green economy, our clean energy future, and indeed Canada's future prosperity here at home.

Affordability has become a top priority for Canadians across the country as a result of higher inflation following the pandemic. The good news is that inflation declined again this month and is now 4.3%, compared to 8.1% last summer.

I think it is important to recognize the context that this government is faced with. Given the fact the Bank of Canada, through its monetary policy, has been helping to try to bring down the cost of inflation, the government has to be responsible with how it is addressing the question of consumption spending.

When we look at the budget, there is a one-time doubling of the GST rebate, which is being framed by the government as a grocery rebate, and that would be eligible to 11 million Canadians. It has been means tested, which means it is based on income. I certainly support it because it is a targeted measure. It would not necessarily support all Canadians, but those who have lower incomes and could really use support right now, given some of the challenges around affordability. Therefore, it is targeted, focused, and will not necessarily drive inflation higher, given the work the Bank of Canada is doing.

I also want to talk about something that could be framed as a health benefit, but is also an affordability benefit, which is the Canadian dental plan. The government has introduced this, and it is going to help support uninsured Canadians who have a household income below $90,000 with a program to help support their dental costs. We know that, if people do not have access to private insurance, sometimes the costs associated with surgery or fixing one's teeth can be quite expensive, particularly for those who are struggling to get by. This is a measure that is going to make a difference across the country. Indeed, in my riding of Kings—Hants, I have already had calls from families who are in receipt of the benefit that we put out, as a government, for those who are under 12. The government's program is to expand this to seniors next year, and indeed to all households with an income of below $90,000 by 2025.

My riding is still disproportionately older than the rest of the country. We have a lot of good things happening in the riding, but we have a lot of seniors, so for lower-income seniors who do not have dental insurance, this would really make a difference for them.

Let me talk about health care. As a federal member of Parliament, and I would suspect it is probably the same for many of my colleagues, I get calls quite often about health care and the state of health care in this country. I remind my constituents that I do not directly control that, nor does the Government of Canada, but it is our responsibility to make sure that there are proper resources on the table. That is exactly what this budget does. Of course, we knew this was something that had been announced prior to the budget, but there is going to be $198 billion of new spending over the next decade toward health care, above and beyond where we are right now, $46 billion of which was announced as new spending tabled by the government in this budget.

Spending alone will not solve health care, but it was something we were hearing from the provinces and territories. I am proud of the way this government has stepped up to make sure there is consistent funding over the next decade and of the fact that we know it is in place and that the provinces can take that measure and plan accordingly.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, the provincial government has staked a lot of its credibility on “fixing health care”. It will certainly have no excuses from this government because we are making sure that those resources are there. It is now its turn to get focused on the ground at being able to deliver that. That is something I am proud of.

We will continue to make sure the provinces are using the funds reasonably and make sure they are going toward health care. As we have heard before, sometimes the Government of Canada will provide transfers to the provinces and they will use them for other priorities. This government is making sure the money is going to be spent exactly where it should be, which is on health care.

I also want to highlight that the budget talks about loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses. Something the government had in place previously was loan forgiveness for doctors who practise in rural areas. We know the importance of doctors, but we also know the importance of allied health professionals. This government is extending this to nurses who practise in rural Canada. Certainly in my area of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia, this is going to be very welcome news.

This government is addressing the clean energy economy, the third pillar. We have talked about health, we have talked about affordability and next is about matching what the United States has done. A lot of members have talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a significant amount of money that the United States put on the table to help drive spending in the clean energy economy.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that this government has had a number of measures on the table for years, but the size of the American investment, nearly $400 billion U.S., is significant. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible for this government not to have some measures to make sure we responded in a way that draws capital and investment to this country and does not allow investment to simply go south of the border.

A number of measures are important, and I want to highlight a few that I think are particularly important to Atlantic Canada. One is the 15% refundable tax credit for clean electricity. This will matter across the country, and I want to give credit to the Minister of Finance. As opposed to putting these types of incentives in government programs that entities have to apply for, we are setting the criteria, saying what people can expect. The money will flow much quicker and will allow businesses to have certainty to make investments. This will matter for entities across the country but particularly in my province, which needs to keep driving its electricity future in a renewable way.

I have talked a lot about nuclear in this House. Really important measures for nuclear are being included in these measures. This is something we have heard from all sides of the House, largely, and I want to compliment those who have raised these issues in the House, because this government, in this budget, is doing exactly that and making sure we have homegrown solutions that can make a difference.

On clean hydrogen, we have a world of opportunity in Atlantic Canada. Members should come visit us sometime. We would love to showcase the investments and that we have the ability to help fuel the world right from Atlantic Canada. It is going to be through clean hydrogen. This government is putting incentives on the table to make sure it happens in Atlantic Canada and not another part of the country.

I have talked at great length in this House over the last year about the importance of the Atlantic loop. There is again a mention of that in the budget. I know there is ongoing co-operation between the Government of Canada and various provincial entities. We need to keep driving that project forward.

In Kings—Hants, agriculture and forestry are predominant industries at the primary level. I was very pleased to see investments of $368 million to the Department of Natural Resources for forestry initiatives. We need to see at least some of that go toward mass timber. There is an opportunity in Atlantic Canada, and indeed in Kings—Hants, for a mass timber facility. The Atlantic region is the only region of the country that does not yet have that. This matters, and I really hope we can see those projects move in the days ahead.

On the agriculture side, the advance payments program, with the continuation of interest-free loans, is going to make a difference for my farmers. I was pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture help ensure that foot-and-mouth disease vaccines will be available in this country. We have available stock. There is also the dairy innovation and investment fund. Given that I have the largest number of supply-managed farms east of Quebec, this is going to matter to my farmers in the days ahead.

One thing that I think this government needs to address would simply be the importance of continuing to drive a mechanism around non-cost measures. It is important that we invest. The government is doing so, but it is also important that we look at regulatory reform measures that do not cost money and that can help drive industry success. I hope to see a formal mechanism as we head into the fall.

I see my time has unfortunately come to a close, but I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reviewed the budget and identified close to $800 million in what the government is calling non-announced spending. This would be in addition to the billions of dollars in non-announced spending announced last year.

I am wondering if the member could tell us what this spending would be for.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member would probably be best suited to ask that question of the Minister of Finance. Yes, I sit on this side of the House, but I am not a member of the King's Privy Council.

I will say that, as per normal, the government will outline expenditures in certain areas where it looks to take up programs. The budget is not a complete view of every single program the government will release over the next calendar year. Sometimes it is an outlay of money whereby the government will build a model and program that will help service Canadians in the days ahead. That might be some of what the member is talking about regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If he would like to have a conversation after our interaction, I would be happy to take on his concerns and do what I can to engage my colleagues on this side.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague across the way to tell us more about the Royal Style and Titles Act, which the budget plans to amend.

Over the weekend, a survey showed that over 60% of Canadians want to cut ties with the British monarchy. We also saw a news report informing us that the King of England is living in luxury off a tax-exempt fortune of over $3 billion.

Meanwhile, here at home, the budget has next to nothing for seniors or housing. Health transfers are practically non-existent, or are whittled down to the bare bones.

Can my colleague tell me how to explain to our constituents why the budget is focusing so much attention on the King of England while totally ignoring our problems at home?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me first address some of the questions.

There is $46 billion in domestic spending for health care. There has been 70 billion dollars' worth of housing spending. Part of the reason why we did not see major expenditures is money is still getting out the door to help support Quebeckers and indeed those across the country.

I will address the member's question. He is framing this as about the King of England. It is about Canada's constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, and that includes the indigenous people in this country. The treaties we have forged with indigenous people tie back to the British Crown. Our history as a country is rooted in the relationship we have with the British monarchy. It is ceremonial in nature. We certainly have the integrity to make our own decisions in this country.

I support the relationship we have, because the question becomes how we create a different system in the days ahead. That comes with its own Pandora's box of issues. The member opposite is a sovereigntist, and he would like to see Quebec removed from the federation. I want to see Canada united. I think there is a pathway where we can recognize everyone's distinct differences across the country while recognizing that Canada's shared history ties back to the British Crown.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about specific aspects of the budget that tie back into helping rural and remote communities attract doctors and nurses by extending an offer to lessen debt for nurses. I appreciate that.

I come from a riding with communities like Port Hardy, which, an article just came out saying, is again going to have to shut down the emergency room during the day. Right now, the emergency room is open only during the day, not during the evening or the night. People have to leave their community and drive far away to get emergency services. It is the same on Cormorant Island.

Does the member think it would be important for the government to step up and make sure there are ties to small, rural communities struggling in this country in terms of health care, to get them a bit extra to get through this time? I know that, in B.C., the provincial government has stepped up, but it needs more resources to address this huge crisis.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the nature of the question. However, as it relates to whether a hospital emergency room is going to be open or not, it largely ties back to the decision of health authorities at a provincial level.

I appreciate that the member opposite said that requires more resources. I think it requires both more resources and an allocation of said resources in the province. We are doing our part, on the federal side, to make sure there is stable funding provided to the provinces. In fact, Premier Eby has recognized and endorsed the health deal the Government of Canada has put on the table.

As it relates to the member's rural communities, which I sympathize with, I hope she will take up with the provincial government what it is doing to make sure there are proper resources to service rural communities, because it is an important question.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak to the implementation of the budget. It is an incredible honour for me, as well, to be splitting my time with the great member for Edmonton Manning, who is a very valuable colleague. I am really looking forward to hearing what he has to say later. However, before that, members have to endure 10 minutes of my speaking.

It might not come as any surprise, based on the debate we have had over the last couple of weeks, but Conservatives have not supported and will not be supporting the implementation of this budget, mainly for three reasons. We laid out key priorities that we wanted to see in this budget ahead of time and they really were not met.

This budget would add billions of dollars in debt, with no plan to get back to balance. The Prime Minister has already added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined in this country and there is no plan to get to balance. That is the part that really worries me. Not only would this spending add fuel to the inflationary fire and increase the cost of living, but it would also threaten the sustainability of our public services for future generations. Each dollar we have to spend servicing debt is a dollar we cannot be spending on other services. That is something we all have to keep in mind, moving forward, and the government should keep in mind that, when it racks up billions of dollars in debt, it is threatening our social services for future generations. This budget would also raise taxes. As I just alluded to, we know there is a cost of living crisis with inflation. The government has chosen, once again, to raise taxes for Canadians further and there is truly no plan to build homes and get affordable units built.

For those three main reasons, Conservatives voted against the budget, and I have every expectation that, moving forward, we will be voting against the implementation of this budget.

I want to take a step back and talk about another major issues that I feel is neglected in this budget. That is about community safety. We have seen concerns with community safety around the region in northwestern Ontario in communities like Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout. Policing calls for services have been up, as have, of course, the costs that go with this, to the point where municipalities are struggling and trying to figure out how they are going to be able to deal with those costs. We have seen assaults, slashed tires, vehicle break-ins and things like needles being found around the community, all happening with greater frequency around the area.

As I mentioned, we are seeing this right across northwestern Ontario, but there has been a certain amount of media coverage specifically around the city of Kenora. It is the largest community in the riding, so a lot of the notes I will refer to will mention Kenora specifically, but I would like members to keep in mind that it is something that is not unique to the city of Kenora but is right across northwestern Ontario.

We have seen articles with headlines such as “Kenora assault leaves one with life threatening injuries”, from March. The Kenora OPP has recently released figures showing that property crime has actually increased 10% year over year. It is now at the point where local professionals and business owners are scared to go to work. When I go door knocking and talk to people around the community, many residents tell me they are afraid to go downtown and certainly would not go downtown in the evening or at night. That is incredibly sad on a number of levels. Kenora is one of the smallest cities in Ontario. It has 15,000 people. We did not even lock our doors when we were growing up. It is really one of those tight-knit, small-town communities and people are now scared to go downtown. Many businesses have been locking their doors during operating hours; people have to ring the doorbell in order to gain access.

It brings up the question of what is driving all of this. Why are we seeing this increase in crime, and why are people feeling less safe? There is certainly no single answer and there is no single solution, but one of the issues we are seeing in Kenora and in the other communities of our riding is that, unfortunately, there are many homeless residents. Many of these individuals are struggling with their mental health and with addiction challenges, and they do not have proper supports around them. There is great work being done by people like Dr. Jonny Grek, who has been going around providing treatment to homeless residents on the street. I had the opportunity very recently to join him for a walk to see what he does.

There are other organizations, like Ne-Chee Friendship Centre; the Makwa Patrol, also known as the Bear Clan Patrol in other areas of the country; and the Morningstar Detoxification Centre. These are all incredible organizations with great people doing great work to help those who are vulnerable and those who are struggling. However, it is an indisputable fact that the current systems just cannot deal with the magnitude of the issue before us right now. This is truly a crisis.

Coupled with the addiction concern, there has been an increase in HIV. In 2022, there were more HIV cases in Kenora than in the previous eight years combined. Overdose deaths have increased 82%, year over year, and northwestern Ontario now has the highest per capita overdose mortality rate in the province of Ontario.

On housing, and I mentioned that this issue is coupled with housing, the KDSB, the Kenora District Services Board, for those who do not know, estimates that there are 100 homeless residents in the small community of Kenora. There are more than 1,300 households on an affordable housing wait-list; that is an increase of nearly 1,000 households from just nine years ago, to paint the picture of the broader housing issue we are seeing across the region.

This budget does mention housing a bit. It does mention treatment and recovery, but on treatment and recovery specifically, it is light on details. Given the fact that this issue has been spiralling for the last eight years and that there have not been proper supports put in place, I know that a lot of people in the Kenora district and northwestern Ontario, myself included, really do not feel the government will step up to meet this challenge.

On the other hand, Conservatives support policies that get people into recovery instead of spending a night in a cell, only to be released and continue that cycle over and over again. I have seen that far too often. I have done a few ride-alongs and have been able to go around the community, not just in Kenora but also in Pickle Lake, Dryden and others. I have seen people who have asked to be arrested so that they have somewhere to stay. I have heard of people who have chosen to commit a crime so that, if they do not have proper supports around them, they know they will have a few nights of somewhere to stay where they will have a bed and a meal.

Conservatives support treatment and recovery options. That includes giving Correctional Services power to designate all or part of a penitentiary as a treatment facility. We also support greater consequences for repeat violent offenders and for the drug dealers who are preying on these vulnerable people with addictions. We want to see greater consequences for those individuals, but, unfortunately, violent crime was not mentioned even once in this budget. Overall, those solutions, addictions treatment and recovery, are what I feel is missing from this budget and it is what Conservatives will certainly be focusing on over the next number of months and into the term in which we form government.

As I mentioned, there is no silver-bullet solution to this, but it would certainly help to address the crisis that we are seeing on the streets of Kenora, of Dryden and of Sioux Lookout, to help ensure that everyone in our community is safe, from the vulnerable residents, the homeless population, to the business owners and professionals and the visitors. Kenora sits on the beautiful Lake of the Woods in northwestern Ontario and it is an incredibly popular tourist spot each summer. We want to make sure that everyone in our community is safe.

This budget does not get it done, but Conservatives will.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the hon. member repeat what I have heard a number of Conservatives repeat, which is, apparently, that they had three demands of things to be seen in the budget before they would agree to vote in favour of the budget. This member mentioned it. A number of Conservative members prior have mentioned it.

The only problem with that is that, the day before the budget was introduced, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Thornhill, during question period, said that Conservatives would not be supporting the budget. Nobody knew what was in the budget at that point. As a matter of fact, it is against the rules of the House for anybody to have known that, yet, somehow, the member for Thornhill, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, knew enough to know that those three items would not be in the budget.

This just leads me to assume that, really, Conservatives are just playing games with words here. They never intended to support the budget, regardless of their demands. I am wondering if the member can provide some insight into that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not heard from my colleague in a while in this chamber, so I appreciate his intervention.

The question gives me the opportunity to highlight the fact that the three demands we had were not met. We asked for a cap on government spending to help rein in inflation, and the government is adding billions of dollars in debt. We asked for taxes to be lowered on Canadians, and the government is raising taxes. We asked for a plan to get homes built by speeding up building permits and looking at ways to free up land and federal buildings for development, and that is not in this budget. That is why we are not supporting it.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a little bit about housing, and I thank him for that, because it is a pretty important topic.

Unfortunately, when we listen to the Conservatives, it is not really clear what their solutions are and what they are going to do about it.

The Liberals are terrible, and they are getting nowhere. My colleague bragged earlier about $70 billion in investments over the last five years. In the last five years, 35,000 new social housing units have been built in Canada through this strategy. I have no idea where the billions of dollars went. According to studies by CIBC and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, Canada needs to build 3.5 million units in the next 10 years if we are going to address the twin issues of affordability and accessibility.

If we want to help those most in need in this country, the government needs to intervene and be more effective. What are the Conservative Party's solutions?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question gives me a chance to reiterate what I just said to the member for Kingston and the Islands around housing. What Conservatives are calling for, and what we will do when we form government, is to implement a plan to speed up building permits. We need to make sure it is possible to build things in this country again. We need to create those incentives so developers will be able to and will want to build the housing units we so desperately need. We also want to lean on the resources the federal government has, the land and the buildings that are being underutilized, so we can turn that into affordable housing units.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke in his speech about the overdose drug crisis in this country. In 2010, I was part of the public safety committee that toured this country and studied the provision of mental health and addiction services in Canada's federal prison system. At that time, we came out with a number of recommendations to the Harper government, which included a number of positive things, none of which were brought in by the Harper government. Instead, the Harper government closed the Kingston farms, closed industrial training programs for prisoners and did not implement a single harm reduction measure in Canada's federal prison system.

It appears the modern Conservative Party has had a conversion on the road to Damascus and is now talking about progressive policy. Does the member agree with the NDP that it is time we gave access to timely treatment for anybody who wants treatment for substance abuse or addiction through Canada's public health care system? Does he agree that addiction is a health issue and it warrants access to treatment through our public health care system, like every other disease and affliction?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed by the NPD's focus on a prime minister who has not been in office in eight years. The Harper government was elected and lost power from office before I was even able to vote, so it is incredible that the NDP is so focused on the past instead of holding the current government to account.

To the specific question, which is an important one, I do not have time to—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, economists are telling us that Canada is on the brink of a recession, and the response of the Liberal government is to offer us a grim budget. Not only is it grim in the dictionary sense of being depressing or worrying to consider, but it is also Grimm as if it were written by the Grimm brothers. In other words, the finance minister has offered us a complete fairy tale.

The minister thinks she is playing the role of Snow White, with her cabinet colleagues as the seven dwarfs. Of course, that would leave the Prime Minister the role of Prince Charming. However, the Disney version is not the original story. In the Grimm original version of “Snow White”, the one Canadians will experience with this budget, the Minister of Finance would be the evil queen, and her budget the poisoned apple. Only by removing the apple from Show White's throat can she be saved, and only by defeating this budget can Canada's economy be saved from this Liberal disaster.

Perhaps the finance minister has a starring role in another of the Grimm brothers' fairy tales: “Cinderella”. After all, she just bought some new glass slippers before presenting her budget. The minister wants Canadians to believe that she is the fairy godmother, handing out cheques from the government. Who could argue with the idea of free money, even if it causes more inflation? However, the money is not really free. Cinderella may spend, spend and spend, never worrying that the clock is about to strike midnight, but midnight is coming and she will have to face the reality. Her beautiful horses are really mice, and when the clock strikes 12, we will discover just how big a pumpkin she has stuck the Canadian people with.

This type of fairy tale is not a new thing for this government. After eight years, we should be used to the fantasies spun by the Liberal storytellers, by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. From the beginning, they have shown their inability to understand basic mathematics.

In 2015, the Liberal leader promised Canadians that if he formed government, he would balance the budget by 2019. Does anyone on the other side remember that promise? After eight years, he has not even come close to balancing the budget. Instead, he just piles on more and more debt with government spending that drives up the price of groceries and everything else. He thinks people should be grateful to him for breaking his promises, because his government, as he says, will always have Canadians' backs, which is easy for him to say since we have already had to give him the shirts off our backs to pay for his high prices and high taxes.

The Minister of Finance has learned from the Prime Minister. She has not promised us a balanced budget. Given the Liberal track record, I am not sure she knows what a balanced budget is. It may be because there was one thing missing from this budget, one small spending item that would have made a big difference if purchased and used: a dictionary. If the Liberals owned a dictionary, the finance minister might discover that the definition of “fiscal restraint” is not “spend the country into recession”. Fiscal restraint is not telling Canadians in the fall of 2022 that the government expects to run a $30-billion deficit, and then adding an addition $10 billion a few months later. Can the minister be so unaware of the true numbers, or was she intentionally misleading Canadians?

After eight years of this government, the deficits get higher, the national debt grows and our grandchildren will still be stuck with paying for Liberal extravagance. Rather than handing out cheques to Canadians struggling to feed their families due to high grocery prices, why does this government not actually do something about inflation, rather than making things worse? Is it because it does not have a clue how the economy works?

The government can be counted on to always say the right thing, but its actions speak louder than words. Simply put, it does not walk the talk.

A government that broke its promises about balancing the budget and that has steadily increased the deficit and national debt and fuelled record inflation should not be entrusted with the finances of the nation. Then again, the Liberals spent $6,000 a night on a hotel room for the Prime Minister, complete with butler service. Perhaps the Liberals do understand the financial challenges faced by ordinary Canadians and instead just do not care.

I am not the only one who has noticed that the budget presented to us by the finance minister is a fairy tale. According to The Globe and Mail, this budget “is all a fiscal fantasy: the Liberal budget is built on a cloud of sleight-of-hand projections and the hope that Canadians are suffering from collective amnesia.” If finance minister Cinderella really wants to help Canadians, and I believe she does, she needs to abandon this reckless spending program that she described as “fiscal restraint”. She needs to recognize that people are suffering and she can act to make things better.

First, she needs to lower taxes and scrap the carbon tax so that hard work will pay off again. The grocery tax rebate she is offering does not make up for the increases in payroll taxes and the carbon tax. Her policies are fuelling inflation and making people poorer, which is why one in five Canadians is skipping meals and food banks are seeing record demand. Second, she needs to get government spending under control. The Prime Minister has added more to our national debt than all prime ministers in our history.

The finance minister says that she will balance the budget in 2028, but she has no plan. Continued inflationary deficits are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. The finance minister's plan to balance the budget is probably the same one her predecessor used: keep on spending with even greater deficits and pretend that the budget will somehow magically balance itself in a few years. After all, we are living in a Liberal fairy tale where such things can happen, except they do not happen. As the government has never managed to meet a self-imposed climate change target, so too has it continuously failed to show any signs of fiscal restraint or fiscal responsibility. It is as if the minister knows the government is doomed so she does not have to worry about it or about balancing the budget. Instead, eliminating the national debt will be someone else's problem.

When the Prime Minister was staying in that $6,000-a-night hotel suite, he went down to the hotel lobby one evening for a sing-along. Perhaps the Minister of Finance should take note of the words of the song he sang:

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landside
No escape from reality

For the Canadian people, this is indeed real life, caught in a landslide of a fantasy budget. For them, there is indeed no escape from reality. I urge the Minister of Finance to learn from the fairy tales and drop her starring role in them. The fiscal clock is about to strike midnight, and it is time for Cinderella to face reality.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, speaking of fairy tales, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. The real fairy tale, however, is that it has been more than two weeks since we tabled our fine budget, which is a responsible budget for the economy, the future and our children.

I would ask my colleague what fairy tale he is referring to, since he has not asked a single question about the budget in two weeks. He is asking personal questions about the Prime Minister, but he has nothing to say about the budget.

If his party has concerns about the budget, would it not be appropriate to ask questions about it in question period?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was still on the definition issue with the government, and there is nothing in the budget to ask for. The budget is more spending, more inflation, no responsibility and no going back to balanced. What is there to ask for in the budget other than more bad news for Canadians? The government is looking for more and higher taxes, more spending and a more uncertain future.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been touring Quebec recently, travelling all over the place to talk about the housing crisis, because I think it is a very serious issue. I have heard from a lot of people.

In Joliette, for example, an adult living with an intellectual disability found himself on the street, homeless, in other words, and he ended up committing suicide. There was nothing in the budget to help someone like him. I heard about a woman in Trois-Rivières who is a victim of domestic violence and is now living in her car with her two children. There was nothing in the budget to help her. I heard about a family of 17 people in Longueuil living in a three-bedroom apartment. There was nothing in the budget to help those folks.

Does my colleague have any solutions for the issues I just raised and the people I just talked about?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, the housing crisis is a devastating situation, and it is heartbreaking to see a lot of Canadians who cannot find houses. Furthermore, our young generations do not even dream of owning or buying a house in the future. The proposed budget would not address any of that. The government is dominated by the idea of spending so much and achieving so little, and that is the problem we are facing right now.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rather enjoy the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. I appreciate his wisdom. He often comes with some really insightful information for the House. He spoke today about a fantasyland. I feel like I am in a fantasyland because it seems that the Conservatives' only solution to housing is to supersede provincial jurisdiction and have the federal government, if I am getting this correctly, intervene in local planning decision-making.

In this new fantasyland from the party of Wexit, Alberta sovereignty and the Buffalo declaration, where does the federal government take over municipal decision-making and start eliminating the gatekeepers at local planning meetings?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is another fantasy world. It is the planet the NDP is living on right now. That is the bottom line. We are trying to remove gatekeepers and streamline the system. We are trying to help provinces by offering real help, not just a bunch of spending that would achieve nothing. That is the plan. It is a logical plan that makes sense.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the budget contains much inflationary pressure. There is $15 billion for an infrastructure bank that never built a project and another $15 billion for a slush fund in the Canada growth fund with no details on what that is about. Although there is such an crisis in affordable housing, as there is in my riding, the budget has $5.5 billion dollars to build only 4,500 spaces and remove barriers to building maybe another 100,000. That is a huge gap, and it is another inflationary pressure.

Could the member comment on that?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, that goes back to the same idea we noticed here. The government spends too much and achieves too little. If this continues to be the case, there is no hope that we will see any actual results.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about our budget. As the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Development, I am pleased to talk about its impact on rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This budget is based on our plan to grow our economy, fight climate change and continue to make life more affordable for Canadians in every community. The previous Conservative government cut the rural secretariat; by contrast, our Liberal government appointed the first federal minister of rural economic development to ensure that federal programs are adapted to the unique realities and needs of rural communities and allow those communities to finally have a dedicated voice at the cabinet table.

Our government recognizes that rural communities are the cornerstone of our economy. When rural Canada succeeds, the rest of Canada is stronger for it. The Minister of Rural Economic Development and I have travelled across the country to remote and indigenous rural communities and they shared their priorities with us directly. They also talked about how we can work together to ensure that every community has what it needs to prosper.

From what we heard, the top priority of rural communities is to close the connectivity gap to ensure that every Canadian has access to reliable, affordable high-speed Internet no matter where they live. We are making this happen.

Since 2015, our government has made $7.6 billion available for expanding access to this essential service. The universal broadband fund, with its budget of more than $3.2 billion, is the largest federal investment in broadband in Canada's history. That is 10 times the investments of all the previous governments combined. We have consistently increased funding for the fund to ensure that we are on the right track to exceed our objective of connecting 98% of Canadians by 2026 and 100% of Canadians by 2030.

Last fall, we added $485 million to the fund to continue our work. I want to point out that the Conservative Party voted against those essential investments every chance it got. Those significant investments helped compensate for the previous Conservative government's 10 years of inaction. In 2014, only 79% of Canadians had access to high-speed Internet, while today 93.5% of them do. That is real progress.

Since the fund was launched, over $2.2 billion in funding has been announced for 260 projects and six federal-provincial funding arrangements. The money announced will make it possible for over 950,000 households, including over 29,000 indigenous households, to get affordable and reliable high-speed Internet access. The universal broadband fund has already helped provide high-speed Internet access to over 200,000 underserved households across the country, and 80,000 additional households should have improved access by the end of the year.

In Quebec, almost 100% of households are covered by projects that will get them connected to high-speed Internet. That would not have been possible without the investments that we made and our partnership with the provincial government. The fund makes it possible to offer access to reliable high-speed Internet at an affordable price. Affordability is an issue that is of concern to many Canadians living in rural areas.

Despite the progress made on connectivity and rebuilding our economy following the pandemic, global inflation means that many Canadians are still finding it hard to put food on the table. That is why the 2023 budget includes new targeted supports for the most vulnerable Canadians to help them with the cost of living while working to build the economy of tomorrow, an economy that benefits all Canadians and gives them the means to prosper.

I would like to focus on one of these affordability measures, the new grocery rebate. We know that staples are more expensive today, especially in rural areas where the cost of living is higher. These higher prices are a source of great stress for families. That is why we are proposing $2.5 billion to lessen the effects of inflation in a targeted manner for 11 million low-income families. On average, a couple with two children will qualify for up to $467 more, single Canadians without children will receive up to $234 and seniors will receive up to $225 more. We have shown that, as a government, we are there for Canadians when they need us, as is the case with the Canada child benefit. This measure will put more money in the pockets of Canadian families and seniors who need it most.

Investments in budget 2023 will strengthen Canada's health care system, allocating $198.3 billion for reducing backlogs, expanding access to family health services and ensuring that the provinces and territories can provide the top-quality health care that Canadians deserve. The budget also introduces a new Canadian dental care program that will benefit up to nine million Canadians. This program will guarantee that no Canadian family will have to choose between dental care and paying bills at the end of the month. These investments will bring real changes to the daily lives of Canadians in rural regions. Parents should not have to worry about the cost of their child's dental checkup. Seniors should be able to consult a doctor without having to worry about travelling too far because there are no doctors in their community.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges to speak to budget 2023, “A Made-in-Canada Plan”, tabled by the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

This budget reflects the global challenges we are facing as Canadians. It is a prudent, responsible and considered budget.

We must invest in the future of this incredible country that we are fortunate to call home and in the well-being of individuals, workers and families. We must invest in the green transition and in the cleaner and more prosperous economy of the future.

For the members of my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and for individuals and families across Canada, this budget is the next step towards a better future in which more Canadians will be able to find meaningful employment and live in an environment with better protection that will be enjoyed by future generations.

It comes at a time when the strength, resilience and perseverance of Canadians are once again on full display, because even with the immense challenges we have experienced over recent years, business owners and entrepreneurs have created over 865,000 more jobs for Canadians. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio remains the best of all G7 member countries, and the Bank of Canada has projected that Canada's inflation rate should drop below 3% by the end of the year. Even while the economy has grown, Canada's annual report on emissions shows an 8.4% reduction in emissions since 2005. This is proof that, by working together, we as Canadians can meet any challenge we face, and through smart policies implemented over the last seven years, the Government of Canada can be there to support Canadians along the way.

In my remarks today, I would like to speak to three main components of this budget that would continue to respond to the needs of Canadians and build a better, stronger Canada: first, the strengthening of Canada's national health care system and the expansion of the national dental care; second, a grocery rebate for Canadians when they need it most; and finally, the unprecedented investment toward building a greener economy.

First, budget 2023 would address one of the biggest challenges we face as a nation and one that has been highlighted by the pandemic: the need to strengthen and renew our universal public health care system. That is why budget 2023 would commit Canada to delivering $198.3 billion to reduce backlogs, expand access to family health services and ensure that provinces and territories can provide quality health care to Canadians while also ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

Budget 2023 would also provide the funding necessary to deliver on our promise to expand national dental care, an investment that would ensure that up to nine million Canadians who need it most will receive the dental care they need. In 2021, I had the honour of meeting several incredible volunteer dental hygienists in the city of Pincourt, in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, where they were holding one of their mobile clinics offering free preventative oral care. They highlighted the necessity of greater access to dental care for Canadians and stressed that, by bolstering preventative oral care, Canada could reduce avoidable health care costs at our hospitals. This sentiment was one shared by members of my seniors committee, who spoke to their experiences and those of their loved ones who have had limited access to dental care due to budget constraints. It is also what I have heard time and again from struggling parents in my community who have no dental coverage through work, and whose children have had to wait years between visits to the dentist, if they have ever gone at all.

This budget would ensure that, by the end of 2023, dental care would be available for seniors, youth under the age of 18 and Canadians with disabilities with household incomes below $90,000. This budget says, loud and clear, that when a child smiles in my community or any community represented by any member of the House, it is no longer acceptable to be able to gauge the income of parents based on the smile of their child.

The new grocery rebate is another key component of the budget that will make food bills more affordable. Over the past year, food prices have skyrocketed around the world, and Canada is no exception.

As a result, families have no other choice but to spend more on groceries every week. To help them, and to help 11 million families across Canada, we will be giving eligible couples with two children up to $467 more, single Canadians with no children up to $234 more, and seniors up to $225 more, on average. This is a $2.5-billion investment in Canadians’ well-being that will be appreciated by seniors, parents and workers in my community, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who need it the most.

The third component I would like to address is the ongoing commitment in the budget to build a green and prosperous Canadian economy for the future. In my community, we will support not only a prosperous economy, but also a healthy environment. In Vaudreuil—Soulanges, we are blessed with magnificent landscapes and the daily benefits of our environmental wealth. A great many collective memories in our community are forged in the nature that surrounds us, as we enjoy snowshoeing on the trails in Saint-Lazare, kayaking in Vaudreuil-Dorion Bay, hiking on Mont Rigaud, cycling on the Soulanges Canal, or even picnicking at Pointe-du-Moulin in Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot.

I am extremely proud of the work we have done to enhance our environmental protection measures and of our government’s ongoing efforts to fight climate change. The 2023 budget delivers on our promise to Canadians to build a greener Canada and makes great strides in the fight against climate change.

We are tackling climate change with a three-pronged approach: a prosperous energy sector, clean electricity and a clean economy. Overall, we allocated $88 billion in new investments between now and 2035. This means more money for greener electricity and associated infrastructure in order to create an affordable, sustainable and reliable Canada-wide electrical grid, increase battery manufacturing, reduce taxes for the manufacturing of zero-emission technologies, and provide more support for workers in the clean economy sector.

The results of these investments are already being felt. Recent reports show that Canada has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.4% over 2005.

Finally, I would like to speak to a specific component of this budget to help Canadians reduce waste and save money.

More electronic devices in our society means more chargers of all shapes and sizes piling up in our homes and our offices, burdening all Canadians with additional costs and contributing to thousands of tonnes of electronic waste every year . This January, I launched a campaign within my Liberal caucus to have Canada commit to joining the European Union in mandating USB-C universal charging by 2024. After productive discussions with the Minister of Finance and her team, securing the support of the Prime Minister and Liberal caucus members, I was truly happy to see that budget 2023 would commit Canada to working with partners and stakeholders to explore implementing a standard charging port in Canada for small electronic devices and laptops as well.

Adding to the success already realized through the government's ban on select single-use plastics, the implementation of universal chargers in Canada would be a practical way to not only reduce waste but also keep more money in the pockets of Canadians. I look forward to helping this move forward in the months and years ahead.

For these reasons and many more, and on behalf of the community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, I fully support passing the 2023 budget in the House. I will be voting in favour of this budget, and I hope that my colleagues from all parties will also voice their support.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to learn who this budget was meant for. Now I understand that it was meant for the citizens of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. I am happy to have heard my colleague’s speech.

I invite the citizens of Vaudreuil—Soulanges to read the budget carefully and consider what the government means when it speaks of the environment, because the Liberals are still in favour of carbon capture and storage as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With regard to dental care, I also invite my colleague’s constituents to note that there is already a dental program in Quebec.

The question I would like to ask my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges concerns the Liberals’ commitment to make federal services more efficient. In 2022, money was set aside for this in the budget. This year, the Liberals committed to improving federal services and making them more efficient.

I would like to know how that is going so far.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House and to my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges that I will be giving them the opportunity to ask a few questions. I will be holding a town hall with my constituents in the coming weeks here in Ottawa, virtually and in my community.

I look forward to answering their questions in person and explaining how the 2023 budget will help them and their families in the years ahead.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked quite a bit about affordability and its importance in his speech, but the budget really does the opposite of addressing affordability. It adds billions of dollars of debt, which is going to drive up inflation. It adds new taxes, especially the carbon tax, which is going to make the costs of gas, groceries and home heating more expensive.

My question for the member opposite is simply this: If he is so concerned about affordability, why does the budget make life more unaffordable for Canadians?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I will say is that we differ on the definition of affordability. On this side of the House, we like to provide more support for Canadians when they need it the most. On that side of the House, they like to vote against all the measures we are putting in place, including the Canada child benefit and child care.

In the budget, we put money toward helping Canadians pay for grocery bills, which the Conservatives are voting against. We have money for dental care, which will put hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars, back in the pockets of seniors, youth under the age of 18 and those with disabilities. The Conservatives are voting against it.

We have a different understanding of what affordability is, and it is a shame that the other party will be voting against all these measures.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats have spent a lot of time working with energy workers and those who are trying to see a move toward a clean-tech economy. We have heard a lot of promises in the budget, but I cannot go back to workers in Windsor or Fort Mac without a legislative framework and tell them to trust the government. A legislative framework is needed.

They are talking about a sustainable job secretariat. Where is it? When they talk about a sustainable jobs partnership council, is this going to be legislated? I cannot go back to workers and say, “Hey, trust 'em. It's going to happen somehow. It's somewhere in the budget.”

Will the government commit to putting those key elements into legislation with rights for workers to guarantee that we move toward a clean-tech economy with well-paying union jobs?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know this is an issue that is extremely important to my colleague. It is one that is important to me. I spent 10 years in the environmental field prior to entering politics. For me, the proof is in the pudding.

We have been fighting for record investments in transitioning towards a green economy. This budget alone commits $88 billion to make that happen. It means more charging stations across the country. It means continuing to fund the subsidies, the incentives to buy electric vehicles. It means investments of $13 billion in bringing the factories that are going to produce the next-generation batteries for electric vehicles to Canada.

This is what we have been waiting for as environmentalists, as people who have been fighting for this for decades. It is finally here. It is paying off, and we are going to continue to invest in a transition towards a greener economy.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, I would put forward that what we have been waiting for as environmentalists is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I respect what this member has done before being elected and while elected to work toward that. However, there are still four new subsidies in the midst of a climate crisis, totalling over $3.3 billion in this budget.

What is he going to do to put pressure to put an end to that?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his commitment and dedication to the environment even prior to entering politics.

I would say that this budget continues along our promise to reduce our subsidies to the fossil fuel sector by 2025. It is a commitment that we made. It is one that I will be pushing for continuously behind the scenes, with many members of our caucus, to ensure that we meet this promise. I too want to be able to look my constituents in the eye and say that we kept that promise.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from Calgary Midnapore.

It is always an honour to rise in this place. Today, I speak in response to another Liberal budget failure. Budget 2023 and the budget implementation bill do not work for the people who do the work. More will be spent, but Canadians will actually get less. During a time when Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, the finance minister and the Prime Minister just made things a lot worse. I will explain how that came about.

Conservatives had these three clear demands for the budget: lowering taxes on workers, including scrapping the carbon tax; ending the inflationary deficits and wasteful spending that is creating the cost of living crisis, plus driving up inflation; and building more affordable homes for Canadians. In other words, Canadians believe that Canada should work for the people who have done the work.

However, the budget meets none of our demands. Instead, what the finance minister and the Prime Minister presented were more Liberal tax hikes, more deficits and more inflationary spending. The budget includes billions of dollars of new inflationary debt and taxes.

I surveyed individuals, businesses and municipalities in my riding to better understand how the cost of living crisis has been impacting them financially. Seventy per cent of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner residents who participated in the survey do not believe that Canada's economic situation will improve in 2023. In fact, 70% of respondents expect that their personal financial situation will be the same as or worse than it was in 2022. Overall, they have no faith in the Liberal government's ability to offer hope for their financial stability or future prosperity.

Maybe this is why: In budget 2023, tax revenue has increased a whopping 92% from 2015 and now sits at $261 billion more than the last time Conservatives put forward a budget. It is no wonder taxes are so high. Spending is up to $456 billion from $280 billion in 2015. That is a 63% increase in just seven years. Low-income and working-class people will suffer the most because of the Liberal deficits and inflation. In fact, this budget will add about $4,200 per family in new government spending, with taxpayers left holding the bag.

While we are on the topic of bags Canadians cannot afford to be holding, we can talk about grocery bags. The wasteful spending of the Liberals has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. Their so-called grocery rebate is actually a GST rebate. It is really just lipstick on a pig. It will provide a meagre $234 for a single adult and $467 for a family. This does little to cover the rising cost of food that the Liberals' own inflationary deficits and wasteful spending have helped to create.

What is worse is that the Liberals think that they are helping, but as we all know, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will actually spend nearly $1,100 more on food this year alone. Anyone who has been to a grocery store lately will know that this is not even the worst of it. The small one-time Liberal payoff is lost in the inflation and ever-increasing carbon tax.

Speaking of taxes, the Liberals raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses in January of this year. A worker making about $66,000 a year will be forced to pay an extra $255 to the mandatory Canada pension plan and an extra $50 for employment insurance tax. That is a $305 increase per worker, meaning that, in a family with two working parents, the parents will be required to spend over $600 in new taxes right off the top of their paycheques. There is also a cost per business. With so many new taxes and existing tax increases, 86% of the people in my riding believe this will make life much more difficult.

That leads me to the carbon tax. We know that the carbon tax, as has been shown, does nothing to protect the environment. Rather, it simply drains the pocketbooks of Canadians, who are just trying to heat their homes, get to work and drive their kids to events.

Of people polled in my riding, 78% supported the removal of the carbon tax. Of businesses that responded to my survey, 100% indicated that the carbon tax was having a negative impact on their business.

What did the Liberals do? They increased the carbon tax on April 1, making it even more expensive for Canadians who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. The Liberals and their NDP coalition are completely out of touch.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the carbon tax will cost the average family as much as $847 more than the rebates they will receive in 2023. Canadians cannot afford that.

Speaking of things we cannot afford, the Prime Minister has spent more and added more national debt than all prime ministers in Canada's history combined. Even worse, he has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the costs of the food we buy, the goods we buy and the interest we pay. This is at a time when 50% of the municipalities in my riding are looking to the government to focus on reducing inflation.

Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household. Moreover, in Canada's budget projections, there is neither a path to balance nor a plan to pay back the debt. This alone is a cause of the inflation and cost of living crisis that my constituents and all Canadians are facing.

The members opposite need to hear that 75% of the people in my constituency who responded to our survey said that the biggest issue they are facing is the cost of living. The second-largest issue is health care, and that was at 9%. That is the impact this cost of living issue is having on my riding.

There we have it. There is $43 billion in new debt, and nothing in the budget for working Canadians except new taxes.

It will not be the Prime Minister paying back the debt. He has no plans to do that any time in the foreseeable future. The Canadian taxpayers will be left holding the bag again.

Canadians need a government that will make life more affordable for them, and the Conservatives are the only ones willing or even able to do that. After the election, when the Conservatives win a majority, we will lower taxes on workers. We will scrap the carbon tax and end the inflationary deficits and wasteful spending that are driving up inflation. We will build more affordable homes for Canadians. We will fix the damage the Liberals and the costly NDP coalition have caused and get back to common-sense solutions that work for Canadians who do the work.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this budget builds on the actions taken over the years to support vulnerable Canadians. It also builds on such actions as investing $1.2 billion into artificial intelligence, quantum computing, other advanced technologies and the critical minerals strategy, which was strengthened by the critical minerals infrastructure fund last year. In this budget, we have invested $1.2 billion into space technologies.

What is the hon. member's reaction or opinion on the investments the current budget is making into the technologies of tomorrow so that we can secure a place at the forefront of the advanced technologies in the world?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, any government needs to be continuing to plan for our future, build infrastructure and plan for where technology is taking us. However, I look back to what my constituents have told me in a recent survey we finished in March, in anticipation of what the budget could be.

We asked what the government should focus on to support long-term economic growth and job creation. Here is what they told me: The number one thing my constituents said, at 21%, is that we need the natural resources and energy sector. Number two was agriculture, number three was small business, number four was manufacturing and number five was new technologies. There was then a three-way tie among tourism and hospitality, the service sector, and green technology and renewables. My constituents have made it very clear what they expect from the government.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague pointed out that taxpayers will be paying about $50 more into the EI system.

Personally, I do not mind paying more to help others when it fulfills a need. However, I see two problems when people are paying more but the system does not work and has yet to be improved, despite the promises made. Even now, only 40% of people who lose their jobs qualify for EI.

Could my colleague talk about this sort of dichotomy that exists when contributions increase but services do not?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there is frustration in the workplace with increased taxes, but, like my friend, most Canadians do not mind paying for protection for if they lose their job. However, the fight we have as Conservatives, and what my constituents are really against, is that it is coming at a time when they are struggling. Businesses are closing in my riding. Business owners are saying they do not know whether they are going to make it through 2023. All these added costs for the workplace, employers and employees are, at this time, inappropriate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was really struck by my hon. colleague talking about taxpayers being left to hold the bag. Let us talk about the bag that taxpayers have to hold for the leader of the Conservative Party's digs.

It is a 19-room house at 9,500 square feet. He has a private chef and servants. Who is paying for that? It is not him. It is the taxpayers. There are two water metres at his house. One bill was $4,107 in April, and then there was a bill for $7,556 in June. What is this guy doing with all that water? There has been $1.4 million in repairs over 10 years, but then it costs $170,000 a year just to keep it clean for him. Let us not even talk about if someone gets invited to his summer parties.

Canadians cannot afford this guy, and he has the gall to tell senior citizens that they should not be able to get free dental care. I am not buying that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question. It seems that the NDP coalition supports the government. I am sure Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton are turning in their graves.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore.

On March 28 of this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “I have never been more optimistic about the future of our country than I am today.”She said, “Budget 2023 will deliver new, targeted inflation relief for the Canadians who need it most; stronger public health care, including dental care for millions of Canadians; and significant investments to build Canada’s clean economy. At a challenging time in a challenging world, there is no better place to be than Canada.

The budget is supposed to be about finance and numbers, yet something does not add up. If there is no better time to be in Canada than now, then why can Canadians not afford to eat? Justin Trudeau's inflationary spending has caused the—

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

The member knows that we cannot use the names of current members of the House. This is not a new rule.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's inflationary spending has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians are skipping meals. People are now going to food banks and asking for help to end their lives, not because they are sick, but because they cannot afford to eat.

This government's rebate will give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of food, which its inflationary deficits helped to cause. Canada's Food Price Report 2023 predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year, which is $598 more than the $467 rebate they will receive. At a $305 increase, the Prime Minister's grocery rebate just gives money back to Canadians that the government had clawed away from them with its tax increases. It will not solve the cost of living crisis for many struggling Canadians who are already over the edge.

Finally, the Liberal government is still raising taxes on restaurants and breweries already struggling to survive by increasing the excise tax on alcohol by 2% of the expected 6.3%. This temporary cap in the increase of the excise tax on alcohol is only for one year, but I am sure we will see that it will continue.

If this is such a great time to be in Canada, then why is there a disincentive to work? Why is there a disincentive to start a small business? Why is that so? It is because, just this year, the Prime Minister raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses, and now a worker making above $60,600 will be forced to pay an extra $255 through the mandatory Canada pension plan, according to the CTF. This worker will also have to pay an extra $50 through employment insurance tax, which is a $305 increase. The grocery rebate, once again, gives back to Canadians what has already been clawed away. In addition to being a difficult time for Canadians, it is also a difficult time for workers to be incentivized and for Canadians to want to start a business.

I come from a small business family. I recall my dad saying to me in our store, “Don't give that bag if you don't have to because it cost 10¢.” That is how concerned we were about money at the time, and there was tension around the dinner table. This government's legislation is not helping that, and certainly not this budget.

If this is a great time, and there is no better place to be than Canada, why are Canadians stressed about getting to work or getting their kids to school? Why are people who just want to be warm called polluters That is what is happening. The Prime Minister's carbon tax will increase to 14¢ per litre, which it did on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. As well, by 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add up to 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline.

If there is no better better place to be than Canada, then why do Canadians have to give so much back to the government to get so little back? The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself showed that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. How can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance possibly say that there is no better plan to be than Canada?

If there is no better place to be than Canada, then why can Canadians not afford a home? The dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians under the Prime Minister. Nine out of 10 people who do not own home say that they never will. The down payment needed to buy a house has now doubled, and the minimum down payment on an average housing has gone from $22,000 to $45,000 across Canada.

Average mortgage and rent payments have nearly doubled since our recent Prime Minister took office. Then, the average monthly payment on a new house was $1,400, and today it has gone up to over $3,100. In 2015, the average rent in Canada for a one-bedroom apartment was $973, and today it is $1,760. The average rent in Canada for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,172, and today it is $2,153.

When the Prime Minister took office, people needed only 39% of an average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. That number has risen to 62%. By every objective measure, things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less, but “there is no better place to be than Canada.”

In the weeks leading up to the release of budget 2023, the Liberal government signalled an intent to rein in its spending. In fact, the finance minister made this promise to Canadians. She said, “that is one of our primary goals in this year’s budget: not to pour fuel on the fire of inflation. So...we will exercise fiscal restraint.” The government has done anything but exercise fiscal restraint.

When I was young, I was told that a budget worked like this: We bring home this much money. We spend this much money. We have this much money left. We knew, and we know, budgets do not balance themselves. The Prime Minister, the finance minister and government have yet to learn that. In this budget we see that the Prime Minister has added more debt than all other prime ministers combined, and he has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay.

Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to be $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. There is no path to balance the budget in the current government's projections. The deficit for 2022-23 is up to $43 billion, and in 2023-24, the deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. The fall economic statement projected a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027-28, and budget 2023 now projects a $14-billion deficit in 2027-28, which is as far as the projections go.

I started this speech by saying that on March 28, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said, “there is no better place to be than Canada”, but why can Canadians not afford to eat? Why is work disincentivized? Why is gas so expensive? Why must we pay such high taxes? Why can no one afford a home?

The government simply cannot manage the books. This does not add up.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's prosperity has been built on natural resources such oil, gas, minerals, metals, forestry products, and the hard work of several generations of Canadians, including current day seniors.

Another natural resource that is opening up for our future economic growth is the entire food chain of critical minerals, from mining and processing and conversion, to their use in the manufacture of batteries in electric vehicles and everything that is coming up.

I would like to ask the member about her comment on the tax credit that has been given in this budget to attract investments into clean electricity, clean hydrogen and clean manufacturing.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, while we always need to look forward to the future, I think it is very important that we also stay focused on the present and what Canadians and the world need. We have had other nations ask us for our oil and gas, and we have turned them away. It is always very important to think about the future, but I also think we need to focus on what we have and need now.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, even though I do not entirely agree with my colleague's analysis, there is something I will agree with. I agree that workers are struggling at work and I also agree that in other regions of Canada and Quebec there are workers in situations where they lose their job and the EI program does not cover them or just leaves them behind. EI is being referred to as a payroll tax.

Does she not think that, as part of government spending, it would have been important to increase the minimum wage, enhance the employment insurance program and come up with good anti-scab legislation, which does not exist in Canada and denies workers' rights? Is that part of the programs your party is in favour of?

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

My party is not in favour of anything.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for its Bill C‑290, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Of course we agree that workers' rights are important. I think that we can also agree that the government and the Prime Minister are to blame for the current strike.

Based on the questions I got, it is clear that we agree on a lot of things concerning workers' rights and the government's responsibility.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know, with housing, that we are not going to be able to deal with the housing crisis unless we start curtailing inflationary investor activity. The Conservatives are doing a lot of talk about giving money to developers, but we know that developers are not known for social enterprise or for helping out folks; in fact, they are for lining their pockets. Therefore, I wonder why the Conservatives are focusing on municipal permitting when there are so many private sector investors who are responsible for the current housing crisis.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have expressed continually, both in our platform and in our policy, that we are for supply at all levels of the spectrum and with all players of society. Certainly, while these non-governmental entities are important, we also need to work with developers as well.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

I am very happy to rise today to talk about Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, and other measures.

With our made-in Canada plan, the 2023 budget will put money in the pockets of Canadians, helping them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow while building a safer, more sustainable and affordable Canada for Canadians across the country.

The key measures of the budget implementation act include providing for automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit; doubling the tradespeople’s tools deduction; enhancing registered education savings plans; banning animal testing in the cosmetics industry; strengthening Canada’s supply chains and trade corridors; and, among other things, continuing our efforts to support Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

Once again, our government has introduced a responsible and inclusive budget. It is a budget that is responsive to the needs of all Canadians. It is a budget that takes into account the climate emergency and the need to take action today to guarantee the future of our children and grandchildren.

I am pleased to see that the budget will improve the lives of Canadians across the country. In particular, there is the new grocery rebate, which will put up to an extra $467 in the pockets of eligible families of four so that they can continue to eat properly. This new rebate will help 11 million Canadians who need it the most.

This measure is in addition to the relief we quickly put in place last year, including doubling the GST credit, which is highly appreciated; introducing a new quarterly benefit for Canadian workers of up to $2,400 for low-income families and families earning minimum wage; providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit for low-income renters; reducing child care costs across the country; providing the Canada child benefit, which amounts up to $7,000 this year; and introducing a climate action incentive to be paid into the bank accounts of eligible Canadians. These are examples of real measures aimed at supporting Canadian families.

What can I say about dental care costs? Thanks to our new program, we will have a direct impact on the health of Canadians of all ages. Although some here in the House still underestimate the importance of good dental health, we are aware of the positive impact it has on people’s lives. Good teeth help build self-esteem. A nice smile is always the best calling card.

Oral medicine tells us that some dental and periodontal diseases can have broader consequences such as cardiovascular and lung problems, digestive disorders, and pregnancy- and diabetes-related complications, among others. This program shows that we can do a lot for Canadians when we decide to work together toward a common goal.

Back home in Châteauguay—Lacolle, more than 330 children under the age of 12 have already benefited from the expansion of the program in Quebec. We also want to work with the Quebec government to improve access to dental care for other vulnerable populations.

The 2023 budget proposes other important measures to help Canadians financially. In particular, it cracks down on junk fees, including unexpected, hidden and additional fees, to continue to ensure that businesses are transparent with prices and to make life more affordable for Canadians. The budget also proposes automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians so that more people can have access to all the benefits and support to which they are entitled.

Let us talk about two measures in Bill C-47 that are extremely relevant for citizens in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle. The first is the doubling of the tradespeople’s tools deduction. This increase in the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000 is very important as a support to tradespeople. We need to encourage our contractors and subcontractors so that they can build and renovate houses and commercial buildings. This deduction offsets the increase in the cost of tools and represents our recognition of the importance of tradespeople’s work.

The second measure is the automatic advance payment of the Canada workers benefit. We propose automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit for workers who were entitled to the payment the previous year, starting in July 2023 for the 2023 tax year. It is very important to help workers with their current cash flow before next year’s tax season. Workers will receive a minimum entitlement for the year through advance payments based on the income reported in their tax return for the previous year, and any additional entitlement for the year will be paid when they file their tax return for the current year. This measure This measure will provide, in three advance payments, up to $714 in total for a single worker and up to $1,231 in total for a family.

The 2023 budget invests in the future of Canadians, but it is also aimed at ensuring the future of the planet. Our made-in-Canada plan will make it possible to develop a clean economy, fight climate change and create quality jobs and careers for today and for future generations.

If I had the time, I could talk about the new tax credits for clean investments that will support Canadian companies that manufacture clean technologies, such as electric vehicles, or that process the critical minerals key to the manufacture of solar panels.

However, I will conclude by mentioning another very important measure in the budget implementation bill for Canadians, who are very concerned about animal welfare. I am talking about the measure prohibiting animal testing for cosmetics. This measure will amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals in Canada. It will also prohibit the sale of cosmetics relying on data derived from animal testing to establish the safety of the product, subject to certain exceptions. Lastly, it will prohibit deceptive or misleading labelling concerning animal testing for cosmetics.

Budget 2023 is a prudent and realistic budget. Bill C-47 will help ensure that we continue to make progress on things that matter to Canadians, namely, building a clean, healthy economy that can bring prosperity, middle-class jobs and greater vibrancy to communities across the country. By focusing on a green, healthy and clean economy, the budget responds to the concerns of many Canadians, especially those in Châteauguay—Lacolle.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whose riding neighbours my own. We share the services of Anna-Laberge hospital, which is currently under expansion. This hospital is often cited in the news for its occupancy rates that are making life very difficult for both patients and staff. Most of the professionals who work there are really overloaded and need help.

The question I have for my colleague is very simple. Does she believe that what the provinces are being given for health and social services will really lighten the workload of professionals at Anna-Laberge hospital and reduce occupancy rates? Does she really think that the amount given by her government will improve the situation at Anna-Laberge hospital?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, with more than $46 billion in health transfers, the provinces will be getting new money. I truly believe in the separate jurisdictions of the various levels of government. The province will be taking steps. The expansion of Anna-Laberge hospital is an example of how the Quebec health ministry takes the concerns of Quebeckers into account.

We will continue to work with all the provinces, but more directly with Quebec, to ensure that the public has all the care it needs and to meet the needs of the workers who supported it in difficult times.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard from veterans about the gold-digger clause, which was implemented after World War I to prevent women from marrying veterans for their pensions and benefits. The Liberals promised to fix this. For eight years they have been in government. I know my colleague heard about this from veterans in her riding.

Blair Meadows, a veteran from Qualicum Beach in my riding, cited, “If I marry after the age of 60 and pass away before my spouse, she won't receive any of my benefits.” This 100-year-old law needs to be abolished. It is an archaic regulation that really needs to be fixed.

Does the member not agree that this is discriminatory against veterans, people who put their lives on the line, and leaves spouses in poverty? This is unacceptable. Does my colleague agree that this needs to be fixed by her government?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the question has to do with pension and pension regulation. I did dabble in this in my previous life. I agree that there are many pension agreements. As the hon. member no doubt knows, these pension agreements were made over time and they reflected the mores and norms at the time they were developed. Is it time to look at them again and modernize them? There are many pension agreements. I could go into more detail about the incompatibility of many pension agreements, but I will not go there. Definitely, it is valid concern and one that needs to be looked at.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, someone was stabbed yesterday in my riding. Although it is too early to confirm whether mental illness was a factor, I wonder if my colleague could talk about how our integrated approach to improving mental health care, particularly with an investment totalling nearly $200 billion, will help people who need mental health support.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is actually my colleague who is really the expert in this area, but I can confirm that my constituents certainly appreciate the investments that the federal government is making in mental health supports. Canadians really appreciate the additional resources.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always find it such an incredible honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in London—Fanshawe and to be the voice for them in the House. I want to thank them for that opportunity, as always.

I also want to thank my constituency staff. They have been working so hard, helping thousands of people in London. We are in the middle of another successful tax clinic, which ensures that people have the free help they need to file their taxes. We are contacting folks to ensure they know about the additional money we secured for them in the housing benefit and the GST rebate.

We are helping people reunite with their families or to immigrate to our country, so they can contribute to the social and economic wealth that we have here. We are helping people to get their passports, or figure out their EI claims or their pensions, and so much more. I really want to thank them for all the work they do.

My constituents are doing what they can to navigate through the housing crisis, the labour shortage, inflation, the health care crisis and climate change. It is getting so much harder for people.

Now we have to throw on top of that the fact that the government has failed to negotiate a fair contract with public servants for two years. I am so worried about how my office will continue to help people, help my constituents, because the government has failed to ensure that those workers get a fair collective agreement.

I want to take a minute so the House can hear some of the voices of those folks in London who are on strike right now.

One said, “We really don't want to strike, but we have to because we're fighting for all workers' rights. Right now, with the cost of living and inflation, we're really falling behind.”

This is not a cushy job. Our average employee makes $35,000 to $65,000 a year. Many union members are single income earners. They have second jobs. One of their federal colleagues works in pizza delivery.

Mandy talked about the fact that so many of her colleagues had to use the food bank. They cannot afford to feed their families. They cannot afford child care. They cannot afford a roof over the head. Inflation is taking its toll. The strike is a last resort for them. She said, “None of us want to be on strike. We're here because we need to. We tried to raise our concerns, and they're not being heard.”

Chris, who has worked in the federal public service since 1985, said, “We don't get any respect. I just want to go home and cry at night because I've worked so long and so hard, given my whole life to working as a servant to the government. And when we want a raise, and they won't even talk about it.”

I am so proud of the work that my office does for constituents of London—Fanshawe. I am often frustrated by the things we cannot do. For all the successes we do get, we could not do it without those PSAC workers.

When I ran in 2019 and 2021, I promised my constituents, on their doorsteps, that I would fight for fairness and real solutions. Like those on strike with the PSAC, people in my riding just want fairness. They want a government that makes decisions with their best interests at heart and a government that does what it can, instead of having this incredible opportunity that it wastes. It makes decisions that keep itself in power or it helps those who already have so much power and wealth. It gives that power to them, not to everyone else.

My idea of a successful government is one that takes power that has been given to it in good faith by all people and redistributes it fairly to all people, that creates long-term solutions, that builds programs and that expands on supports.

When my caucus colleagues and I were elected, we were determined to deliver just that for people. Not being the government party is challenging, especially when I know that so much more could be accomplished. When we entered into the agreement with the current governing party to not cause an election in exchange for progress on a number of key policy areas, we did so because we needed to build something.

We have not gotten everything we need, and I reference this in terms of the budget. It is not an NDP budget. However, this budget includes initiatives that we think are really important, things that would not be there if New Democrats were not there.

First and foremost, of course, is dental care. This is a really important initiative that will allow millions of Canadians, who up until now have not been able to get their teeth fixed, that opportunity. We worked hard to ensure that by the end of this year, all children under the age of 18, all seniors and all people living with disabilities would finally get access to dental care. That has real consequences. It affects their ability to get and keep a job. It affects their sense of self-confidence in socializing with others. It affects the way that other people look at them. It prevents them from enduring constant pain and other long-term health problems.

A few weeks ago I was at the Wright Clinic in my riding of London—Fanshawe. The Wright Clinic is run by Dr. Ken Wright and a number of incredible people. They provide dental services at a low cost, or at no cost, because they know what that means to people in our community.

I met a woman who spoke to me about the fact that for over 10 years she had been screaming into her pillow because she could not deal with the pain. She could not study, she could not work and she could not focus. That pain took over her entire life. She found relief because of folks at the Wright Clinic, who do this incredible work. She found a new future.

A fellow who was also there talked about the fact that he could not keep a job because of the way he looked. He was able to get a brand new life because he had a brand new set of teeth. That is just incredible. Those are the things for which the New Democrats are fighting. The creation of this dental program has long-lasting benefits. That is the role of the government. It equalizes, it pulls people out of pain, it saves them money. Dental care is just one victory.

There are a lot of other victories that the NDP was able to get in this budget. I would love to talk about them, but I am sure you will cut me off, Madam Speaker.

I want to move on to discuss the biggest thing I see that is missing from this budget. Of course, that is housing. We all know that the housing market is out of control. In fact, housing has been made a commodity when it should be a human right.

In 2015, a house that sold for $150,000 in my neighbourhood in Pond Mills now sells for $400,000 today. In my neighbourhood, rents have soared by more than 25% over the past year. In March, rent for a one-bedroom unit was over $1,700, while rent for a two-bedroom unit was the average price of about $2,100. That is an increase of 27.3% or 24.3% from the year previous, respectively.

Sadly, we see very little in this budget around housing and solving that crisis. To be perfectly honest, I think that past governments, consecutive Liberal and Conservative, do not really want to address it. They do not see it as a problem they need to solve because they see the housing market as just that, a market. Except housing is actually a human right and requires government to invest in it. The trouble is that government has not invested in it directly. No government has directly built housing for over 30 years.

We now have the revamped national housing strategy introduced by the Liberal government, but that has a lot of problems, with a haphazard approach to the way we deal with affordable housing. It has placed a lot of hardships on the not-for-profit organizations that actually want to do that work.

In November 2022, the Office of the Auditor General released a report exposing all the major issues with the national housing strategy. Programs have not created the targeted number of units that are required and many of those are not what is deemed to be affordable. That is unacceptable.

This crisis needs a solution. We need to preserve affordable homes and we need to build them faster. The NDP has a plan for that, of course, and the government can take that great idea as it has taken so many.

The first steps we have to take are to preserve affordable housing and prevent renoviction. We need to create an affordable housing acquisition fund to allow not-for-profit housing providers to purchase affordable housing when they come on the market and to keep it permanently affordable and out of the hands of for-profit housing profiteers. We have to put a moratorium in place on the acquisition of affordable homes by housing profiteers, so not-for-profit housing providers do not have to compete with them.

Jack Layton was an inspiration for so many, and for me as well. I think of him as a parliamentarian. He always said that we needed to not just be an opposition party; we had to be a a party of proposition. We need those good ideas that we know work for people and put them in the hands of people. We have to ensure that those solutions go forward. Dental care and our housing plan are just two solid examples.

People are scared. London—Fanshawe folks talk to me all the time. They do not know how they are going to survive. Before the pandemic people were just getting by. They just had their heads above water; they were treading water. Now it feels like they are sinking further and further below that surface. People are lined up at food banks in record lineups. We have a generation that has given up on the dream of owning a home. People see the consequences of that.

There is a lot to be angry about, but at this time when there is so much division in our politics and everyday conversations, we need to find a way to work together. That is what we are trying to do here with the government. The New Democrats are working together and we are working to find that leadership and really good solutions for folks.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned her constituents in London and their concerns about health care. I agree. Health care is in crisis. All that Canadians should need for health care is their health card, not a credit card.

The budget will invest $198.3 billion in funding for the provinces and territories, including $46 billion more in additional funding. We want the provinces to use this funding to help access to family doctors, to reduce the backlogs, to support health care workers and to improve the mental health system.

I would like to know from the hon. member what she thinks about this additional new funding the federal government is providing to provinces and how best it can be used.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, additional money is good. It is fine. It is a step. However, the money he talked about, the majority of it, was actually already calculated. The $46 billion extra has to be shared over 10 years over all the provinces and territories, so that is actually a drop in the bucket of what is required.

One of the things the New Democrats brought forward in an opposition day motion was to eliminate loopholes on privatization of health care, and that is one of the huge issues that is taking money away from people who need it within our health care sector. The government voted no.

Those are the major problems I see and the major problems we need to fix. We need action, not words.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about housing attainability and affordability. Other than the actual affordability of groceries, homes and all that, young people are despondent right now. They are not angry or upset. They feel like they have been lied to or let down by the government as it relates to their lives being better vis-à-vis housing affordability and attainability.

I am wondering what the hon. member would say to those young people, who are doing everything right. They have university educations and are getting good jobs. They cannot afford down payments or mortgage payments. Even if they had been able to, now with interest rates increasing, that affordability crisis has become even greater. I wonder what she would say to young people about what is going on right now.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear it too. Young folks in London—Fanshawe do not know where to turn, and there is a hopelessness around that. It is unfortunate. It used to be the federal government and provincial governments hand in hand would directly build housing, and since 1995 we are short about 15,000 to 20,000 affordable units built every year by governments. That consistent decision by federal and provincial governments not to build housing has created this crisis. We need to be able to directly and quickly build co-ops and not-for-profit housing centres, and have rent geared to income so we have that balance. We need to focus a lot less on developers and people who are making a ton of money off rental income for their benefit and are not being appropriately taxed. We need to put that back into the housing stock.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that social equity must be factored into a budget. What bothers me a little is that they are introducing programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. That was also the case in the last budget.

Dental health is very important. It is part of a holistic approach to health. Consequently, in Quebec, children have preventative care because that is where it has the most impact.

Now, the government has decided to invest $13 billion in a program that the federal government is incapable of managing. It is not investing in federal social programs, such a those for seniors and the unemployed.

What does my colleague think of the issue of weakening social programs that—

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

I must give the hon. member for London—Fanshawe about 20 seconds to answer the question.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize a lot of the good things that have been done across provinces, but it is not just children who need support with dental care. Everybody needs that support. Certainly, seniors in her riding I am sure need that support as well.

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

The interpretation does not seem to be working. Could the hon. member repeat her reply?

She now has 15 seconds left.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incredible some provinces are doing some of that work to support children with dental care, but I know a lot of seniors, and I am sure in her riding as well, need that support, as well as people living with disabilities. In fact, everybody needs it.

One of the key things the federal government needs to do is put forward those social programs to equalize and make—

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

I must resume debate.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

What is a budget implementation act? What are we doing right now? The government tabled a budget. In a budget, a government lays out the measures that it intends to take. To implement the measures set out in the budget, legislation must be tabled to execute what is stated in the budget.

I feel I ought to remind all those watching that the budget, which is very lengthy, held many disappointments for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to point them out because I care deeply about seniors, and there is nothing in the budget about them. Every time I organize events in my riding, seniors remind me that they feel like they have been forgotten by this government.

As well, there have been symposia, conferences and studies on the housing crisis. It is well documented that we are in the middle of a housing crisis, yet there are no specific measures in the budget to address that crisis.

Clearly, we are also a long way from the EI reform that the Liberal government has been promising since 2015. There is nothing in the budget on that.

There is also a major disappointment in terms of the environment. This budget still talks about carbon capture and storage, when we have known for many years that this technology is no good, that it is not ready and that it does not get the job done. In a way, the government is using this to ease its conscience with regard to the environment, but in reality, these are just backdoor subsidies for oil companies. Pretty much everyone knows it. By saying that it will fund research into carbon capture and storage, the government is trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes and ease its own conscience.

The funny thing is that, in 2008, when I was the Bloc Québécois critic for natural resources, I participated in a study on carbon capture and storage that reached the same conclusions as are being reached today. The same committee is still conducting studies, still documenting the issue of carbon capture and storage, and still reaching the same conclusions, namely that it is not really the best technology for reducing greenhouse gases. However, it allows the government to assuage its conscience, and in particular, it allows oil companies to feel like they are doing something for the environment.

However, I would like to talk about certain promises and principles that were in the budget but not in the budget implementation act.

I want to talk about the promise that the government made in the budget about anti-scab legislation. I believe that promise to pass anti-scab legislation is even part of the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP. I am talking about this because I know that my father René is watching right now. He is sort of the reason I am talking about anti-scab legislation, which is so important but which is absent from the budget implementation act. My father was a tradesman for much of his life. He was a union activist who unionized his workplace and always said that it was important to stand up for labourers' working conditions.

Today, there is nothing in the budget implementation act about anti-scab legislation, even though it would have been easy to include it. The budget implementation act is 430 pages long and amends 57 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Act. This lengthy bill also grants royal titles to Charles III. It is a really dense bill, but there is no mention anywhere of the possibility of us passing anti-scab legislation together. It would be very easy to do that, because the Bloc Québécois and the NDP agree. I would imagine the Liberals also agree, since it was mentioned in their budget. I do not understand why the government did not take advantage of its omnibus bill to include a bill that would certainly be supported by three parties in the House.

Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. I think this is long overdue. We are behind the times in not having that legislation, because it is so important for governing the work of our union members.

I raised this issue because my father is watching. He must be proud to hear me defending an issue that he himself defended when he was a union member in his company. He was a sheet metal worker, so he was right on the shop floor. He realized that there were problems with working conditions, so he rallied the workers. He created a union and negotiated for all the workers. It is for his sake that I raised this issue today, and it is also for his sake that I am raising the issue of EI.

The minister's mandate letter mentions EI reform. For years, and even recently, the minister has been telling us that she was holding consultations. However, the consultations have ended. She said she was consulting, but the consultations are over. She will not stop consulting, but everything is documented. There is a consensus that the Employment Insurance Act must be reformed. This is an old act that is not modern, that is not suited to the labour market for either employers or employees.

It is hard to understand why the minister does not see it as a priority. In a way, I both understand and do not understand why. I think she may have good intentions, but it is cabinet, the executive, that does not want to move ahead for the simple reason that the government is using the surplus in the EI fund to pay for the surplus EI claims that it received during the pandemic. Basically, the fund is spending $24 billion to pay for what happened during the pandemic. I will note that people had to leave their jobs not because they wanted to, but because their workplace shut down. They were forced to apply for EI. It is only natural that claims would go up.

The EI fund took out $24 billion to cover all those costs. Now things are a bit better, and it has seven years to balance out. That is the minister's magic excuse, namely that until the account is balanced again, sometime in the next seven years, she cannot move ahead on reform or propose anything else that would improve the Employment Insurance Act. That is bad.

All the spending incurred during the pandemic was covered by the government, but now employer and employee contributions are being used to pay for all the jobs lost during the pandemic. It was not by choice. I think the government could have covered part of the cost and left the money for workers and employers alone, so that everything that is needed to reform the Employment Insurance Act could be done.

It is frankly laughable how every new minister's mandate letter or list of priorities states that this is a priority. It is not really a genuine priority. Every excuse or event gives the minister a reason to put off the reform.

I am very serious about this. The government must stop beating around the bush and reform EI once and for all so that Quebec and Canada can have modern legislation to govern the new reality of the labour market.

The Bloc Québécois will always be there to defend unemployed workers, employers and businesses that are struggling with replacement workers as we speak, such as the Port of Quebec and Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy.

It is very clear which side the Bloc Québécois is on. It is on the right side, the side of the people.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She spoke a lot about workers. However, she did not mention official languages at all. Budget 2023 provides for more than $1 billion for official languages, on top of the roughly $2 billion already allocated under the action plan.

I have no doubt that, like me, my colleague thinks it is important to protect French in Quebec and Canada and to protect anglophone minorities in Quebec. I would therefore like her to share her thoughts on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, I really wish she had asked me the same question that she asked the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle about the $200 million for mental health care. She can come back to that later.

I would have liked to answer her that I really wonder what that $200 million will do for people who are suicidal or in distress. The fact is that all of the mental health resources in Quebec are funded by Quebec, and direct assistance is administered by professionals in Quebec. Since she did not ask me that question, I will not get into detail about it.

With regard to official languages, I would say that we are very pleased that the francophone communities outside Quebec will now have more means of defending their language, because they really are in the minority. As for Quebec, my answer would be so long that the Speaker would have to cut me off. I will just say that the bill is clearly a compromise and that the Bloc Québécois finds it to be unsatisfactory.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member did not ask the question about mental health, but I will, so that my colleague can answer it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. As everyone knows, I am a social worker, a member of my professional association and a manager of a Quebec CISSS. I use the term “CISSS” because I know Quebeckers will understand what I mean. One thing I can say for certain about mental health is that no professional who delivers mental health services directly to residents in my riding, or in the riding of the member for Sherbrooke, receives any federal funds.

Federal funds pay for help lines and websites. I am not saying that this is wrong. However, when someone is in distress or experiencing a crisis and thinking of committing suicide, they call their local community service centre's crisis line. I am looking forward to seeing what percentage of this $200 million will find its way to the Suroît area's local community service centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I looked at the budget and was really disappointed to see, once again, a lack of investment in ending the current crisis of gender-based violence. We know that rates of violence have increased since the pandemic, yet the amount that has been allocated in this federal budget is beyond disappointing. It is like women in this place are always a second thought, like we are the last thought in any budget. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can provide her thoughts on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to remind my colleague that her party supported the budget. It needs to be said. Second, I fully agree that, when it comes to intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, more money is essential.

In Quebec, we have a comprehensive network of shelters for abused women or men facing challenging circumstances. There are even support groups for abusive men. In Quebec, there is a network of community organizations throughout Quebec that provide assistance in that area. Yes, it is true that more funding is needed. However, it is not really the federal government's job to fund the resources dedicated to this problem, since it falls squarely under provincial jurisdiction.

Now, I think that the secret here is that, if Ottawa and the NDP had listened to what the provinces were asking for, which was a greater increase in health transfers, the provinces would have had the option to invest more or less money in certain social or health issues as needed.

The dental care program is being imposed on the provinces through a centralizing objective. I am not saying that teeth are not important, but I think that we are facing other problems that are just as important and they were equally deserving of more funding.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47.

First, I would like to salute my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville. I have not done that in a while. I salute them because when I am not here in the House, it is always a pleasure to meet up with them back home to talk about the challenges they face and see all the work they are doing every day for the community. It is wonderful.

Among other things, these days, I make a point of visiting seniors in their homes to talk about their concerns in the current economic context. This relates to the budget, of course. Seniors are as worried as everyone else about inflation.

They are also worried about being able to afford housing, which is very important. Seniors may have gained a nest egg by selling their home, but now that they are living in a residence, they are exhausting the little bit of money they have left. Some of them are worried, while others are even thinking of moving and are anxious about finding affordable housing.

Seniors are also concerned about their health. They asked me what is going on with the Canada health transfers. All that is to say that their concerns are real.

I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. We explained to seniors why we voted against it. Bill C‑47 is a translation of the budget. As my colleague was saying, this omnibus bill is more than 400 pages long and fixes 59 pieces of legislation. It is so complex, it makes my head spin. The government promised it would no longer introduce huge bills like this one that make us lose focus.

What is more, Bill C‑47 paves the way to recognizing King Charles III, which is rather mind-boggling. What a circus. I did not need to tell everyone I meet about this, because it is significant. This is what the government is focusing on when there are bigger fish to fry.

The Bloc Québécois has always said that it is here to stand up for and promote the interests of Quebeckers. We will vote in favour of what is good for them, and we will vote against what is not good for them. If that happens to be good for all Canadians, then that is good as well.

My approach to analyzing the budget is based on the definition of social safety net. A government that has a vision, that claims to be democratic, progressive and supportive of workers, should have made sure to correct certain inequities in its budget.

What is the social safety net? I am not going to give an introductory course on the subject. I am sure that people know that the social safety net is a set of social programs and public services that offer support to citizens. Two of those social programs fall exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction. They are old age security for seniors and the employment insurance system for workers.

There is nothing in this budget about old age security. It simply maintains the discrimination that was created in the previous budget by increasing old age security only for those over the age of 75. What is the difference between a 73-year-old senior and a 75-year-old senior? There is no justification for it.

Rather than investing in jurisdictions that are in no way its responsibility, the federal government should spend money to strengthen its social programs.

With regard to seniors, Canada ranks near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of income protection for seniors. This social safety net needs to be strengthened, and yet no mercy is being shown.

This is all to say nothing of the broken promises regarding the EI system. We have lost count of them. There is no excuse for the government's failure to state its intention in the budget to reform employment insurance once and for all. It needs to be modernized in line with the current labour market. It needs to be brought up to date and out of the last century. An employment insurance system acts as an economic stabilizer. It needs to guarantee workers who lose their jobs a minimum income that allows them to weather the storm.

The government claimed many times during the pandemic that it would take too long to reform employment insurance, saying that the EI system had too many flaws, that it was full of holes. There are a number of players involved. The government promised, virtually hand on heart, to reform EI. We are not asking for this just for the fun of it. We are asking for it because it is necessary. What does the government not understand about that?

I have said it before and I will say it again. Will the government have the courage to reform the employment insurance program, given that it knows exactly what needs to be done, or will it shamefully abandon all of the workers who pay into the EI fund?

Only 40% of workers manage to qualify for EI because the eligibility criteria are discriminatory, particularly against women and young people, most of whom hold non-standard jobs.

The EI system does not cover self-employed workers. We saw that during the pandemic in the arts, entertainment and cultural sectors, which depends heavily on those workers. The government promised to correct those shortcomings. The Prime Minister even promised to do so last summer. What is stopping the government from taking action? Is it going to use the economic situation as an excuse?

On the one hand, the government is saying that all is well, that the unemployment rate is at a record low, that there is a labour shortage and that it will not reform the system. On the other hand, the government is saying that there is a risk of a recession and that now is not the time to reform the program. That does not make any sense. The government is twisting and dodging to avoid the issue. The time to reform the EI program is now, when we are not in a period of crisis.

I think the minister has free rein to do that. She needs to have that free rein. Members of her caucus are affected; they are dealing with the fallout from flaws in the system as well. She has all the solutions in hand. We invite her, we urge her, to introduce a bill that proposes new criteria to guarantee that workers, people in the regions and workers in seasonal industries can access this social safety net. That is what needs to happen. It would have been nice to hear the government stand up and strongly advocate for what we believe to be most fundamental, and that is ensuring equity and fairness.

In closing, public services are fundamental to ensuring equity in a strong state. Robust, high-quality public services rely on decent working conditions for employees. On that note, I would like to emphasize that we support and stand with the federal employees who are currently fighting for decent working conditions in the public service.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague stated that she would be voting for what is good for Quebeckers.

Does she consider providing a grocery rebate for 11 million Canadians, increasing the Canada workers benefit, doubling the tradespeople's tool deduction, and capping the inflation adjustment for excise duties on alcohol at 2% to be good for Quebeckers?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we hear these kinds of comments in the 10-minute speeches by my colleagues opposite.

I am not saying that these are not good things. However, the government is not addressing the basic issues, the fundamental issues, the most dire issues. The government is basically not there for workers. I can say, for example, that the appeal board is a good measure. The Liberals finally saw sense, made this change and included it in this omnibus bill. However, all the other issues—

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

Order. The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague have anything to say about Bill C‑215 on employment insurance? The government refused to recommend this bill for royal assent even though it would have provided welcome assistance to workers struggling with serious health problems. It refused to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 26 to 52. Is this important to the member?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this issue is extremely important.

This was another wasted opportunity. However, it may still be possible. It took 50 years to address this problem and raise the number of weeks from 15 to 26. As every study shows, this is not enough. People who are gravely ill are being left without enough protection to recover in dignity.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member very often raises the issue of EI, and I want to thank her for that.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre, earlier today, raised the point that the supposed feminist government is not really looking after the issues of women. We know that, when EI was first formulated, the participation rate of women in the workforce was less than half of what it is today. The EI system was not built for women.

Can the member share some comments on why it is so important to get this modernized for women after seven years?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, several measures in our policies discriminate against women. Employment insurance is a prime example. When the employment insurance program was initially designed, it reflected the fact that workers work full time and that male-dominated jobs were the most important. That may have been appropriate at the time.

Now women are being discriminated against in two ways. The eligibility rules work against them because the rules are designed for those who work 40 hours a week. If a person works only 20 hours, they are necessarily discriminated against.

Then there are pregnant workers, women who carry a child and then lose their job. The rules currently discriminate against them because they will not be entitled to employment insurance if, when they return, they no longer have employment. They are no longer entitled to their benefits. They won in court and the ruling was appealed. I hope that decision will be upheld. The EI program needs to be reformed. It is essential and a matter of fairness.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member. We can think of the Canada workers benefit, the supports from the government for the trades and unions, the $10-a-day child care and the credit for tools. In many ways, the government has been there for the workers of Canada.

Can the member give a tangible example of any other government that has done more than this government has for the workers of Canada?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague truly believes what he is saying. I would not be able to sleep at night if my beliefs held that we cannot support workers.

I would remind the House that there is a universal program in Quebec, the program for early childhood education services, that has been around for more than 25 years. The Liberals have decided to feel good about themselves by introducing a similar program across Canada when that does not fall under their jurisdiction. They spent $30 billion when the people for whom the government—

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

Canada's recovery from the recession caused by COVID-19 has been remarkable. In fact, we have the strongest economic growth among G7 countries over the past year. There are about 830,000 more Canadians in the workforce now than there were before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is near its record low. The labour force participation rate for Canadian women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.7%, supported by our Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. Inflation has fallen for eight months in a row, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will fall to just 2.6% by the end of the year.

With these strong economic fundamentals, the 2023 budget comes at an important time for our country and for the world. It is also a time when we must take bold steps to ensure our country's prosperity and set an example for the rest of the world. Canada is the best place to be in these challenging times, in a complex world.

In the near term, we must contend with a slowing global economy, elevated interest rates around the world and inflation that is still too high. Over the past year, the government has introduced a series of new targeted measures to help those who need it most pay their bills.

In the months and years to come, Canada must seize the remarkable opportunities arising from two fundamental shifts in the global economy. The first is the race to build the clean economies of the 21st century. The second is our allies’ accelerating efforts to friendshore their economies by building their critical supply chains through democracies like our own.

In budget 2023, the federal government would provide new, targeted inflation relief to Canadians who need it most. Specifically, the budget proposes to introduce a one-time grocery rebate. The rebate would be delivered through a one-time payment from the Canada Revenue Agency, as soon as possible following the passing of the legislation. For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, the grocery rebate would provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225, on average. This would be delivered through the goods and services tax credit mechanism.

Today, fewer women have to choose between their family and their career. In February, the labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years reached a record 85.7%. As of April 2, six provinces and territories are providing regulated child care for an average of just $10 a day or less, significantly ahead of schedule. All other provinces and territories remain on track to achieve $10-a-day child care by 2026.

The Government of Canada has entered into an asymmetrical agreement with the Province of Quebec. This will allow for further improvements to its early learning and child care system, where parents with a subsidized reduced contribution space already pay a single fee of less than $10 a day. Under its asymmetrical agreement, Quebec has committed to creating 30,000 new child care spaces by March 2026.

Budget 2023 announced that financial institutions would be able to start offering a tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1, and the money saved could be deducted from their income tax come tax time. This would give prospective first-time homebuyers the ability to save $40,000 on a tax-free basis, with a maximum allowance of $8,000 saved per year.

To ensure that Canada's national housing strategy programs can continue to deliver new, affordable homes for Canadians, especially for the most vulnerable, the federal government is taking action. Budget 2023 announced the government's intention to support the reallocation of funding from the national housing coinvestment fund's repair stream to its new construction stream as needed, to boost the construction of new, affordable homes for Canadians who need them the most.

During the pandemic, the federal government provided unprecedented funding for provincial and territorial health systems, personal protective equipment, vaccines, treatments and testing, as well as for public health measures for everything from schools to public transit. In other words, Canada was able to weather the worst of the pandemic thanks to the support provided by the federal government, which amounted to eight dollars out of every $10 spent to fight COVID-19. This significantly contributed to the budgetary surpluses that many provinces and territories are enjoying today.

Budget 2023 lays out the federal government's plan to provide an additional $195.8 billion over 10 years in health transfers to provinces and territories, including $46.2 billion in new funding through new Canada health transfer measure, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and a territorial health investment fund. This funding would 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. With historic federal health investments and a range of new measures to ensure that Canadians receive the care they need, budget 2023 would help deliver the improvements to health care that Canadians expect and deserve.

Nobody should have to choose between taking care of their teeth and being able to pay the bills at the end of the month. In budget 2023, the federal government would be moving forward with a transformative investment to provide dental care to Canadians who need it. In addition, budget 2023 proposes to provide $13 billion over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $4.4 billion ongoing to Health Canada to implement the Canadian dental care plan. The plan would provide dental coverage for uninsured Canadians with an annual family income of less than $90,000, with no copays for those whose family income is under $70,000. The plan would begin providing coverage by the end of 2023 and would be administered by Health Canada with support from a third party benefits administrator.

Budget 2023 is a direct response to essential short- and long-term objectives, such as reducing inflation through targeted inflation relief measures; strengthening our public health system, including dental care; developing Canada's clean economy through significant investments that will create more middle class jobs; and maintaining the lowest deficit and lowest net-debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

We are proud to present budget 2023, a plan to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy for everyone, including indigenous peoples. With new measures and important investments, budget 2023 will help everyone share in the opportunities and prosperity that Canada provides. Budget 2023 reaffirms our government's commitment towards indigenous peoples as we continue to build on the progress we have made together since 2015 on walking the path of truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, building strong, diverse communities, and protecting the environment and fighting climate change.

We will continue building a country where everyone can reach their potential. We have the remarkable fortune to live in the greatest country in the world, a country filled with people who can do big things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I recently worked with on issues of violence against women.

I would like to come back to that, because I know that she is very interested in feminism. How is it possible that a government that claims to be feminist is not providing better support to women who are victims of domestic violence by increasing health transfers to shore up our social services system, particularly in Quebec? How is it possible that a government that claims to be feminist is not keeping its promise to reform EI? We know that the people having the most issues with EI right now are women who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty qualifying for the program.

My colleague also talked about the issue of mothers, pregnant women.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about these two critical issues, namely increased health transfers and EI reform. That is feminism.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her question. I would also like to thank her again for supporting the bill that she mentioned in her question. Her help is really a generous gift, and I agree with her.

That is why, as I mentioned in my speech, fewer women have to choose between their families and their careers. Paying $10 a day for child care is something that will truly help women continue their careers and stay in the workforce.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, within the budget, the government has committed $80-plus billion in tax credits toward investing in a newer, greener economy. In the budget, it is very clear that it is there. It is not a secret, but with the announcement of Volkswagen creating a new plant near St. Thomas, Ontario, there is a tremendous amount of secrecy, in terms of what that $13-billion investment would actually be going toward.

I am wondering, if it is no secret what the tax credits are in the budget, which are coming from hard-earned taxpayers' money, why there is this level of secrecy in terms of this contract with Volkswagen. Should Canadians not know what that deal is all about, considering the fact that the government would be spending that money on that investment?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by my colleague's question. I am just wondering if he is against the investment. That is what it sounds like, but I would like to say that Canada has one of the cleanest electricity grids all across the world. We are very proud of our record on this, and it is very important to continue with green technology to make sure that our environment and our economy can both work at the same time to improve the lives of all Canadians and contribute to the world as well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life I was a carpenter, I was a chimney sweep and I was a roofer. I ran a small business from my home, and we used to feed our kids french fries to help us get the mail-outs done in time at the end of the month. I had to go to the dentist and try to cut deals so the kids could get their teeth fixed.

I looked at the leader of the Conservative Party's LinkedIn, and I was astounded. He has never actually had a job; what he has had is 19 years of free dental care, and he has the gall to tell senior citizens and working-class families that they are not entitled to free dental care.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the leader of the Conservative Party thinks he is so much better than people who have actually worked their whole lives.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that there are people who would still want to be against dental care in this manner. Dental care helps all Canadians. It helps those who are most in need. As we know, dental issues can cause other health issues as well. It is very important that we allow those who have the least to be able to maintain health security for themselves when they are just trying to live their lives. As my colleague said, he lived on a tight budget growing up. These are the people we want to help. This is why we are here.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Centre. Today, I rise to speak to a very important piece of legislation, the budget implementation act, which I believe contains a host of measures that speak to the concerns they share with me every day. When I am attending events, knocking on doors, or meeting with constituents, they often talk to me about the cost of living. This is an overarching issue that manifests itself in many ways.

A long-standing issue of concern is access to safe, adequate and affordable housing. Rental housing, when it can even be found, is even more unaffordable and often old and inadequate for the families that want to call our community home. The dream of home ownership, once considered a birthright for hard-working Canadians, is becoming for many a seemingly impossible dream.

It is part of the larger issue of affordability in many aspects of everyday life. While the data shows that Canada has fared better than most other G7 countries when it comes to inflation, that is little comfort to my constituents, who go to the grocery store and find so much of their paycheque just going to put food on the table. This has them looking warily to the future. Will they ever be able to get ahead of the daily grind? Will they be able to find the money to save for their future or to put away for their children’s education?

It is because of concerns like these that the government is laser-focused, including in budget 2023, on affordability. With our made-in-Canada plan, budget 2023 would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are able to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, sustainable and affordable for people from coast to coast to coast.

Let us start with everyday expenses. While our opponents across the way want to lower taxes for the wealthiest 1% and hope the money will somehow trickle down to the middle class and those working hard to join it, decades of failed Conservative economic policy show that this does not work. Instead, our government is focused on delivering targeted inflation relief directly to the most vulnerable Canadians to help support them with the cost of living.

That is why, in budget 2023, our government is providing new, targeted inflation relief to the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. Budget 2023 introduces a one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families. The grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children with up to an extra $234, and seniors with an extra $225 on average. An individual or a family would have to be entitled to the GST credit in January 2023 and have filed a 2021 tax return in order to receive the grocery rebate. This additional support would be delivered by the Canada Revenue Agency as soon as possible following the passage of the legislation, using the GST credit system.

Shortly after the budget was released, I visited Atiya's Fresh Farm, a grocery store in my riding, with the Minister of Transport to talk about the grocery rebate. I spoke with several mothers, who told me how the extra help from the grocery rebate would allow them to make better choices when doing the family’s grocery shopping. For families in my riding, this will mean being able to buy healthier options and more fruits and vegetables, instead of cheaper, less nutritious, processed food. That is especially important for children, to ensure they have the energy they need to grow and be active, as well as succeed in their schooling.

Speaking of schooling, with budget 2023 we are also making it easier for families to save for and invest in their children’s future. We are proposing to improve registered education savings plans by increasing limits on certain RESP withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students, and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would make it easier and more affordable for parents to save for their children's education.

We are increasing Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students. We are raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study. We are also waiving the requirement for mature students, aged 22 years or older, to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time, which would allow up to 1,000 additional students to benefit from federal aid in the coming year. This follows other support for students announced by our government, including permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans and ensuring that borrowers do not need to make payments on their loans until they earn at least $40,000 per year. We are committed to working with students in the years ahead to develop a long-term approach to student financial assistance in time for budget 2024.

Also, on affordability, I have already seen in my community how the Canadian dental care plan is making a difference for lower-income families. It is allowing families that have been putting off dental care for their children to be able to get their children in to see a dentist and make their oral care a priority. Dental care is health care, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By expanding the program this year to include seniors and other lower-income Canadians, we are both helping make life more affordable and ensuring healthy outcomes for more Canadians.

I would also like to talk about housing, which, as I have said, is a real issue for my constituents. While the Conservatives did nothing on housing for a decade and still like to pretend the rental market does not exist, our government takes a holistic approach to housing that includes both homeowners and renters. Everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. However, for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach, and paying rent has become more expensive across the country.

Centred by the national housing strategy, over the past year the federal government has taken significant steps towards making housing more affordable for Canadians. We are building on that in budget 2023 by announcing that financial institutions will be able to start offering the tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1, 2023; publishing a guideline to protect Canadians with mortgages who are facing exceptional circumstances; and committing an additional $4 billion to CMHC to implement a co-developed urban, rural, and northern indigenous housing strategy.

This builds on other measures we have taken, such as a two-year ban on non-residents or non-Canadians purchasing residential property; a 1% annual underused housing tax on the value of residential property owned by non-residents or non-Canadians that is vacant or underused; a new tax-free first home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000, tax-free, to help buy their first home; an accelerator fund to remove barriers and incentivize housing supply growth, with the goal of creating at least 100,000 net new homes across Canada, and much more.

As I have said before, no one level of government holds the key to solving the housing crisis in Canada. It will take cities, provinces and the federal government all working together. There is still much more to do, but I am glad that, after a Conservative decade of darkness, Canada again has a government that is a willing partner in housing.

While our government is focused on programs that make life more affordable for Canadians, such as dental care and child care, the opposition on the other side is opposing us every step of the way. The Leader of the Opposition even called our child care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars every month, a “slush fund”. It is clear who is looking out for Canadian families.

Let us pass this budget and keep the focus on affordability for everyday Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to talk about the topic of a slush fund.

The housing accelerator fund, which will be put out by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has billions of dollars set aside for, well, we just do not know. We do not know exactly what it will go towards. I am concerned for municipalities, because I have heard from a local chief administrative officer who had no idea what the project does. How is this going to tangibly build homes that people can live in?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is a really important issue for my constituents.

We believe in a long-term approach to housing. We have a national housing strategy, which is based on a 10-year plan for building more affordable housing for Canadians. In the budget, we are building on that.

We will make sure that housing becomes more affordable for all Canadians. It should be a right for all Canadians to have a safe place to live and to call home.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about housing.

I think the logic is very simple. It is about supply and demand. The problem in my riding—and I think it may be a problem in my colleague's riding too, as it is throughout Quebec and Canada—is that there is not enough housing supply. There are several reasons behind this, including the proliferation of Airbnb, people living alone and so on. All this means that there is far less housing available. The priority should have been housing construction.

I welcome the measure included in the budget for a $4-billion increase over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing for indigenous people. However, there is nothing for housing construction for the rest of Canada. In my view, the biggest impact of the labour shortage is that people cannot find housing in our communities. That is a problem.

Why has the government not taken concrete action on housing construction?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is an issue that one government cannot resolve. As the federal government, we are working with provinces and municipalities to make sure that we build more affordable housing.

In budget 2023, we have taken some measures to make sure we build more affordable housing, including announcing that financial institutions would be able to start offering tax-free first home savings accounts to Canadians as of April 1. We are publishing a guideline to protect Canadians with mortgages who are facing exceptional circumstances. We are committing an additional $4 billion to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We have announced a housing accelerator fund to make sure that municipalities could work to build more affordable, better housing for Canadians.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I thank the member for the comments on housing, the Liberal government is tinkering around the edges in a crisis.

I am happy to see that there are structural investments in this budget around dental care, which will be long-standing and eternal for Canadians. However, what the government really missed was housing. Where is the investment in affordable housing in this budget?

We knew operating agreements that were made 40 years ago were going to expire. Ten years ago, we should have had our eye on it. Municipalities had their eye on the fact that operating agreements were expiring this year, last year, next year and the next three or four years. Where is the investment in affordable housing in this budget?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her concern in making sure that Canadians have access to affordable housing.

Housing is not something that we could resolve in one or two years. Since we came to power in 2015, we have worked on building a national housing strategy, which is a 10-year plan to make sure that we build more affordable housing. In this budget, we have taken certain measures to make sure that Canadians get access. We have announced a housing accelerator fund, which is a great investment and which would help in building more affordable housing, working with more municipalities and making sure that they cut the red tape to have quicker processes for building more affordable housing.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I share a border. Our ridings are next to each other. I am always aware of the great work that she is doing with young people in her community, with her youth council and with the local schools.

In the budget and past initiatives, we have seen $10-a-day child care and dental relief. We have seen relief on interest rates, as well as many programs, such as the child benefit, which help young people in our community.

Could the member tell us what the response has been from young people in her community?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since we came to power in 2015, certain measures that we have taken are really helping to make a difference. They include the Canada child benefit, $10-a-day child care and programs to make sure that we provide more support to students. When I talk to people in my youth council, they tell me how these additional student grants are helping them to make sure they can concentrate more on their studies. Many students find it difficult to find a job after graduating. However, they have some room in that they do not have to pay their student loans until they start earning $40,000. That is really helping our young kids to grow and be more successful in life.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is actually my neighbour. His riding is right beside mine.

In talking about the budget, we should look at some numbers. The first number I want to talk about is $176 billion. Government spending is up $176 billion since 2015. That is a 63% increase in government spending in eight years. We might ask ourselves what all this spending has done for Canadians. It is a very reasonable question. That is a massive increase.

If I increased my home budget by 63%, I am going to guess my spouse and children might look around and ask, “Since the budget is way up, what is better? Have things gotten better here?”

Let us look at what all this spending has done for Canadians. Right now, there is a $176-billion growth in government spending per year, and one in five Canadians is now skipping meals because life is so expensive and unaffordable. I was not an A student when I went to university, but I am smart enough to understand that this is a problem.

Let us look at this other number: 1.5 million Canadians are now using the food bank. Let us go back. There is $176 billion more in government spending, and the result is that 1.5 million Canadians are using the food bank. We can take that part out of the equation. Affordability is actually being able to buy groceries and live. We know that the affordability question is awful after all this government spending. Every Canadian we talk to would say that life is unaffordable. However, we can put that aside for just one second.

Let us talk about something else that is important for Canadians. We can talk about rent. Rent has almost doubled since 2015. There is $176 billion more being spent, and one needs to pay twice as much for rent. We can imagine what that does to a family's ability to make ends meet. Families are now paying twice as much in rent. Have their paycheques gone up? Have they doubled? No, they absolutely have not, but the rent has.

It is the same thing if one wants to buy a house. Since houses are now so expensive and have gone up so much under the government, one now needs to put twice as much down as a down payment. People are thinking that their rent is terrible and unaffordable; maybe they should get out of the rental market and buy a house. What happens then? Now they need to have twice as much money as a down payment to buy that house.

Again, after eight years of the Liberal government, $176 billion more is being spent per year. When we look at affordability, or the ability to make ends meet, Canadians are skipping meals and going to the food bank. On that metric, it is an F.

Let us look at what else is going on, such as with housing. Housing is extremely important. Rents have doubled. If someone wants to buy a house, they find that down payments have doubled. A recent survey showed that nine in 10 Canadians who do not own a house think they never will. We can let that sink in for a second. That is how bad it is. This is after eight years of a Liberal government and increasing government spending by $176 billion.

To go back to my own house, if my budget had gone up by 63% and my spouse and children looked around and everything was more expensive, they might be asking me what is going on. They might ask what all this spending was for.

That is the incredible thing about it. Right now, we are in the middle of a massive public service strike. The Liberals massively increased the size of the government over the past eight years, as well as spending on the government, and still somehow managed to have 100,000 public servants go on strike. We are now on day nine. This is stunning incompetence.

Everything is more expensive. People cannot buy a house, and they can barely pay their rent. Government workers have walked off the job. That is the Liberals' record. It is astounding. When we look at all this, it has been financed with deficit spending, which adds to the debt. The debt is now $1.2 trillion. Interest payments on the debt have also almost doubled to $44 billion a year, soon to be $50 billion a year.

Many Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, find it hard to get medical appointments or specialist appointments. We can imagine for a second what $50 billion per year would do for health care. It would help to remove the lineups that Canadians are stuck in. When so many Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, it would help to hire more family doctors. Again, this is Liberal Canada after eight years.

The Liberals may not believe me; I find that often happens in this place. They seem to say they were spending all this money and ask why the Conservatives are talking about the problem. I will tell members why. It is because I get emails from people like Kim.

Kim sent me an email that says, “I am stretched so thin. I either pay bills or buy food because I can't afford both.” Again, we should let that sink in. There is $176 billion more spent per year by the government, and Kim is choosing whether to eat or pay bills. It is a disgrace what the government has done to this country and what it is putting Canadians through. Canadians deserve so much better than what the government has done. Kim goes on to say, “Food costs are ridiculous. Gas and heating keep going up. Is life better under this government? Not by a long shot.”

Can we guess what the government's answer to the affordability crisis is? It is that the carbon tax is going up. The carbon tax makes everything more expensive because the farmer who pays the carbon tax on the fuel to run the farm passes that cost on to consumers. Then the truck that takes the product from the farm to be processed has a carbon tax. That is more expensive. The plant that does the processing has a carbon tax. That makes it more expensive. It then gets trucked to a grocery store, and there is a carbon tax. It makes it more expensive. The grocery store has a heating bill with a carbon tax. That makes it more expensive. If we wonder why Canadians cannot afford to eat, it is because the government just increases the carbon tax at every opportunity.

I visited a farm two weeks ago in my riding. Guess what its carbon tax bill was? It was $17,000. The Liberals say the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, but it is not. The PBO has made clear that the carbon tax is making the lives of Canadians less and less affordable all the time.

I want to finish with an email from Daina. I got it just the other day. They said, “I want to express concerns for two full-time, very hard-working adults, one of which is a small business owner and in our home, so the home tax rebate doesn't assist us. We can't afford to bring a child into this world because of the costs.”

This is from a young couple that somehow managed to buy a home. It says she bought it five years ago, so things were not as bad then. They are choosing not to have children because they are barely making ends meet. I know what the member is going to jump up and say, “What about $10-a-day day care?” They know about it, and they are still making this choice. For one thing, it is just not available for everybody. Not everybody gets it.

The government spends $176 billion more per year, and everything is worse in this country. People are going to food banks. People are choosing between heating their homes and eating. People are choosing not to have children. That is the Liberals' legacy, and it is disgraceful.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways I disagree with the member's statements. Let us take a look at what the Conservative Party has said.

Hundreds of millions going into billions of additional dollars being spent every year to support health care, $198 billion over 10 years. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into billions of dollars every year to ensure that child care is more affordable. These are the types of needs that Canadians have and the expectations that Canadians have of the government to provide. The Conservative Party believes that the child care investment is nothing more than a slush fund. All the provinces' different political parties have signed on.

Is it still the Conservative Party's position that we should rip up the child care $10-a-day plan? Is it the Conservative Party's plan to get rid of the tens of billions of dollars that we are putting into national health care? What is the Conservative plan? It does not have one.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. I just read two emails from the hundreds I have been getting about how tough life is even after all the spending. What does this member stand up to say? He asked if they know about the spending.

Of course they know about the spending. They know that all the spending has made their lives worse. That is what they know and this member stands here, effectively gaslighting Canadians, asking how dare they say things are so tough; look at all the money being spent.

They have spent the money in such a way that it has made Canadians' lives worse. We had a member just before who said the exact same thing. It was actually enlightening to hear that housing is unaffordable and all those kinds of things. However, their answer is to spend more money on things that are not going to make life better.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition party have repeatedly mentioned the deficits being racked up by the government. They have also mentioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports.

However, they are overlooking some information, including information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would mention the tens of billions of dollars in funding announcements that remains unspent. In 2021-22, this added up to $38 billion, and it was roughly the same amount last year. I would also mention the fiscal imbalance that is keeping funds in government coffers. This money comes from taxes paid by taxpayers. The situation has now reached a point where, in a matter of decades, the federal government will have settled all its debts stretching back to 1867, while the provinces and Quebec will be on the verge of technical bankruptcy, or will have lost much of their budgetary autonomy.

Is my colleague not outraged about this situation, this budgetary and financial hypocrisy, and the damage to the public and workers?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to talk about deficits. What every prime minister up until this point accumulated to the national debt, the Prime Minister and the current government have doubled over the span of eight years. Think about that. All the history of previous prime ministers, a certain amount of debt, has been doubled. What has that done? It has significantly reduced the fiscal capacity of the government just on interest payments alone, I would suggest.

What could go into transfer payments to the provinces if the national debt was not causing $50 billion a year just to service the debt? That is interest on the debt. Imagine what that could do to help the fiscal situation of the provinces. The growth of the government is contributing to that, $176 billion a year more, and it is still not transferring enough to the provinces. It is a remarkable disaster.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce said the number one priority to help solve the labour market crisis is increasing spaces in child care. In fact they are saying to keep going because we are seeing more and more spaces open up because of the agreement with Canada and the provinces. As someone who ran a chamber of commerce, as someone who actually had children in child care as a single parent at one time, I know how important those child care spaces are.

Does my colleague not agree that this would be a very important measure to help solve the labour market crisis in this country? What does he have to say to the chambers of commerce in my community?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, child care is important. That is why we were the first government to actually send money directly to parents for children. That was back under former prime minister Harper.

While $10-a-day child care sounds like a great idea, the problem is about how many spots and access people have to them; there are not very many. There are also lots of people who do not want to put their children into institutional child care. They want to take care of the children themselves or they want to put them into a family member's home or a neighbour's home.

To me this is so exclusionary. It is only open to a very small number of people. It is just not going to help enough.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our economy is stagnating, and that is not just in the last year or two, that has been going on for years. Let me explain. Average per capita gross domestic product is stagnating. In other words, average national income has not been growing. Per capita output has not increased in years. In fact, last year it was roughly the same as it was five years ago, in 2017. Flat per capita output, in the face of skyrocketing prices for assets like housing, in the face of skyrocketing prices for consumables like groceries, is the reason why households are struggling to pay the bills. It is the reason why Canadians are feeling the pinch. It is the reason why Canadian families are taking on ever-increasing amounts of household debt just to make ends meet.

Canada's flat per capita GDP is in marked contrast with what is going on in other advanced economies, which are rocketing ahead of us. Research by John Cochrane and Jon Hartley at Stanford shows that real GDP in Canada was just under $44,000 U.S. per person in 2021. In the United States, it was $61,000. That is shocking. American per capita GDP is now fully 40% higher than here in Canada.

However, even worse than the government's record over the last several years is the projection for the future. The OECD projects that Canada will only achieve 0.7% GDP growth this decade, putting us dead last among advanced economies. This projection is an indictment of the government's economic policies over the last eight years, and the government's own budget documents admit to this.

One chart in last year's budget, budget 2022, chart 28 on page 25, speaks a thousand words. It is titled “Average Potential Annual Growth in Real GDP per capita, Selected OECD Countries, 2020-2060”. The chart says that Canada's projected real GDP growth per capita will be dead last among advanced economies. That chart is in the government's own budget documents.

The budget in front of us, budget 2023, does nothing to change this trajectory. The budget in front of us is the seventh budget. It should have been the eighth, but instead of the government presenting a budget in 2020, it proposed an unprecedented power grab by proposing to give the PMO the power to approve taxation and spending for an unprecedented year and a half. While the Liberals backed off from that power grab, they set a dubious record for the longest period in Canadian history without introducing a government budget, and their lack of budgetary planning is beginning to show.

The budget in front of us proposes billions in new spending in the form of consumption rather than investments for things like dental programs that are often covered by existing employer and provincial plans. Rather than meeting our international commitments to the rules-based international order by making much-needed investments in our defence and our military, the government has chosen to spread more consumption in the form of programs that will further fuel inflation.

The budget also proposes billions in new spending in the form of massive industrial subsidies. Failing to heed the lessons of the past, the massive industrial subsidies do not work. In fact, the finance minister said as much last month in Washington. She voiced concerns about large industrial subsidies and warned against “a new mutually sabotaging competition to provide ever richer corporate subsidies”. That was last month.

This month, the government has introduced massive new industrial subsidies in the billions of dollars for large corporations. None of these policies, gobs of new spending on consumption rather than investment and gobs of new spending for massive industrial subsidies, are working. Canadians' standard of living continues to decline, and many economists are now ringing the alarm bells.

I want to quote from a piece published by Jonathan Deslauriers, executive director at the Walter J. Somers Foundation, and Robert Gagné, a professor at the Université de Montréal. It states:

In 1981, Canadians enjoyed a $3,000 higher per capita standard of living than the major Western economies.... Forty years later, Canada was $5,000 below that same average. If the trajectory continues, the gap will be nearly $18,000 by 2060.

This is an alarming analysis. In light of the recent $13-billion subsidy announced for Volkswagen, I would like to quote another part of their analysis. The article states:

Canada now remains stuck in an interventionist logic dedicated to protecting the immediate interests of Canadian companies. Successive governments have failed to move on from protectionist reflexes and impose the necessary reforms: they should have adjusted the regulatory framework to stimulate the competitiveness of Canadian companies in the domestic market. Instead, Canadian companies continue to operate within an outdated institutional framework that does not value competitive forces.

Here is what the authors conclude if the federal government does not change course:

[G]rowth will remain inadequate and our standard of living will continue to quietly decline unless we put competition back at the heart of Canada’s economic strategy.

None of this should surprise us. Massive industrial subsidies never worked in the past and they will not work now. They distort the price of capital, leading to a less efficient allocation of capital with the attendant declines in productivity and wage growth. Low productivity is the path to poverty. The only long-run determinant of prosperity is high productivity.

With respect to our aggregate GDP, our top-line numbers do not look too bad. However, our overall GDP growth is underwritten by Canada's massive population growth. We have one of the highest population growth rates in the world, including in the developing world. That massive population growth is masking low per-capita GDP growth. If the population goes up 3% but GDP only goes up 2%, people are getting poorer.

The master-of-the-universe types, the CEO types and the hedge-fund types are all fine with flat if not declining per-capita GDP growth, provided we have high population growth, because it means more customers for them by the millions, even if that average customer's disposable income is flat and if not declining, because the number of customers times the disposable revenue per customer equals total revenues. What the exact value of the number of customers is and what the exact value of the disposable income per customer is do not really matter if the multiplication of these two values is higher revenues because on the profit-and-loss statement higher revenues means higher profits, which means higher pay and bonuses for the master-of-the-universe types. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians suffer to pay the bills as their per-capita income stagnates.

Let me finish by saying this: My parents immigrated to Canada. My father immigrated as a Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong in 1952. My mother immigrated as a Dutch immigrant from the Netherlands in the 1960s. They both left poorer countries and places to come to a much wealthier, more prosperous country. Decades later, the reverse is true. We are in big trouble. We are falling behind big time and we have a government that is utterly incapable of arresting this decline in our standard of living.

For all the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the government's budget and I cannot support the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we hear time and time again Conservatives stand up and indicate concerns about the deficit and the debt. Having gone through the pandemic, with respect to the massive investments in things such as Canada's health care system and child support and the amounts of money we are talking about, including the wage loss subsidy programs, CERB, the rent subsidy programs to support small business owners, literally keeping hundreds of thousands of jobs intact, supporting Canadians to be able to get through the pandemic and meeting the needs of health care going forward, do the Conservatives not believe those to be wise investments in Canadians or would they rather we had not done that?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not once in my speech did I mention government debt or deficits. I focused on our declining standard of living.

In the five-year period from 2017 to 2021, economic output per capita was flat. We have not had any per capita growth, and that is why Canadians are struggling to pay the bills. The government has focused its economic agenda on consumption rather than investment. In the long run, only through investment, whether private sector investment or government investment in public infrastructure, are we going to get to higher levels of productivity, with the attendant increases in wages and prosperity for all Canadians, but the government has not been doing that.

In fact, it has been doing the opposite, which is why our per capita GDP is now much lower than that in the United States. Per capita GDP here is $44,000 U.S., while it is $61,000 U.S. south of the border. The American economy now has fully 40% higher output, per capita, than we have here in Canada, and that is affecting our ability to pay for social programs, such as health care and education.

That is what the government does not get and is incapable of addressing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about people's quality of life.

Agriculture is a sector where the workers' quality of life has been hit hard this past year. Our agricultural producers have been severely impacted by the cost of inputs and fuel. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, costs could be $40,000 higher this year than last just because of the cost of fuel. This has huge consequences.

Our farmers need cash flow. There is a rather interesting measure in the budget that would increase the interest-free limit under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $350,000. This helps farmers manage their debt a little better, but does not provide them with cash flow. If we want to maintain our agricultural production and food resilience in Canada, we need to make investments. Why are there none in the budget? What would the member have done?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from an agricultural riding that has many dairy and beef farms and farms that produce hay and other agricultural products. I really understand the importance of our agricultural sector and our farmers.

Agriculture is one of the few sectors in the Canadian economy that is a free trade sector and not heavily regulated by government, like the banking and telecommunications sectors are. What does the government do? It saddles our farmers with ever-increasing regulation and taxes, making it even more difficult for them to sell corn, wheat, soy beans, beef or pork on global markets.

The government cannot get anything right. We could be an agricultural powerhouse, but we are not. In fact, the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world is the Netherlands. It is far ahead of Canada. We have the second largest landmass in the world, and we are not taking advantage of it because the government has a completely misguided industrial strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know there are 3.2 million Canadians who are underhoused. Now, the government set out an ambitious agenda of inviting 500,000 new immigrants a year for the next three years, but it has no cohesive strategy on where they are going to live.

Desjardins has made it clear that we would have to increase all new housing starts by 50% in the next year, just to meet immigration. The provinces are saying they need money for non-market and social housing.

Does my colleague not agree that, after 30 years of Conservative and Liberal governments lacking investments in social housing, this is the time to invest in social and affordable housing?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the government is putting roadblocks in the way of constructing purpose-built apartments buildings in this country. It is almost impossible to build a purpose-built apartment building, which is why all the focus is on building owner-occupied dwellings. It is because the government has subsidies for owner-occupied dwellings through CMHC's mortgage insurance, OSFI's regulatory structure and Finance Canada's rules, while on the other hand it is putting up roadblocks to building apartment buildings.

That is the fundamental problem that the government is not even talking about, and it is something it should be focused on.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

It is always a great honour for me to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the great people of Don Valley East, representing communities such as Wynford, Flemingdon Park, Don Mills, Fenside and Victoria Village. It is really a true honour to represent these communities within a larger community. Without question, I would argue that my neighbourhood is probably the most diverse and vibrant community in all of Canada. However, I know some may argue that point in the House. We are all proud to be a part of our communities, and I cannot say enough how proud I am to be here today to speak to this important bill.

There is no question that Canadians are going through a very challenging time. Things were tough before the pandemic, but they were amplified during COVID. I grew up in my community, and there were always challenges in my neighbourhood, but it has become more difficult for people. We can see this clearly in my community and communities across this great country. With the increase in mental health challenges, and the lack of affordability, and even of social cohesion, people are having challenges.

However, it is our job in the House, as members of Parliament, to look for ways to bring people together, articulate the challenges we are facing as a society and bring forward solutions in the House to move forward. I think most people in the House would agree that that is our job as MPs. I have to believe that every single person in the House of Commons wants to look for ways to identify problems and bring forward solutions to alleviate some of these challenges.

We have seen these big challenges come forward, but we are making some progress. We have seen an increase in job creation in this country. Inflation has dropped from 8.1% in September of last year to below 4.5% today. There are 865,000 more jobs today than prepandemic, so we are making progress. Despite the rhetoric that comes from the Conservatives, we are leading economic growth in the G7. There is no question about that. Despite all of this success, we cannot ignore the challenges people are going through.

I believe we are all on the same page when we identify the issues and problems people are going through, but the Conservatives and the Liberals differ on one thing, which is the solutions we bring forward. The Conservatives will tell us that the best type of government is the smallest government we could ever find, one that minimizes and cuts, which we have seen before, to do as little as possible to assist people who need help. Under their leader, they have found the solution is to gather support by taking on the fear and anxiety out there to steer people into a discourse and a discussion not necessarily about how they can help Canadians, but how they can amplify the anger that is out there. It is the get-out-of-the-way approach of letting the market take control and everything will be fine.

I think that is a very simple, archaic and naive philosophy, which really ignores the belief that government itself can be used as a mechanism for the common good. I know that is true because I am living proof that good government programs can bring out the best in people. I see it throughout my community all the time. Government can be used as a force for good. It is the belief that we are stronger as a society when we work together, pool our resources and present solutions together.

On this side of the House, we believe that, if we work together and invest in the right programs and services, we can benefit society as a whole. I have seen this with my own eyes. We have seen this on a grand scale historically with investments in programs, such as our national health care programs and provincial education programs, and we have seen it more recently with the child care programs in Ontario and across the country.

However, we know without question that there is a stark difference between the Liberal approach and the Conservative approach. That is why I am a Liberal. When it comes to building good government, one that will invest in people, that is what drives me to continue to do the work I do.

The Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition are doing something that we have not seen in recent decades in this country. It is usually reserved for a very right-wing international style of power pursuit, where they look for ways to tap into people's anger and actually amplify that anger.

It is kind of like when one sees two people arguing and there is a person on the sideline who is actually amplifying that frustration between the two people, looking for ways to divide those people. I think the Leader of the Opposition is in a position of power where he could use that role to not only critique government but also bring Canadians together. I would argue that the success of this country has been entirely built on the fact that we as Canadians have stuck together when times are difficult. The Leader of the Opposition stands on the sidelines, encouraging people to amplify their anger and frustration rather than offering them real solutions to the problems we face as Canadians.

Even when the solutions are offered to the Conservatives and to the Leader of the Opposition, such as those, for example, in this budget, or many of the initiatives that have been brought forward, they simply disregard those solutions. The Conservatives said that they would vote against the budget even before seeing the budget. To me, that says a lot. It means they are so embedded in ideology, so driven by the pursuit of power, that they are actually pushing all of these great ideas to one side to pursue something completely different.

Conservatives are not interested in exploring innovative new ideas, and I think that this is to the detriment of Canadians as a whole. I want to take the opportunity to tell Canadians what the Conservatives are voting against in this budget.

There is a grocery rebate. I have heard members opposite just disregard it as being a small amount that will not really make a difference. Well, it is a $2.5-billion investment to help Canadians who are struggling to pay grocery bills.

There is the Canadian dental care plan. We are going to expand it so that it helps families who earn under $90,000. This is an important program for people in my community and many communities across the country. There is also $500 million over the next 10 years for a strategic innovation fund and $14,400 of accessible money to students for post-secondary.

This is not part of a new plan. This is a long-term plan that we have had on this side of the House for many years now, to look for ways to continue to invest in people. They are our greatest resource in this country, and we will continue to bring forward ideas that ensure that people in this country have the best options going forward.

I have little hope in the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party when it comes to providing those solutions. Just imagine a party that does not believe in climate change, that will tell one to take one's life savings and invest them into cryptocurrency.

Do not get me wrong, I believe in digital currency. I think there is a pathway for it, but to suggest that one should take one's life savings and invest them to avoid inflation is irresponsible. It is irresponsible for anyone who wants to end up being prime minister of this country.

We know the approach that the Conservatives take. It is a very old-style approach of trickle-down economics in which, at the end of the day, the rich become richer and those who need the most help are pushed to the sidelines.

Many Canadians are frustrated. They feel this way, and we have to acknowledge that Canadians are feeling this way, but we have to take that energy and come together as Canadians to look for ways to bring us together, find solutions, and really build the country as a whole together.

I believe that there is hope in this country. There is an option that is opposite to what the Leader of the Opposition is offering, an approach that recognizes the problems we face, brings people together to better understand the issues, works with Canadians to find solutions and uses the strength of good government to leverage everything we can do collectively as Canadians to continue to put in place programs and services that strengthen our greatest asset, our greatest resource: our people, Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all bore witness to a bit of a comedy show here and a member who forgets that it is his leader who has divided this nation along many lines, including economic, race, faith, gender, etc. This is a leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, who has referred to people as racists and misogynists, and who has referred to not having to tolerate these kinds of people, yet the member speaks about division.

The one thing Conservatives are is reflective of the voices of Canadians in this place, and the Liberals can learn a lesson about reflecting the voices of their constituents as opposed to the government telling them everything.

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about his leader wearing racist blackface so many times that he actually forgets how many times it was. How come he did not condemn his leader for doing that?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that when the only Black person on this side stands up to talk, the member brings up blackface. I think it is ridiculous. They are a joke on that side. They bring up issues in the House on economic policy, but a Black person stands up and he brings up this issue—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. When we have questions and comments, we wait for the question and answer to be heard.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that we are getting into very dangerous territory when we see a white man in caucus attacking someone of colour over issues of race and then saying that this is about an issue of racism. That is way beyond the pale.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe this is descending into debate on the issue.

I will let the hon. member for Don Valley East defend himself.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, I was in the Ontario government, and I can remember that in their budget, they actually made cuts to refugees when it came to health care. It is a perfect example of the approach and style of the Conservatives when they get into power. It is about cuts. Imagine a Conservative government cutting refugee services in health care. It is unbelievable, but those are the kinds of services we get with the Conservatives in power.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's role is to exaggerate the benefits of its budget to draw attention away from the things it is hiding and the major oversights. The role of the opposition parties is to cut through the Liberals' rhetoric.

It is all well and good for the Liberals to use “investing in people” as their slogan while completely forgetting about seniors, unemployed workers and unionized workers who are the victims of replacement workers. What a slap in the face from this party that taunts the opposition party about cryptocurrency while giving GST exemptions to those who mine cryptocurrency.

Will we get some consistency and respect for the Constitution in this budget at some point? That would be a welcome change.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100% that the role of any opposition member is to critique anything this government brings forward. That was exactly the point of my speech.

The Conservatives, the loyal opposition, are in a position of power where they can look for ways to critique and make suggestions for improvement to help Canadians. However, the number one piece, which is important when we are looking for ways to build this country, is to keep people on the same page, keep people together and stop dividing people and exploiting that divide in the pursuit of power.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party came to northern Ontario and said he was too busy to meet with any indigenous people, which I think sent a clear message. However, then he made all these jokes about electric vehicles. The leader of the Conservative Party has never had a real job, so maybe he does not understand this, but in northern Ontario, which is mining country, we are going to be seriously focused on EVs because of the economic opportunities. Then this morning, again I heard the Conservatives insinuating and attacking investment in a battery plant in St. Thomas.

As the Americans are tooling up for a complete overhaul of their economy, we have the Conservatives attacking and undermining EV technology and digital investment. I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the leader of the Conservative Party does not understand the basics of economics.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got to spend some time with the member and, like me, he has had many different jobs. I have worked in restaurants where I had to clean the bathrooms. I have worked so many jobs in my life just to try to get ahead, and I think work experience is a really important thing.

As to the Leader of the Opposition, I think the member is quite right that this is the only job he has ever had. He is a professional politician. I think in order to be successful in the House, we need to take the life experience that people face every single day and bring it into forums like this so we can make the best decisions possible.

I would like to thank the member for the question and thank him for his commitment to Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of my riding of Vancouver Granville.

I want to talk a bit about the measures in budget 2023 that would improve the lives of my constituents in Vancouver Granville and indeed individuals across Canada.

A lot of issues have been discussed over the course of the last little while. My friend and colleague just gave an important speech that reflected some of the challenges we have in terms of the need for good debate in this House. I want to start with things that hopefully we can all agree on.

First is the fight against money laundering. Money laundering has been a central issue in Vancouver and across B.C. These criminal acts threaten the integrity of the Canadian economy and put Canadians at risk. Just last year, the Government of British Columbia released the final report of the Cullen commission on money laundering. The Cullen commission highlighted major gaps in the current anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, as well as areas for deepening federal and provincial collaboration. That is why I am so happy and so pleased to see that budget 2023 introduces a new focus on combatting money laundering and terrorist financing and closes these gaps.

The budget announces the government's intention to introduce legislative amendments to the Criminal Code to make it easier to investigate money laundering, strengthen enforcement capabilities and improve information sharing between government agencies. In particular, law enforcement would have the ability to freeze and seize virtual assets with suspected links to crime. Under these proposals, the CRA, law enforcement and FINTRAC would be able to share financial intelligence. We are introducing an offence for those who structure financial transactions to avoid FINTRAC reporting. We are also extending whistle-blower protections to employees who report financial information to FINTRAC.

These are just a few of the many ways we are working to end money laundering and ensure that no terrorists are hiding their money here in Canada. I hope everyone in this House can support those measures.

Budget 2023 also announced measures to protect Canadians from the risks of crypto-assets. We know that Canadians have invested in crypto. There is nothing wrong with that. I have invested in crypto. However, there is a big difference between investing in crypto and telling Canadians they should put their life savings in crypto to avoid inflation.

The crypto-asset market is extremely turbulent and is prone to high-profile failures such as those of FTX, BlockFi and Signature Bank. We are all aware that crypto-assets are not a credible way to opt out of inflation. We have heard this time and again, and it is important for Canadians to know that. If anything, unregulated and risky crypto-assets can threaten the financial well-being of Canadians.

Budget 2023 proposes new measures to protect Canadians, including ensuring that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, would consult federally regulated financial institutions on guidelines for publicly disclosing their exposure to crypto-assets. These types of measures would ensure financial security for Canadians.

Speaking of the economy, following the impressive rebound the Canadian economy has made coming out of the pandemic, Canadians need assurances that the economy will remain strong. Inflation is steadily coming down and interest rates are steady. To see how stable the economy is, let us look at the key indicators that most people are concerned about.

First, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio continues on a declining path from 2024-25 onward. Second, the deficit continues to project a decline in every year of the forecast. Third, our public debt charges, as a share of the economy, are projected to remain at historically low levels, and our credit ratings in this country remain strong.

However, we cannot stop there. Our government intends to invest in key areas that are strategically targeted to help everyday Canadians. These are investments that would not risk increasing inflation.

It is vital that economic policy focus on helping middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it. That is why a major focal point for the budget is affordability. During a time of heightened inflation around the world, the budget proposes new, targeted support to those who need it most.

When times are tough, we have to remember to take care of the people who are struggling the most. That is why in this budget, we will find a grocery rebate aimed at helping people afford essential goods. Over 11 million Canadians and families would benefit. Eligible couples with two children could receive up to an extra $467, and seniors would receive up to an extra $255. When people can worry a little less about providing basic necessities for their families, it gives them further room to thrive, including almost 30% of modest-income individuals and families in my province of B.C.

We are not stopping at grocery costs. Unexpected hidden and additional fees can quickly eat up a budget. They are frustrating and are a sneaky way to hit the pocketbooks of everyday Canadians. This is why budget 2023 takes action to crack down on what we call “junk fees”, whether it is Internet overage charges, roaming fees, extra charges on a concert ticket that one has saved up for or things like excess baggage fees. We are going to work with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce these junk fees for everyone. We are going to strengthen existing legislative tools and create new regulations to ensure that we curb the escalation of and remove junk fees wherever possible.

Another area my constituents in Vancouver Granville are deeply concerned about is the fight against climate change and moving emissions to net-zero. Canada is a major energy producer, and we have a unique opportunity to build a cutting-edge clean economy. With the help of our highly skilled workforce and partners in the private sector, we will be net-zero by 2050.

However, the federal government cannot do this alone. With the help of provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments, we will help realize this goal. How we do that is going to be important.

We have announced an investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing, and it will provide support to Canadian companies that are manufacturing or processing clean tech and their precursors. This is going to assist companies across sectors and will apply to those extracting, processing or recycling critical minerals that are essential for clean tech and those manufacturing zero-emission vehicles. The tax credit will also apply to the manufacturing of grid-scale electrical energy storage equipment. By investing in clean, safe technology, we can ensure a prosperous country for generations to come.

It is important to recognize that this budget is a study of contrast. On this side of the House, we have solutions. We have ideas that are going to help make life more affordable for everyday Canadians. We have a plan to build the economy of the future. We are taking care of the most vulnerable in our society, but we are seeing it as an investment into the future of this country rather than as a handout.

We know that tax cuts are not the solution. We know investing in Canadians is. On this side of the House, our commitment is to Canadians and to working with Canadians to ensure that they can support their families, that they have access to affordable child care, that they have access to affordable and high-quality dental care and that the most vulnerable in our communities do not need to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. Most importantly, we will work to give Canadians a sense of hope for the future of this country. That hope comes from their ability to work and live in an environment that is clean, where we take care of our natural resources and, above all else, respect one another in the debates we have and in the way we build a better future.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member for Vancouver Granville knows, a commitment to net-zero by 2050 is not worth the paper it is printed on if we do not stop subsidizing the companies most responsible for the crisis we are in.

He mentioned affordability and mentioned supporting the most vulnerable Canadians across the country. As he knows, 40% of people living in poverty are living with disabilities. In this budget, once again the Canada disability benefit was not funded.

I would like to hear what he is going to do to put more pressure on the governing party to move much more quickly on moving forward the Canada disability benefit.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advocacy.

It is important for us to recognize a few things. First of all, our government has made historic investments in ensuring inclusivity and building an inclusive economy that considers the challenges faced by those with disabilities. There is always more we can do, and it is important for us to find ways, as we move forward, to make additional investments where we can.

What this budget does is look at other means to support those with disabilities, whether it is the grocery credit or dental care. There are so many options and opportunities here for us to help alleviate the burden on all Canadians and particularly those with disabilities. I will commit to working with the member to see if there are more things we can do going forward, because I believe that to build a truly inclusive economy and build a truly inclusive country, we must take into consideration the most vulnerable in our society.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the way Canadians judge a budget is by looking at the previous year's budget to see whether the government has actually implemented the promises it made in that budget.

I went back and looked at the previous year's budget, and there was a commitment that the government was going to introduce a policy to ensure that “profits from flipping properties held for less than 12 months are taxed fully and fairly”. I would love to hear the member's comments on how that implementation has gone. Has the government actually implemented any policies that would basically cut down on the flipping of properties and the financialization of housing in Canada? How is that process going?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member across is well aware, every single member on this side of the House in our caucus is fully supportive of those measures. These are important measures to reduce the financialization of the housing market in this country. We are going to keep taking those up.

I note the Conservatives continue to oppose those measures, and I would love for the member opposite to be explain this to the House and all Canadians: While every single person on this side of the House is uniformly supportive of taking additional measures, why do his party and his leader continue to oppose them? They will increase affordability for Canadians and improve the ability of Canadians to get into good-quality housing.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's slogan is “investing in people”. The mammoth budget bill contains a clause recognizing King Charles III as Canada's head of state.

Given that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are in favour of abolishing the monarchy, I am wondering how much it is costing or will cost to recognize that in the budget and what that has to do with the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very complicated to get into a debate about our relationship with the monarchy. This is a very important subject for many Canadians, regardless of their point of view.

Debates about our institutions that have a long-standing history and practice in our Constitution are things that are worthy of discussion and consideration. We should always be willing to have those conversations.

What we have seen in the House is an effort to undermine our institutions. We have seen so many examples of that over the last little while. It is really important for us to engage in thoughtful debate and conversation about the institutions that make our country what it is and be able to call into question and challenge those institutions but in a way that is respectful and thoughtful with respect to the views of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to talk about the budget bill before us and the next steps that the government needs to take to make things a bit better for Canadians.

Just over two years ago, I remember sending out a mailer to my constituents of North Island—Powell River, asking them what they felt about dental care and if that would have an impact on their lives. We were inundated with responses, letters, emails and phone calls, from people across the riding. They talked about what dental care would mean in their lives.

I remember one day going into my office quite early in the morning and a gentleman was waiting outside. He had a slip and had written an extra note on it. He talked about the fact that he worked a very good job his whole life. He had a pretty comprehensive pension but he was struggling to afford dental care. He had some significant teeth issues and that was such a huge gap in his life. Even though he made a fairly decent income, a fixed retirement income, not a totally crazy amount of money, he could not afford it. He said that he was there to talk about himself, but, more important, he was there to talk about the many people he knew who could not afford dental care at all.

I am very proud that the NDP pushed the government to make this a reality. In this budget implementation act, people under 18 years of age, seniors or people with disabilities will be able to get access to dental care, which will fundamentally change lives. I do not think we can ever underestimate how it feels for families not being able to afford basic dental care for their children and when their children experience bad dental health, what it feels like to know that this weight can be lifted from them. If they cannot make it work, what does that mean to them every day when their children are in pain? It means they are going to the hospital as a last resort, and this needs to change.

I also want to acknowledge that this budget is hard for me. I am the spokesperson on veterans affairs for the NDP. For years, I have been fighting for the government to fix the marriage-after-60 gold-digger clause.

I talk to seniors. Just last week, I talked to a beautiful woman in her eighties, who married a veteran after he turned 60. She looked after him for many years, loved him very much and when he passed away, she did not receive a cent of his pension, nothing, after many years of caring and loving another human being. It is appalling that so many people who serve our country are not allowed to pass on anything to their loved ones, the survivors of their deaths, because they were married after 60.

What is particularly frustrating for me is the fact that the veterans survivor fund was announced in 2019. There was a little research done that said, and I know this is crazy, we should be ensuring that caregivers, largely women, of military and RCMP veterans should get something. This clause was made in 1901; it is now 2023. That $150 million over five years has not been moved to one survivor of a veteran, not one. Statistics Canada told us that about 4,400 or 4,500 spouses, somewhere in that range, were subject to the gold-digger clause. They have received nothing from this $150-million announcement.

As much as I will stand here and fight for people across the country to get dental care and to see an increase in the GST rebate so that people who are struggling every day to make ends meet will get a little more, the hard part is that not everything that would be in an NDP budget is here.

One of the other things that I am proud of, but also have a challenge with, is the investment in a clean energy economy to create well-paying union jobs while addressing the climate crisis. The member for Timmins—James Bay was one of the people who worked very hard to make this a reality.

Workers across the country need to know that, as we move forward to address climate change, their having a good job on the side of that process is important to the NDP. We pushed really hard to ensure that employers who were moving forward were doing things that would help us address the climate change, and moving forward in a more positive green and sustainable way. If they are actually supporting their workers, if they are paying them well, they are going to get better tax credits. This encourages behaviour that we want to see in our country.

We also know that the oil and gas subsidies just continue on and on despite being the biggest emitters. They are not being held to account in a way that I would like to see. We are still working on that. I think of the member for Victoria who is continuously working on that issue, but the government is continuing to not take active steps. A sustainable future is important.

I represent a rural and remote riding. Our economies have been boom and bust because they are largely resource-based. These communities are doing a lot of innovative and great work to adjust to a new and changing world, but resources need to be put in place for those communities to find sustainability.

I was in Port Alice a few weeks ago, talking to the mayor about some of the challenges that his community was facing. He talked about connectivity and the opportunity that they were not getting. They need that bit of money to help connect them to the fibre that is being laid. We are working on that. These communities are working hard to create economies that are strong and they need supports that are going to help them do that in a sustainable way. I think everyone in my riding agrees that we do not want to continue to see the boom and bust. We want to see a steady boom that keeps everybody paid well and respected for the incredible work they do.

I am also pleased to see that there are some things in this budget to address the most wealthy in our country. We know that the top 1% is making an incredible amount of income and they do not have to pay their fair share. People in my riding have to pay their fair share. They work really hard and they pay their taxes because they believe in having a strong country. They also are frustrated that so many in the top 1% are not paying their fair share.

One of the things we see in this budget is the change to the alternate minimum rate, from 15% to 20.5%, and the removal of the tax exemption for dividends received on Canadian shares held by financial institutions as business income. This is important. It means that they are being held a bit more to account, not to the extent that the NDP would do but it is definitely moving in a direction. This means more of the ultrarich are paying their fair share.

The resources that are needed to address the genocide of indigenous people to the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse population is being a little more addressed. I am really pleased to see the red dress alert. This is something that can be done to allow a system that alerts our communities quickly to any indigenous women, girl or gender-diverse person going missing. We need that.

When I think of my riding, we have a couple of groups that fundraise. They bead and do different activities. They fundraise to help support those families that have lost indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. There are too many missing. We need to do better. This is a step in the right direction, but so much more could be done.

I am also pleased to see that there is more support for indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern indigenous communities. I wish there was more. I do not think there is enough. I know in my riding that urban communities are really looking for strong indigenous housing, and it has been neglected for far too long.

I will be supporting this budget. Politics is hard and I am willing to take that challenge, because making lives better for Canadians will always be my main focus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that when we take a look at the budget we have presented, there are many different forms of direct relief. We can talk about the grocery rebate and about how we would be expanding the dental program to cover seniors and others, but there are other aspects of the budget that are maybe not getting as much attention. For example, there is the enhancement for air travellers. After all, it is a budget implementation bill. We are taking a look at better ways in which we can provide more money up front for the Canada workers benefit.

I wonder if the member could provide some additional thoughts on those aspects of the budget implementation bill or whatever else she might want to talk about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see there is some more movement on passenger rights and strengthening airlines' obligations to compensate passengers. We have definitely seen, during the last while, how frustrating it can be for Canadians as they are trying to travel.

However, one of the other areas of concern is that I did not see anything momentous around housing. I know that, in my riding, we see a lot of people without housing. The challenges of finding affordable housing just continue to grow, and although the province is investing substantially in our region, the need is so high that it would be really good to see the federal government step up as a meaningful partner. We look forward to that.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with the budget, I was very interested in the “gold-digger” clause on veterans. Of course, I have a lot of people who are involved in that and certainly support it.

I wonder if the member can just expand a bit on the “gold-digger” clause, which is a clause about the spouses of veterans who have died. Why is that hung up? Why have we not moved forward with that? What is the problem there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have put forward a private member's bill on this, and I just want to remind people that we do not have to wait for my bill to be in the order of precedence. Actually, the government, at any point, could take leadership and address this issue in a meaningful way. My bill is just one suggestion. The government has the power to do that.

The other thing I want to draw the member's attention to is that the veterans committee did do a study, at my request, on this very issue. We talked to veterans and their spouses, who talked about the reality of the “gold-digger” clause. I might add that women across this country are very offended by that name. I have heard from so many of them who say that they are absolutely not gold diggers. They did not marry veterans for their money; they married veterans because they cared about them.

I think there are a lot of acts we can do, but we definitely want to see the veterans survivors fund. That money needs to move and go to these people.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In theory, it is a budget implementation bill. We would expect such a bill to contain budget measures. In reality, that is not exactly the case, because this bill that we are currently seized with is a 430-page bill that amends 59 acts. That is a lot. It is a big bill that the government has decided to cram with as much stuff as possible so that the House does not have time to debate and study it properly.

It is a shame, because there is a lot in this bill that we would have liked to debate. There are a lot of things we would have liked to study, but unfortunately, the bill is so big that it is difficult to do that job properly. It is also unfortunate that it is not simply about the budget. Rather, it is a bill that deals with a bunch of other matters.

If we at least had the opportunity to discuss the budget, and only the budget, that would have been fine. There is much to say about the federal budget. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Bloc Québécois had very specific requests for the federal budget that unfortunately were not answered.

For starters, there was the issue of increasing health transfers, which is critically important. Everyone agrees that there is not enough money, not enough funding for the provinces' health care systems. For example, we would like the federal government to fund 35% of system costs. That is not the agreement that was reached with the provinces. The agreements with the Quebec government were disappointing. Even the Quebec government said that it signed the agreement with a knife to its throat. It is a shame, because it is reflected in the budget. A pleasant surprise would have been nice, but we did not get one.

We would have liked to see an increase in old age security starting at age 65. We are faced with a staggering increase in the cost of living. Everyone is struggling, everyone is having a harder go of it, but workers have an advantage over retirees. They can go to their boss and ask for a little more money because it costs more to feed their family and to get to work. Retirees do not have that power, and the government should have listened to them.

When I walk around my constituency, I get told the same thing every day. Seniors tell me that it is insulting to receive pension increases of $1, $1.10, or $1.50 a month. What are they going to do with that? It makes absolutely no difference in their lives, and they feel like they are being laughed at. That is what the federal government is doing to our seniors, and it is really sad to see. The message it is sending is that they are not important.

The Bloc Québécois also expected to see the employment insurance reform that the Liberal government has been promising for years. There is no sign of it yet, but they tell us it is coming. This government has been in office for almost eight years, but the much-touted EI reform has still not happened. However, there were consultations. We saw lots of consultations but not a lot of results. Unemployed workers are getting impatient. Regional workers who are grappling with the spring gap are getting really impatient.

What it comes down to is that this government is not interested in anything the Bloc Québécois requests, because it has an agreement with the NDP to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Consider the dental care plan, a matter that falls squarely within the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, since health is exclusively a provincial domain. The federal government waded right in, with the NDP at its side.

That is how we ended up with a budget that does not make any sense and that does not meet the needs of Quebec, that does not meet people's needs. What is worse, as I said before, the Liberals are taking advantage of this opportunity to include a number of measures in the bill that have nothing to do with the budget.

Speaking of measures that have nothing to do with the budget, we got a big surprise when reading division 31 of part 4 of the bill, which is found on page 325. It states that we recognize Charles III as King of Canada by amending the royal titles. This is a budget implementation bill. Do we need to recognize Charles III as the new King of Canada for the budget to work? Is the King is costing us too much money? Is that why the government decided to include that in the budget implementation bill? I do not really understand what that is doing in there.

The Liberals did not mention this at all in the budget speech. Not a word was said about Charles III. It seems as though the government was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It made sure that there would be no debate about the monarchy. The Liberals know that there are members on the other side of the House who do not like the monarchy and who do not identify with it. Most of the population is opposed to the monarchy in Canada. The Liberals therefore hid that somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget so that no one would talk about it. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois is here to talk about it and to say that people do not agree with this and that it is not going to fly.

The ascension of King Charles III should not be formalized in this bill. It should be done in a separate bill so we can have a debate about it as a society. A provision on Canada's head of state has been buried somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget. One would almost think that the Liberals are ashamed to be monarchists or to be part of a monarchy. I can think of no other reason why they would bury this in the budget. It does not make sense. A provision about the head of state is buried at the bottom of the budget. Personally, I would like to be proud of my head of state. I would put it at the forefront and explain how important it is to me. Unfortunately, I am not proud that my country is a monarchy or that it is governed by the Liberal Party.

There are other things in this bill that I find quite relevant and that I would like to discuss. Once again, they are mentioned in the budget, but I do not really understand what they have to do with the budget. These are measures for passengers. It is sad, because it would have been really good to talk about these issues. During the pandemic, it was evident that there was a major problem with rules protecting passengers in this country. The government admitted it, even though it was in denial for so long. Its air passenger bill of rights was a complete failure. The government said that it was because of the pandemic, but, ultimately, the same problems occur season after season. It has nothing at all to do with the pandemic. It is because of the government's incompetence and failure to listen. When the government came out with the air passenger bill of rights, it did not listen and did not do the work properly.

The government is now trying to fix things. That is a good thing, but this deserved a completely separate bill, outside of the framework of the budget, so the matter could have been discussed properly. I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss this in detail instead of talking about it for just a few minutes along with the other 430 pages.

A drastic change needs to be made for passenger rights. I understand that the government wants to address the issue, but this needs to be taken seriously. We welcome the changes. Sadly, I do not have a lot of time to talk about this during my speech. I would have liked to talk about it for 10 or 20 minutes, even half an hour. We could have invited witnesses to committee to discuss this and see how we might do more to help passengers. This would have enabled the government to introduce a better bill to better protect passengers.

Unfortunately, all I can say is that I am glad the burden of proof has been reversed. The bill ensures that the airlines will have to cover some of the cost of dealing with complaints. The agency's decisions will be more transparent. Carriers will be forced to respond to people more quickly. These are all good things. The compensation categories are staying the same, but under the bill, passengers will be entitled to compensation for any flight delay or cancellation. These are good things, but why were they not introduced in a separate bill?

Why did the minister end up hastily organizing a press conference one morning to make this announcement? Since people might have missed a small item about air passenger rights in this huge 430-page bill, the minister made his announcement at a last-minute solo press conference. He would have liked people to talk about it, but his government did not have the time for it, so he hoped that this would do the trick.

That is sad, because the government does not do its job properly. Its work is shoddy and half-baked, and we will live with the consequences for many years. When addressing such an important matter, the government needs to take it seriously and do it right by introducing a real bill so we can have a real debate and find a lasting solution. Then we would not have the same problems we experienced with the passengers' bill of rights that was implemented by the government and by former minister Marc Garneau in 2019. There was a whole host of predictable problems that could not be corrected.

I hope that the government will listen to us and do the right thing as we move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

When we resume debate on this matter, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères will have five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would be hard pressed to find an individual in this chamber who does not love Canada. However, there is a difference in approach in this House as it pertains to managing the affairs of the country on behalf of the taxpaying Canadians who have elected us.

We are servants in the House of Commons, not masters. If one wants to see greatness, they should not look around this chamber but around our ridings. In my riding, it can be seen in the coal-stained shirt of Jason, the miner who extracts metal-making minerals from the ground in Elk Valley, metals the government has not acknowledged as critical minerals. It can be seen in the hands of farmers like Tyler, who understands the science and the weather, the soil and commodity prices and how to bring food from the fields to our tables. It can be seen in Terry, the electrician in Cranbrook who can send lightening shooting through a copper wire to light up our homes.

Often these people are called ordinary, but they are not ordinary. They are extraordinary. They are the ones bearing the brunt of broken federal policies. They are the individuals paying, from their paycheques, for the inflation caused by out-of-control federal spending.

Waitress Kassidy in Revelstoke can serve 15 customers at the same time, be on her feet all day, have enough energy to help her son with math homework and pay all of her bills on a minimum wage salary, but she is unable to save any money for her and her son's future. She is not ordinary; she is extraordinary.

Police officer Constable Dianne pushes through the pain of recovering someone's overdosed daughter from a homeless camp in Cranbrook or Nelson, and then, with her husband, tucks their children in at night. She is not ordinary; she is extraordinary.

As the leader of the official opposition has said, that is “the goodness, the greatness, and even the genius of the common people.”

It is the common sense of the common people striving for the purpose of the common home. The people's common democratic home is right here in this place, the House of Commons. All of this is theirs, and it is their common-sense voice that is missing from this budget.

They are the experts on the expense of inflation, an expense caused and fanned by the government. The reality for the hard-working people in Kootenay—Columbia is that life is now more expensive, homes are unattainable, groceries are becoming a luxury and life has become more difficult. However, the finance minister says she has “never been more optimistic about the future of our country”. She is out of touch. This should not be the Canadian experience.

This chamber is green because the first commoners met in the fields of England over 800 years ago. They wrestled power away from high society, the nobility, to make themselves, commoners, masters in their own homeland. Would those who wrestled agree with the policies of the Prime Minister?

On this side of the House, the official opposition remembers what the government has forgotten: We are servants, not masters. It is the common people, those we serve, who are the masters in this free land, and they are the ones who fund the budgets of the day. It is their common sense that is absent from this budget. In fact, this budget continues the Prime Minister's nonsensical approach of higher taxes and inflationary deficits. It does not make Canada work for the people who have done the work.

On the point of the budget, the Conservatives asked the government for three things. First was that the budget pave the way for Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques by lowering taxes and scrapping the carbon tax. Instead of listening to Canadians, the government is continuing with its war on work and increasing taxes, which means workers are punished for working and will now take home even less of their paycheques. Inflationary spending has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians is skipping meals, and people are going to food banks asking for help because they cannot afford to eat.

The Prime Minister's grocery rebate would give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of food that the government's inflationary deficits helped cause. Canada's latest food price report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,000 more on food this year. That is $600 more than the $467 rebate they will receive.

Just this year, the government raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses. This means that Ken, a forestry worker living in Creston making $66,600, will be forced to pay an extra $255 through the mandatory Canada pension plan tax this year. That worker will also have to pay an extra $50 through the employment insurance tax. That is a $305 increase.

The grocery rebate does nothing more than just give money back to Canadians that the Prime Minister already clawed away with his tax increases. This will not solve the cost of living crisis.

There is more. The government increased the carbon tax to 14¢ per litre on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. The PBO shows that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. By 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline. The people of Kootenay—Columbia are already paying $1.70 a litre, which is 40% more per litre than the same fuel 30 minutes away.

We are all well aware, especially in rural Canada, that our food security is dependent on distribution from our truck drivers, those who use diesel fuel. The significant increase in the carbon tax has a direct effect on the cost of our groceries, and the more remote, the more expensive. The cost of fuel is added to all of the commodities shipped, which is a huge burden on the families and seniors in rural Canada.

I could go on. The fact remains that the budget continues the government's war on the worker.

Second, we asked that the budget pave the way for lower prices by ending the inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates.

Instead of listening to Canadians, the Prime Minister added more debt than all prime ministers combined. He has no plans to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Canada's federal debt is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada, which is more than many households earn.

Worse than that, he is planning on growing the deficit by $40.1 billion. According to the budget, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase from 42.4% to 43.5%. Last budget cycle, the finance minister said that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was her “fiscal anchor” and that the debt-to-GDP must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable.

I would like to repeat the finance minister's words, for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia. The minister said:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.

This means, according to the finance minister, that the Prime Minister's inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable.

The third thing the Conservatives asked for was that the budget pave the way for Canadians to bring the opportunity for homes Canadians can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. The dream of home ownership has gone from a reality to a dream for young and old Canadians under the government. Nine out of 10 people who do not own a home say they never will.

By every objective measurement, things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less. This is a tired government that has no plan to help Canadians, no plan to remove the gatekeepers and build more homes, no plan to free up federal lands and properties and no plan to speed up building permits by withholding federal funding from cities that refuse to remove gatekeepers.

Under the government, everything feels broken. Broken is Emma, an elementary school student in Cranbrook asking why her parents cannot afford groceries. Broken is Mary, a single senior in Creston who does not have enough left over to pay for fuel and to make the 120-kilometre drive to visit her doctor. Mary has to make a choice. Broken is Ethan, a father in Cranbrook who has worked hard and done everything right and yet finds himself at the food bank because his paycheque, after taxes and inflation, does not make it to the end of the month.

These are real stories from real Canadians, but help is on its way. The Conservatives plan to turn hurt into hope.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I certainly have much more optimism than the member across the way regarding the position our country is in. It is a lot to say that a country is broken. I could not disagree more with the member.

Yes, from time to time we certainly have work to do, and right now, with the rising costs we are seeing throughout the country and indeed throughout the entire world, we have to help Canadians and support them. However, there are many measures in this budget implementation act that seek to do exactly that, whether it is increasing the GST to help people with the rising costs of groceries the member just mentioned or it is the various other supports in there.

I am wondering if the member can explain, if he is so concerned about people in his community, as he has just indicated, why he cannot support this budget, which takes aim at helping them directly.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the people out there in our communities are not saying that. They are saying they cannot afford this budget. They are saying they cannot afford to eat. They are saying they cannot afford to drive to a doctor's appointment and eat. Seniors are struggling every day. This budget is not helping them. The carbon tax is not helping them. Our groceries are delivered by diesel trucks. That is our supply chain. We knew during COVID that our supply chains for food supplies were critical, yet we are taxing everyone more, especially with the carbon tax, such as farmers, ranchers and our deliveries, so I do not see a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my Conservative colleague talked about seniors in relation to the carbon tax.

I have a suggestion for my colleague. What the seniors in my riding, in Quebec, are asking me for and what they talk to me about is a little more direct assistance to help them get through this crisis. They want an increase in old age security for all seniors to address the inequality between people aged 75 and over and those under 75. This would be a first step towards recognizing that seniors are affected by the inflation crisis.

This budget contains nothing except a one-time cheque to help them with groceries. That cheque will be used up in no time.

I wonder if he could talk more about the importance of providing much more direct assistance to seniors, specifically by increasing old age security.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that seniors are fragile and they are the ones getting hurt the most as the prices go up for groceries, when a head of lettuce goes up to $3 or $4 and seniors are only getting OAS. Some get CPP, and some do not. That is the most critical part of our society. Seniors are the ones who took care of us, our parents. They are the ones we have to take the time to find some funding for, so we can help them through this inflationary crisis, but we cannot do that if we keep spending money we do not have and all of a sudden inflation starts rising.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my neighbour in the Kootenays spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax. The Conservatives, and certainly a British Columbian conservative such as he, never mention the fact that the carbon tax in British Columbia is a conservative tax. It was brought in by Gordon Campbell in 2008, 15 years ago. I am sure the member voted for Gordon Campbell several times. Yes, it went up 3¢ a litre on April 1. The price of gas in his riding and my riding has gone up probably a dollar over the last year.

Instead of this fight against the carbon tax, when most people get all of that back, would he join the NDP in the fight for an excessive profits tax on the big oil and gas companies and big grocery retailers that are driving up the price of gas and groceries?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is the issue: People cannot afford the carbon tax today. To say that it is only 3¢ is not the point; the point is that they do not have the money to buy their groceries. They do not have the money to take their children on holidays. They just do not have any money. They cannot buy homes. They cannot rent houses. The taxes we have today are overpowering. When we talk about the carbon tax, let us talk about the farmers and ranchers. They are the ones paying the brunt of the carbon tax because of what they are delivering. I cannot support that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to tell the story of budget 2023 as it pertains to my constituents in the Yukon. This budget is one that aptly reflects the unique circumstances we are living in today. Given the present tough times Canadians face, the budget is restrained while at the same time ambitiously setting the tone for the years and decades to come.

After ensuring that we were there to support Canadians through the COVID–19 pandemic, directing unprecedented levels of fiscal and social supports to Canadians for the last few years, our government now must refocus its efforts for the future. Our planet is facing a series of challenges, from climate change to geopolitical instability. Canada must rise to meet these crises head-on and boldly go where Canada has not gone before.

Affordability, accessible health care and clean energy are the three themes of this budget, and I will, in these few minutes, spend a bit of time on each of these areas.

In this budget, we are making sure that our country responds effectively to the climate crisis while continuing to support Canadians through the difficult times brought on by the high cost of groceries or limited access to family doctors.

These measures are a direct investment in maintaining our leadership in a rapidly changing world.

While I recognize that it may be little consolation to a Yukoner struggling to pay rent or buy sufficient food to feed the family this month, it is important to note Canada’s relative economic position in the world and recognize the indicators of a strong overall economy. Because we did the right thing to support Canadians through the pandemic, we are poised for a strong recovery.

Helping those who are feeling the pain of high prices the most is a government priority. I am grateful, therefore, that the House unanimously approved last week, in addition to the Canada health transfer top-up, the new grocery rebate, which will help over 9,000 Yukoners.

While we take care of those with the greatest needs, as we have always done with this government, we are laying the foundation for the new economy, one that finally pushes us beyond our dependance on fossil fuels and plants us firmly in the green energy future.

Another aspect of this budget, one important to note for those who, like me, were disappointed not to see everything they were hoping for, is that budget 2023 is another chapter in a series of budgets, not just in the 44th Parliament but since 2015, when our work of rebuilding a Canadian economy that works for all Canadians began, and more chapters will follow.

Our government has been working progressively to insulate Canadians from financial hardship. For example, the affordable child care program announced between Canada and Yukon just over two years ago is creating new regulated early learning and child care spaces for Yukon families to access for $10 a day. The grocery rebate builds on the previous GST rebate extension and the one-time rental subsidy introduced in the fall. Continuing to build our assistance to students, we are proposing a 40% increase in the Canada student grants, which follows on the interest forgiveness for Canada student loans this past year.

In the meantime, we are continuing with the expansion of the rapid housing initiative announced in last year's budget, the tens of billions of dollars announced in 2021 and 2022 for a host of programs to advance reconciliation, and other programs, like the green and inclusive community buildings program.

Now let us take a look at health care. As a physician working in northern and rural communities for much of the past 30 years, including 13 years as the chief medical officer of health in the Yukon, I saw first-hand how our already stressed health care systems strained to meet the added burden placed upon them by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic highlighted and exacerbated long-standing issues within our health care systems, including access to a family doctor, recruitment and retention of our health care workforce, data collection and sharing, access to care in rural communities, service gaps in mental health care and measures to address substance use and addictions, and a lack of investment in prevention.

As an advocate for better health care for Canadians, I was pleased to see our government’s almost $200-billion commitment to begin addressing these critical issues. For Yukon, this means $380 million over 10 years, including $195 million in new funding. An important part of territorial health funding is a commitment of $100 million for the Yukon over 10 years to support medical travel and health care innovation through the territorial health investment fund. We also see commitments made to meet health care priorities in the Yukon, including improving access to primary care, modernizing the health care system, and addressing the mental health and the toxic drug crises.

Also of note in this budget is $810 million to support medical travel under the non-insured health benefits program for first nations, and $359 million to support a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including $144 million toward the SUAP, or substance use and addictions program.

Canadians will also benefit from the new dental care plan, which will provide dental insurance to Canadians with family income of less than $90,000. Once the plan is fully phased in, it will help thousands of Canadians and complement the new program that is already up and running in the Yukon. At last, my constituents and millions of other Canadians will receive the dental care they need to avoid costly complications and health problems down the road.

Underpinning the health of Canadians is a healthy economy, an economy that includes and supports all Canadians. To that end, I am pleased to highlight from this budget the investments we are making in order to transition to a cleaner and greener economy.

As many know, Yukon has a proud mining heritage, one that is not only integral to the Yukon’s colourful history, but also key to our future economic prosperity. The days of the gold rush may be past, but renewed interest and investment in critical minerals are just getting started. Canada has an opportunity to become a world leader in this field if we grow and develop critical mining assets in a manner that is responsible, sustainable, efficient, and in lockstep with indigenous partners and communities.

The Yukon is home to 25 of the 31 critical minerals in Canada’s inventory, most notably copper, nickel, tungsten and zinc. Budget 2023’s introduction of a 30% clean technology manufacturing tax credit would help companies invest in the technology and equipment to responsibly extract these key critical minerals.

Canada will need to pick up the pace and increase its presence at every stage of mining, from exploration to processing, in order to provide the materials we need to fuel our green energy future, as well as to provide rewarding and sustainable jobs for Canadians for generations to come.

Mines need power, and so does a growing population, and that power must be clean. I am pleased to see the 15% tax credit for clean electricity investment in this budget, as this and other clean electricity measures would help communities across the north support the transition away from fossil fuels and toward achieving our emissions goals. There are a number of projects currently under way or in the planning stages that I hope will be able to take advantage of these new credits, such as the Atlin hydro expansion project, a partnership among Yukon, B.C. and first nations in both jurisdictions.

Other projects in the north could use the new clean hydrogen investment tax credit and other support measures that have also been announced under the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

As the IPCC's latest report warns us, we are in the last few years of having a chance to turn the climate crisis around. In the Yukon, we are increasingly familiar with the costs of climate change. Just two weeks ago, Whitehorse had to close one of its two routes into the city due to a landslide from heavy snow burden and highly saturated ground. Buildings, roads and runways around the Yukon buckle and bend under melting permafrost in a landscape that is warming at three times the rate of the rest of Canada.

Some of our colleagues across the way believe that fighting climate change is just too much to spend.

Yes, it is costly to invest in building our community's resilience to climate change. It is also costly to transition the economy and drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That said, the cost of the damage associated with climate change in Canada will be much higher.

In addition, if we make the necessary investments within the next decade, Canada could see a net economic benefit of over $465 billion over the next 10 years.

While Conservatives may take, well, a conservative approach, I prefer to be part of a government that acts to prevent costly disasters and invests in measures that will grow our economy in the future.

Since 2015, we have committed and remain committed to the journey toward reconciliation. An important step on that journey was made by this budget in the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, which saw a $4-billion commitment, which, over the next seven years, will complement the three existing distinctions-based housing strategies with the CMHC. This new budget commitment will add to previously announced initiatives already under way to continue our ambitious yet much-needed housing strategy.

Affordable housing, accessible health care and investments in clean energy are all making life better for Canadians today, tomorrow and for decades to come. We are living difficult days, and there are more to come.

However, making significant and smart investments today will help us reap the benefits of a greener, fairer, healthier and more prosperous future.

This budget is yet another chapter in building a better Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his speech. It is really nice to hear him speak French.

I would like to know whether he shares a concern that I have. Two or three years ago, the Prime Minister said that he would invest 2% of the budget in military spending.

That did not happen. He broke his promise a few weeks ago when he said that he would never reach that target. When we look at the conflicts around the world and the donations that Canada has made to countries like Ukraine, which I am in no way disputing, we see that Canada's military inventory is diminishing.

Does my colleague share my concern that Canada is or will be unable to support countries in need?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about Canada's security, our armed forces and the need for security in the Arctic. However, we need to recognize that that we have spent billions of dollars to strengthen our armed forces and military posture.

We recently heard about the Minister of National Defence's list of achievements. I am very pleased with the progress that has been made.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my time on the fisheries and oceans committee alongside this member.

One thing that I did not see in the budget was any mention of a national strategy for warning labels on alcoholic products. I know the member has a background in health care and did a lot of work around strategies for warning labels on these products. We know that alcohol consumption comes with increased risks of at least nine different forms of cancer, including breast, colon and liver cancer. The member is very aware of this.

Canadians need and deserve this information. Could the member give his thoughts around supporting my motion, Motion No. 61, to get warning labels on bottles, as well as the stance of the Liberals as to whether they are going to support this important work?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I also enjoy our time together on the fisheries and oceans committee.

We have had direct discussions on this really important subject, which I take to heart. It is important to recognize the many risks that alcohol poses to our health, as well as the place that it has in our society. I certainly look forward to discussing my thoughts on the motion more. It is very good that this motion is being prepared to come to the House, and I look forward to discussing this important issue with my colleagues.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments about dealing with rare earth minerals and the huge mining that we deal with not only in Yukon but elsewhere. Vital Metals is a rare earth company in Saskatoon that the federal government has given money to. I suspect the member understands that it has actually shut down because of the huge inflationary cost to produce what it is doing.

The government is proposing that this funding be sponsored by the CPP investment fund. Is the member aware that this is being used to back the investment?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, briefly, there are a number of exciting investments in budget 2023 to encourage numerous private, public utility and indigenous investments in critical minerals. I look forward to their implementation over the year and the years to come.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a subject that could have been a source of hope for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet, but that is not the case.

Sadly, this discussion is just a formality, since the costly and socialist NDP-Liberal coalition has control over the government for the next few years. In fact, that is how things will stay until the Conservatives are in power and give Canadians hope of regaining control over their wallets.

Until then, we can rise in the House, as I am doing, to criticize the mismanagement of public funds and oppose things that make no sense, such as budget 2023 tabled by the Government of Canada on March 28.

This discussion is important because it allows us to highlight the concerns of my Conservative colleagues, as well as the proposals being made on our side of the House to provide real help to people who are struggling because the Liberals do not understand the stress Canadians are under. If they really understood, they would have proposed a budget that made sense.

I am speaking here in a rather sombre economic context, namely Bill C‑47, the budget for 2023. It is hard to overlook the record rates of inflation we have been enduring in the past few months. I have been talking about this here in the House of Commons for three years now. The Minister of Finance told me that this was just a temporary situation, but, unlike her, I have always believed that we are dealing with structural inflation.

Structural inflation is caused solely by an abnormally rapid increase in the quantity of currency in relation to the country's volume of production. Since 2015, Canadians have been subjected to reckless Liberal tax policies which have led to a significant increase in government spending, at a time when that was not what the economy needed at all. The Liberals injected money into sectors that were doing well. Indeed, in my riding, entrepreneurs were telling me that they were taking the money because it was being offered to them, even though they did not need it. No one understood why the government was spending so much. Today, the result is clear. Inflation always catches up with the culprits.

I thought that the budget would include some fiscal restraint and a target year to achieve a balanced budget, but no. There was talk of 2027, but not anymore. The Liberals have completely eliminated “balanced budget” from their vocabulary. A return to balance seems all but impossible now. They think that money grows on trees. They open the tap and money flows out by the bucketful. Except that, in reality, in the real world, that is not how things work. The Liberals should review the principle of cause and effect. The cause is printing money to excess. The effect is inflation being where it is, the worst in 40 years.

The Liberals have plunged Canadians into an inflationary abyss. The Prime Minister has caused the highest rate of inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt and increasing our debt more than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. What are the consequences? The cost of living for ordinary Canadians is rising. The cost of groceries is skyrocketing, as is the cost of gas. According to a recent poll, 74% of Quebeckers say that they are struggling to pay for their daily expenses such as groceries, gas and necessities. We are talking about workers who get up every morning to go to work so they can put food on the table for their families. We are talking about hard-working people who did everything they were told to do. They are no longer able to make ends meet because the Liberals have been totally irresponsible with the public purse for the past eight years. Furthermore, these workers' paycheques are shrinking because all the money goes to taxes, and now they are being told that this budget will represent $4,200 in additional costs for every household in Canada. Honestly.

I know that the Liberals are going to tell me about their grocery rebate, so let us talk about it. It is only a marketing ploy, because the grocery rebate is nothing more that the doubling of the GST. They should stop presenting it as a revolutionary idea. There is nothing new about it.

As we can see, there are numerous problems with this budget. The important thing to take away from this budget is that workers have been left behind, and they are not being compensated for their work. The Conservatives want to make work pay again by cutting taxes.

As for workers being left behind, I do not have to go very far to see a concrete example. I need only think of the workers at the Olymel plant in the riding of my colleague and friend from Beauce. These workers will be out of a job in the next few months, since the company has announced that it is closing the largest hog slaughterhouse and meat processing plant in Quebec. We are talking about 1,000 jobs lost in a municipality of 2,000 people. Once again, the government is in no hurry to act. Worse still, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot be bothered to even mention it. It just goes to show that the Liberals are not there when Canadians need them.

In addition to the Liberal war on labour, there is also the issue of critical minerals. This issue is important in my riding. I am thinking particularly of the need to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals as soon as possible. I have been asking for this for a number of years in the House, as well as at the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I am a member.

That is why I was anxious to see what the government was proposing in this budget for critical minerals. A passage on page 92 states, “In the past year, the federal government has taken action to fast-track the assessment of mining, energy, and other major projects”.

I would like to clarify that I hope the government does not really believe what it is saying there. Let us think about GNL. The government did not send a strong signal on this project. Hundreds of billions of dollars in investment projects were lost under the Liberal government because of its lack of leadership and because of Canadian taxation and Canadian regulations, which are not conducive to a good investment climate.

In the section of the budget that deals with major projects, there is $1.3 billion in funding over six years starting in 2022-23 for major project assessments and $10.6 million in funding to help critical minerals companies get permits and approvals. Sometimes the Liberals take us for fools. How can we trust the Liberals when it comes to meeting a deadline? This six-year time frame is far too long, and we know it will take longer than six years. The possibility of mining critical minerals like phosphate and the feasibility of using them in batteries will end long before that.

We need to give a helping hand to projects that are already well under way and that have already received authorization, such as Arianne Phosphate in Saguenay. We are a long way from that because, as I said before, the budget makes no mention at all of phosphate. We know how much it is needed for lithium iron phosphate batteries, which have many advantages, such as their longer life span, better charge efficiency and lightweight nature. Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is home to the Arianne Phosphate mining company, which has one of the largest deposits of phosphate in Canada. The phosphate is also very high quality.

As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I have often had the opportunity to talk about the usefulness of critical minerals in the economy. The findings of studies on batteries, particularly for electric vehicles, are always the same. In Canada, there is a real problem with regard to the cost and the time between discovery, extraction and production. Canada is currently extracting critical minerals for the new battery economy, but it is exporting them abroad for the manufacturing of finished products. How is it that Canada has still not developed a battery manufacturing chain, given all of Quebec's electrical expertise? I think that a big part of the answer lies in Canada's tax competitiveness and the government's top-down regulations.

In sum, this budget fails workers in every sector. Canadians are sick of being bribed with one-off cheques. We need to address the source of the problem instead of handing out cheques here and there. This waste of public money needs to stop. Canadians have had it with watching their money being thrown out the window by the Liberals. Week after week, we keep learning more about scandals involving taxpayers' money. Just look at the huge contract awarded to McKinsey. The government gave $120 million to consulting firms, representing $1,500 an hour in fees.

Time is running out, so let me say that a Conservative government will put Canadians first by stopping unnecessary spending and waste and by lowering taxes. Let us bring back common sense—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is out of time. He can finish his remarks during questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk, towards the end of his speech, specifically about the battery supply chain, questioning why we do not seem to be able to accomplish that in Canada. Meanwhile, I am wondering if he is aware that his own colleague, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, which is the neighbouring riding to mine in Ontario, has the largest investment coming into her riding, in terms of battery manufacturing for electric vehicles. It will be the largest plant in North America, expanded on by the company Umicore, from Europe.

I am wondering if he is even aware of that, and how he thinks that will impact the supply chain.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, these are investments in North America, but the question is, when will it actually happen? First of all, there are always delays and huge costs. It costs far too much. Taxation also needs to be reviewed, because all the delays and paperwork do not help us persuade foreign investors to come here. Everything is complicated. Projects that people think can be done quickly sometimes take two or three times as long as expected. There is also a question of timing. It is never the right place at the right time when projects need to be done.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from my neck of the woods for his remarks. I am also glad to see that the Minister of Health is here with us, because my question for my colleague is about health funding.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member just referenced the presence in the House of a minister, a member of the House, and the member should not be making those references. Perhaps she can rethink the way to say that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is signalling to me that she understands that she should not refer to the presence of other members in the House, so I will let her continue with her intervention.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize for my absent-mindedness. That caught my attention, and I forgot the rules of the House.

The government has been underfunding the health care systems of Quebec and the provinces for many years now. That has had a negative impact on the public finances of every province, Quebec's in particular. Because Quebec and the provinces have had to compensate for the federal government's underfunding of health care, they do not have enough money to invest in other important developments. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that the federal government needs to contribute more to the health care systems so that Quebec and the provinces have more funds available for other things.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, health transfers have been pretty minimal. They did not live up to the provinces' expectations. There comes a point when it is hard to understand why a lot more funding is not being transferred to the provinces for health care.

Basically, we have seen the current government waste a lot of money. We are talking about $120 million in contracts given to McKinsey, when many public servants could have done the work. We know that there was $500 billion in inflationary spending in two years. We are completely in the dark about how $200 billion of that $500 billion was spent. When a government cannot control its spending, it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable budget. This is creating significant scarcity in some very important areas.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, last week, when I was in the chamber, we spoke at great length about the position the Conservatives had for fixing the economy. Many of the brilliant solutions they advocated for were cutting taxes and cutting some of the most important revenue-generating aspects of the federal government, while not simultaneously talking about the services they would cut.

What services would the member cut if he and his party were to form government?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why we are talking about cutting services. We just have to pay attention to the wasteful spending of the Liberals over there. If the government would control its spending and stop the waste, everything would be fine. I always have a problem with saying that services need to be cut. It is more a matter of putting the money in the right place.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about budget 2023 and, in particular, the recent announcements and significant initiatives taken by the federal government to improve the lives of millions of Canadians across the country. Budget 2023 has been designed to address some of the most pressing issues affecting Canadians, including affordability, education, health care and mental health. What I would like to highlight is how our government is supporting Canadians at many different life stages.

The most critical issue of affordability, which affects a vast number of Canadians, is an issue our government does not take lightly. In the riding of Mississauga—Streestville, I continue to hear about the rising cost of groceries, for example. The federal government has announced the grocery rebate, which will provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225, on average. This will be delivered through the goods and services tax credit mechanism and will help up to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, which is a significant step toward making daily essentials more affordable for those who need it the most.

I would like to thank all my colleagues from all parties in the House for voting to support the grocery rebate. Let us take a moment and think about the impact. That is 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who will experience financial relief.

Affordability is important, and, as part of our government’s national housing strategy, I am excited to share that, with the help of our financial institutions, we started offering the tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1. I reflect on the time when my husband and I were married, 15 years ago. I remember how excited we were to start our life together, to buy our first home and start a family. Home ownership is a very important milestone for so many.

In last year’s budget, the government committed to introducing a tax-free first home savings account. This new registered plan will give prospective first-time homebuyers the ability to save up to $40,000 on a tax-free basis. As with a registered retirement savings plan, contributions will be tax-deductible and withdrawals to purchase a first home, including from investment income, will be non-taxable as well, like a tax-free savings account. It will be tax-free in, tax-free out. With this new tax-free first home savings account, 3.5 million families across Canada will be able to start saving for a new home.

In support of families, budget 2023 would assist Canadians as their families grow. After my husband and I settled into our first home, we started to grow our family. After our son Kyle was born and after maternity leave, I needed to get back to work. I relied on our local day care to ensure Kyle would be taken care of. When I was working in downtown Toronto, child care was very expensive. At that time, it cost an average family $1,500 to $1,700 per month or more, depending on the location one chose.

Since 2015, the government has been investing in the middle class, growing the economy and strengthening Canada’s social safety net. We continue to support 3.5 million families through the tax-free child care benefit. This year, families will be receiving up to $6,997 per child under the age of six and up to $5,903 per child aged six through 17.

Our government’s child care program is already seeing fees being cut by 50%, on average, which is delivering regulated child care that will cost an average of just $10 a day by 2026. This is incredible. We have already had six provinces and territories reduce child care fees to $10 a day or less as of April 2, while we are strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces. This support will help parents and young families start their lives without worrying about any additional expenses. I wish I had had this when I had just gotten off maternity leave many years ago.

I also have more good news. The proportion of core-age women employed was 82% in March. This translates to close to seven million women aged 15 years and older being employed on a full-time basis. This is a huge win. In addition to child care, we have also enhanced the Canada workers benefit for our lowest-paid and often most essential workers, with up to $1,428 for a single worker without children and up to $2,461 for a family, as well as an additional $737 for workers with disabilities.

My son Kyle is entering high school soon, and, naturally, what is on my mind is his education. My parents, Norma and Zosimo, worked very hard when they immigrated to Canada so that my brother and I would be able to seek higher education in a post-secondary academic institution. I am truly grateful for all of their sacrifices.

We wanted to ensure that we are here to support families and young adults with their education. This is an important part of budget 2023 and a key priority. The federal government has announced several initiatives to help students across Canada. These include permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans and ensuring that borrowers do not need to make payments on their loans until they earn at least $40,000 per year.

Our government would also increase Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students, and raise the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study. Additionally, the requirement for mature students, aged 22 years or older, to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time would be waived. This would support individuals looking to switch their career or get additional education to improve their existing knowledge and skills. This change would allow up to 1,000 additional students to benefit from federal aid in the coming year.

The next area I would like to speak about is health care. I would like to first take a moment to thank our frontline workers and health care workers for their continued care for us and for taking care of all our families.

As we look at budget 2023, we need to take into consideration the challenges that we faced during COVID-19 and the impact it had on our economy and health care system. We will work to ensure that we can recover as quickly and as effectively as possible. Health care is at the top of the minds of constituents in my riding, as well as all Canadians. This is why the government has laid out an ambitious plan to provide an additional $195.8 billion over 10 years in health transfers to provinces and territories, including $46.2 billion in new funding through the new Canada health transfer measures.

This funding would be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive and is not intended to replace the planned health care spending of provinces and territories. Furthermore, the government would provide $2 billion in 2022-23 to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, operating rooms and pediatric hospitals, building on $6.5 billion in top-ups provided throughout the pandemic.

On top of that, the government has also announced $25 billion over 10 years through a new set of bilateral agreements to address individual provincial and territorial health care needs. This includes expanding access to family health services, supporting health workers, reducing backlogs, increasing mental health and substance use support, and modernizing health systems.

A few months ago, I met with the Service Employees International Union and spoke directly with several personal support workers. I listened to their heartbreaking stories about what they endured during the pandemic. They spoke about how underpaid they are, considering how much they were required to work at the time. Considering their sacrifices, they deserve more. The government has listened to our health care workers and, as a result, will provide $1.7 billion over five years to support hourly wage increases for personal support workers and related professions. This funding aims to improve the health care Canadians receive. These additional investments are contingent on continued health care investments by provinces and territories.

I would like to highlight the importance of mental health supports, which have been a critical issue for Canadians during the pandemic. The government has proposed to provide up to $50 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, to Employment and Social Development Canada, to develop and test innovative solutions to strengthen the retirement savings of personal support workers without workplace retirement security coverage. This funding would go a long way toward helping those who work in this critical field. Furthermore, the government would also invest in expanding mental health and substance use support services for Canadians.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the initiatives announced in budget 2023 would be a significant step forward toward improving the lives of millions of Canadians across the country from many different walks of life. From making daily essentials more affordable to enhancing health care, education, and mental health supports, the government is committed to making Canada a better place for all its citizens and tackling the most pressing issues we face.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we began debating the budget bill, I have asked government members many questions about the housing crisis.

There is absolutely nothing in the budget to address the housing crisis. They themselves admit it and say that they invested in housing last year. Yes, but there is still a crisis this year. The National Housing Council released a study last week showing that, between 2011 and 2021, Canada lost 550,000 affordable housing units, meaning housing that rents for about $750. That is Canada-wide. Not only does the national strategy, which was launched five years ago, not create housing that people can afford, but we are also losing housing.

The National Housing Council believes that there should be a fund to purchase private housing and turn it into non-market housing in order to maintain affordability. Does my colleague think this would be a good measure?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing is certainly a priority for us as well. I know that the Minister of Housing is committed to ensuring that initiatives, like the rapid housing initiative, which is part of our overall Canada housing strategy, will continue to help Canadians be supported across this country.

In my riding, there are many different housing initiatives that we have continued to support. That will help ensure that even the lowest-income constituents get the help they need.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, in her comments the member opposite spoke a bit about health care and the importance of strengthening the health care system.

I would like her comments on a recent announcement by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a proposal to have a national accreditation, a blue seal, for health care workers, whether they are new Canadians coming into the country or those looking to work in other provinces.

We should be investigating this and looking at the many ways we can be breaking down the barriers to ensure that health care workers can work in their field anywhere in this country. To my knowledge, the Liberals have not made any comments regarding that proposal.

Can the member share any comments on that?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, our focus is definitely on health care. I want to give a shout-out to my mom, who is a registered nurse. She worked really hard to get her credentials recognized in this country.

I am going to continue to work with my colleagues across the way to continue supporting our Canadians in health care.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we work across party lines to put forward real solutions for people. One thing I was happy to see in the budget was the red dress alert that is being put in place. It is something similar to an Amber Alert which is being put in place regarding missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people so we have a platform to alert when something has happened. It is a very good resource.

Despite this particular piece in the budget, we are not seeing the level of investment and resources needed to address the crisis being experienced with ongoing murdered and missing indigenous women. Why are we not seeing that prioritized and when will we see that done?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy for indigenous peoples across Canada.

I agree the effort that we put into our budget with the red dress initiative is definitely one step; however, there is so much more work that can be done. I hope we will continue to work together to address those concerns for those who need it most, particularly indigenous peoples.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

Before I begin my speech, I hope my colleagues will humour me while I take a brief moment to wish my daughter, Maddie, a very happy 16th birthday.

There is a lot in this bill, of course, and I want to start by providing a few words about dental care, which is the most significant, optimistic and powerful policies contained within this legislation. I hear all the time from seniors, young families and people who do not have dental insurance and cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. They are so excited to see dental care finally coming in this bill, and it cannot come soon enough. It is the most significant expansion of public health care in a generation. It is going to make a difference for some nine million Canadians, including folks in Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the beautiful northwest of British Columbia, which is the area I am so proud to represent.

Today I want to focus on the portions of Bill C-47 that deal with air passenger rights. As the NDP's transport critic, this has been my preoccupation over the past year or so. It is something we studied at the transport committee and it is something the Minister of Transport has chosen to slip into this budget implementation act in order to, what he claims, finally fix air passenger rights in this country.

The Liberals brought in their air passenger protection legislation back in 2019. The former minister of transport brought it in to great fanfare. He claimed that it was going to be a world-leading approach and that air passengers were finally going to have a government that would have their backs, yet what we have seen over the past four years has been anything but world-leading.

We have seen thousands of Canadians put in extraordinarily difficult situations by the big airlines. We have seen passengers sleeping on airport floors. We have seen families having to miss much-awaited vacations and trips. We have seen people out thousands of dollars. This system the Liberals claimed was going to be world-leading and was going to have air passengers' backs has really left people in a lurch.

What we see before us in Bill C-47 is the government's third attempt at fixing this problem. Of course, this problem exists because the big airlines make commercial decisions that delay and cancel flights and leave passengers picking up the slack. What we have seen in other parts of the world, particularly in the European Union, are effective approaches that get passengers compensation when that happens, and yet the approach we have seen here in Canada has not succeeded in protecting air passenger rights.

In fact, right now there are over 44,000 complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency. Who are these folks? These are the most determined air travellers. I say “determined” because they have the fortitude to navigate not one but two complaint processes. Under the Liberals' current system, not only does a passenger need to complain to the airline and wait 30 days for a response, but when the airline almost inevitably declines their claim for compensation, they need to file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency and then wait in line while this very complex bureaucratic and expensive process runs its course. Right now the wait time to proceed through that complaint process is over a year and a half.

As I said, the transport committee has been studying this issue. We heard from the leading consumer advocates working on air passenger rights in this country. We heard from all sorts of witnesses and put together a report with a whole host of recommendations aimed at finally bringing Canada's air passenger protection regime up to the standards set by the European Union.

I also had a chance, about a month ago, to table in this place a private member's bill, Bill C-327, the strengthening air passenger protection act, which aims to lay out in legislation precisely which changes are required to create a robust regime of air passenger protections in this country. Then the Minister of Transport brought forward his proposed changes, this third attempt at fixing air passenger protections.

I want to start by giving credit where credit is due. There are a couple of things in this new approach that have been called for fairly consistently by advocates and by me through my private member's bill. One is increases to the fines within the legislation that can be levied against airlines that continue to break the rules and not award compensation as they should. There are other pieces in the legislation, particularly around delayed baggage, that have also been called for, so there are a couple of things the minister got right.

One of the key concerns with Canada's current system is a loophole that exists in the Canadian Transportation Act. Unlike the European system which sets out a very simple two-category classification system for flight disruptions, our system has three categories. In Europe, disruptions, which are cancellations or delays, are considered either ordinary disruptions, such as things that fall within the reasonable influence of the carrier, or extraordinary disruptions, things like major weather events, acts of terrorism or recalls by the airplane manufacturer. Nobody is suggesting that airlines should be held accountable for factors entirely outside of their influence, but we have been seeing airlines deny compensation for factors within their influence that cause delays and cancellations, such as making sure they have enough crew to fly the flights, ensuring the aircraft are properly maintained, and ensuring their computer system is working properly.

This bill was intended to fix that. Everyone knows this loophole exists. It has been a matter of much conversation and debate. The minister claims to have fixed this loophole in the legislation that is before us. I do not see it. When I look at the section of the Canadian Transportation Act where this loophole exists, I see those same three categories.

The category that is particularly problematic here in Canada is the category of disruptions that are within an airline's control but are required for safety reasons. When we are talking about companies that fly passengers around in aluminum tubes at 30,000 feet, I think pretty much everything related to that industry is related to safety. The issue here is that airlines are making decisions within their sphere of influence that are causing real hardships for air passengers. In those cases, passengers should be compensated and treated well.

There are other things in Bill C-47 around air passenger rights that are very concerning. I had a chance to speak to this earlier today. One aspect is essentially a gag order on passengers who pursue complaints through the Canadian Transportation Agency. It states:

All matters related to the process of dealing with a complaint shall be kept confidential, unless the complainant and the carrier otherwise agree”.

If Canadian air passengers file a complaint with the CTA , go through its resolution process and are not happy with how they are treated or the outcome, this legislation is going to prevent them from talking about it. If the minister is truly proud of this system he has put forward, why is he silencing the people who will be using it? It is incredible.

We are at a point now where the minister has claimed to have closed the loophole. He and I have had this conversation. He said that a lot of it will be forthcoming in regulations, which we have not yet seen, sort of like the answer to my questions will be self-evident over the next rise. He is empowering the CTA with a tremendous amount of discretion over this process instead of making the changes in the legislation itself. That is the process we wanted to see, yet what we see falls well short of that mark.

Another issue we see is with respect to transparency and the amount of information the CTA provides. We think the amount of compensation paid through this complaint process should be part of the disclosure. That is something we will be working on when it comes to amending this bill.

I will end with this. Canadians deserve real protections that are easy to navigate and get them their compensation. That is what we will keep fighting for.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I prepared a question about the budget. My colleague's speech was about a lot of things as he acknowledged that the budget is about a lot of things. There are a lot of Canadians and a lot of concerns out there. It does cover a lot of bases.

Two of the things that I am the most proud to bring to my constituents are two programs that are going to help them a lot: the dental care program and the grocery rebate. I have been out there talking to them, knocking on their doors and answering their phone calls. In my constituency just over 1,000 young people have been supported by the dental care program. That means 1,000 smiles will be brighter and cleaner, thanks to our dental care benefit. The grocery benefit is going to support 11 million households across the country with up to $467.

These are really phenomenal measures that are going to support our neighbours. I was wondering if my colleague had any reflections on dental care or the grocery rebate.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I think we can be proudest of as Canadians is that starting in the 1960s, we said that every Canadian, regardless of their income, deserved the dignity of access to adequate health care. We have known right from the very beginning that health care does not just include going to the doctor. It includes being able to afford the medications that doctor prescribes. It includes eye care. It includes mental health care and it includes dental care.

We know that oral health is so integral to our overall health and yet there are millions of Canadians who cannot afford to visit a dentist. Frankly, it is shameful that it has taken this long for us to get to this point. We in the NDP have been pushing for it from the very beginning. I am so proud that we have been able to get to a place where we have leveraged our position in this minority Parliament to finally get dental care for millions of Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague did talk a little about the dental program and I would like to just ask him this. Former premier John Horgan, when he was the head of the Council of the Federation, encouraged the federal government to not seek new national programs when important programs such as health care need reinforcement.

I am sure the member knows of the drastic needs of rural communities for health care funding. Former Premier Horgan had said to not add any new social programs; reinforce the current ones like health care. What does he think of this when someone who led his own party provincially said that this is not a priority and now he says this is? How does he square that?

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

Madam Speaker, the member's question was whether I agree with remarks by a former premier. I think that former premier would agree that the health of our teeth, oral health, is integral to our overall health. Dental care is going to help millions of Canadians.

We also need to be investing heavily in our overall health care system and ensuring that coming out of the pandemic, our health care workers and our hospitals have the resources that they need to function effectively.

However, this is going to help millions of Canadians and I know that my party and many people right across the country support it, moving forward.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked a lot about the national dental program. Since this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague indicated to him earlier in his question, it is up to the provinces to decide what to do within their jurisdiction. This is basically a Quebec sovereignist asking that the Canadian Constitution be respected.

Does my colleague agree, if this national dental program exists, that Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached?

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

Madam Speaker, the question was: Should Quebec be able to withdraw from the dental care program?

If we are going to be one country, we need to ensure that every Canadian has access to dental care. Within that question, there are going to be different nuances across the country, and those can be negotiated. However, what we are talking about is a national program delivered by the federal government, and I think a lot of Quebeckers are going to benefit from that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act. This is a budget that will impact so many Canadians in various ways, and I will spend my time focused on a few of those.

The one issue I want to talk about, which I have not heard talked about a lot, is the initiative that has been put into the budget with respect to doubling the tax credit for individuals who are in the trades for the tools they need to purchase for their particular trade. We know that, in our country, there is a lot of demand right now for people in the trades. We would pretty much pay whatever is asked these days if we are looking to hire a plumber, electrician, drywaller, a painter or just anybody in the trades. There is high demand right now in this country, and we need to get more people involved in the trades. I have been saying for years now that I genuinely believe that this is where the money is in the future.

So many people throughout Canada's history came to this country seeking better lives. For some reason, at least within my family, and I think of my grandparents who immigrated from Holland and Italy many years ago, all they wanted for their children was to be professionals in terms of doctors, lawyers and other such professions. There seems to have always been this stigma towards getting involved in the trades, as though it was somehow not as well regarded as being a doctor or lawyer. However, this is where we need people working right now. I encourage people, on a daily basis, including my son who just graduated from high school, to get involved in a trade, especially if they do not know what they want to do with their lives. It is a great way to get started in the workforce by getting involved in a trade. This budget specifically seeks to assist people in doing that by doubling the tax credit available for the tools that are required for a skilled trade.

Another item in the budget that I have not heard talked about a lot are the supports that are in there for Ukraine. I am glad to see that the rhetoric from politicians in the United States, and I think particularly of Donald Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida, who have been questioning the role of the west, or in their case the role of the United States, in Ukraine has not found its way into this House. There seems to continue to be broad support in terms of resources from Canada going to Ukraine.

It is indeed an issue of democracy to stand up and support Ukraine in any way possible. We can think about what this world would be like if Vladimir Putin was successful with his efforts in Ukraine. He certainly would not stop there, and look to other countries to invade until, I am sure, he met his end objective, which is solidifying that Soviet bloc that used to exist during the Cold War. So it is in the interest of western democracies, western civilization, to ensure that Ukraine is successful and wins this unwanted war with Russia, or with Vladimir Putin specifically, I should say. To that end, it is the responsibility, at least in my opinion, of other allied countries to support Ukraine in any way we can. That is why I am very pleased to see ongoing supports in this budget that specifically target it.

When I was on the defence committee, I had the opportunity to travel, study Operations Unifier and Reassurance, and see the incredible things that Canadian troops were doing abroad. It was really moving, while I was in Ukraine as part of the defence committee study, to sit with the chair of Ukraine's defence committee and hear him say to us that other allied countries were lining up behind the Canadian brigade. They wanted to be part of the Canadian brigade, because it was Canada leading it.

That says a lot about a country. That says a lot about the reputation that a country has throughout the world, when there are other brigades being led by the United States, for example, and countries like Italy and Poland are saying that they want to be part of the Canadian brigade. That speaks tremendous value to what we have to offer. I am very glad to see the ongoing resources that are being allocated through this budget toward supporting Ukraine.

I am even more encouraged by the fact that we are not having that rhetoric that we are seeing in the United States coming from people like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, specifically about questioning whether or not there is a role for our country to be playing in supporting Ukraine. Indeed, there is.

The other thing I wanted to talk about, again an issue that I have not heard talked about a lot in this budget debate, is specifically the section of it that relates to crypto protections. It is not a mystery to most Canadians who have been following politics that the Leader of the Opposition, back in the heyday, not long ago, of cryptocurrency, when he went and purchased a shawarma, I think he was live on Facebook or Twitter at the time, made the exchange by paying for that with bitcoin. It was celebrated by him and his entourage with him at that event.

From that moment on, he started talking up cryptocurrency and how important it was to embrace the change of how we were going to transact in the future. There is no doubt that there are real discussions to be had about blockchain and crypto currency, more generally speaking, but the reality of the situation is that, in Canada, we rely on the Canadian dollar as our only peg, as we reference back to value and what we are going to use as a form of currency in this country.

When we have the Leader of the Opposition, who is openly out there, encouraging people to invest in bitcoin, almost as though he is encouraging them to bet against the Canadian dollar, it is extremely discouraging.

In this budget, there are specific resources being put towards the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to consult with banking institutions to ensure that they disclose what their exposure to cryptocurrency is, in terms of how much they are investing in it. Also, it would be a requirement for federally regulated pensions to disclose how much of those pensions are invested in crypto currency.

There is also a provision to ensure that any tax deductions being made as they relate to GST and HST, and the treatment of anybody who was mining specifically, and if they were making claims against paying GST and HST, and trying to get a refund out of it, would not be considered supply for HST purposes, and the input tax credits specifically would not be available.

It is extremely important that we stand firmly behind the Canadian dollar as the only form of currency in this country. The Bank of Canada, only two blocks away from here, provides a valuable service to our country, in terms of being at arm's length from this place and from the government, and being given direction on what we expect the inflationary rate to be, and to ensure that it gets to that as expeditiously as possible, and to maintain that.

That leads me to the last part of my speech, and that is specifically with respect to inflation. Inflation is, indeed, something that is not just happening in Canada, despite the fact that folks from across the way would like to suggest that this is a made-in-Canada problem, that only Canada is experiencing inflation. That could not be further from the truth. Canada is actually, of the OECD countries, one of the countries that is experiencing lower levels of inflation.

That does not provide a lot of comfort, and understandably so, to those who are experiencing inflation, especially as it relates to some of those very important items that we need, like groceries. However, it is important to understand the context. It is important to understand that inflation is not something that is just in Canada. It is throughout the world. When we live in a globalized economy and have as many trade deals as Canada does with other parts of the world, it is only understandable that we will be impacted by others' inflation as well.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite well about Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and that situation, and I agree with him that we should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. However, my concern is that Canada has lagged behind in its NATO commitments and military spending for quite some time. Recent reports have indicated that the Prime Minister has said privately that Canada will never meet its military spending targets when it comes to our agreements and commitments to NATO.

If the military and standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies are so important to the government, as the member claims, could he explain why the government continually underfunds our military?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. There is actually a really good answer to it. NATO, and the U.S. in particular, is asking all countries to spend 2% of their GDP. The problem is that not every country measures that in the same way. For example, the U.K. includes pensions in its 2%. The United States includes their Coast Guard because it has armed vessels. In Canada, our Coast Guard does not have armed vessels, so we do not include it in our 2%.

The other thing it does not account for is what I talked about before, and that is the incredible value that Canada has. We punch above our weight compared with the dollar value of our military capacity. When Canada goes abroad, our troops are so well regarded, as I indicated, that other nations want to line up and be part of the Canadian brigade because of the reputation we have. That is priceless. One cannot put a price on that.

I respect the fact that NATO is trying to get somewhere by saying everybody should spend 2%. However, for starters, it is very difficult to measure. Moreover, the reality is that when trying to measure it, one can exclude things like the value that a country has outside of the monetary portion.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2019, when the Liberals got elected, there was one key promise that was very prominent in the election campaign, particularly in Quebec. It was repeated everywhere. They were going to plant two billion trees. Here we are, four years later.

After four years, 800 million trees should have been planted, considering that they were talking about two billion over 10 years. Take a guess. Have they planted 800 million, 500 million—or maybe not quite so many because politicians never keep their promises—say 200 million, or 10% of the total? No, this week we learned that we have planted 2.3% of the two billion trees in the last four years.

I have a question for my colleague. Were they all planted in his backyard?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if trees work the same way in Quebec as they do in the rest of Canada. One starts with a seedling; that seedling takes time to properly germinate and get to the point where one can actually get out there and plant it. I know the member would like to think that if we commit to planting a billion trees, we should be walking out there with shovels and starting to plant them the next day. The reality of the situation is that it does not happen that way.

We should all set very ambitious targets in relation to our environmental commitments. We should all strive to do even more than we possibly can because of the dire circumstances that we are in. However, to trivialize the reality of the task in planting that many trees and the process it takes to do so is not a genuine way to debate.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a fact that Canada's greatest resources are our workforce and skilled labour. That is why Trade Winds to Success, a fantastic organization across Alberta, helps indigenous people who want to enter the workforce and the trades. It ensures that they have the support and financial assistance they need to get those outcomes. Unfortunately, it has been underfunded. As a matter of fact, it closed its Calgary operation because of a lack of federal funds.

Organizations like Trade Winds to Success that help indigenous tradespersons are not receiving the funds they need now. Would the member speak directly to how the government is going to support organizations like this to continue to do that good work?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I started my speech by talking specifically about trades and the increase in the tax credit for individuals in the trades, where the amount has been doubled. We need more trades and more people in the trades in this country. We need to support that in any way we can.

I am unfamiliar with the particular organization that the member is talking about, and I would love to hear more about it.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Brantford—Brant. The budget released by the current out-of-touch government, blindly supported by the NDP, fails to support the number one issue to my constituents and to many Canadians, which is the cost of living crisis. The costly coalition is solely responsible for the financial uncertainties Canadian families have been facing for the last eight years. Conservatives and Canadians have been calling out the Prime Minister's inflationary taxes and spending as they continue to hurt the hard-working people of this country the most.

With the support of the entire Conservative caucus, our leader demanded that this budget work for the people who work for this country. We had three clear demands, which were as follows: ending the inflationary deficits and spending; lowering taxes, including scrapping the carbon tax; and removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits, so that people can afford housing in this country once again. Unsurprisingly, this budget fails to fulfill any of these demands. Instead, it would bring an extra $43 billion of new inflation, debt and taxes. This is what the Prime Minister delivers year after year: debt, inflation and more costs on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister pledged that the debt-to-GDP ratio would decline and that deficits would be reduced. She said, “This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” A year later, her boss and the entire Liberal team definitely crossed that line numerous times.

I will specifically discuss how this budget fails to address the cost of living crisis that is hurting Canadian families, how the coalition focuses on flushing out the pockets of taxpayers and punishing workers and what the next Conservative government would do differently.

On April 1, the Liberal carbon tax increased to 14¢ per litre, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. Despite the Liberals claiming for years that 80% of households that were paying the carbon tax would end up with more money in their pockets, the PBO confirmed what we Conservatives have been saying all along: The carbon tax will actually put Canadians in a worse financial position. As outlined by the PBO, the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates.

The carbon tax is not now and has never been an environmental plan. It is a costly tax plan that is damaging to families, especially those on a fixed income and those who live in rural areas. In fact, the current government has failed to hit any of its emissions targets.

Statistics Canada recently reported that grocery prices are rising at the fastest rate in 40 years. Almost a quarter of Canadians have had to cut back on the food they buy to keep up with rising grocery prices; to cope with food costs, 20% of families are skipping meals. As the current government knows, last summer was the worst for Canadian food banks in 40 years. They recorded 1.5 million visits in just one month, which is a 55% increase over 2019. The number of visits is projected to be greater this year. Working Canadians need and deserve concrete and fiscally responsible changes. The all-talk, no-action approach taken by the Prime Minister is failing Canadians.

Canadians are the ones paying for the government's agenda. What is the government offering in return through this budget? It is offering a grocery rebate; in reality, this is nothing more than an enhanced GST credit of anywhere from $200 to $500. Shockingly, this will not be made available until July of this year. This works out to approximately $3.85 to $9.61 a week. The government is making a mockery of the cost of living crisis by suggesting that this credit would make a tangible difference in the lives of Canadians. This is not even enough to cover the cost of milk and cereal for children in a given week.

In addition, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend over $1,000 more on food this year. This is almost $600 more than the $467 rebate that such a family would receive. This so-called rebate would not even come close to covering the rising cost of food that the Liberal deficits and tax hikes have caused. It would permit the rising cost of living, however, as the price of food is expected to increase by an additional 5% to 7% by the end of the year.

The budget contains no new policies to increase the supply of Canadian housing, even as record-high immigration places unprecedented stresses on home and rental prices. The reality is that home prices have doubled since the tax-and-spend Prime Minister took office in 2015.

There are 35-year-olds who have no choice but to live in their parents' basements; they are unable to buy a home and start a family. According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Monthly payments on mortgages are rising even as house prices are dropping.

We have an amount of available land that is second in the world, yet Vancouver and Toronto are the world's third and 10th most overpriced housing markets. To put that into perspective, renters in Toronto can now expect to pay over $2,300 per month for a one-bedroom apartment. The government housing benefit, involving a one-time payment of $500, was nothing more than a small bandage on a serious crisis.

To give this point greater emphasis, The Canadian Press reported today that only 44% of those who would have likely been eligible for the one-time top-up to the housing benefit actually received it, and just over one-half have received the Canadian dental benefit. That is unbelievable and inexcusable incompetence.

The expenses of the government are driving up the cost of living. In the Prime Minister’s legacy, he will stand as the one who has doubled Canada’s deficit, adding more debt than all Canadian prime ministers combined.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Canadian homeowners experienced eight consecutive interest rate hikes, at the fastest rate in decades. If families bought a modest home with an affordable mortgage five years ago, and it is now up for renewal, they will pay $7,000 more a year.

The former chief economic analyst of Statistics Canada says that, by failing to control spending, the government’s budget is working against the Bank of Canada’s policy to reduce inflation. The Prime Minister believed that the budget would balance itself, claimed he was not interested in monetary policy and took on debt so people would not have to. He is now advising, with a serious face, that Canadians should be fine with using their credit cards to pay for tuition and home renovations.

CTV News reported that more and more Canadians are resorting to debt to pay bills amid high inflation. This is not to mention that the average increase in debt payment because of higher interest rates is another $2,000. Despite the Liberal political narrative, it has been revealed that 40% of all new spending measures had nothing to do with COVID. That is an astonishing $205 billion.

Despite this abysmal track record, it is important for Canadians to know that not all hope is lost. A Conservative government would turn the financial situation in this country around. To be specific, a Conservative government would create more cash flow by creating more of what cash buys. We would produce more food, gas and other resources here in Canada.

We would remove government gatekeepers by building more homes and making Canada the place where one can get a building permit most quickly in the world. We would make energy more affordable. The next Conservative government would repeal anti-energy laws and get Canadian energy out into the world market.

We would cut corporate welfare and scrap the carbon tax, while simultaneously tackling climate change by making alternative energy cheaper instead of making everything else more expensive. We would reform the tax-and-benefit system, making sure that Canadians are rewarded for their work, and putting those hard-earned dollars from picking up an extra shift into their pockets, not the government's pocket.

We would be a government that restores hope. We would rekindle the belief that people’s paycheques and savings can buy them a decent life. We would make fiscally responsible decisions to create an affordable life for Canadians. We would restore Canada’s promise in a country where everyone has the ability to achieve their goals, regardless of who they are.

I will continue to stand for the interests of my constituents and fight for all working Canadians. I will not be supporting this inflationary budget bill.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I listened keenly to the member's speech. At the end, he said that he will always stand for the interests of his constituents. I wonder if that means their financial interests.

I know that, like Milton, Brantford—Brant is a family community. The member actively talked down the importance of immigration as a direct contributor to our economy. He talked about building permits, as if the federal government had anything to do with building permits in his community. He also ignored the fact that 32,000 households in his riding are likely to benefit directly from the grocery rebate in this budget.

Demographically, his riding is a lot like mine, so I also know that over 1,200 kids in Brantford—Brant have accessed dental care because of our health care investments. At the same time, our child care agreements are saving a lot of money for families in his riding. It is not the best it has ever been, as he claims we say. Times are tough, but we have solutions. The members on the other side have only slogans and absolutely no solutions for Canadians.

What does he have?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, we, as Conservatives, have so much more to offer Canadians than this particular member and that entire Liberal government. They are failing Canadians. They continue to fail Canadians with their failed policies.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Name one measure.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

One measure? I will give you measures—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they are not to be asking questions when they have already asked a question, and when I have not asked if there are questions and comments.

I would ask the hon. member for Brantford—Brant to not engage in any other conversations going on or questions being asked.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my friend failed to listen attentively to the last part of my speech, where I identified six key measures the next Conservative government would take to address the affordability issue.

To address the member for Milton specifically on that issue, we will start, number one, by scrapping the carbon tax. How is that for an answer?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something quite interesting in Bill C-47 that has passed under the radar because it is hidden in a pile of measures. In division 31 of the bill, which is in part 4 and on page 325, the government introduces a measure that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is asking us to recognize Charles the Third as King of Canada through an amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act. It is not clear what that has to do with anything.

Furthermore, currently, any time a government makes an order in council appointment, as is the case here, that individual may be called before a parliamentary committee to verify their qualifications. My question for my colleague is this. Does he think that Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, should be called before a committee to verify his qualifications?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a distinct question there but, I make no apologies for the beliefs and values I bring to the House. I swore an allegiance to Her Majesty at the time. Although I did not have to formally swear an allegiance to His Majesty, I stand fully in support of the monarchy and always will.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listen intently every time Conservatives stand to speak in the House because I am listening to hear if we are finally going to hear something about the climate crisis and protecting our environment, but yet again, we are not hearing anything about that.

We do, however, hear about carbon capture. That is the push they would like to see, despite the International Panel on Climate Change making it clear that this method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unproven, risky and one of the most expensive options.

When will the member and the Conservatives finally acknowledge that we are in a climate crisis and start pushing the government for real solutions for future generations?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push the government for solutions on many issues, including the environment. We have never shied away from that.

I would encourage the member from the NDP to stand by her values and her principles the next time she is blindly supporting the government on these issues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question that probably deserves more time than we have, but we are talking about inflation, and a lot of what we are experiencing right now is not typical inflation. It is not a wage-price spiral. It is from events that are making things cost more, such as the impact of Putin's attack on Ukraine and the impact of climate events, which make various foodstuffs cost more.

I wonder if the hon. member has some thoughts on that, about how he distinguishes between inflationary trends the Bank of Canada can affect, for example, and things costing more. How do we alleviate those costs for Canadians?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her thoughtful introspection on this particularly important issue.

The thrust of my speech was very obvious. It is the failed fiscal policies of this government that have created the financial crisis, the affordability crisis that we find ourselves in.

I am not diminishing world events. I think it has taken root around the world and it has impacted Canada to a certain degree, but as many economists have argued, as many former random Liberals have argued, it is the failed Liberal policies that have contributed to the crisis we are facing.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1.

I want to start, first, by explaining that Canada has probably been the most successful country coming out of COVID in the last two years. In the last year, we have seen the best and strongest economic growth in the G7, which is quite impressive.

Canadians had created 1.2 million jobs prior to the pandemic. Now we have recaptured that 1.2 million, and Canadians have created another 830,000 jobs. That is over two million jobs in the last five years. I would say that is very impressive.

Yes, we are facing inflation, which is a challenge the world is facing, but in the last month inflation has come down from 8% to 4.2%. The banks and economists are saying we are going to be down to about 3% by September. That is quite impressive as well.

We know there are challenges. We know the banks raised the interest rate, which is putting more pressure on individuals and Canadians, yet the unemployment rate is at a record low, which is extremely important.

What we have seen as well with unemployment is the fact that we brought forward the learning and child care program. We have seen a lot more women joining the workforce, which has shown us at a record high of 85.7% of women between 25 and 55 years of age participating in the workforce.

This budget targets inflation relief, strengthening public health care and dental care, the clean economy, and of course, maintaining our lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

The grocery rebate is directly helping 11 million Canadians. It is extremely important. A family of four is receiving about $467. Single Canadians are receiving about $234, and seniors are receiving $225. That is for low-income Canadians who are receiving the GST, of course.

For students, we are increasing the student grant by 40% and raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit so we can be of help on that end as well.

There have been various programs for seniors. I just mentioned the grocery rebate for those with low incomes. We also increased the OAS and GIS, which will grow by 30% by 2027-28. That is about $20 billion a year in increases, so that is direct support for seniors to ensure they are able to enjoy their retirement.

In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have also been investments, like in the Beaverbank Kinsac Lions Club, which received $25,000 for upgrades. Also, the Sackville Seniors Advisory Council received $25,000 for programming. Those are direct investments into the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

On the housing front, which is extremely important, for first-time homebuyers, young people, there is a new tax-free savings account, which will allow them to save $40,000 tax-free over, I believe, about seven years. This is tax-free going in and tax-free coming out for first-time homebuyers, which will be a very good investment and definitely a major help to young people.

It is also creating more flexibility around existing mortgages by extending amortization payments, adjusting the payment schedule or even authorizing lump sum payments. In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have been some successful housing projects in the Chezzetcook area, the Lake Echo area and the Preston area.

Under the economy, industry and competitiveness for the green economy, which is a focus of our government, there are tax credits that will entice, invite, encourage and build on green electricity. We will see a 15% tax rebate on clean electricity. We will also see up to 30% in tax credits for machinery or equipment used for manufacturing or processing clean technology. The cleanest, hydrogen, will get up to a 40% rebate, which is encouraging. We know that Canadians will move forward on those major initiatives.

Through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we have invested up to $20 billion for major projects in electricity and clean growth, and for those in Ontario, we have seen a major project, which is a game-changer, in the Volkswagen battery manufacturing, which will be an asset for the workers and people in Ontario.

I will quote the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: “CME welcomes #Budget2023 and the initial steps it takes to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act...drive net zero transitions, improve labour shortages, and alleviate and supply chain disruptions.” That will also be an asset.

There are also industry-targeted investments we have for our space industry, our forestry industry and our tourism industry. We know our tourism industry took a major hit during COVID. We need to support our communities, so they can have more ways of attracting more tourists to their communities and also invest in bringing more international investment in conventions and events in our regions.

With that, of course, I cannot go without mentioning the investment in Michelin, the tire plant in Nova Scotia. It has three plants, of course, and the Bridgewater one is where they are going to modernize and also create innovative technology for tires to be more efficient, including the electric vehicle tires. Of course, they will cut on emissions, which will mean more jobs and a reduction to the environmental footprint of our economy.

We have also seen some reductions and savings, of up to $15 billion over five years, by reducing spending on consulting firms. There will be a 3% reduction for each department right across the government and $6 billion in savings over six years through the realignment of former announcements.

I do need to touch on a couple of key things. Health care is extremely important in Nova Scotia. We had been receiving $3.5 billion over 10 years. Now, we will be receiving $5 billion, which is $1.5 million, or a third, more. That would be very helpfully invested in home care, long-term care, dental care, oral health care, major doctors and nurses, and also in promoting initiatives to bring them to rural and remote communities.

Our workers are very important, and one of the things I want to talk about is the doubling of the tradespeople tool deduction from $500 to $1,000. I have heard many tradespeople tell me that was something they wanted. Also, I think a very important initiative is the employer ownership trusts, which mean there would be tax changes to allow private owners to sell to their employees the shares in the business, which would make them directly engaged in the challenges, but also the profits as well.

Our student work placement program is creating quality work-integrated learning opportunities. I will share with members that there is an announcement we had in Nova Scotia not so long ago of the Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency's START program, which sees many students who are learning on the ground as well as in their institutions.

There are many other investments, of course. The one I want to talk about is the investment in veterans to reduce backlogs once again. We already reduced the backlogs by 70%. We want to bring that down to 0. Also, we will continue to support our veterans through various services. There are some investments in my riding, of course. The Royal Canadian Legion branch in Waverley would receive $159,000 for a roof replacement, and the one in Eastern Passage would receive over $21,000 for renovations as well.

There is lots of investment, of course, in Atlantic Canada, in the Coast Guard, the ferry services, protecting our fresh waters and the Atlantic loop, which would help Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and others.

In closing, very importantly, I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I also want to thank all Canadians who contributed to the success of this budget, because it is a budget for Canada.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today about the 2023 federal budget, in particular the budget implementation act. This budget is a testament to the dedication and commitment of our government to the people of Canada. We have listened to the needs and concerns of Canadians and have worked tirelessly to create a budget that reflects our shared values and aspirations.

I want to share, in particular, some initiatives that would benefit the residents of Brampton, since I am the member representing Brampton North. As one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, Brampton has unique needs and challenges. Our government recognizes this and has taken steps to address them in this budget.

We know that in Brampton, health care is a growing need of the population, and it is sad to say that the Brampton community has been underserved for many years. I can speak to my own experiences with having difficulty finding a family doctor. With the networks people think a member of Parliament has, one would think it would be easy. It makes me believe that my constituents really stand no chance and have a very difficult time being seen on a routine and regular basis. This is one of the reasons we have incredibly long waits in our emergency rooms, which we have been seeing across the country. However, as a representative and long-time resident of Brampton, I know we have been seeing this in our community for years and years now.

With the investment we are making in health care, it is my hope that when funding is completely received by the provincial governments, they put it to use in making sure they reduce waiting lines in ERs. We have, in particular, carved out a part of our budget to address that, and I really hope the Government of Ontario takes that seriously and gets right to work to reduce those wait lines. Waiting in an ER for 18 hours is the norm in Brampton, and when people started seeing it across the country, it made news stations everywhere else. However, it is the norm we are used to, and it is a shame.

I looked into this a bit, and we provide our health care transfers at the federal level based on population and some other factors across the provinces. We hand that money over to them in trust that they will divide the pie as fairly as possible down to the regions and municipalities. However, that was not done here. I hope the province is listening, will take this concern seriously and will make sure that Brampton gets its fair share.

There is almost $200 billion over 10 years, including $46.2 billion in new funding, for the provinces and territories. That is huge. We have never seen that type of funding and investment by a federal government in health care, and I think it is so important.

I spent some years living in the U.S., and oftentimes the grass looks greener on the other side and we think that perhaps we should have a system similar to that of the U.S. because we could get seen faster. However, I can tell members that it is not a pretty picture there either. It is extremely complex, having the insurance plans that it has. It is also extremely complex trying to figure out how to navigate all of that and whether one would even end up being covered.

Here, people go in and pay nothing other than maybe the parking fee or a cable bill, which is very minor, at a hospital, and they can have an operation of any magnitude. This is what we take pride in here in Canada and what we want to continue to see in this great country. One of the things I used to always say to my American friends and colleagues is that it is a sense of pride, and I want that sense of pride to continue with Canadians.

I know that many have been feeling a little let down by their health care system, but we are there as a federal government to support them and make sure those gaps are covered, especially in the area of mental health. We have seen so many issues arising postpandemic in particular. Even before that, some areas were not addressed. This funding will help address them.

There are other areas of concern for Brampton residents. We have a very young population. We have one of the youngest populations in the country. The average age in Brampton is between 34 and 35, so there are many young families. Oftentimes, these families are the ones that, when we look at income disparity, have the most challenges when it comes to expenditures and the amount of income they are bringing in. This budget helps with affordability. It helps with grocery costs. It helps with day care.

I have been calling around to different day cares in the Brampton community to see what the costs have come down to, and it is wonderful to hear my local day cares telling me that the costs for many families have come down anywhere from $700 to $800 a month per child. Those are real savings.

I know that at times we hear from the Conservatives that a one-time grocery benefit is not good enough. However, it is not a one-time grocery benefit; it is a comprehensive plan that we have put forward. We have so many measures that we are providing for Canadians. Overall, when we look at the Canada child benefit, the day care savings, the top-ups for GST and for seniors that we have done, and the grocery benefit, the savings add up to over $11,000 for an average family per year. That is real money, and it is going to help Canadians get through this challenging time that we are facing globally together.

Another measure that I think is extremely important to many Bramptonians, because they have approached me over the years many times, is dental care for those who could not afford it. Last year, we saw that by the end of the year. We had made a promise, which we kept, to implement a dental health care plan that would provide for children under 12. We have put aside the funding and are doing the hard work that is needed to make sure that this plan continues to expand to seniors, to those under 18, and to those with disabilities. That is a big relief to many people in that community. We are not going to stop there. We are going to continue to help everyone in need, so that families that make an average income of $90,000 or less will be entirely supported by the time we complete the full program of dental care in Canada.

These programs are going to change the trajectory of our country for decades to come. They will change the lives of many.

We are also seeing that many more women are joining the workforce. There are so many talented women. In Brampton, it is not uncommon to have a post-secondary degree yet not be able to find a job. Recently there was a study, commissioned with some support and funding provided by our federal government as well, that showed that South Asian women in particular, as well as other minorities, are some of the most highly educated but most underemployed category of immigrant women in this country. I think it is so important that we make sure they have the ability to balance both family and their careers and put their skills to use. We do not want to waste our talent. Our talent is one of the best things we have in this country, and we need to make sure that it is encouraged and used.

That is why we are seeing so many investments in our country as well, not to mention the clean, green investments in this budget, which I think are going to provide hope for many Canadians. It is going to create a lot of great new jobs. It is extremely exciting, because this is not just a budget for today but a budget that will lead us into the future.

I am excited about the investments that Volkswagen has made and the investments that MDA has made in Brampton. We have new jobs that are being created around battery manufacturing in Brampton as well, good jobs for good constituents in Brampton North. I am grateful to be here today to share some of my thoughts about the budget and my excitement.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, more Canadians than ever are using the food bank, 1.5 million Canadians a month. The member seems to think Canadians have never had it so good, even though the cost of groceries has never been higher, rent has doubled and mortgages have doubled.

I have a simple question for the member: Under her government's watch, how many more people are using the food bank in Brampton than before?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am by no means saying that life is easy for everyone. I recognize that these are challenging times for Canadians, and not just Canadians but Americans, Europeans and people all around the globe, as we have challenges with our supply chains and inflation throughout the world. Those are challenges that everyone in the world is facing, but Canadians are receiving relief and support from their government. That is incredibly important. We have lifted over 800,000 children out of poverty. Over a million more people in this country are now above the poverty threshold. These are huge numbers, and this is important progress.

We will continue to have the backs of Canadians. We will continue to do what we can to get them through this challenging time so that we can see brighter hope with clean, green jobs of the future and good employment for all.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague.

Throughout my time in the House, so over the past three or four years, I have been hearing the government voice its concern about the French issue and say that it is very important to protect minority languages in Quebec and Canada.

Yesterday, the government presented its action plan for official languages 2023-2028. This is important. The plan includes investments totalling $4 billion over the next 5 years. However, $800 million, or 20% of these funds, will go to anglophones living in Quebec.

I just want to point out that even the government admits that Quebec anglophones are not under threat. English is not under threat in Quebec. In Canada and North America, English is the majority language.

Why is the government sending $800 million to anglophones in Quebec when they are not under threat?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a good day for languages in our country. Many stakeholder groups gave statements that they were incredibly thrilled that this government has put forward funding to protect our two official languages throughout Canada. It is more than any government has ever given before. It is double what used to be put in.

It was a good day for Canada. It was a good day for French in Quebec and a good day for English in Quebec, too. That is the beauty of Canada. We respect both languages equally. We want to protect French, and that is why the government is making investments. Bill C-13 is another example of our government modernizing things to make sure that French is protected in our country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the commitment in the budget implementation act to the red dress alert, but I want to ask the member whether she shares my concern about the announced cuts of $150 million to women's shelters across the country. That money was provided during the pandemic, when domestic violence rates spiked, and those rates have not gone down, so it is critical that money be provided in a timely manner once again to women's shelters.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that women's shelters and other organizations that received funding from our government during the pandemic were able to get through the pandemic because our government stepped in at that time, when no one else was there to help them. Just like all Canadians, they were going through a very problematic period. Our government invested $300 million to help support them.

This funding is not being cut. It was a program created for the pandemic, and we have a lot of money in the pot right now to figure out a way to continue to support these organizations. The talks are continuing. The work is going to continue. There will be consultations in the months to come to figure out how we can continue supporting, with the support of the provinces as well, of course, and their operational funding responsibilities for women's shelters.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2023 continues the Prime Minister's record of high taxes and inflationary deficits. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all other Canadian prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the costs of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach, and I hope everyone is sitting down for this, $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. There is no plan to balance Canada's budget projections. The deficit of 2022-23 is up to $43 billion. In 2023-24, the deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. The Prime Minister promised a balanced budget in 2019. He continues to make false promises to Canadians.

These Liberal deficits are hurting hard-working Canadians due to the increase of the cost of living. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. I know my colleague said earlier, when she was asked the question about the food banks by my colleague, that food bank usage is up and 8.2 million people are using food banks. That is up 60%, compared to two million people before the pandemic. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. One in seven employed Canadians is using a food bank, and seniors' food bank usage is increasing at the highest rate of all other age groups. According to CTV, “service providers in Sault Ste. Marie are noticing a growing number of seniors are relying on food donations.”

Canadian seniors call my office daily. They share their struggles in trying to mitigate the Liberal-made cost of living crisis we are currently living in. Seniors are having to use their overdraft to keep heat in their home and food on their table. Unfortunately, budget 2023 continues to leave Canadian seniors out in the cold. In a 255-page document, only half of one page is dedicated solely to supporting our seniors. Seniors are telling this government that they are struggling, but they are not being heard.

The Liberal government claims that seniors have never had it so good. The Minister of Seniors consistently refers to outdated statistics and failed Liberal policies that have not helped the well-being of seniors. Statistics on Canadian seniors have not been updated since 2020, when many seniors were relying on the temporary pandemic CERB payments. The government is not listening to how seniors are struggling. Statistics Canada has determined that the poverty level for seniors is currently based on the cost of living in 2018. Since 2018, the cost of living has skyrocketed and grocery prices have increased. The price of heating a home and driving a car has increased. How can the government possibly judge the current well-being of seniors based on the cost of living in 2018? The government needs to listen to what seniors are saying right now, and unfortunately, according to this budget, it is not.

Budget 2023 has announced a new grocery rebate, an underwhelming effort to try to mitigate the cost of living. The Liberals' grocery rebate will give a senior citizen a one-time payment of $225 to cover the rising cost of food that their inflationary deficit helped cause. However, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year, $598 more than the $467 they will receive from the rebate. I do not know, but that does not sound like good math to me. CBC reported that, for struggling families and seniors in Windsor, the new grocery rebate is just a drop in the bucket. June Muir, president of Windsor-Essex Food Bank Association, said that the amount of money is not going to make much of an impact. This grocery rebate will not solve the cost of living crisis that has already driven many Canadians over the edge.

To make things worse, the Prime Minister's carbon tax increase of 14¢ per litre on April 1 is making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. By 2030, this tax could add 50¢ per litre to gasoline. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023 even after the rebates. Sheila, a senior in Winnipeg, had to use her overdraft this winter just to pay her expenses so she could heat her home and stay warm.

Budget 2023 states, “Our seniors have made Canada what it is today”. Canada's seniors paved the way for our nation's prosperity, but after eight years of the Liberal government's inflationary spending and tax hikes, the government has put a damper on the legacy seniors worked so hard to build.

After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians. Nine out of 10 people who do not own a home say they will never own a home. CMHC data for January showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020. It is down 52% in Toronto and 14% in Vancouver. Canada has the lowest number of housing units per thousand residents of any G7 country. The number of units per thousand Canadians has been falling since 2016. This is due to the sharp rise in population growth. According to CMHC, Canada needs 3.5 million more homes than projected to restore affordability.

Under the Liberals, the down payment needed to buy a home has doubled. The minimum down payment on an average home has gone from $22,000 to $45,000 across Canada. Budget 2023 has no plan to get the gatekeepers out of the way and get more houses built to restore affordability. What is the government's plan for first-time homebuyers? It is the new, tax-free first home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000. However, in our current, Liberal-made cost of living crisis, how will Canadians be able to save this amount of money? According to a recent survey by Angus Reid Institute, 40% of Canadians say recent challenges have forced them to draw money from their savings accounts, which they had put away for emergency purposes, and 35% say they have deferred contributions to their RRSP and TFSA accounts. The average rent in Canada today is $2,200. There is also an 11% increase in grocery prices and a 14¢ increase to a litre of gas. How can Canadians possibly afford to save money in their bank accounts with all the price increases on basic needs?

First-time homebuyers have given up on ever owning a home. The dream has become a nightmare due to the cost of mortgages and inflation. This has been caused by the Liberal government's wasteful spending of taxpayer money without considering the burden it created, which Canadians now have to bear. Average mortgage payments have more than doubled in eight years, from $1,400 to over $3,100. When the Prime Minister first took office, someone needed 39% of their average paycheque to make a monthly payment. Today, it is 62%.

Budget 2023 also introduced a new, refundable multi-generational home renovation tax credit, which would provide up to $7,500 in support of construction of secondary suites for seniors and for adults living with disabilities. I am in full support of seniors and persons with disabilities having the opportunity to live in their homes longer. However, $7,500 could not possibly be enough to renovate a home, due to the inflationary cost of materials skyrocketing. Furthermore, we have no labour that can complete these projects. How will families be—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am just making sure everybody gets to participate so they can get their thoughts in.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member did not start her speech off very well. When she talked about seniors, she tried to give the false impression that the government is not there for them.

Virtually from day one, this government has been there for seniors. We can talk about the substantial increase to the GIS. We can talk about legislation and one of our very first actions, which was to reduce the age of retirement from 67, something the Conservatives had put into place, to 65. We can talk about the direct supports during the pandemic and the one-time payments. We can talk about the 10% increase for those aged 75 or more. Within this budget, we find the grocery rebate, which she made reference to, but she did not talk about the dental plan, which we are expanding to include seniors. We have lifted literally hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. How does that contrast with the Conservative regime of Stephen Harper and its blatant disregard and disrespect for Canada's seniors?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what good the dental plan is when my seniors cannot even afford to pay for gasoline to go to the grocery store to buy groceries. They cannot afford groceries. The rebate does not offset the cost of the carbon tax, heating or medical expenses. The member is talking about dental, which is great, but seniors cannot afford to eat, so they are not going to have dental problems.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about housing, a subject on which we agree.

A few weeks ago in committee, I questioned a witness about the Century Initiative, which seems to have inspired the government to increase the number of immigrants to Canada to a minimum of 500,000 a year.

When I questioned the witness, I asked if any thought had been given to the French language and to the need for housing. The answer was that the only consideration had been the economy.

If the government insists on reaching its targets without considering the social aspects involved, what will happen to the budgets and needs of Canadians and of Quebeckers, in particular?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, time and again, we have said that we need to build more affordable homes. The hon. member is absolutely correct. We cannot allow 500,000 new immigrants to come to this country and provide them with the false promise that they will be able to have homes for their families, when we are not building them. We need to turn that around. We need to make sure we get rid of the gatekeepers and get those homes built so that, when new immigrants come, they can contribute to our society and make Canada free again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often find, in this place, that we really try to find solutions to the many problems Canadians face. The member pointed out several important issues that, from my perspective, require addressing. However, one of the biggest aspects the New Democrats have called for is the idea of an excess profits tax, and I would love for the member to comment on that. We often hear the Conservatives talk at great lengths about how corporations are taking advantage of Canadians, and I agree. However, I also agree with the solution, which is that, just like the Conservatives in the United Kingdom have done, we need to introduce an excess profits tax. What are the member's thoughts with respect to an excess profits tax, especially in the age of COVID, when we have seen record profits driving up inflation?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to understand that Canadians are working to ensure they provide for their families. However, as long as the Liberal government continues to recklessly and foolishly spend money, scandal after scandal and trip after trip, those tax dollars are going to increase, which means Canadians will have less money in their pockets to support their families. When are the Liberals going to take their own advice, balance the budget, and ensure that Canadians can live the free life we promised them when they came to this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member tirelessly champions seniors. It was mentioned that seniors are now more likely to be visiting food banks to be able to eat.

Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture announced Canada's first food policy, and the food policy is going to be to fund food banks. Having Canadians dependent on government to fill their rice bowls is our first food policy. What does this tell the member about the government's intention to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I volunteer at some food banks, and this is what I have been hearing: They are desperate, because they have to turn people away. There are people going from food bank to food bank so that they can get enough food to feed their families. We need to stop this foolishness. We need to start having more money for hard-working Canadians so they can support their families.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike Émile Zola who, a hundred years ago, wrote an open letter accusing all the intellectual and government elites of his time of racism, I will turn the camera around and accuse myself.

I accuse myself and admit that I am guilty of being naive when it comes to political and public life. I am naive. When I went into politics three years ago, I thought that we would have intelligent debates in Parliament, in the House. I thought that the people elected across Canada, people with experience, people with a past, people who had worked on important issues, would come to Parliament and debate. I thought that, if I presented an argument, someone would come up with a counterargument, someone else would then present another counterargument, and that the process would result in brilliant bills—in short, the truth. I thought that we were going to come up with bills that would benefit Canadians, that people would look at us and say, “Wow, these are extraordinary people who are passing really effective bills that meet the specific needs of all Canadians and that are improving our country and ensuring we are going in the right direction”.

That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was. I thought that was how democracy works in Quebec and Canada. I thought that that was how things worked, that we would work together and collaborate to get to the truth for the common good. That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was and how my balloon burst after my three years here, when I saw how badly we fail to meet Canadians’ needs and, especially, how we have to keep repeating the same things day after day. I really was not expecting that.

In my past life I used to repeat lines as part of my work. I have a background in theatre. I played Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire 250 times. I repeated all my lines 250 times. When you work with Molière, there is always something new to discover. There are always truths hidden behind the lines. This broadens an actor’s horizons, since they can improve their performance every evening. In Parliament, however, all of us in the opposition strive to make speeches. We work in committee, we try to be wise. We conduct studies, we think hard every day to tell the government, the supposed decision-makers, what they should do and the measures they should put in place. We are close to the community, in our respective ridings. We see what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, we have to repeat ourselves.

I say this because what I am going to say today is something I have said hundreds of times before in the House. I will have to repeat myself again today. It is sad, because these are important issues. For example, what is missing from this budget and this bill? Housing.

As my colleague said so well earlier, we need a game plan to build 3.5 million housing units in Canada in the next 10 years. This does not come from an extreme leftist group advocating for social housing, it comes from Scotiabank and the CMHC. These are the challenges we face.

We expected to see housing treated as an important concern in the budget. Most people devote 30%, 40% or 50% of their income to housing. There are even 80,000 households that spend 80% of their income on housing, and that is just in Quebec. That in itself is scandalous. Imagine someone earning $1,000 or $2,000 and having to spend $800 or $1,600 on housing. How would they eat? How would they send their children to school and pay for their school supplies? We are not even talking about recreational activities.

With such major concerns, with the bar set so high, with all the things we have repeated here and that organizations across the country have been repeating, we would expect the government to address the issue in the budget, to tackle this challenge and propose robust measures. Out of 250 pages of various measures in all sorts of areas, how many pages in the budget are devoted to the 3.5 million housing units we need over the next 10 years?

There is only one page. There is one short page about the most important issue of our generation. That is scandalous: a single short page on one of the most fundamental issues of our era, along with the fight against climate change and the language crisis. That in itself is scandalous.

Instead of addressing the issue, from what we learned yesterday, they are allocating $800 million over the next five years to protect the best protected linguistic minority in the history of humanity, the anglophone community in Quebec. This community represents only 8% of the population, but the power of English is quite evident in Quebec, Canada and North America. However, the government will be sending $800 million to the community over the next five years.

I advocated for 20 years for the survival of the French language in Quebec. That is one of the reasons I went into politics. The survival of the French language and culture in Quebec is one of our greatest challenges. Since I got here, I have heard a lot of promises. They say they recognize the symmetry between English and French in Canada, that they know it is important, that they know that French-language communities across the country are in peril, that they know that French in Quebec is also threatened, that they will get down to it and come up with a bill with teeth.

Now the government comes up with Bill C-13 and, yesterday, with a plan to invest $800 million. Anglophones in Quebec have three universities. They have as many hospitals and television stations as they need. They have access to all music on Spotify, and to more movies than they can watch. There is no housing for the most destitute in this country and no investments to make a difference in this budget, but the government’s excuse is that it has invested in recent years. It is unacceptable that we are failing to address this crucial issue. I just cannot believe it.

Right now, I am touring Quebec to document the crisis, to see what is happening on the ground. The things I am hearing are appalling. In Trois‑Rivières, a victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. How can we allow that? How can there be only one page about housing in the budget?

In my riding of Longueuil, there are 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. What country are we living in? Is this a G7 country, or is it some country in the Middle Ages? I cannot get over the idea of 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures in the budget for these 17 people in their three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures to help that victim of domestic violence who is living in her car with her two children.

This budget is a disgrace, a disaster. It does not meet the needs of Quebec and Canadian society today. It is misguided. It fails to target the most important issues, and that is extremely unfortunate.

Maybe I am being too naive. Still, however much I do not like it, I will keep repeating these truths until the government finally understands what and where the real needs are in this society, here and now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to issue a reminder that using props is against the rules. In this case, it was a page from a document. I would like the member to go get the piece of paper that he used as a prop and threw on the floor.

Then we can continue with questions and comments.

Thank you very much.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will not use any props as I ask my hon. colleague a question.

I know that it is not all fun and games here in the House, but things do get done. One of the things that gets me down is when members exaggerate.

The government announced $31.2 billion as part of the national housing strategy. That was in the previous budgets. This funding will be available until 2028. There is a measure in the strategy to assist people in urgent need of housing, such as victims of violence.

Instead of repeating misinformation, could this well-known member from Quebec occasionally admit that progress is being made? It is not always easy, but progress is being made. A lot of progress was made with the national housing strategy.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules to accuse another member of spreading misinformation in the House?

My speech was completely accurate. My colleague is talking about women who are victims of domestic violence. Every day in Quebec during the pandemic, women who are victims of domestic violence were being turned away from shelters because there were no resources available. There were not enough spots.

In Quebec right now, there are 45,000 households waiting for low-rent housing. These are people who cannot afford housing. These are the hard facts. I do not know what my colleague is talking about. I do not know what planet he is living on. Right now, the housing crisis is one of the most serious crises of our time.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on his spirited speech. In my province of British Columbia, the birth rate continues to decline, just like in Quebec.

Would more births in Quebec help fix the language crisis? How can we encourage Quebeckers to have more babies?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, encouraging Quebeckers to have more babies is a trap. They will not have more babies. Let us be honest, people in the west are not having babies. One way or another, we need to encourage francophone immigration to address the language crisis throughout Canada and Quebec. It is extremely important. People are not having babies.

Unfortunately, in Quebec, society is anglicizing naturally. This is happening naturally. I talked about it in my speech earlier. We need a substantial francophone immigration policy because there is not going to be another baby boom, unfortunately.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the area I represent has over 300 years of francophone culture. The citizens I represent there are now going to be able to get dental care, and we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. What would the member have to say to those people if we were to not do a budget that includes child care or access to dental care for children, persons with disabilities and seniors, in particular, given that we have some of the highest rates of poverty? I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it needs to be said: We always get the impression that the NDP is in the wrong Parliament. There is a party in Quebec called Québec Solidaire that is proposing this type of measure. It is working out quite well because when we talk about dental care, that is part of Quebec's responsibility for health care.

Obviously, I am not against dental care, because it is extremely important. What we keep saying is that Ottawa does not run any hospitals, it does not pay for any doctors and it does not train any nurses. It does not have the authority to talk about these jurisdictions. If it wants to create dental care programs, the government should send money to the provinces, and the provinces will take care of it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the one disappointing thing about the previous member is that he did not tell us where he gets his shirts, and that is something this House needs to know. I hope, some day, he will tell us.

I rise today on the budget, and I would like start by talking about some important news that happened last week. I represent the community of St. Catharines, which has been an automotive community for the better part of a century. There is a General Motors factory in our community. It has been a long-time employer in the community, and this week's announcement about the new gigafactory in St. Thomas is exciting for southern Ontario for many reasons.

[An hon. member]

Thirteen billion.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we got elected in 2015, there was a dark cloud over the auto industry. The previous government really did not pay enough attention. We saw factory closings in St. Thomas, with thousands of workers laid off. We saw closings throughout the manufacturing sector. We saw a lot of factories close in Niagara, automotive or otherwise.

I had GM pensioners come to me in the early part of our first mandate worried whether the St. Catharines plant would stay open, after serving the community and being an employer of members of our community for a century. It is a shocking thing for a community, to be worried about something that has been at the heart of it for so long. I tip my hat, not only to this government, but also to the provincial government, for focusing on the auto industry and understanding it is a priority for the province and a priority for southern Ontario.

The Volkswagen announcement would mean 3,000 direct jobs and 30,000 indirect jobs. Those would be jobs throughout southern Ontario, the rest of Ontario and even into the neighbouring provinces as well. There was a heckle that it is going to cost billions of dollars in federal and provincial investments, but it is an investment. That investment will be paid off in less than six years, and it is for a plant that will be there for decades, a plant that will produce 400 billion to 500 billion dollars' worth of economic economic activity. I am going to say that again. This will be $400 billion to $500 billion, not million, in economic activity for a region that has seen so many factories move away and so many factories close.

Conservatives will say that they stand up for workers, but I ask where the action is on that. It has become awfully quiet. The heckling has stopped, but at the end of the day—

[Frank Caputo]

Where were you for Alberta workers?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the heckling has started again, and it is for Alberta workers. They ask about Alberta workers. Unemployment is high. I know the hon. member is excited about automotive workers. What is good for Ontario is good for Alberta. What is good for Alberta is good for the rest of the country as well.

The hon. member knows that oil is a commodity, and the price of oil will dictate the economy, so it is a global thing. I know he pretends the Prime Minister is in charge of that, which is an incredible thing to suggest to his constituents. It is kind of silly, and it really shows he really does not comprehend how the global economy works, which is truly disappointing for a member in a party that claims it speaks for business.

To hear these heckles, it is clear he does not know how business works and does not know how the economy works. That being said—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member used unparliamentary language. If the member is going to talk about people personally, he can keep it parliamentary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to say that everything was nice and quiet until someone asked for some heckling.

The hon. member for St. Catharines has the floor.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not specifically point anyone out until the hon. member stood up to accept that he did not understand what he was talking about. As the old saying goes, it would be best to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt, so I am happy to have him stand up.

It is truly disappointing that the hon. member would try to heckle me over 33,000 jobs. The Conservative member for the region was there. I am sure she is excited about the prospect of tens of thousands of jobs in southern Ontario. I know the premier of Ontario, who is a Conservative, gave her a shout-out for her work in her constituency, but it is disappointing to see the leader of the opposition stand against auto workers, the automotive industry and southern Ontario.

We have seen investments, and not just in Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We have seen them at automotive plants such as Honda, Toyota, General Motors and Ford. We have seen new announcements in places such as Windsor, London, Niagara and Oshawa, which some had feared would close. These are places that we thought were on the way out, which are now excited about the future, and are there for the future.

To cash in on the green economy and green jobs, we need to have an environmental plan. That is what the hon. members on the other side do not understand. They do not understand that we need a climate plan. The last election they ran on a carbon tax. At the end of the day, they have now changed their minds, going back to saying it should be free to pollute whenever and however one wants. That is how they go about things. They have tried it three elections in a row and can carry on to continue in the same way in a fourth election.

A company such as Volkswagen, after looking at Canada, realized that this is a country that is serious about climate and a province that is serious about climate. That is how we attract these jobs. Our workers, whether they are in Ontario or Alberta, are serious about doing better for their environment. We can see with our own eyes that the climate is changing.

We can bury our heads in the sand, or we can do better. We can get good-paying jobs. We can advance the middle class in our country, or we can say, “Oh, don't worry about it. We'll just stick with the old ways and see those factories close.” That is what they did in the previous 10 years they were in office. They threw up their hands and said they do not care.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard another heckle. We reduced emissions. I always love that we reduced emissions, but they take credit for the Kathleen Wynne closure of coal plants in Ontario. One thing they do is quietly celebrate Kathleen Wynne about that. I appreciate the heckle on that point.

Again, this is optimistic for St. Catharines, and it is optimistic for southern Ontario. It is going to see workers continue and generations, moving forward, who will have great-paying jobs in this sector. That is how we build the middle class.

I would also like to speak about dental. This is something else the Conservatives are opposed to, providing free dental care to kids and seniors, even though they themselves get a government-funded dental plan, as we do on this side of this House. They would deny that to Canadians.

There was a weird comment by a previous member who suggested some seniors are having difficulty buying groceries, so a dental plan would be a waste, which is a shocking thing to say. I guess the Conservative viewpoint on this would be, if someone is having trouble eating, they do not need teeth, which is wild.

Before I was elected to office, my favourite job, which was also one I did not get paid for, was the chair of Quest Community Health Centre in St. Catharines. We had a volunteer dental clinic where a volunteer dentist would come and do work on vulnerable members of our community. It was incredible to see the results. People who had been in pain for years, for decades, would use the emergency room to take care of their dental pain. We all know that there are ER crises across the country with long wait times, but people were smiling for the first time.

The Conservatives see it as a waste, which is disappointing. How does one get a job if one cannot smile? It is the right thing to do, but let us look at it as an economic plan. They can be opposed to alleviating suffering. They can be opposed to making people feel great being able to smile, but it will help them get jobs. It will help them get back into society.

This is something worthwhile. It is something this budget and this government stand up for, but we do not see it on the other side.

The Conservatives say that they stand up for the vulnerable, that they stand up for workers, that they stand up for their constituents, but time after time, when the rubber meets the road on these points that actually help Canadians, they are nowhere to be seen. Though they have been heckling me on issues that matter to Canadians, they are nowhere to be seen when the votes happen and it is time to help Canadians. The Conservatives have nothing except bumper sticker slogans, and that will never help Canadians.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reference a remark that the member made about my comment.

Could he please explain to me why Sheila has to live from overdraft to overdraft, paying 21% just to heat her house and to buy groceries? The dental care plan is not going to help someone who cannot eat. That was my reference, not that it is not a good idea. I am saying that we need to allow people to have more money in their pockets and less taxes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is wild. She did not correct her comment that she does not need dental care, that she is having trouble. That she does not need to no have pain and that she does not deserve to have a smile is beside the point.

This is from a member who represented a party that was going to increase the age that people could collect OAS and GIS, from age 65 to 67. This is from a party that voted against increases to OAS, that voted against increases to GIS, that voted against cutting taxes on the middle class so we could raise it on the wealthiest 1%. It is a party that votes against dental care for seniors.

It is absolutely shocking that the hon. member would stand and want to correct her comments when they are flawed to their core.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the Volkswagen plant. We have been after a national auto strategy for a long time in this place. The original plan was with Dr. David Suzuki, my then friend and former MP Joe Comartin and the CAW, and now Unifor, back in 2006. To be fair to this agreement with Volkswagen, it is a pretty solid deal, because most of it is loaded with the production taking place as opposed to going in without any expectations.

However, I do want to correct one thing. When General Motors and Chrysler were struggling a few years back, the Conservatives at that time, with the late Jim Flaherty, said that they could not pick winners or losers at first. Later on, they made an agreement to save General Motors and Chrysler, which now Stellantis. Had we not sold the shares to General Motors, we would have made money off the loan that was provided at that time.

I would like the member to provide a little more details about the Volkswagen investment. To be fair, the minister has done a decent deal with regard to this, ensuring that the money is tied to the facility and the development of that facility, as well as the production of materials, including batteries and so forth. If we do not have that type of production, we will be a rip-and-ship nation, like we are for softwood lumber.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right that the government stepped up, as did the government in the United States, to save General Motors. However, having lived in Windsor for three years and being from Niagara, we can probably sit down and go on for far too long about the number of factories that closed and how manufacturing was impacted and forgotten. Even though in that one moment it was saved, we did not see that desire throughout the course of the Conservatives' mandate.

I agree with the hon. member that this is a good investment. This will go on for years. It is not front-end loaded so the company can walk away or not produce the batteries it says that it will make.

However, I would like to expand briefly on his analogy with respect to ripping and shipping, as we have done for centuries in our country. We will produce in Canada the critical minerals that will then go into the battery plant. We will take advantage of this. I tip my hat to the Minister of Innovation as Canada has now become the number two place to do business with regard to batteries in the world in a short period of time. We see where the future is going to be, we see where the puck is going to be, and the hon. minister is there.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague stated, we keep repeating the same thing, but, there is no mention of regional flights in Bill C‑47.

Regional flights are out of reach. There has been a considerable increase in the price of fuel, and the price of flights continues to increase. Bill C‑47 would significantly increase the air travel security charge for both international and regional flights.

I want to talk about airports. When talking about regional flights, we must first talk about regional airports, and I would like to talk about the Val‑D'Or airport in particular. We have been asking for money for this airport, but have had no response from the minister. We keep repeating the same thing.

This airport is important for aviation safety. It is a hub for northern Quebec, and keeping it operating smoothly is actually a matter of life or death. There is nothing for the regions in this budget.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very specific question about her region. The only thing I can say is that the airlines are private entities. I know the opposition likes to point to the government and say that it is our fault that flights are delayed, that this and that is our fault. These are private companies across the country—

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

Who regulates them?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, though we do not control the weather, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the members heckling me seem to suggest we do, it is important for the private sector to step up. There are labour shortages across the sector, which is something at which I hope the minister is looking.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. Let us move along.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I would like it if people could just have a nice discussion on what is going on, but I would also suggest to folks that extra heckling is a little too much sometimes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I want to suggest to folks that if they get a little too excited, it is really nice outside. They can go outside and say hi to their friends or take a walk. It is sunny. Maybe they can grab a glass water or something like that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the federal government's budget and to report on behalf of working families, seniors and small businesses that I represent in New Brunswick Southwest.

I will join other Conservative MPs in voting against the budget implement act. We do so because the Liberal budget will make life more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.

Liberal MPs measure success by how many tax dollars are being spent. They say that the number of programs in this budget is what matters, yet Canadians know and understand why more federal assistance is needed. It is because the government's overall management of the economy is failing. Under the Liberals, Canadians are becoming poorer.

The Liberal government is raising taxes every year on households and businesses. It is a government that spent so much so quickly that inflation roared back, raising consumer prices throughout the economy on households and businesses, making it harder to get by and harder to compete.

As a result, Canadians are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis. It is especially painful on families, pensioners on a fixed income as well as modest and low-income workers. Canadians do not approve of massive inflationary spending. The Conservatives understand this. We recognize that out-of-control debt financing and taxes only hurts the country and it hurts Canadians. However, this is the Liberal plan.

As well, I should note that Conservatives do not approve of the Liberal-NDP coalition that barters tax dollars for confidence votes so the Prime Minister can govern as if he won a majority, when he did no such thing.

We know the Prime Minister has no willingness to be fiscally responsible. Nor is he even skilled at overseeing the government. The Liberals have increased spending on the public service, the running of the government, by 50%, yet today, federal workers are out on strike in the largest job action in at least 40 years. I have to say that it takes a special sort of incompetence to accomplish both these things, to both ramp up spending, spending more than $22 billion on the operation of government, and yet be in a position where taxpayers are receiving less but paying more.

Even while the Prime Minister drops the ball on big items and the cabinet passes these, the Liberal backbench cheers them on. Worse, taxpayers see a leader of a government who does not even care about ethics.

My constituents are certainly aware of the Prime Minister's extravagant spending habits and posh vacations. As struggling Canadians forgo basics and seniors make a choice between groceries and rent, the Prime Minister is choosing between visiting Jamaica and New York. Given his access to the pocketbook of Canadians, he chooses both. What is a $6,000-a-night hotel room in London when taxpayers cover it, or taking a Caribbean vacation when the $80,000-price is covered by a Trudeau Foundation donor? Canadians work hard and many cannot get ahead, yet the Prime Minister has never had it so good.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister was in my home province to tell New Brunswick families that they should also spend without worrying about the consequences of more debt. At a town hall in Moncton, the Prime Minister explained how borrowing money, as his Liberal government is doing, was just like using a credit card. He actually encouraged New Brunswick families and all Canadians to use their credit cards to pay for things like tuition and home renovations. He said, “If you’re using your credit card to go back to school, or if you go into debt to build an expansion on your house, then you’re going to be able to sell your house for more.”

Our Prime Minister is so out of touch, he is urging Canadians to borrow at interest rates as high as 28%, without any consequences, he says.

It is the same thing he told Canadians about inflation. Inflation will stay low. Homeowners took him at his word and took out variable mortgages with rates that have now gone through the roof. It is really making life difficult for millions of Canadians.

This is exactly how the Government of Canada is governing our nation's finances. Borrowing at 28% does not build wealth. It is a recipe for economic hardship. If someone borrows at 28%, their debt will double in three short years. That is what the Prime Minister is urging Canadians to do.

The projected interest on Canada's debt is going to hit $44 billion this year. That is money we just pay to bondholders. It does not fund a single social program. It does not help hire another RCMP officer. It does not help equip our military. It is money that is going up and is being paid off overseas.

It is $10 billion more than the estimates the government provided in the last fiscal economic update, and it will hit $50 billion in four short years. That is the spiral the government has us in. We have rising interest rates because of its debt-fuelled spending, twinned with inflation that is making a bad foundation wholly unstable.

Nowhere in this budget is there a viable strategy to control spending, or offer a plan or an outline to balance the budget. Instead, the total debt will top $1.2 trillion this year. Speaking of doubling debt, that is precisely what the Liberal government has done in eight short years. It has run up more debt than all governments in Canadian history combined. That has us on the road to fiscal ruin.

It gets worse. It does not just end with spending. The Liberal carbon tax increased to $65 per tonne of emissions this year, resulting in higher prices for gasoline, home heating, food and almost everything in the Canadian economy.

Liberals like to point to higher gas prices as something that is caused by the war against Russia, and there is no doubt that war has caused hardship, pressure on supply chains and rising energy prices.

I point to my riding, which neighbours the state of Maine. If someone crosses into Maine and fills up their tank, after the exchange rate, gas is 50% more expensive per litre in New Brunswick than it is in Maine. That is 100% due to energy taxes on gasoline. It has nothing to do with Russia. It has everything to do with how the government is taxing energy to make life more expensive and make life more painful for Canadian families.

The Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax, raising it from $65 to $175 per tonne by 2030. This will be a body blow to the middle class and working families. It will make our manufacturing sector uncompetitive with the United States.

I can already hear the Liberals' reply that the carbon tax is for a clean environment, but the carbon tax is not an environment plan. It is the largest tax plan in Canadian history.

Conservatives do not believe in punishing families for buying groceries or punishing workers for driving to work. I have a few stats that are worth mentioning. If the government likes to talk about its big numbers, let us talk about some items that Canadians are facing every day.

Canada's Food Price Report this year predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food, which is $598 more than the $467 rebate they will receive from Ottawa.

I was happy to vote for that motion to return dollars to Canadians. The difference is I believe taxes should come down as a principle. Liberals only cut taxes when they are in trouble politically. They have driven up the cost of living in this country and, as a result, they are looking for rescue plans everywhere they can find them.

However, their fundamentals are such that this problem is not going to change. We will continue to see Canada go down a dark economic road until we turn things around. We need to limit the taxes on families and businesses, get our spending in order, and begin to make and build things here in Canada that do not require gobs of subsidies and government regulations.

This is why we are voting against the budget and this is why the Liberal government must be replaced as quickly as possible.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by my colleague with great interest when he talked about the importance of reducing the cost of living for Canadians. I reflect on some of the things that our government has done, including working with every single province to implement affordable child care. I would love for the hon. member across the aisle to explain to Canadians and to us why he and his party and voted against and continue to work against $10-a-day child care in this country.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are becoming tiresome with their one answer to the affordability crisis. The affordability crisis in this country is not just for families with children who are facing struggles. It is about pensioners. It is about small businesses. It is about families throughout this economy, whether they are on a fixed income, whether they are earning a low or modest wage. The government needs a better answer to that as opposed to just ringing on about day care and its plan on that. This is the problem: Any senior who comes into their office is going to talk about the struggles they have in making ends meet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found my Conservative colleague's speech very interesting. It was really a typical Conservative speech, where the member rants and raves about debt. The Conservatives are saying that the federal government spends too much, that Canada is going into debt and that things are going to be hell for our children.

It is true that the government has done nothing but run deficits since it took office. We agree with that. However, the long-term projections tell a different story. Because of its fiscal capacity and minimal responsibilities, in a few years, the Canadian government could end up with no more debt, while the provinces go bankrupt. That is an acknowledged fact.

I would like to know whether my colleague can recalibrate his speech based on that information. It seems as though his speech was all about the federal government's finances being in a catastrophic state when, in reality, it is the provincial governments' finances that are in dire straits because the federal government is not helping them and is keeping all the money for itself.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, those comments are typical because these policies work. When we reduce taxes, we see that there is more economic activity in Canada.

In terms of debt, the provinces also need to act responsibly. In my home province of New Brunswick, Premier Blaine Higgs cut spending, and the province is in a very good position. It is the same elsewhere in Canada. The provinces are working hard, but they are running into problems because of the carbon tax and the fact that the federal government is infringing on their jurisdictions. The government spends too much and imposes too many taxes. That is hard for Canadians.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from my home province of New Brunswick made a comment about trying to support pensioners and of course on this side of the House we do. We increased the CPP contributions and yet our Conservative friends continue to rail against this. I also heard a lot about the carbon tax. Now in New Brunswick we have the federal backstop where we will be having those quarterly payments going to help with affordability measures and yet once again they are against this.

I am trying to understand. Do we really want to help constituents here, or are you really just looking for issues where there are not any? I really think it is time that we get on board with pollution pricing in New Brunswick because it is a good thing for them and it is a good thing for environmental projects like supporting indigenous communities and schools. Would you repeal those if you had the chance?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Remember to speak through the Chair.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Would we repeal the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. The member knows well that the reason Blaine Higgs is no longer administrating the Liberal carbon tax is because it is ruinous to families, so he is out of the game. He does not want anything to do with this Liberal carbon tax, just like now eight out of 10 provinces.

Let me point out something this member says. She says she is for a green economy but opposes nuclear power. Her colleague from Saint John—Rothesay scolded her because if they want power that is carbon-dioxide free, just like other Liberals are realizing, they need to embrace nuclear. The member is an outlier on that and her own Liberal colleague from New Brunswick called her out on that because this fantasy world of high taxes and no energy is just going to result in a ruinous economy and a ruinous country.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

I represent a riding with one of the highest child poverty rates in the country. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have consistently left parts of the country like mine, northern Manitoba, behind, preferring to stand with their billionaire friends than communities like the one I come from, and communities in our region. I think in many ways this budget reflects that.

We have seen the slow pace at which the Liberals move when it comes to helping people verus the zeal that comes with standing with the billionaire class. Liberals have been in power for eight years, and it took New Democrats to force them to expand health care services and finally move to provide dental care services for millions of Canadians. New Democrats have made this call for years and now many seniors and young people will finally get access to the dental care they need.

We also know Canadians are struggling to put food on the table for their families in a way we have not seen in a generation. The reality is the current government is not doing enough. We know the GST rebate that will be sent to families will provide immediate relief for Canadians, and that is also something that is there because of the work of New Democrats. Let us be clear. If Liberals had it their way, none of these supports would have been included. While there is still more work to be done to deliver for the working class, if it were not for elected New Democrats in Parliament this budget would have been much worse.

Let us talk about what is not in the budget. New Democrats forced the government to help people, but we know there is so much more that must be done. Without this pressure by New Democrats, this budget would not have provided Canadians any sort of help, and they should know that New Democrats will always fight to get results for them.

One area that is very concerning is the lack of urgent significant investment in indigenous housing. The $4 billion over seven years for a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous strategy, starting in 2024-25, is not enough. We know that Liberals did not even want to put this much money in the budget, and it is outrageous that the money will only start flowing in the next fiscal year. Indigenous communities, first nations and Métis communities, like the ones I represent, need action now. The infrastructure gap facing first nations is at least $30 billion, and we suspect that number is much higher. The $4 billion over seven years is barely a drop in the bucket and will not do enough to end the inhumane conditions the current government, and governments before it, have forced indigenous peoples to live in.

When we talk about the housing crisis facing indigenous communities, let us be clear as to what we are talking about. In places like Shamattawa, Cross Lake and Tataskweyak, we are talking about dilapidated, overcrowded homes, with 12 people or even more to a house, with holes in the walls, mould in the corners and heating that does not work in some of the harshest climates in the country. If members of the House think that the amount of money in this budget for indigenous housing is sufficient, it is because they have never set foot on a first nation.

It is shameful that the government had to be pulled kicking and screaming to make even these small investments, and I challenge any sitting member who defends the indefensible to come to northern Manitoba, to visit Nunavut, to visit first nations in northern Ontario. The money is barely a drop in the bucket. It is no surprise coming from the Liberal government. It could not even budget for indigenous housing in its platform. It literally had no money for indigenous housing, the most extreme housing crisis in our country, in its platform. When people show us who they are, we should believe them.

The current government will continue to pay lip service to these commitments and do less than the bare minimum. Yes, it might say all the right things, throw in the word “reconciliation” a few times, but I have suspected for a long time that when it comes to indigenous peoples the government is satisfied making Canadians in cities feel comfortable, rather than making the real systemic change that would allow indigenous peoples and indigenous communities to actually have the right to secure and safe housing. We need real systemic change.

A great example of how the government is satisfied to tinker around the edges without materially improving the lives of people is how they are dealing with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Crown corporation.

To rewind a bit, over a year ago, I proposed legislation that would help communities like the ones I represent, first nations, Métis and northern communities, to access over $35 billion to take on the devastating impacts of the climate crisis in their communities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its inception, has been an abysmal failure for Canadians but a success for the billionaire class. In our bill, we worked to fix that, and a lot of our solutions actually made it into this budget.

We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize the needs of northern and indigenous communities. At the time, the Liberals voted against that, but it is now in the budget. We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize funding projects that help us deal with the climate crisis. At the time, the Liberals voted against it, but it is now in the budget. We also called to end the corporate giveaway led by the Canada Infrastructure Bank by removing its privatization capacity. The Liberals voted against it. Curiously, this did not make it into the budget.

We see this repeatedly throughout the budget any time we deal with corporate profits. In 2021, as the richest companies in the country had record profits, they managed to push their tax rate lower, avoiding $30 billion in taxes.

The government knows about these loopholes. We have called on it numerous times to close them, because the reality is that the problem is getting worse. As Dr. DT Cochrane from Canadians for Tax Fairness pointed out, in the decade before the pandemic, “Canadian corporations claimed about eight cents of every dollar as pre-tax profit.” In 2021, that number was 12¢, which is unsurprising. Every time a for-profit corporation gets a hold of a dollar, it is compelled to siphon as much profit as possible.

What is equally unsurprising is that the Liberals refuse to do anything about it. If New Democrats were in power, we would bring in an excess profit tax to make sure that billionaires pay their fair share. It really highlights the issue with the Liberal Party and its repeated, utter refusal to do anything that upsets the status quo or upsets the capital class and the Liberals' rich and powerful friends.

This is why we are unsurprised that the budget is woefully inadequate when it comes to combatting the climate crisis. For the 2023-24 period, only $14 billion is allocated to climate-related spending efforts. This is insultingly low when compared with the 2% of the GDP we need to address the scale and magnitude of the climate emergency. Most of the spending in the Liberal budget is in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to corporations rather than direct investments in proven emissions reduction projects.

If we could solve the climate crisis through tax breaks to wealthy corporations, it would have already been done. Members can believe me on this: That is literally Liberals' only solution, which they try again and again.

We need to be real. The climate crisis is nothing to take lightly. Canadians need a plan that will funnel funds into publicly owned sustainable energy projects to reduce our carbon emissions in the long term. Such investments could be made in public transit, renewable energy projects and infrastructure that makes sense and protects our communities. What we have instead is the continued billion-dollar giveaway to big oil.

Why are the Liberals more concerned with preserving subsidies for big oil, which made record profits this year, than investing in a sustainable, green economy that will save lives? The government has always said the right things when it comes to the environment. It is an expert at greenwashing. Unfortunately, the government has always done the complete opposite. Continued support for the oil and gas sector hinders our progress towards a sustainable, low-carbon future.

I want to be clear on this: A New Democrat climate policy would involve investing public money in public carbon emissions reduction plans, such as public transit, decarbonized energy grids and renewable energy alternatives. This would be done at a much higher rate than is done in this budget, which carries with it an incalculable loss for future generations. The truth is that the current Liberal government lacks the imagination and, most importantly, the political will to seriously tackle the climate crisis head-on.

In closing, New Democrats are proud that we forced the Liberals to make some investments that would make a real difference to the people across the country. However, there is so much more that needs to be done, particularly when it comes to the most marginalized communities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I know the hon. member did not get all her speech out, but maybe we can finish that up in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the previous speaker was up, I got a little animated, and I went across the floor. I had an issue that I wanted to raise. A more appropriate way for a parliamentarian to raise an issue is to stand on a point of order and go through the Speaker. I want to apologize to the House. I hold myself to a high standard of conduct, and I just want to apologize for going to the edge of the other bench and having my words personally, versus standing on a point of order, which is the parliamentary thing to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for that point of order. We appreciate it.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Manitoba serves the riding that is probably the most similar to my riding in all of Canada, and so my question for her is actually quite simple.

In a riding like ours, the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote communities; many of these are indigenous communities that we serve in these northern and remote ridings. What I understand is that everything that gets to a shelf in the communities in these northern and remote areas is trucked in, and for anything that is trucked in, the cost of trucking it is being substantially increased by the cost of the carbon tax. The increase on the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything on every shelf, everywhere in our northern communities. Increasing prices at a time when people have less money is not a recipe for economic success.

The member commented in her speech about the budget being woefully inadequate. With that as the context, my question to the member is simply this: Is she in conflict about supporting the budget, if it is so woefully inadequate?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commonalities between northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. I think we have to be very real about what is in front of us, and as I said, while there is good in the budget, there is also much more work that needs to be done.

However, I certainly want to speak to the issue of cost of living. We absolutely need government to be part of the solution. What is also clear to me in terms of regions like ours, and certainly communities across the country, is that we are not taking on the companies that are making profits on the backs of some of the poorest communities in the country.

For example, we have the nutrition north subsidy, which has not been reformed in ages, since the Harper government totally reshaped it for the benefit of the Northern Store. The reality is that a lot of communities cannot afford, even with the subsidy, to buy the kinds of healthy foods they need for their families. We need the federal government to be taking a hard look at the nutrition north subsidy and working with northern communities, indigenous communities, harvesters, trappers and organizations that want to make a difference in terms of food security. That is clearly not being done right now.

I would say more broadly that, when we are talking about the cost of living crisis, we also need good jobs in our communities. I come from a mining town where the Harper government signed a deal with Vale, a Brazilian multinational. This deal led to the loss of every single refining job in my community. We lost almost all the value-added jobs, with some of the best salaries, in my hometown. Families left and have never come back.

As such, if we are going to be real about what the government needs to do, I would take a hard look at the history of the way in which the Conservative government made life more difficult for northerners in my part of the country and do very differently. This is something we are not seeing much of from the Liberals. I can safely say that if we were in government, it would be a whole different story.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how helpful it is to speak in hyperbolic terms, and I think that we need to be more collaborative in this House. I take personal offence, given how hard we fight on this side for indigenous communities, at the suggestion that if we support this budget, for those who think it is wholly inadequate, we must never have set foot in a first nations community. That is certainly not true.

We are looking for creative solutions to address the housing crisis in indigenous communities across this country. Does the member support the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which will help indigenous-led solutions for indigenous financial institutions to leverage funding and ensure that these kinds of infrastructure projects can move forward?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what to do with comments around personal offence. I respect the member's work when it comes to speaking out for first nations.

A few short weeks ago, 11 first nations in my region declared a public state of emergency because the housing, drug and health care crisis is so bad. If folks are offended by that reality and cannot realize that the Liberals are not addressing it, I am not sure what to say about that. We have to be very real about the crisis in communities, certainly where I come from, in northern and remote fly-in communities. This crisis is not by accident. It is the result of decades of neglect from federal Liberal and Conservative governments. Canada needs to do much better.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on Bill C-47.

First, I want to thank members here in the chamber and those who are not for supporting Bill C-248, my private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park, which passed almost unanimously. I thank members for that.

It is good to talk about how this place can work. I have worked, at the industry committee, on a couple of Conservative bills, one from the member of Essex, and I am glad that this Parliament is continuing, because that work will continue. However, if we do not support the budget bill, it is very clear what happens. As I hear from many members from all political sides, what they say in the chamber and sometimes in public is not the same thing as we hear in private. They are glad we are not going to an election for a lot of reasons, and they will talk about that quite openly because the consequence would be losing all private members' legislation.

I have worked with a couple of Conservative members, in particular, on their private member's bill, which are quite good. They are excellent, and a good step forward in making a difference for Canadians. One is on affordability and one is on interoperability with regard to sharing information on farming and other things. Lastly, there is one related to tax incentives, which is important for a number of reasons.

I think it is important to note, as I start to think about why I am supporting this bill, that there are some things I do not like in a bill and there are things I do like in a bill. That has been the same for me in this place for over 20 years for any government that has come forward. It does not matter which one it has been, whether it was Jean Chrétien's when I first got here or, most recently, that of the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister. There are certain things I do like and certain things I do not like in a bill. However, overall, I am pretty proud of the NDP being able to use this opportunity to get things passed that were defeated in the previous Parliament, whether it is dental care or more housing initiatives.

They are not all of the things we wanted and asked for, and we wanted other things to go with them, but we are 25 members moving this country forward. Also, imagine going through another election during a pandemic with no results and it costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The Speaker would have to go through another election for the Speaker position, and we would have all the rigamarole to get the House back in operating form, for probably a regular scenario like we have here.

I have seen in this chamber other political parties get a lot less or not do anything. I remember that during the Harper minority years, the Liberals supported Harper over 100 times without an amendment. Over 100 times they supported the government de facto, letting it operate as a majority government without any challenges. During that time, Harper brought in the HST, a new tax on consumers, and even taxed hospital parking lots, which are no longer taxed. I could go on with a bunch of things that happened with no resistance whatsoever from the Liberals at that time. We sat next to each other in the old chamber, and I remember asking why they were not doing anything about it. They said they did not want to be bothered right now. We bother because we have to fight for things.

When I got here, there were only 14 New Democrats, and we played our role, as anybody in opposition, in trying to hold the government to account for a lot of reasons, such as making change and so forth. Then, when Jack Layton joined us, there was a real change in where we were. With where we stand today, we want to make propositions as well as be in opposition. That is what Jack instilled in many of the members here today.

With the culture we now work in on a regular basis, we look at this as an opportunity to get what Tommy Douglas wanted. Tommy Douglas wanted eye care, dental care and pharmacare as part of the full package, and that is part of what drove us as New Democrats. It was the understanding that our freedom, our sense of well-being and our health are so critically important, not only to us and our families but also to the economy and society, that they should be the number one things protected. That is one of the reasons Tommy Douglas was voted the number one Canadian, with the population supporting him as Canada's favourite Canadian.

We are now realizing a part of that dream that never came to fruition. It is important to recognize that each province does have some elements of dental care and some elements that are stronger than others. However, this is not across the whole country from coast to coast to coast.

In the area I represent, I have a lot of child poverty and a lot of single mothers. A lot of people, including my own hygienist, do not have dental coverage. These things are wrong because they affect human health, everything from one's heart to wellness to how one feels as a person. This is all preventable.

This is money that goes back in the economy. Yes, it does cost the government money and there is a cost and expenditure there, but it is not a tax cut, which is something the Conservatives and the Liberals have done in the past. In fact, Stéphane Dion was arguing with I think Michael Ignatieff at the time about tax cuts not going deep enough and fast enough.

When there are a lot of U.S. corporations and taxes on worldwide profits, some of our industries send money back to Washington. Instead of doing that, I would rather invest in dental care, as an example, because it saves jobs and lowers the cost of jobs in Canada for foreign investment and other investment.

Earlier in the debate today, we talked about the Volkswagen plant that is coming in. I have been after a national auto policy and I do not want to see one-offs. I would rather see a strategic investment, especially when it comes to batteries and the platinum age of auto, which we are in right now. In the calculations to do the deal here is the cost of labour. When we look at the productivity of Unifor and other labour organizations in the auto sector, yes, their wages and benefits are a little higher, but they also produce significantly more and better than their counterparts.

On top of that, when there are programs with subsidies going to the worker instead of the corporation, we control those subsidies and those subsidies are not going off to other countries. They are staying here and are investing in people. Those people with those subsidies are better off regarding production and making sure we can be economically viable.

There is also the social justice argument, which should be a no-brainer. How anybody in this chamber can accept dental benefits for their own children but deny others the same thing is beyond me. I do not understand how they can come to this place and check that at door every single time. We know we get a privilege benefit from the taxpayers, but we tell them they cannot have that. By the way, we still have not fixed eye care. We do not have that either. That is wrong. We should lead by example, and leading by example means providing things that would be fair and balanced.

Coming from the border town of Windsor, Ontario, in Essex County, where we have to compete against American jobs every single day, I know from talking to executives that they want health care in this country because they know it means a lower production cost for their workers in the United States, Mexico and other places. It means less turnover and less loss of skills and abilities. Especially with an unemployment rate now of 4% to 5% and having a problem attracting workers, this is key. That is what dental care adds to the equation. It will also bring better stability at the bargaining table.

The government needs to get on this and help negotiate a settlement agreement for its workers, because we are not going to see any value in keeping the public service out right now. It is not going to pay off whatsoever, and the government needs to change that.

The point is that, yes, there is a surface cost to paying for Canadians to get dental care for themselves and their families, but it is an investment back in them, our communities and our economy versus a net loss. That is one of the reasons I will support this budget. It is going to complete at least one chapter of Tommy Douglas's dream.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on something pretty fundamental. It is the difference between the budget, which I did not vote for because it failed to address the climate crisis, failed to address mental health issues and puts more money into fossil fuels, and this bill, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, in which to my surprise, having read 429 pages, I did not find anything I wanted to vote against.

Yes, the change to the Income Tax Act that would allow CRA to share data to allow dental care to happen is part of Bill C-47, but a whole number of budget measures are not mentioned here. I wonder if, as an experienced parliamentarian, the member can help others, in this educational moment, to understand the difference between voting against the budget, which I did, and voting for Bill C-47, which I surprised myself by finding I am going to vote for.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and the Green Party for supporting Bill C-248 since the very beginning and the Ojibway national urban park. They were instrumental in getting that done.

She is quite correct that it is not a double standard, by any means, to do this. It is a challenge. I have seen a game going on for a lot of years where if a member votes against the budget, they vote against everything in the budget. That is not true. There are many things, even with this budget, that the Conservatives would do, the Liberals would do and others would do back and forth. I think that argument is rather tired. It has been used against me repeatedly, but I have been able to get back here. Some have even said that I voted against the bridge, which I have been working on for a long period of time.

I think people are smart enough to know this, so it is not a double standard by any means. I am glad they are supporting it and they can differentiate between the two.

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

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member, I wanted to reflect on Thomas Mulcair and the type of election platform he provided. However, as opposed to doing that, as I know where the member is coming from and that he has a fairly good understanding of the automobile industry as a whole, my question will be related to the VW announcement. I know he made reference to it a bit earlier today.

The VW announcement is going to lead to the largest factory in Canada. I am talking geographically, in square footage. It will be a huge boost not only to the community of St. Thomas and the area but to all Canadians, as it will increase Canada's footprint in a significant way in the electrical battery industry, whether it is in mining or production.

Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of this particular announcement to the automobile industry and other industries beyond it?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to decide, for batteries and the electrification of vehicles, as well as other developments that come along with ancillary employment and innovation, whether we are just going to rip and ship raw materials out of this country and send them somewhere else to be produced or do it here. We have done a disservice to our forestry, mining and oil industries by basically being the hewers versus the producers of value-added work.

This value-added work is going to happen at the Volkswagen plant. That is why I support the announcement. I think it was done in a strategic way that gives us the best chances in an industry notoriously good at playing off different jurisdictions, such as countries and even neighbourhoods, quite frankly, within municipalities.

This is also going to help the Windsor region because of the critical mass that will develop between the 401 supply chain. The taxes will come back in droves. It is just like if we had not supported General Motors. We would have lost all of the investment that has recently come in.

This is a tough thing at times. Accountability is the biggest thing we need to see come forward with it.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My question was for the NDP member who spoke before him, since she talked a lot about housing, but I think my colleague should be able to answer.

As I said earlier, we have an acute housing crisis in Canada. One of the issues we do not hear that much about in the House is the financialization of housing, which is something really important. It refers to large national and international corporations' growing ownership of Canadian rental housing stock. It is thought that corporate ownership has gone from zero to 22% in 30 years. These large corporations could not care less about the right to housing. Their primary concern is making a profit. We have to deal with this.

I would like to ask my colleague if any concrete measures could be taken to tackle this issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would never speak on behalf of the member from Churchill. That is never going to happen.

I do want to say that I appreciate the question. I think the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation needs to return more to its roots. We have to look at more not-for-profit and co-operative housing. Those are specific things that I would like to see improved.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House and speak to budget 2023 and, more important, Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The budget this year comes at a time when Canada had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year and is projected to be the second-fastest-growing this year and when we have near record-low unemployment rate, having created an additional 865,000 jobs compared to what it was before the pandemic. However, we know those lofty numbers do not mean much for a lot of Canadians who are struggling right now. We have had high inflation since last year, peaking in September at 8.1%. It is now down to about 4.3%, but that has come as a result of the work of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in raising interest rates. We know that many Canadians right now are struggling with the high cost of living.

That is why the budget would make some important investments to help many folks with affordability measures. Key to this is a new grocery rebate, which would help 11 million low-to-modest-income Canadians with up to $467 per couple to help with the rising cost of food. For students right now, as of April 1 of this year, we have eliminated all interest on student loans and we have increased the Canada student grants by 40%. We are also creating a new project and expanding a project to create automatic tax filing for Canadians, because we know it is really important for Canadians to file their taxes so they can get some of the benefits that I was just speaking about.

This budget would also make historic investments in health care: almost $200 billion over 10 years, which would be key for areas like mine, where access to a family health practitioner is a very big challenge. We are also expanding Canada's dental care program for families earning under $90,000. Last year, we started it with children 12 and under. This year, it would be for Canadians who are 18 and under and those over the age of 65. There are also some very important investments that would be made to tackle the opioid epidemic, which has struck B.C. very hard.

There are also some major investments in this budget in creating the good jobs of today and the good jobs of tomorrow. We know the world is rapidly transitioning to a cleaner economy, and that is why this budget would make significant investments in supporting renewable electricity projects right across the country, not just for the private sector, but also working with Crown corporations and provinces to do that.

There are new tax credits for clean hydrogen. I know this is going to be very important for companies in my riding like Quantum Technology, which is involved in projects for the purification and liquefaction of hydrogen. There are also some major investments being made in zero-emissions manufacturing. With the creation of new funds like the Canada growth fund, we would be able to crowd in private capital for projects just like the one that was announced last week with Volkswagen, to create a massive new battery-manufacturing plant in Canada.

Because it is National Tourism Week this week, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this budget would make some significant down payments on the launch of Canada's new tourism growth strategy. There is over $100 million that would go toward the regional development agencies to support local projects. There would be about $50 million going to Destination Canada to attract international events to Canada, and there would be investments made to speed up the operations at airports, including investments in improving the protection of passenger rights.

With that, I will turn to the budget implementation act, which is where the rubber hits the road on a lot of these measures.

I mentioned passenger rights. Right now, we have a backlog of about 30,000 people who are waiting for their cases of delayed flights or cancelled flights to be adjudicated. We would change the process that we utilize for this by switching the onus so that it is not on the travellers to prove that they should be refunded, but on the airline itself to prove that they should not. This would greatly speed up the process and get passengers the refunds they deserve.

As I am a British Columbia MP, there are a couple of areas of this implementation act that are very important to me. The issue of money laundering in B.C. has really been put in the spotlight with the Cullen commission, which the Province of British Columbia commissioned and which delivered its report relatively recently. This report highlights many of the vulnerabilities that we have in Canada in tackling money laundering.

Canada has the dubious distinction of being a haven for this, a process called snow-washing. It is because we have a system without the necessary checks in it and a very well-respected financial system. This budget implementation act would make some very important changes to help us better control this challenge. In particular, it would criminalize the operation of unregistered money services businesses; it would create an ability to freeze and seize virtual assets with suspected links to crime; it would improve the financial intelligence, information sharing and strategic analysis of FINTRAC; and it would create a new offence for structuring financial transactions to avoid FINTRAC reporting. Importantly, a commitment has been made to implement all of the recommendations that are listed by the Cullen commission.

These measures also dovetail to other measures that we are currently debating in this House. We introduced Bill C-42 to create a national beneficial ownership registry so we will know who are the people behind a lot of the numbered companies, which are sometimes using this to evade paying taxes, evade sanctions or do money laundering. Importantly, this system would work very closely with beneficial ownership registries that the provinces are implementing, where the vast majority of companies are incorporated. There is also a commitment made in this budget to work with provinces and territories to look at things like unexplained wealth orders, which would greatly enhance the tools that law enforcement has to be able to locate and seize assets that could be from proceeds of crime.

As I am a coastal MP, there are a number of measures in this budget that I was very happy to see, particularly the new vessel remediation fund and changes to the abandoned boats program. This measure was introduced in 2017 by my former colleague Bernadette Jordan, and it created a fund to clean up boats that had sunk to the bottom of the ocean and were polluting the ocean. This was incredibly important and actually removed a lot of boats from waters around my riding. However, we need to go a step further, because it is much more effective to take those boats out of the water before they sink rather than having to clean them up once they have already sunk.

In the budget implementation act, we are establishing a new vessel remediation fund, which would be boat owner-financed, to provide the resources so we can do some of this very important work. There would be the creation of an allowance for financing of preventative measures, such as voluntary vessel disposal activities, so that vessels at risk of becoming dilapidated, wrecked or abandoned can access funding to repair, secure, move or dismantle and sell them. This is very important because it would save a lot money, reduce the amount of pollution we are seeing in the bottom of our oceans and help a lot of folks I know in my riding, like Don MacKenzie, who, out of the goodness of his own heart, has taken it upon himself to clean these boats up.

I want to talk about something that I think we can all agree on in this House, and that is changes to the alcohol excise tax. As of April 1 this year, the alcohol escalator tax was supposed to increase by over 6%. Through measures that have been introduced in the budget implementation act, we have capped this at 2%. I know this will be a hugely important measure for the breweries in my riding, over a dozen, to be able to provide their products at a cost that is much lower than it would have been. It is really important that we do things like this and support small businesses, which, like all Canadians, are facing rising costs.

The last thing I will mention is that there is a commitment in the budget this year to lower the credit card swipe fees. There is an agreement with Visa and Mastercard to lower credit swipe fees by 27%. This would save businesses thousands of dollars. It is a really important measure to support small businesses in Canada, so they, in turn, do not have to pass on some of the additional costs they would face as a result of those credit card swipe fees.

With that, I would encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this important piece of legislation so we can make some of these great changes and put them into effect.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague and I share a passion for the environment. Something I was really excited to see as part of the budget was the Canada water agency and protections for our fresh water in the country. Can he comment on how important that is and how it is achieving a commitment we made to Canadians across the country?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there have been many years of work put into designing this new Canada water agency. We are excited that it is going to be in the Prairies, in Winnipeg.

There are so many different federal agencies in Canada that have some type of responsibility related to water. This would provide an opportunity for all of those different organizations to collaborate in a very meaningful way so we can better address issues like water quality and water quantity, issues we know we are increasingly going to see.

I think it is very important that it is established in Winnipeg because we know the Prairies are facing some of the largest challenges, sometimes with water scarcity and sometimes with flooding. I am very excited to see that in the budget this year. I think it is going to make a huge difference on one of the most important issues related to the environment.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member did not discuss the deficits that are projected in the budget. If we look through to 2027-28, they project that the combined debt of Canada will be over $1.3 trillion, which is more than double what it was when the government took office. Does he think that qualifies as being fiscally responsible?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we remain fiscally prudent in this budget, and always. In my province of B.C., we have seen an example of perhaps too much spending. Recently, B.C. had its credit rating downgraded and we have not seen that in Canada. I think that is an important measure to understand the fiscal sustainability of this.

There are some very important investments that needed to be made. I do not know whether the Conservatives would not have made the investments in health care or whether they would not have made some of the affordability measures. It is on the Conservative Party to explain to this House what services it would have cut. Those are areas that I certainly would not support cutting.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's advocacy on the climate crisis, and I also appreciate hearing his comments when it comes to new subsidies that were introduced in this budget for the very sector most responsible for the crisis that we are in. There are at least four, totalling over $3.3 billion in this budget, including new offshore drilling in the Arctic. Can he speak to the influence he can have in this place to move toward ending subsidies like these?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, a commitment has been made as part of the G20 to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. We brought that commitment up to the end of this year. We remain committed to doing that. I think it is very important that we do that because we know the world is quickly transitioning to a cleaner economy and there are tremendous opportunities for Canada, as we go forward, to do that. The subsidies we should be providing are the ones that we see in this budget, such as for clean electricity, clean hydrogen and other things.

I would also mention that the measures in the budget for carbon capture are very important, particularly to take some of the legacy emissions already in the air. There is a company in my riding called Carbon Engineering, which is doing direct air capture. We do need to support companies like that because even when we get to net zero, we are going to have to continue to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about “a line we shall not cross.” Only one short year ago, the finance minister said, “let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline.” It did not. In fact, it went up. She also said, “Our deficits must continue to be reduced”, which they were not. She said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.” It was not. “This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross”, she said. Just last November, the Liberals predicted that the budget will have a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027. Now, they say there is going to be a $14-billion deficit in 2027.

I am stuck on the words “a line we shall not cross”. High-sounding words of integrity they are indeed, but so many lines have been crossed. In 2015, the Prime Minister promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. It did not happen. This year alone, the government will go another $43 billion into debt. In 2019, the Prime Minister said that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down. It did not happen. Do members remember his abandoned promise from 2019? He promised to cut mobile phone rates by 25%. It never happened.

The Liberals then said, in 2021, that they would create a $5-billion mental health transfer, which was a major promise of transfer to the provinces. It did not happen. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. Do members remember 2015? The Prime Minister said that the election would be the last first-past-the-post one. It did not happen. In 2019, he said, “we will plant two billion trees”. It never happened. How about the carbon tax and the claim that “Canadians get back more than they pay”? This is not true, says the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let us not forget the perennial pharmacare promise in almost every Liberal platform over the last 30 years. In this budget, the word “pharmacare” does not even appear. There is not one mention.

How about the claim that interest rates will remain low, or that we need to be worried about deflation, not inflation? How about the promise of affordable housing or rent? The Liberals have spent $89 billion on a national housing strategy that hardly creates more housing. Since 2015, mortgage payments, down payments and rents have doubled. They promised to help students, but instead cut the Canada student grant from $6,000 to $4,200 a year.

The Prime Minister promised to keep our streets safer, yet violent crime is way up. Another promise, “We will make information more accessible by requiring transparency to be a fundamental principle across the federal government”, did not happen. He also promised to stop money laundering. Canada is now such a haven for money launderers that it has its own name: snow-washing. This is not a badge of honour.

Let us talk about crossing a line. The Prime Minister just appointed, and I cannot believe I am even saying this, as it sounds so ridiculous, the sister-of-law of the intergovernmental affairs minister as the Ethics Commissioner. The minister himself has been charged by the last ethics commissioner.

It is time for Conservatives to cross a line, the line between this side of the aisle and the government side of the aisle. We will cross that line after the next election, members can be sure, when the member for Carleton is the next prime minister of Canada.

Conservatives were looking for just three reasonable things in this budget: lower taxes for Canadian workers, an end to inflationary deficit spending, and meaningful measures to make housing more affordable. None of the three Conservative demands has been met, and there is not a chance that Conservatives will support this anti-worker, tax-hiking, inflationary budget.

Let us talk taxes. Nearly all economists agree that raising taxes during or just before an economic slowdown is absolutely terrible economic policy, yet this government continues raising taxes for ordinary Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that the carbon tax will cost average families way more than the rebate they receive. There is a war on work in this country. Higher taxes mean less take-home pay. Do we know what happens when we punish work? We get less work. Just this year, the Prime Minister raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses. A worker making about $66,600 will be forced to pay an extra $305.

By increasing the excise tax on alcohol by 2%, Liberals are still raising taxes on the restaurants and breweries that are struggling to survive. Just when service industry workers are trying to get back on their feet from the pandemic, the current government's brilliant plan is to make it more expensive for Canadians to dine out.

Let us talk about inflationary spending. In 2015, the total federal debt was about $600 billion. Today, it has doubled, to $1.2 trillion, which is $600 billion from Confederation to 2015 and $600 billion from 2015 to 2023. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. To make matters worse, this year alone, interest on this massive debt will cost Canadians $43 billion. To put that into perspective, it is almost as much as what the federal health care transfer will be, at $49.4 billion. That is interest, going to pay wealthy bondholders and bankers, that is more than enough to fund the health care transfer. Even with revenues way up, the government is going to borrow another $175 billion between now and 2028, bringing the debt to over $1.3 trillion. The spending in this year's budget is $63 billion higher than it was a year ago. That is $4,200 for each and every Canadian, which is almost enough to house the Prime Minister in the hotel room for one whole night.

The massive federal bureaucracy is costing Canadians in a major way. Here is a troubling statistic: Personnel spending over the past two years increased by 30.9% to $60.7 billion. In spite of that, we now have the biggest strike in Canadian history. That takes a very special kind of incompetence.

It gets even worse. At the same time, expenditures for external contracting have more than doubled since 2015, to over $20 billion, with billions going to wealthy companies like McKinsey and other consulting firms that are totally unaccountable to taxpayers. Never before has a government spent so much to achieve so little. As Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, the current government is raking in record revenues. It will receive $413 billion this year, which is up $151 billion from 2015. In fact, Canada's per capita economic growth has been the weakest among the OECD countries, despite all of this spending.

The dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians under the current Prime Minister. Nine in 10 people who do not own a home believe they never will. We have the most expensive housing on the planet, higher in some of our cities than in New York, Los Angeles and other major cities. That makes no sense, with only 38 million people living on the second-largest land mass in the world. Young people who have done everything we have asked them to do, such as go to school and work hard, are living in their parents' basements.

Conservatives will make sure that the municipal gatekeepers get out of the way so we can get some homes built. We will sell off 15% of federal buildings for affordable housing and will bring back the dream of home ownership.

Grocery price inflation is in the double digits for the seventh month in a row. Record numbers of people are using food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. The Prime Minister now stands up in the House and brags about all the cheques he is sending for this or that, but the government has no money. It first has to take it from Canadians before it gives it back. Why not leave it where it belongs in the first place? The so-called grocery rebate will not come close to covering the rising cost of food that the inflationary Liberal deficits and tax hikes have caused. The “Canada Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year.

We must bring home a country where people bring home powerful paycheques. Canada must work for the people who have done the work. Conservatives will bring home powerful paycheques, with lower taxes. We will scrap the carbon tax so hard work pays off again. We will bring home lower prices by ending the inflationary debts and deficits that drive inflation. We will make sure that homes are affordable for young Canadians again. That is what Conservatives will do.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member opposite this morning. By the sound of it, he was supporting some progressive ideas that he had hoped to see in the budget.

My question is simply this. Can we expect to see, in the next Conservative platform, things like aggressive emissions reduction targets, support for unions and workers, pharmacare and electoral reform? I am curious what his response would be.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we need to be able to afford to have these things. We have the weakest growth of OECD countries, despite having more than doubled our debt to over $1.3 trillion since the current government took office. We need to grow the economy. We need policies that create more wealth so we can afford the important programs Canadians deserve.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke directly about some of the massive issues facing Canadians. Some of them are the most critical when its come to affordability. We know there are programs that can be funded to ensure that Canadians have a better outcome in their lives, like dental care and pharmacare. We know that Canadians value these programs.

We want to see the Conservatives, however, speak about revenue generation. We know that, for example, an excess profits tax is something the Conservatives in the United Kingdom have done to try to bring into balance some of the big oil companies making record profits and to help finance and give regular people a chance during this cost of living crisis. Would the member agree that a profiteering tax to curb the excess profits of big oil companies, big banks and some of the country's largest companies should actually be done?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, only the NDP could think that raising taxes for Canadians would make life more affordable for Canadians. The reality is that we need to increase the size of our economic output so we can afford the important programs that the member cares about, and I hope he comes along with us to bring in policies that promote economic growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. What I found interesting was that he used the word “workers” a lot. It always sounds odd to me, hearing the word “workers” from the mouth of a Conservative, but I suppose it is good to hear, because at least it means they might be somewhat concerned about them.

What has left me wondering, however, is that I do not recall the Conservatives advocating for one of the things that workers want most of all, something the Bloc has also been calling for, which is EI reform in order to make it more generous. I would like to know what the member has to offer workers who need help and support for a period of time when they lose their jobs, especially in this time of high inflation, with costs going up everywhere.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the current Prime Minister has increased spending on our public service by $20 billion at the same time as increasing spending on external consultants by $20 billion, and he still managed to trigger the largest strike in Canadian history. Yes, I do worry about the workers in this country, but I lay the problems workers have in this country squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is astonishing to me to hear the NDP and Liberal members stand up in the House, with the record-shattering levels of debt and spending they are undertaking together, and call for, in the debate today, more spending.

I hearken back to the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties and the massive debt and deficits they rang up. This resulted in record cuts to social services, like health, education and all of those different things, in the late nineties, by another Liberal government, precipitated by the massive levels of debt taken on by the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties. I wonder if the hon. member could reflect on what it was like in the late nineties, when we saw $35 billion cut from health, education and social services transfers in this country.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in 1995, the most draconian budget in Canadian history was brought in by Liberal finance minister Paul Martin. Why did he do it? It was because he had to. He had to do it because the Government of Canada was broke. It could no longer borrow money. It had hit a wall. The Wall Street Journal was saying that Canada was an economic basket case, because interest rates were high and debt was high, and the Government of Canada could no longer afford to maintain its credit rating or pay for the important programs Canadians required. That is where we are heading today.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by sharing, as I usually do, what I like about the bill we are debating this afternoon, in this case, Bill C-47, which would implement some measures that were in the budget, many that would benefit people in my community.

I would like to share two examples.

The first is dental care, which is part 4, division 29. Bill C-47 takes meaningful steps to advance the new Canada dental care plan specifically by introducing the dental care measures act. The measures in Bill C-47 move toward dental coverage, starting for those who need it most, including uninsured Canadians under 18, people with disabilities and seniors who have a family income of less than $90,000. Those with average annual family incomes under $70,000 would have their dental visit covered by the federal government without any out-of-pocket costs.

Second, there is a provision to lower the criminal rate of interest, which is in part 4, division 34. Bill C-47 would amend the Criminal Code to cut the maximum allowable rate of interest to 35% from 47%, at least for alternative lenders, like EasyFinancial, for example. It is a positive step forward that I support, but, sadly, it does not include all companies like this, specifically, predatory payday lenders. Money Mart, for example, would still be exempt from this new rate cap. However, it is a step in the right direction.

In light of constructive measures like these, I intend on supporting Bill C-47.

I recognize this is in contrast to how I voted on the budget as a whole, which was against. Therefore, I would like share more, with the rest of my time, on why this was the case. In brief, it is because the budget does not meet the moment we are in.

I will start with housing, and the words of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, an advocate whose role was created by the federal government. It said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”

Tim Richter from the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness said, “It’s clear that the federal government does not see the scale and urgency of these crises, and have offered no solutions.”

When I look at my community, the housing crisis has and will continue to define us. The number of people living unsheltered has at least tripled since 2018, as encampments continue to grow across our community. When we look at the cost of rent and homes, in 2022 compared to 2005, house prices had gone up 275%, while wages had only gone up by 42%. However, in this budget, there is almost no new investments in housing, and the one investment that was made, an important one in indigenous housing, is back-loaded, meaning the funding will not begin until future years.

There is also nothing to address the commodification of the housing market to move us back toward homes being places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade. There is so much the federal government can and should be doing on this front.

One example of a sensible, simple measure I proposed is to end the tax exemptions for large, corporate investors, real estate investment trusts and direct the minimum of $285 million of revenue that this would generate to build the affordable housing that we need.

Next is on mental health. I will read the words of Margaret Eaton, National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. She says, “The budget is out of touch with the reality of Canadians’ well-being and their ability to afford mental health services. I believe that the government has missed the mark, and that there will be deep human and economic costs to pay.” I feel the same way, and that is reflected in the stories I hear from people and organizations in my community.

Very specifically, the governing party ran on a campaign that included dedicated mental health funds. In fact, there were $4.5 billion, to be called the Canada mental health transfer, yet there has been some kind of a magic trick, because that has just disappeared in the time since, including again in this budget. At a time when people in my community need that support now more than ever we cannot separate the housing crisis from the reality of the mental health services that people need.

Third, when it comes to reducing poverty, one of the most effective ways to do that is to ensure we lift people with disabilities out of poverty. In fact, we could cut poverty by 40% if we followed through on promises for which the disability community have advocated, and that is to introduce the Canada disability benefit. Again, in this year's budget, the federal government chose not to do it.

We know that when the federal government is serious about moving ahead with a policy, it does not start with legislation in the way it did with the disability benefit; it starts with funding. It is what it did with child care, and it is what it is not doing here. It is unfortunate that we will continue to see people with disabilities living in legislated poverty because of this budget. The governing party chose to not move ahead with that as quickly as it should. Neither did the Liberals introduce an emergency response benefit for people living with disabilities.

When it comes to the arts community, I would like to share another quote with the members:

[Budget 2023] does not offer a vision for how Canada’s arts, culture, and heritage sector can contribute to the fight against existential challenges of our time....We are...disappointed there is no new funding announced...for critical areas like [modernization initiatives]...supporting repatriation...or helping create new Indigenous museums or cultural centres.

This is from the BC Museums Association. It reflects concerns in my community also, including organizations like the KW Symphony and Centre in the Square, which need all levels of government to step up. When demand has not returned to prepandemic levels, we need to be continuing to support arts and culture organizations across the country. Instead, in this budget, if it is not a festival or a federally owned national museum, there is nothing here.

Last, is with respect to climate. I will quote the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, who said, “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Even so, in this budget, at a time when the governing party says time and again it is committing to phasing out so-called unabated fossil fuel subsidies, it has introduced four new ones, including funding for drilling in the Arctic for more oil. At a time when we know we need to move with urgency to address the climate crisis we are facing, does it not make sense that we start by not subsidizing the very sector most responsible for the crisis at a time when its profits are over $38 billion among the five largest oil and gas companies across the country?

Julia Levin, the associate director of national climate at Environmental Defence, said:

Rather than finally delivering on the government’s promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, this budget throws more fuel on the fire by funneling even more public dollars into false solutions that serve to prop up the fossil fuel industry. Carbon capture and hydrogen are great for greenwashing oil and gas, but they won’t deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

She knows as well as I do that this is exactly what we need at this point in this critical decade when we have a chance to keep global average temperatures below 1.5°C.

I want to encourage all my colleagues here to push for measures that would address these significant gaps that I know are priorities, not only for people in Kitchener and in Waterloo Region but right across the country, when it comes to addressing the housing crisis, mental health, lifting up people with disabilities, investing in the arts and addressing the climate crisis that we are in, while also being mindful that there are important measures in Bill C-47 that we all should be supporting.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, Kitchener has a place in my heart as well, because I have family members who live and work in Kitchener. The member spent some time talking about the affordable housing issue and that not enough was being done in this budget. Does he agree with the Conservatives' thoughts on affordable housing, which is getting municipalities out of the way and letting the government go in, build houses and solve the problem? It has to have the municipal touch on it. Does the member agree with that statement?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my concern with the talking points from the Conservative Party is that they are playing on justifiable anger but then not offering reasonable solutions. The fact is that we need all three levels of government working together, and browbeating municipalities is not how we are going to solve the housing crisis. What will is the federal government getting back to the stage of investing in the housing we need, non-market and co-op housing, the way we used to in the eighties and the nineties. Anything less is unacceptable.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, although we do not always see eye to eye on everything, I do appreciate the tone my colleague from Kitchener Centre brings to this place.

I would like to stick on the topic of housing. To the point that was just made, the Conservative Party has brought forward a number of solutions, such as bringing forward a plan to speed up building permits to get more homes built and create an incentive for housing units to be developed. There is certainly a need for more affordable housing and social housing, no question about it, but we also see issues with supply around regular market housing in my region as well.

I would like to get the member's comments on what our party has brought forward to help address the issues we see with market housing.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree. The member for Kenora's tone in a similar way is how we have constructive conversations here. However, I will also agree to disagree.

I have not heard those kinds of proposals from the Conservative Party, and I would like to hear more of it. For example, when it comes to building the supply we need, the proposal I offered was with respect to at least looking at large corporate investors who are not building. They are primarily buying existing units and are getting preferential tax treatment for it.

Why is the Conservative Party not stepping up to say that we should at least have them pay their taxes, and with the minimum $285 million that this would generate, invest in the supply of the affordable housing we need? I would welcome more support across the aisle on reasonable proposals like that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which once again demonstrates his well-developed sense of balance and impartiality.

I recall that, during the pandemic, the government and the Prime Minister kept repeating that no one would be left behind. Even so, people with great credit scores of 800 and 900 ended up going bankrupt because they were among those left behind by the government. At some point, they were unable to make ends meet. These people have been left behind because when they file for bankruptcy or make a consumer proposal, their excellent credit rating is wiped out. There has been no effort to come up with legislation for this, and to ensure that the major credit score companies consider people's history and also exceptional circumstances.

Is it not time to pass legislation so that these people are not left behind and their personal lives impacted for five or even 10 years by this omission?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou raises a good point, and it is true that many people have been left behind by this government. I am thinking in particular of the homeless and people living with disabilities. Many people need more than lip service. They need investments and legislation to show them that the federal government is there for them.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C‑47 and highlight our government's efforts to support the middle class, build a strong and prosperous economy, and help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living.

The 2023 budget tabled last month by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance proposes, for one, targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families. That is what I would like to talk about today.

This targeted relief is both necessary and appropriate. Since 2015, the government has been committed to helping those who need it most, and that has not changed. On the one hand, Canada's recovery from the recession caused by COVID‑19 has been remarkable. There are 865,000 more Canadians in the workforce now than there were before the pandemic, and the unemployment rate is near its record low. Inflation also continues to drop.

On the other hand, there are challenges that remain. For example, inflation is still too high. Canadian families are feeling the effects every time they go grocery shopping. Rising prices for basic necessities are a concern for many Canadians.

In the 2023 budget, we propose new, targeted inflation relief for the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. Thanks to this grocery rebate, 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families will receive financial assistance. These 11 million Canadians include people in my riding of London West.

In concrete terms, this represents up to $467 for couples with children and up to $234 for single people without children. It represents an extra $225 on average for seniors. This assistance will be provided through goods and services tax credits. The reimbursement will be paid by the Canada Revenue Agency as a one-time payment shortly after Bill C‑47 passes.

I am therefore happy to see that our grocery rebate is advancing well at the legislative level, Bill C‑46 now being before the Senate after having been adopted by the House on April 19.

That represents a $2.5-billion investment for the treasury. It is indeed an investment that will strengthen Canada's social safety net and improve the quality of life of millions of Canadians, without boosting inflation. It would be unreasonable to send a cheque to every Canadian, since that would only make things more difficult for the Bank of Canada, and things would remain more expensive longer for all Canadians.

We need to understand that the worst appears to be behind us in terms of inflation, which has declined every month in the past nine months and is now holding stable at 4.3%. That being said, we know that some families are having a harder time than others, and they are the ones that need help.

Budget implementation Bill C‑47 also includes a series of measures to help Canadians face the rise in the cost of living. They include legislative amendments to crack down on predatory lending. The bill also includes several provisions to implement the new Canadian dental care plan. This will help up to nine million Canadians, and ensure that no one in Canada has to choose between dental care and paying their monthly bills.

This is in addition to other measures included in budget 2023. I am thinking in particular of collaboration with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees such as high roaming and telecommunications charges, excessive baggage fees and unfair shipping fees. I am also thinking of the implementation of a right to repair to make it easier and less costly to repair appliances and electronics than to replace them. The possibility of implementing a common charging port for telephones, tablets, cameras and laptops will also be explored.

There is also a reduction in credit card transaction fees for small businesses.

This is also in addition to measures already in place, such as the reduction of day care fees at regulated services across Canada. Six provinces and territories already provide regulated child care services at $10 per day or less, on average. The other provinces and territories are on track to do so by 2026. We have also strengthened the day care system in Quebec. In that province, we are providing more day care spaces.

These are responsible measures. All Canadians want right now is for inflation to keep declining. Canada is proud of its tradition of fiscal responsibility. It is a tradition that the government is determined to maintain. That is why budget 2023 will allow Canada to keep the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7. Budget 2023 will slow the growth of public spending and bring it back to prepandemic levels.

In exercising fiscal restraint, we ensure that we will continue to make investments for Canadians. With targeted investments, we will help those who truly need it. There are investments in housing, because our economy is built by people and people need a roof. There are investments in labour so workers have the skills needed to find and keep good jobs. There are also investments to strengthen the immigration system so that we can welcome a record number of qualified workers and help growing businesses.

In conclusion, Bill C‑47 will help the most vulnerable Canadians cope with price increases. It will ensure that no one is left behind. This bill will make it possible to consider everyone and manage the public finances effectively.

I encourage hon. members to support this bill and help create a stronger and more prosperous future for Canada.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell us a little more about the help that this budget would provide to vulnerable people in her riding.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to highlight that this budget targets families and young children. There would be dental care for families in need.

I just mentioned that this budget really targets families that are struggling, and that is what our government is trying to do right now to support Canadians who are struggling the most. The grocery rebate would go 11 million targeted Canadians to make sure they have the support they need to continue to thrive in the environment we are in.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have had a chance to chat with the hon. member about some issues, and I know we are concerned and care about similar issues regarding vulnerable Canadians.

I brought up earlier, as I do many times in the House, one of the things I am concerned about. Looking back, the Liberal government of the late 1990s had to cut $35 billion in transfers to provinces for things such as health care, social services and education, many of the things that most impact the most vulnerable of Canadians. It had to do that because of deficits run up by the Trudeau government in the 1970s.

Is the member at all concerned with these record-breaking deficits, the record-breaking levels of spending that we are seeing right now, and that there might be a similar challenge down the road, in the future, caused by the record levels of spending we are seeing right now?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had multiple occasions to talk with my colleague about similar, shared interests and how we are both working to serve Canadians. I do agree that we care about a lot of similar things, including health care.

I want to talk about how this budget would help Canadians. This budget would ensure that all Canadians have access to health care, dental care and doctors. We also need to talk about protecting the Canada Health Act and making sure it is not about those who make more money who are able to access health care. Those things are really important for my riding, and those things are really important for Ontarians and Canadians altogether.

It is important to talk about how this government has set up Canadians to be successful in the future by investing in child care and dental care, and by making sure that all Canadians are starting on good ground to be successful, as we get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, on certain things, we do agree. The budget considers some people, but it leaves out a huge number of others.

The fact that the budget offers no new money for housing is appalling. These announcements are nothing new. They were made before, over the past two years. Now, however, the need is glaring. It seems that 3.5 million housing units will be required in the next 10 years, without even factoring in population growth. Every newcomer has the right to decent housing.

Will my colleague confirm that her government will invest new money in housing, instead of simply rehashing old announcements?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's commitment to making sure all Canadians have access to housing, to a home.

This government has invested a lot in housing. We can talk about the $40,000 that young people like me can invest today to be able to buy a home. We can talk about the interest that has been removed from student loans so students can have money to invest in a home. We can also talk about the fact that the money we invested in child care now allows people have a little more money to do groceries and to buy a home.

I think we can agree that everyone in the House is committed to making sure all Canadians—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the budget implementation act, just one of a string of many betrayals of Albertans and future generations. I will offer a spoiler alert right now, in case anyone is waiting until the end of my speech to see whether I will be supporting this bill. The answer is no.

There are far too many reasons why I oppose this bill to explain in just 10 minutes. There are lots of bad parts in this bill. If I do not discuss them or mention them, it is just due to a lack of time. It is not intentional.

The Liberal Party continues to treat our children, our grandchildren and future generations as an ATM with this bill. The debt has soared to an eyewatering $1.2 trillion. Just as a ballpark, there are about 28 million taxpayers in Canada. That is about $42,000 for every taxpayer. People in their twenties or thirties right now have mostly given up any chance of owning a home. As an added bonus of being able to spend all this time in their parents' basements, they are going to be saddled and crushed with future debt from the government.

The Liberal government is going to claim that a lot of this spending is Harper's fault, which is a default for them. Their members will get up to say that it is due to the pandemic; they had to because of the pandemic.

We need to look at the taxes collected, not just the gross amount of spending going out. In 2019-20, what I call “1 BC”, before COVID, the government collected $334 billion in taxes for the year, including personal taxes, excise, GST and corporate taxes. In 2021-22, during the COVID period, the amount of taxes increased to $413 billion. This year's budget expects $457 billion to be collected in taxes, rising to $543 billion collected in 2028.

The last year before COVID was a very good year for the world, with strong economies around strong employment. There was low growth, but it was still relatively strong. From then to now, there has been an $8,200-per-family increase in the amount of taxes collected by the government. I have to ask if families feel they are getting an extra $8,200 extra in services this year. What did $8,200 per family for just one year get us? We have had to wait six months for passports and have missed weddings, funerals and other occasions. We have had a record delay in immigration backlogs, five-hour waits at Pearson Airport and missed flights because of the incompetence of the transport minister.

The government claimed to be taken by surprise about the increase in travel. Who could have possibly foreseen an increase in demand for travel as COVID ended? Do we know who did? The transportation safety authority, CATSA, actually had in its corporation plan that exponential growth was expected in travel, yet somehow the transport minister missed it and did not get our airports ready for that.

We have ended up with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. We have had a record increase in violent crime, and we are seeing the largest strike in the history of the public service in Canada right now. That is what we are getting for $8,200 more per family in taxes collected.

The government's own record from the Treasury Board president shows that the government actually missed 51% of all its targeted goals for service to Canadians. They still managed to pay out well over $100 million in bonuses to bureaucrats for that failure, so we have $8,200 a year for extra taxes collected and nothing back. I guess I should be thankful that the government has not collected $10,000 more per family. Imagine the level of incompetence delivered for that.

Let us look at the debt side. Last year, despite $103 billion more in taxes taken from Canadians than in the pre-COVID era, we have $43 billion added to the debt. This year, there is going to be a gobsmacking $123 billion more in taxes collected from Canadians than in the pre-COVID era, and yet we are still going to have a $43-billion deficit. In 2028, at the end of the five-year budget forecast cycle, it is predicted that $200 billion more in taxes will be collected from Canadians compared with the last year before COVID. It is still forecasting a deficit. How is it that taxes can be increased almost 60% to 70% and we still end up with a deficit? Actually, it is 62% more revenue, yet still a deficit.

The finance minister famously stated about a year ago that Canada could not afford not to go deeper into debt. Of course, she also said that deflation, not inflation, was the issue to worry about and that growth would stay higher than interest rates. Considering her track record, I hope everyone will excuse me if I do not go to her for a forecast for the Lotto 6/49 numbers.

I want to look at the interest costs. This is money coming out of taxpayers' pockets and the government's pocket that goes right to bondholders and Bay Street bankers and provides nothing to Canadians. We are going to be paying $235 billion in interest costs alone over the next five years. Almost a quarter of a trillion dollars will be gone, just for interest payments. That is $13,000 per family in Canada, just for non-productive interest. It is not going to help health care or anything.

In five years' time, in 2028, interest alone is forecasted to be $50 billion. To put this into perspective, $50 billion in one year is 31% more than Alberta is paying for health care. Alberta pays more per capita than any other province in Canada, and we are going to be spending 31% more just on interest than we are paying for health care.

It is far more than we pay for defence. We have heard the horrible stories of Canadian soldiers serving in Poland and not being reimbursed for their meals. However, the government is going to spend far more on interest than we pay for all our defence.

I want to put this into perspective for government members, so they can understand better what that $50 billion is. It is eight million nights in a luxury hotel suite in London. It is half a million individual suspect donations to the Trudeau Foundation from Beijing Communists or about two and a half years of the government shovelling money into Liberal-connected consulting firms. That $50 billion would be going to Bay Street bankers and the wealthy and not to our armed forces, our seniors, our health care system or anything Canadians value.

Would a budget be a Liberal budget without being stacked full of various things hidden in an omnibus way? In the BIA, the Liberals plan to extend the unfair equalization program for another five years. This is what I mean by calling it another betrayal for Albertans. There were no consultations with the Province of Alberta. The government is just sliding it in for another five years. Albertans were very clear when we did a referendum last year. We want a place at the table, and we want to discuss equalization. The government is just ramming it through without anything.

I want Albertans to think about that. There is an election coming up in May, and there will be a federal election coming up as well. I want them to look at their provincial candidates. Which party is supporting an extension of equalization without any say from Alberta? It is the NDP. Federally, which parties are backing an extension of the unfair equalization? They are the NDP and the Liberal Party. I want Albertans to remember that, come election time in May and in the next federal election. They need to understand who is going to stand up for Albertans. It is not the Liberals, and it is certainly not the NDP.

The bill before us would do nothing to address the productivity crisis. We are going on a downward slope with our standard of living. The bill would do nothing for that. It would do nothing to address inflation. In fact, the Bank of Canada, in its monetary update that just came out, stated that the Liberals' budget and their spending are adding to inflation. Moreover, there is nothing for Alberta, except a continual betrayal in the form of an extension of the equalization plan.

That is unfair to Albertans, and that is why I will not be supporting the bill.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard several times that he was trying to make things clear to us. I am not sure what the member opposite's background is, but it does not sound like it is business. You asked how we could have revenues go up but not have expenses—

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

I remind the hon. member that I did not ask anything. Please speak through the Chair.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member questioned how revenue could go up from taxes and why our expenses went up.

Typically, the balance sheets affect income and expenses, so the revenue went up because of inflationary pressures. These are global, as we all know. Although the member would like to give credit to our government for causing global inflation, I do not think we are quite that powerful.

The other thing the member opposite was talking about inflation. Since the budget came out, inflation has actually gone down. I think it is about half of what the high was. Perhaps it did have an effect.

The other point I wanted to make was that the member opposite mentioned that we get nothing for the interest we are paying. Again, as business people, we know that when we borrow money, we invest it. We are investing, in this case, in things like the Volkswagen plant, which will create jobs and increase our economic growth—

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

I will give the member for Edmonton West the opportunity to comment or answer.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for “Lib-splaining” basic economics to me. To be very clear, the government is increasing its take from taxpayers by 62%. Generally, in business, when we increase our sales by 62%, we can squeeze out a profit or at least break even. We do not increase our sales by 62% and end up with a catastrophic debt.

I want to quote something right from the Bank of Canada, from the monetary policy report for April 2023: “Fiscal measures adding to the growth of domestic demand”. We asked Bank of Canada officials about this at the finance committee, and they said that, yes, it is a polite way of saying that government spending is increasing inflation.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has a good grasp of the economy. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, where we received the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who mentioned in one of his recent reports that 30 years from now, Canada will have paid all of its debts since its creation in 1867.

To achieve that, it will have brought the budgets of Quebec and the Canadian provinces to their knees, and some of those provinces will be technically bankrupt. Does my colleague not see a problem that needs to addressed, namely a fiscal imbalance that should never have happened in the first place?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, or, as I call it, the “mighty OGGO”.

Yes, there is a fiscal imbalance, quite often, in a lot of issues; this is caused in part by the aging population and other issues. However, the biggest issue we have is the fiscal incompetence of the federal government. We have never seen so much money come in and so much money spent unproductively. We could fix a lot of the fiscal imbalances between the federal government and the provinces if the federal government would get its act together.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have the pleasure of sitting on the public accounts committee. At that place, we do good work together across party lines and for the betterment of all Canadians.

He mentioned, in particular, our home province of Alberta and, of course, the upcoming provincial election. My question, in reference to the statement he made, is this: What about the reality that health care, education and many of the items that he has spoken about are under provincial jurisdiction?

We have seen what the UCP has done to our province. How can he reconcile the fact that the UCP is in power right now and that there has been support offered by the federal government that the premier will just not accept? She is trying to privatize health care.

Will the member stand to defend public health care?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is committee day for me today. I enjoy my time with my colleague, who is also from Edmonton, on public accounts. I am going to disagree with him on a lot of the issues he has spoken about. I do not think they are quite correct.

I think that when I look at it and when Albertans look at it, there is a stark choice. I do not get involved in provincial politics, but I will note that there is a stark choice. Who is going to stand against this government? Who is going to stand for Albertans to address equalization?

It is not the party that is voting to extend the unfair equalization against Alberta. It will be Conservatives.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have always been on the side of everyday Canadians. I want to speak to that, and I want to ensure that we can have a healthy debate about this today. What I mean by a healthy debate is that, in this place, often times we speak at each other. We speak to each other without the decency and respect that Canadians across the country expect from us in this place.

I want to talk about one of my role models and one of the great stewards of our country, who has now passed on, Tommy Douglas. I want to speak about what an incredible man Tommy was. He was an incredible person who often spoke about the needs of regular, everyday Canadians. I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast respect him. Some may disagree with his ideology, and that is okay, but his ideas are still with us and are still present.

Whether we are talking about this budget, or the one in 2005, which witnessed our beloved Jack Layton force the government to make historic investments in social programs during a time of Liberal austerity, or talking about when Tommy Douglas pushed the Progressive Conservatives to come to a deal on publicly financing health care, they were both major achievements.

We have always used our time, our voice and our power in this place for good. I believe all members believe deep down in their hearts that they are doing the same. It is my hope that we can show all Canadians, particularly young Canadians, that there is a third way, through a little tale told and retold in my home of Alberta in the Prairies.

The story is a story that many members may know and sympathize with, but I want to retell it for the generations of prairie people and Canadians across the country who may not know about it.

It is a story about mice in a community called Mouseland. It was a place where all the little mice lived and played, where they were born and died. They lived much the same as us. They even had a Parliament. Every so often, they would be asked to go to an election. They would walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them would walk there and others would get a ride, and many of them would get a ride for the next four years as well.

Every election day, all the little mice would go to elect a government. On one election day, a government was formed and that government was made up of big, fat black cats. Some would think it was strange that a community of mice would elect cats. However, we do not have to look that far in our own Canadian history to see that perplexing reality for the past nearly 150 years, and they were not any wiser than we are today.

I am not saying anything against the cats. I am not, trust me. I believe that the cats were decent, hard-working and good. They believed that they were doing the best for those they represented. They passed good laws. That is, they passed good laws for cats. They passed laws that were really good for cats.

Some of those laws were laws that made the entryway holes to the homes of mice into circles, so the cats could grab the mice from their homes. They also brought in speed limits, so a mouse would be unable to run away from the cat. These were all good laws for cats, but they were dangerous and scary for the mice.

Life was getting harder and harder. When the mice could not put up with it anymore, they decided something had to be done about it. They went en masse to the polls and voted out the black cats, but they voted in the white cats.

The white cats had put on a terrific campaign. They had said that all Mouseland needed was more vision, and they had sometimes said, “triple, triple, triple”. They said that the trouble with Mouseland was all those round holes. All the round holes were a big problem, so they said that they would bring in square holes.

The policy of square holes did not make the lives of those mice any easier. The square mouse holes were twice as big as the round holes, and now the cats could get both paws in. It was a shame, and life was harder than ever.

The mice could not take it anymore. They voted the white cats out and the black cats back in. For 150 years it has been the black cats out, the white cats in, then the white cats out, and the black cats in.

Then one little mouse had an idea that some would say is ludicrous today. They might even say it is impossible to be done. There were attempts to create alternatives to the black and white cats, some with spots and some with stripes, but at the end of the day, they were still cats.

Can members see that the trouble with all of this is not that the cats were white or black? The trouble is that they were cats, and because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats. We spoke about that. I would tell my friends to watch out for the little mouse with an idea. When that one little mouse asked the other mice why they kept electing a government made up of cats, they called it a socialist that should be locked up, and they locked him up. I want to remind members that we can lock up a mouse or a man, but we cannot lock up an idea.

I share this story to not only pay tribute to our party's many great leaders and the decisions we have made, but also to ensure that the next generation of Canadians know that, throughout our country's tough moments, there have been mice fighting for them each and every day so that we can build a better future for everyday people, and they did it in a way that showed decency and respect for Canadians, and for each and every one of us in this place.

Canadians are experiencing one of the most devastating times in their lives. It is talked about by our Liberal and Conservative colleagues. We are now in a position where we understand the problem together, which is a good thing. It is good that we are speaking about those who are attending food banks at record levels, the lack of clean water in first nations and indigenous communities, and the need to ensure that children get the support they need, but we are divided on the solutions.

New Democrats have been consistent in our support for many of the solutions. That is why dental care is something we fought so hard to achieve for decades. Though we have never formed government in this country, it is my hope that one day New Democrats and our ideas can truly show Canadians that there is a third way.

I know that many, not just those here, will laugh at us, mock us and tell us it can never be done. I would tell those people to just watch us, because the mice know that, whether it is the black cats or the white cats, they will make laws, and those laws will be for cats. We are here to say that now is the time for the everyday people.

When we look around our communities and see hard-working Canadians show up every single day and do everything right but fall further behind, we know that the laws that are put against regular Canadians are unfair. They know this. They feel it. They see it every single day.

It has been the project of New Democrats to ensure that our colleagues in this place, and one day hopefully across this country, will see that mice can make laws too. We can make laws for the regular everyday people that do not take so much from them to reward the cats, because they will continue to do that if we do not break the mould in our country of electing cat after cat. We can bring this place to a new reality, where regular folks can have their issues heard, have the respect and decorum we would expect for all Canadians, and ensure that the programs are there so that mice can take care of mice.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member wants to focus on health care. We learned a lot about cats and mice, and I get the message he is trying to convey there, but I want to get us back on track with the budget implementation act.

For me, health care is certainly top of mind, as we know it is for Canadians across this country. In my riding in New Brunswick, $1.3 million was held back in federal health transfers because it was in contravention of the Canada Health Act for reproductive services and diagnostic testing. My question is this: How can we work together in this place to ensure that the public universal health care system is upheld in this country?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do have great respect for the member opposite. However, I do think she may have missed a really critical part of our analogy. When we have a public health care system like the one we have in Canada, which should guarantee access and administration for regular, everyday Canadians across the country, it is up to the federal government to actually enforce the Canada Health Act.

The reality is that, right now, in my home province of Alberta, there are private surgeries taking place already, which is in contravention of the Canada Health Act, but the government allows it. It continues to make transfers. It continues to send money to the provinces and to not enforce it. My question back to the member would be, when will the government enforce the health care transfer rules in the act?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about cats. When I think about my cat, my cat has this habit of jumping out of nowhere and grabbing me, and it is really annoying. It is kind of like another cat I know in this place, a cat who has taken an all-expenses-paid trip to the Aga Khan island, charged six thousands dollars' worth of hotel rooms, went on a Jamaican vacation with a donor to his family foundation, turfed the first indigenous justice minister and has ethical breach after spending breach after problem. He is the biggest cat here. He is the fat cat, the fattest cat of them all.

Why is my colleague opposite, if he is a proponent to support mice, continuing to prop up this cat's government?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member from Calgary oftentimes does great work in respecting the dignity and decency of this place. There are two kinds of cats in this place: the Prime Minister and the member for Carleton.. Both of them are one hundred per cent government funded.

When it comes to ensuring we actually get real results for mice, yes, New Democrats will continue to show up so we get those services for mice. Why are these cats so opposed to ensuring dental care and things like pharmacare are realized for mice?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very inspiring speech.

I asked a question earlier for which I did not receive a satisfactory response from another NDP friend. Housing is a top priority in this country. The financialization of housing is a growing phenomenon, where large financial conglomerates are buying more and more rental housing in Canada. According to a study, in the past 30 years, ownership of the rental housing stock by large international financial conglomerates has gone from 0% to 22%. There are no simple solutions to this issue. Obviously, their priority is not the right to housing, but rather their bottom line. We need to address this if we want to address the housing crisis.

I would like to know if my colleague has any solutions for dealing with the financialization of housing in Canada.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Bloc Québécois colleague for my inability to speak French at this time. I am learning.

In relation to housing, it is true that housing is a true crisis in our country. The reality is that we need to ensure there is outside the market to ensure the right to housing, for example, is truly met for those who cannot participate in it. The reality is we need to see social housing in our country. We need to see the federal government return to the business of building homes, and we need to do it quickly.

The reality is those corporations, those large investment trusts, are going to continue to get away with ripping off Canadians so long as we allow them to. We need to see the introduction of social homes and housing that is out of private market to ensure those who fall below the cracks and fall below the margins have a home. We know that a good life, good health care and a good education starts with a good and safe home.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand up and speak in the House today.

If members will indulge me for a moment, I want to briefly mention two people who are very important in my life, my mother and father, Alvin and Irene Redekopp. They have been there for my whole life, a great life growing up, and are probably the most ardent watchers of the House out of all of us. They watch question period, they watch, of course, when I speak, and they probably watch random debates just for fun. They have been married 63 years, and it is my privilege and honour to still have a great relationship with them even though they are a few years older than me. I thank my mom and dad for all they have done.

One month ago, we listened to the budget in this place, and here we are now a month later. I think I would summarize the budget with the word “underwhelming”. There was a Global News story the following day in which Pamela George, a financial literacy counsellor who works with women, said that the 2023 spending plan was subpar. She said:

It’s nothing to write home about. I’m not shouting and celebrating anything...When I hear things like, “we’re going to do this,” or “we’re looking into this,” I just feel it’s stalling....

I think that summarizes my thoughts on the budget; it really was quite underwhelming. So, of course, the questions from the residents of Saskatoon West are: How does this budget affect me? What is going to change because of this budget? How is it is going to impact my life?

Of course, they are struggling, like all Canadians are, with pressures on meeting their monthly costs, whether it is to put groceries on the table, fuelling their cars, heating their homes or even their cost to own a home. Saskatoon is one of the cheaper places in the country to own a home, yet it is still very difficult. Many people in my riding struggle with paying their rent and paying their mortgage payments, especially as mortgage payments increase. So, many of them were looking for solutions.

It is fair to say that there were no long-term solutions in this budget at all. There were some band-aids, yes, but there were really no long-term solutions. Getting a few hundred dollars extra on a GST rebate might help in the very short term, but it does not help in the long term. We have heard the proverb, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” I think that is what we are seeing here with a few hundred dollars to a family. Okay, fine, they can buy groceries for a week, maybe two, but then the problem is there again.

We need permanent, long-term solutions that actually solve the problems that are out there, and I acknowledge that this is a hard thing. A master's level skill is required to achieve this. Unfortunately, what we have seen in so many things, and this budget is a good example of it, is a master's level of incompetence. We just cannot get the competence that we require out of this government. Of course, right now, we are in the middle of this strike and, as has been mentioned many times, this government has managed to spend 50% more on its workforce and still have the workforce go on strike. That takes a master's level of incompetence.

Conservatives had some very positive suggestions for this budget, and I just want to review those very quickly.

The first one was that we had suggested the government pursue an area of lower taxes for workers. People need to keep more of their paycheques so that they can spend the money they need to survive. The second thing we suggested was that the government end inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods. This is fairly straightforward and was a very good suggestion that should not have been very difficult for this government. The third was to remove gatekeepers to increase home building for Canadians. This is something we hear of constantly in our ridings and across the country on the availability of affordable housing.

Did the government take us up on our constructive advice? Well, let us talk about taxes.

Several days after the budget was released, what happened to taxes? They went up. Why is that? It is because of the carbon tax. This is part of the plan to increase the carbon tax over the next months to ultimately triple it to where it is going to cost 40¢ a litre for fuel, for gasoline, and, of course, it adds a cost to everything else, whether it is fuel for homes, which, by the way, there is GST on top of the carbon tax, or whether it is for groceries. Basically, anything that moves on a truck is impacted by this. Of course, food is greatly impacted by this, because farmers end up bearing a huge cost of GST on their farms. So, did taxes go down? No, they went up.

What about the inflationary deficits? Did they go down? No, actually.

I would like to read a quote, which says, “Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must...be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. ...a line we shall not cross.” Who said that? Of course, it was the illustrious finance minister, and it was said less than a year ago. Here we are, just months after making that statement, and what do we see in this budget? We see deficits forever. The idea of deficits being reduced and eliminated is just not there. The crazy thing is that in 2026, it would just take a 3% reduction to achieve a balanced budget, yet that is not something that this master's level of incompetence government was able to achieve, which I think is quite simple.

What about the third thing: home building? What I see in the budget are some things that are going to increase the supply. Let me take a moment and talk about supply and demand, because that is the most basic principle of everything that affects money in our country. When there is a lot of supply, there are low prices; when there is a lot of demand, prices go up. What we see in this budget are measures that would increase demand. What is the effect of that? It means there are more people chasing fewer things, which means the prices will go up. The master's level of competence approach to this budget would be to increase the supply of houses, and that is not something I see in here. We need to incentivize companies and cities to build houses and require cities to build more houses. They are the gatekeepers that are holding back the supply of houses that could be built in this country.

Another way to look at this is what is missing in this budget. One thing that struck me quite obviously was foreign credential recognition. As I have spoken with newcomers to Canada all across the country, this comes up inevitably as one of the first or second things they mention. They will say things like they are doctors and not able to work in this country or they are lawyers, engineers or in a certain profession and they cannot work in this country because it is too difficult for them to be licensed to practise in this country.

Health care is a huge problem. Canadians will say that in surveys, but yet, after eight years of the Liberal government, only 41% of foreign-trained doctors are able to work as doctors in our country. Only 37% of nurses are able to work as nurses in our country, and there countless others. That leaves us with the typical doctor driving a taxi. I am sure many of us in this room have been driven in taxis by doctors, and the reason is because they are unable to be licensed and work as doctors. This is a huge issue for our country because we need doctors.

That is why I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-286, to help address this issue and allow foreign-trained professionals to have their credentials recognized more easily, and that is why the Conservative leader has introduced his system, which is the Blue Seal system. The Blue Seal is modelled after the Red Seal program. The Red Seal program is for professions like electricians and plumbers. It has been adopted for 50 years and is used in all of the provinces. The idea is that we would have a similar system where doctors or nurses could make sure they qualify by showing they have the knowledge through passing a national competence exam. They would then be given a Blue Seal and be able to work in the country, in provinces that choose to join the program. Why would they join the program? Because it would allow access to more staff, and that is what we need to do.

One other thing that surprised me that was not in this bill was the student direct stream. Bangladesh has been asking for the student direct stream for a long time. This allows students from other countries, which are part of the program, an easier and quicker way to come to Canada to get their post-secondary education in the country. It is good for our country because our post-secondary institutions benefit from having them. They are a great asset to our country in terms of their knowledge and skills. They create businesses and increase trade between the countries. Bangladesh has been trying to become part of the program. India and its neighbour Pakistan are part of this program. I have spoken about it many times with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. There are many things we can gain in our country by having this done. We do not have it yet. It is something I wish had been in the budget and I am sad to see it was not. On behalf of Bangladeshi students who are trying to get to Canada, I am sad we did not see that.

We are seeing a budget from a tired and worn out NDP-Liberal coalition, a government that is full of scandals and cover-ups. Conservatives will bring relief. We will lower taxes, we will end inflationary deficits and we will remove the gatekeepers so that we can build more houses in this country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that in the entire intervention the best part of it was how he opened it: talking about his parents. Indeed, congratulations on such a successful marriage of 63 years. That is absolutely remarkable. I wonder if the member can inform the House on the secret to having a marriage that lasts 63 years.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will note a couple of things. First, neither of my parents were politicians, so that might be part of it. I can think of a trip in Florida when I was young where I was not sure they were going to make it. My dad was driving and my mom was navigating. Members can imagine how that went, but they did survive. Obviously, it is love and dealing with issues that come up. That is something that we could all take to heart in this place. We are never going to agree on everything and we have to work together for the betterment of Canadians.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is going to be hard to beat.

My opposition party colleague mentioned several things that are missing. Members have been talking about them since this morning. One of those things is housing. We need more than three million housing units in the next 10 years, and that is not even counting housing for the immigrants who are arriving in Canada by the hundreds of thousands.

What does my colleague suggest we do to meet the urgent and growing need for housing? Does he have any advice for the party opposite?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, of course, as I mentioned quite strongly in my speech, we have a master's level of incompetence on one side of the House and, I believe, a master's level of competence on this side.

One of the ideas that we have been pushing forward is that we need to force municipalities, through funding and through different arrangements that we have with them, to actually increase the amount of housing that is available. One easy way to do that is to provide infrastructure spending for transportation. We need to make cities create housing around the transportation hubs that we are funding. When we have a large transportation hub, we would need to have housing and apartments around that. That increases the availability of housing, which, as I said in my speech, increases the supply. When they increase supply, they decrease the cost.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I just want to welcome to my family my cousin's child, a brand new little girl, Isabel Vera Smith, daughter to Claudia Wright and Lewis Smith and my newest constituent. I welcome Isabel to the family and also welcome her to Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My colleague comes from an area that, in my view, provides for Canada through so many farmers who really know the value of hard work. Is there anything the member can point to that he would have loved to see in this budget for the hard-working people of Saskatchewan?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are many things that come to mind. The very first thing that is top of mind and top of mind for many people in Saskatchewan is the carbon tax. The member spoke about providing for the country and of course he is referring to food and the way that hard-working farmers in Saskatchewan and other prairie provinces produce food not only for Canada but for the world. What we are seeing here is a tremendous amount of money that is being spent by each farmer to cover the cost of the carbon tax. That cost is only going up from this point. It is going to triple from where it is now. A typical farmer pays more than $150,000 a year in carbon tax.

What happens to that carbon tax? It ends up getting built in to the cost of the products that the farmers produce, which then shows up at the grocery store. When people go to the grocery store and wonder why prices are so high and why they are seeing 10% and 6% inflation on grocery prices in the grocery store, part of the answer to that is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is built into the cost of everything that is in the grocery store. That is a huge element of what we are seeing. People in Saskatchewan would like to see this carbon tax reduced because they are not getting the benefit. They are paying more than they are receiving back.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, especially since I have here with me the Minister of National Revenue, who came just to hear my speech, as well as two of my loyal squires.

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because members are not allowed to draw attention to either presences or absences in the House. I just wanted to remind him of that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully understand, but sometimes when we get excited we forget the most basic parliamentary rules.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47 today. At first, I thought that, as natural resources critic, I would focus my comments on energy but, as luck would have it, I will be able to speak on another one of my favourite issues, health transfers. Members will understand why.

I have risen many times in the House to speak about an issue that is plaguing Canadian federalism, and that is the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance could probably have been resolved in Bill C‑47. I will explain why. In fact, I hope that it will be resolved in Bill C-47 by a stroke of luck.

Before rising, I spoke with my favourite colleagues, the members for Drummond and Lac-Saint-Jean, to find out what they thought about health. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, with his usual edgy wit, told us that, when it comes to health, the Leader of the Conservative Party makes Scrooge look like a spendthrift. Basically, we know that the Conservative Leader now wants to maintain health funding at $4.6 billion, as proposed by the Liberals, against the wishes of all the provinces, which want $28 million in funding. That is the silliness of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to bring up something that happened on Wednesday, April 19.

At that time, the House had voted unanimously in favour of Bill C-46. That bill included $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces. For us, it was not enough. However, we later found that the $2 billion was in Bill C-47. That was very interesting, because a total of $4 billion would be going to the provinces instead of the initial $2 billion. I think that is very good news. It should be very good news for all government ministers, including the Minister of Revenue, but unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg-North put a damper on the good news. He can always be counted on to put a damper on good news. On April 21, he told us in a statement that he would be removing the most interesting part of Bill C-47, the part saying that there would be an additional $2 billion.

The Bloc Québécois will clearly oppose that amendment. Indeed, in our opinion, the fiscal imbalance must be resolved. We will talk more about that. Our recent experience with the pandemic showed us that our health care system is struggling. That $2 billion would be very useful.

Now comes the million-dollar question, as the expression goes. Except it is even worse in this case, because it is the $2-billion question. What is the NDP leader going to do? Will he support the government in cutting $2 billion from health transfers? The government has a coalition with the NDP right now, so I think the NDP has the opportunity to make a difference by not supporting the government in its plans to cut those $2 billion.

As I said earlier, we know that the provinces were asking for $28 billion, and they got only $4.6 billion. We know that the government refuses to fund 35% of health care costs, but the NDP could make all the difference.

To put things into perspective, I will share what the leader of the NDP said very recently. On December 12, the leader of the NDP said that his party was prepared to withdraw from the supply and confidence agreement it had signed with the Liberals if there was no federal action to resolve the health care crisis affecting Canadian children. That is what the NDP leader said on December 12. He went on to say that this was a decision he was not taking lightly and that it was time to keep the pressure on, because the goal of the New Democrats was to save lives.

The NDP can always be counted on when it comes to saving lives.

Saving our health care system is about helping workers and helping children. I wonder if the NDP today still wants to save lives. Does it still want to save our health care system and children? It has the opportunity to do so. All it has to do is refuse to allow the removal of the much-touted $2 billion from Bill C-47.

In February of this year, the same situation arose when an NDP opposition day was specifically about health care. Its strategy was a bit questionable, in my view. They tried to put the onus on the provinces by saying that there could be funding for health care as long as the money was not used for private services, as long as the private sector was not involved. Health falls under provincial jurisdiction. I would describe myself as a progressive. I do not agree with allowing the private sector to play a bigger role in health care, but the crux of the problem remains the same. The crux of the problem is funding.

On February 7, 2023, the NDP leader said, “After spending the last two and a half years stalling any progress to improve health care, Justin Trudeau has come forward with the bare minimum”—

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

Need I remind the hon. member that members should not be named, even in the context of a quote?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a momentary fit of enthusiasm and sincere affection, I forgot myself.

As I was saying, the Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum. Let us go back to that bare minimum. According to the NDP, the minimum was $4.6 billion. The NDP therefore wants there to be more than $4.6 billion. In my opinion, the NDP surely wants the $2 billion dollars that was in Bill C‑46 to also be included in Bill C‑47. That is my interpretation.

I will continue to read the quote: “The Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum—a deal that won't do nearly enough to recruit, retain and respect frontline workers, does not address the conditions in long-term care”.

I think it is clear that the leader of the NDP has the same objectives as us and that he wants the health care system to be better funded.

I will read a third statement by the leader of the NDP, who said, “Increasing the Canada Health Transfer is a start—but this is not enough to rebuild our public health care system.” Again, the leader of the NDP finds that the government is a bit stingy when it comes to funding health care.

In my opinion, $2 billion is not enough, but $4 billion might be enough. I have a feeling that my colleagues in the NDP are thinking the same thing. The $2-billion question, therefore, is this: Will the representatives from the NDP support us for better health care funding?

Based on everything the leader of the NDP has said, I get the feeling they will. Will they instead support the government and deny us a more robust health care system?

I would like to quickly address something else. It is the issue of energy and the environment. In Bill C‑47, $21 billion will be used for greenwashing oil companies and for funding madness, namely small modular nuclear reactors that will allow the oil and gas industry to use less gas in its processes. Essentially, nuclear energy, energy that is anything but clean, will be used to produce more gas.

That is a total aberration that everyone is against. It is all the more a total aberration because there is no country, to my knowledge, that considers nuclear energy to be clean energy, except Canada. It is well known that nuclear energy costs 10 times more than solar or wind energy. It is also well known that research has shown that every country that has wanted to go the route of nuclear energy in their fight against climate change in the past 25 years has clearly failed. It is known that the federal government's strategy is doomed to fail, and there are funds for that in Bill C‑47. That is another aberration.

I will conclude my comments by reaching out to my colleagues in the NDP, because I am a man of good faith, so we can demand that the government adequately fund the health care system.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. As I said yesterday, I strongly believe in respect for jurisdictions. What falls to the federal government is up to the federal government, and what falls to the provinces is up to the provinces.

The question I have for my colleague is about two measures in Bill C‑47 that are very important to my constituents. I am referring to the tradesperson's tools deduction. We are also proposing to advance payments for low-income workers to help them with their cash flow. Does my colleague support these two measures?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not quite grasp the part about cash flow, but I did understand what she said at the beginning of the question: She respects provincial jurisdictions.

If she does believe in respect for jurisdictions, like me, she should be outraged to see the government implement this ridiculous promise to put in place a dental care system, as this is fully and entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. This will again strain the provinces' finances and exacerbate the fiscal imbalance. I see that my colleague completely agrees with me on the fiscal imbalance issue.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, although we desperately need affordable housing, the budget contains no decent plan for providing affordable housing. We are expecting many immigrants to arrive, but there is no plan for housing them.

Would my colleague like to share his thoughts on that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam President, I would advise my colleague to go back and listen to the speech on housing given earlier by my colleague for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

I do agree with her. Affordable and social housing is essential. Apart from that, what I wanted my colleague to take away from my speech is the fact that our health care system is still falling apart.

I would point out to her once again that her leader agreed to maintain the minimal funding that the Liberal government granted to our health care systems.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am fascinated by the remarks of my colleague from Jonquière about small modular reactors. I do not think they are a source of clean energy and I think it is a big—

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

May I interrupt the hon. member for a second?

Could everyone please keep the tone down so we can actually hear the question and the answer when the time comes?

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I see no need to start over from the beginning, but I will say that my friend from Jonquière said some very interesting things about the nuclear industry and small modular reactors, which are not a source of clean energy. It is a serious distraction, moving us further away from the need to tackle the climate emergency.

My question is this. Why does he think we are facing a new nuclear threat?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I took part in a non-partisan media scrum with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, some Liberal members and my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to denounce a situation that is completely inconceivable, specifically that Canada considers small modular reactors to be clean energy. Ottawa is going to invest in a technology that every other country seems to want to get away from and that costs a lot more, as I said earlier, compared to wind and solar energy. It defies reason and must be condemned.

I would actually like to applaud the efforts of my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and thank her for everything she is doing to combat this ridiculous nonsense.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the fiscally sane constituents of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

This is supposed to be a debate about a budget. Sadly, the document the Liberals tabled is an insult to the word “budget”. They claim it is fiscally responsible as they cast away the last fiscal anchor. They claim it is about productivity while they strangle innovation with red tape. They claim their GST rebate is a grocery rebate, when there is no GST on groceries.

Spending is clearly out of control. Each budget and fiscal update revises future spending upward. Whether it is a household budget or a business budget, the goal is to make a plan in the face of an uncertain future. If a person is responsible in their financial planning, some years they will be a little over in their estimates, and other years a little under. For a business, that might mean that an estimated profit of 5% at the end of the year might come in at 4.9% or 5.1%. It is like target shooting. If a person is generally around the target, they can be satisfied they are doing it accurately, but if their shots are way off to the extreme left, it means they are doing it wrong. As this gang shoots Canada farther and farther to the extreme left, they are no longer shooting at the target. Instead, they have decided that the best thing for Canada is to shoot ourselves in the foot. That is the best way to describe this glut of corporate subsidies for green energy.

The Liberals claim that they have to spend like crazy because the Americans and Europeans are spending like crazy. No one told the Liberals that, just because all of their friends are throwing money off the bridge, it does not mean that they should too. The Liberals claim they believe in free trade, but they do not really get it. If our competitors are lighting money on fire, we do not join the bonfire; we sell them matches. Canada had an opportunity to sell natural gas to Europe, but the Prime Minister, the Mr. Dressup drama teacher, claimed there was no business case. The finance minister claims they are not picking winners and losers, then proceeds to pick which Liberal-friendly companies will get subsides and picks out all the small businesses and expects them to pay for those subsides.

The government is picking electricity-hogging electric vehicles over more emissions-efficient hybrid vehicles. The government is effectively prohibiting carbon-neutral fuel development in Canada by banning internal combustion engines. All this extravagant spending is supposed to lead us to a promised land of green jobs. This was the same pipe dream we heard from Dalton McGuinty in Ontario. The result was higher electricity prices, tens of billions of tax dollars wasted, and, according to the Auditor General, over 60,000 net jobs lost. After laying waste to Ontario’s economy, the Liberals packed up their taxpayer-funded moving trucks and came to Ottawa to repeat their failed experiment. This seems to be the socialist mindset. Every time socialism is implemented, it leads to misery, suffering and death. Yet they continue to try again, thinking that, somehow, it will be different. Einstein called this insanity.

What is worse is that failure only seems to make the Liberals more ambitious. In their first budget, they said they would conserve an additional 7% of Canada’s natural habitat by 2020. After eight years, they managed to reach only half of their goal. A normal person who missed the mark by half would lower their future estimates. Instead, this Prime Minister announced that he would conserve 30% by 2030. That would require him to conserve four times as much land in the next seven years as he has in the last eight years.

The truth is that the Liberals know they will not be held accountable for empty promises, so they just use the simplest slogans. That is why they announced a target of 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions by 2030. They announced a Soviet-style sales quota mandating that 30% of cars must be EV by 2030, and then there is their Paris pledge of a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide by 2030. This policy-making is based on slogan. It is tweet-sized thinking. It is TikTok-style government: short, snappy, attention-deprived and a little too close to the Communists in Beijing.

If we need any more evidence that this government is abandoning liberal democracy for a progressive socialist technocracy, we need look no further than the Public Health Agency report on public health and climate change.

For the Public Health Agency report, they hired a radical academic to act as an outside consultant. They used taxpayer money to conduct focus groups with other far-left extremists working in public health. What was the conclusion of the government-published report? According to the so-called experts, climate change is not caused by carbon but by capitalism, individual liberty and democracy. In socialist mindset, capitalism is always the villain. In reality, socialist and authoritarian countries are the worst environmental offenders. Unfortunately for Canadians, the Liberals have abandoned reality-based policy, making for visions of a socialist utopia. The radical socialist public health manifesto said that non-western science fiction “offers a way of imagining the future without colonization and asking ourselves how we can get there.”

While it is true that Star Trek was inspiring to many who worked at NASA, it should not form the basis of our climate policy. If these radical socialists were just sitting around in a big self-congratulatory circle while fantasizing about a climate apocalypse, they could be dismissed. However, they have laid out their plan for all to see. The report calls for a complete reordering of Canadian values led by these radical public health socialists. The authors of the report wrote, “Many experts we heard from highlighted the importance of shifting dominant societal values and transitioning to health and well-being economies if meaningful action is to be taken on climate change adaptation and mitigation.” What are those societal values that they need to shift? Here is what one expert had to say:

Ultimately, there are 3 core values in western society, and for that matter, in global society, that have to change. One core value is about growth and materialism. The second core value is liberty and individualism, which has to be rethought because the kind of individualism that is preached by neoliberals is part of the problem.

In response to this extremist claim that individual liberty and ending poverty are the root of all evil, the report's authors wrote:

The above-noted core values, which are undermining public health and well-being, are well known, but public health systems have been successful in reorienting society values. For example, public health research and communications have changed our societal relationship with tobacco products.

That is shocking to read. Radical public health experts want to socially stigmatize liberty. They want to socially stigmatize economic growth. Stigmatizing people has become the current government's calling card. That is what the Prime Minister was doing when he accused opponents of forced vaccinations of being misogynists and racists who hold unacceptable views. If someone does not agree with their plan to use climate change as an excuse to advance socialism, they accuse them of being a climate denier.

The goal is to rhetorically link critics of bad climate policy to racist anti-Semites who deny the Nazi Holocaust. All societies stigmatize gluttony and over-consumption, but these socialists want to stigmatize all consumption. Then he tried to stigmatize words like “freedom” by labelling them as dog whistles. They are even trying to stigmatize the Canadian flag. None of this comes as a surprise. The Prime Minister said that Canada is a “postnational state”, and he is committed to seeing this fantasy become reality.

The budget bill would further entrench the government in the market. It would keep expanding the state and driving out free enterprise until there is nothing left but the party and the state. Ever since the Prime Minister positioned the Liberals to the left of the NDP and broke the Canadian consensus that balancing the budget was the responsible thing to do, we have been sent down a dangerous path. We have become governed by slogans. The Liberals have forgotten Canada's multicultural heritage in favour of a single narrative of oppression. They love to claim they have Canadians' backs; the truth is that they just find it easier to pick people's wallets when they are hiding behind them.

After eight years, the Liberals are tired, desperate and dangerous. Reduced to spewing slogans like “30 by 30”, they now project their policy on poverty onto us. We have a plan to put more money into people's wallets. They have a tax plan; we have an environmental plan. They have slogans; we have solutions. If they had any real confidence in their radical socialist agenda, they would put it to Canadians to decide. While the Liberals are busy dividing and stigmatizing Canadians, Conservatives offer unity and hope.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, at a time where Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, Conservatives provide no solutions. That speech was a prime example of that. There were no ideas or concrete things that could be done. Instead, they have just been calling for cuts to pensions and employment insurance, which Canadians rely on, and they are urging for pollution to be free again.

It is reckless to suggest the ideas they have been suggesting, such as crypto, but one thing I was really happy to see was that the Conservatives were able to give unanimous consent to have the grocery rebate passed so Canadians could receive it. I know the member just mentioned the grocery rebate was not a good idea, so I am wondering why she provided unanimous consent to provide Canadians the grocery rebate? I would like to know why she thought it was a good idea that day.

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

Madam Speaker, what this member opposite just did is called paltering: stating a fact then propagating it with a lie. What I said was that there is no GST on groceries, yet they call the bonus they are giving Canadians a GST rebate. They do not make sense.

We have a concrete plan. The plan is to reduce taxes, so there is more money in people's pockets to pay their bills, feed their families and spend their money the way they feel is best, and not have the government spending on their behalves.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things my NDP colleagues and I are very proud of is that we have brought in Canada's first-ever dental care program on a national basis. Last year, of course, it covered children under the age of 12. Now it would be expanded to children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members of Parliament are talking loudly while they are coming in and interrupting. If members want to have conversations, they should go into the lobby or the hallway.

I will ask the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to restart his question.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I appreciate that, Madam Speaker.

As I was saying, one of the proudest accomplishments my NDP colleagues and I have is expanding dental care to low-income Canadians, who have never had the opportunity to afford to go to a dentist. That program is now going to expand to seniors and to persons with disabilities. These are the people who live on the margins of our society and need this.

I hope my hon. colleague from the Conservatives will recognize that good oral health care is a part of health care. Will she commit, along with her caucus, to keeping that program? Will she at least see the benefits it has for her constituents?

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

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with dental plans, and what they have put forth is not a dental plan. A dental plan matches codes with procedures.

This is dental CERB, and we are still sorting out the problems from the CERB, which went forth initially without the necessary screening. Now we have people who were given all these thousands of dollars who need to find ways of paying it back because it was not given properly.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are seized with the budget implementation act, which is several hundred pages long and will amend dozens upon dozens of acts. Toward the end of these hundreds of pages, division 31 recognizes Charles III as King of Canada. The clause in question reads, “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”.

Does my hon. colleague think it is appropriate to include this in a budget implementation bill, or should it be tabled separately from these hundreds of pages of amendments?

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

Madam Speaker, there are all kinds of unexploded ordinances hidden in this budget implementation bill. We cannot even tell what they will be until they start blowing up in Canadians' faces.

I know “Her Majesty” is still copied and pasted and put into templates, referring to Her Majesty giving a royal assent. This is probably another copy and pasted budget. I would be surprised if it says “His Majesty” anywhere in the budget.

In the meantime, Canadians should be very careful. We have had experiences with budget implementations where people had tax imposed retroactively. That is the kind of thing they bury when they push through the budget before a fulsome scrutiny can be taken on a committee-by-committee basis.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just had the opportunity to visit Kapuskasing, and many people said wonderful things about you.

I want to start with a positive view of the budget, and then go toward where there is some improvement required. Unfortunately there is a missing element that I think ought to be emphasized as well, but let us start where there are clear and incredibly important priorities. The federal budget rightly prioritizes better health care, affordability measures and clean economic growth.

On the health care front, we see major new funding to modernize health systems, including significant funding through bilateral agreements with provinces. We see measures to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, to support hourly wage increases for PSWs, to expand access to family health services, to increase mental health and substance use support, and more.

We see a major commitment to a dental care plan, and this is really one of the signature pieces of this budget, done in co-operation with our partners across the aisle in the NDP. We have made a $13-billion commitment over five years to expand dental care to families earning less than $90,000 a year.

We also see important new measures to combat the opioid crisis. While it does not quite get to the $500-million commitment in our platform, we are getting there. There is $360 million committed over five years for a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including community-based mental health, harm reduction services and more.

We see the Canadian Cancer Society saying, “#Budget2023 is a sign that there is political will to fund our healthcare system so people can get timely, affordable access to cancer care.” The Canadian Medical Association says, “We’re pleased to see the federal government confirm significant health funding commitments as part of budget 2023-24.”

On the affordability side, we see targeted inflation relief. There is a new rebate increasing the GST tax credit delivered to 11 million low and modest-income people. We see affordable higher education prioritized with increases to student grants and the raising of the interest-free loan limit. We see action for consumers and small businesses to reduce junk fees, crack down on predatory lenders and lower credit card transaction fees. We see measures to protect air passengers, enshrine the right to repair and more.

We also see a code of conduct to protect Canadians with existing mortgages and automatic tax filings. It is not a perfectly automatic tax filing, so there is more work required, but the CRA will be piloting a new filing service to help vulnerable Canadians receive benefits to which they are entitled. Everyone should receive the benefits they deserve.

Third, we see a major emphasis on clean economic growth. We see $21 billion over five years to really build on past measures. We have come a long way since 2015, and we need to keep moving forward.

We have seen a rising price on pollution to help shift demand and spur innovation, with the revenue rebated directly to ensure low- and middle income Canadians are not worse off. There is now a clean fuel standard, rules to phase out coal-fired electricity and increasingly stringent measures to slash methane emissions. Work is also well under way to establish a clean electricity regulation and cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, and we have put a climate accountability law in place that sets strong targets, requires the government to table a comprehensive climate plan and ensures regular progress reports to keep all future governments honest.

In past budgets, we have invested billions in retrofits, zero-emission vehicles, public transit, nature protection, clean technologies, critical minerals and more. We have also encouraged recent and multi-billion-dollar private sector investments in the clean economy, and the 2023 federal budget would build on this work with new initiatives to protect our fresh water and deliver clean electricity, clean tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen.

The Canadian Climate Institute called the budget measures “decisive steps to ensure Canada won’t fall behind in the global race to net zero.” The Pembina Institute said the budget “sends a clear message that Canada is committed to building a cleaner future.” The International Institute for Sustainable Development called the funding for clean electricity and fresh water “unprecedented,” and the David Suzuki Foundation called it “historic” and “an important turning point”.

Challenges remain, of course. I do not want to get into the $30 billion on TMX, which I wish we were spending elsewhere, but we do need stronger climate conditions to ensure money is well spent and there are safeguards against inefficient fossil fuel support.

Some programs need to be strengthened, especially for home and business retrofits. We need to increase international climate financing, and we need all provinces to step up to do their part. We lack a serious and credible climate plan here in Ontario, for example, and that undercuts our overall ability to meet and exceed existing national targets. Despite the significant federal action to date, we are not yet where we need to be, but we are on track, in a serious way, to get there.

The IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, lead scientist Dr. Otto said that its recent report highlights “the urgency of the problem and the gravity of it”. However, Dr. Otto also acknowledged that there are “lots of reasons for hope – because we still have the time to act and we have everything we need”. We certainly see significant action here in Canada.

The fourth item I want to note that is going in an incredibly positive direction is this. We see significant new spending, $4 billion over seven years, to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. I think some of these ideas should be pulled apart. An urban strategy ought to be different from one for the realities of northern and rural Ontario.

I just mentioned travelling in Kapuskasing, and I was in Timmins as well. I certainly heard concerns. When programs are being designed, whether at Queen's Park or Ottawa, they need to be designed with northern realities in mind. It really would make a lot more sense to pull the strategy apart and deal with urban, northern and rural realities separately.

On the fiscal sustainability front, before I get to where work is required, I will quote Kevin Page, the former PBO, who wrote, “On balance, the 2023 budget has a credible fiscal strategy.” He continued, “Net new spending in 2023 largely goes to people struggling with high inflation...and our health care system. This is not spending that will impede efforts to lower inflation.” He then concluded, “Fiscally credibility has to be earned budget by budget. The 2023 budget gets a thumbs-up.” Those are not my words but the words of Kevin Page.

It is important to not only look at Canada's situation in isolation but also to compare Canada's fiscal situation to our partners around the world. Budget 2023 notes, “Including new measures...Canada’s net debt as a share of the economy is still lower today than in any other G7 country prior to the pandemic—an advantage that Canada is forecasted to maintain”.

With the time I have left, I will look at where work is required. On mental health, we have made progress. I highlighted new spending on mental health and addictions. However, it is not enough to meet our platform promise of $500 million. The CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association has said, “We are deeply concerned that this budget does not include critically needed investments in services delivered by community providers”. Our platform promised federal funding for mental health transfers, a significant commitment, and we are not yet where we need to be on that front.

To give a very specific, concrete example here, we are launching 988, the new national mental health crisis number. It is incredibly important as a matter of delivery on mental health, but callers need to be referred to services in their own communities for it to be the most effective. Therefore, we need to fund services in our respective communities.

I also want to emphasize the need to address the disability benefit. Many in the disability community were expecting a clear signal about what is to come. It is important that we see additional spending on consultation. We are going to do an expansive consultation to get it right, but to really make a meaningful difference, to deliver a transformative benefit, it is going to take billions in new spending every year to lift people with disabilities out of poverty in a way that they deserve. Much more work is required on this front.

So too with housing. I mentioned the importance of the new billions in spending for an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, but we need to do much more on housing. It is a matter of generational fairness. It is a matter of productivity. People are leaving our cities. People are leaving our provinces. We are not going to be as competitive as we need to be if we do not fix the affordable housing crisis. That means governments have to get out of the way and help build housing. Governments have to get back in the game on building social housing, and we really have to treat housing as a home first and an investment second.

Last, where there is a missing piece, we committed to increase foreign aid every year. We simply did not do that in this budget. Results Canada has rightly criticized the budget on those grounds. As wealthy a country as we are, we need to look after those in need in our country. We also have to look after and do our part for those in need all around the world.

With that, overwhelmingly, despite areas of improvement and despite some areas of criticism, there are many reasons to be positive and optimistic about what we see in budget 2023, and there are certainly many reasons to support the budget in the coming weeks.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, toward the end of his speech, my colleague said that there needs to be money for mental health. Then he went on to quote organizations that say there is not enough funding. Something interesting happened, however. Last Wednesday, Bill C‑46 was passed by the House at all stages. The next day, Thursday, the government introduced Bill C‑47.

Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion, unconditional health transfer to the provinces. This is included again in Bill C‑47. At the Standing Committee on Finance earlier today, senior officials confirmed to us that if Bill C‑47 is passed as is, an additional $2 billion would be transferred to the provinces.

The hon. member says there is not enough money for health and mental health. Now, there could be an extra $2 billion if his government does not make an amendment to take that part out.

Will the hon. member vote to keep the extra $2 billion?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, technology being what it is, I missed the preamble to the member's question. I only heard the last 15 seconds of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the hon. member to restate his question.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been using Zoom for two or three years now. It is a shame that some people still have problems choosing the right interpretation channel.

I have a question for my colleague.

Bill C‑46 includes a $2-billion investment in health care. This measure appears again in Bill C‑47.

Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, senior officials confirmed that, if the bill is not amended, a total of $4 billion will be invested in health care.

The hon. member is saying that there is not enough money for health and mental health. This is our chance to ask his government to not remove that part of Bill C‑47, so that $4 billion will be invested in health care instead of $2 billion.

Will he commit to working to keep the $4 billion?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was not, by the way, a matter of selecting the right channel. It was simply a matter of my home Internet.

I am committed to supporting the budgets that the government puts forward. In this case, I do not support the idea of transfers that are not coordinated, that are not properly negotiated and that do not have adequate strings attached. The idea that some inadvertence is being corrected to allow inadvertence to stand that is not intentional makes no sense at all to me.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the lack of investments in housing and affordable housing. I wonder if he could share his thoughts around the fact that we are losing 15 affordable units to every one unit that is being built, yet the government continues to go forward with its market-driven lens on housing.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would dispute the idea that the government is not looking at non-market options. It was not in this budget, but in previous economic statements and budgets we certainly committed to an expansion of co-op housing, for example, one of the largest investments in co-op housing in decades. There is a commitment to non-market-based options, but I will agree that we are not delivering at scale.

It is not only up to the federal government. In fact, provincial governments have more to say on housing, all things considered, working with municipalities, but I do think market supply is a huge part of the answer.

We should not be pitting these ideas against one another, but we do need much more market supply and we also need governments to get back in the game on social public housing, like co-op housing. Then, important at all levels, especially at the federal level, as we examine every policy measure, we need to ensure that we treat housing as a home first and investment second. Whether we look at the work of Generation Squeeze or any analysis, over 40 years ago, it used to take five years to save a down payment. Now it takes over 20 years, and over 30 years in some communities, and that is obviously unacceptable.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will continue along the theme of housing. I am so glad my friend and colleague referenced the investments that we have made in affordable housing. Unfortunately, we have not seen those same investments at the provincial level, especially in Ontario.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of having all three levels of government investing in affordable housing to ensure that the supply is there for the people who need it.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work, especially his work in looking at housing options and partnerships with community organizations like legions.

There is no question that provinces need to lead on this. I will speak to Ontario specifically. Its housing affordability task force has said that we need to do more on housing and enshrine a 1.5-million supply target in planning guidance to ensure we encourage municipalities to add density and end restrictive zoning. What does the provincial government do? It encourages sprawl and builds on the greenbelt.

We, at all levels of government, but especially at the provincial level, need to take housing much more seriously and deliver the housing supply, all kinds of housing supply, that is so desperately needed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are examining Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. I wanted to read the full title because I am going to use it to back up what I am saying.

This is a huge bill, a mammoth bill. It is 430 pages long and seeks to amend 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. However, since we have people who can read quickly, we noticed that King Charles III was hiding in this mammoth bill.

The government is trying to sneakily introduce a measure in this budget implementation bill that will force us to be loyal to His Majesty and will enshrine in law the fact that Charles III is indeed Canada's sovereign. That is quite appalling.

It is more than just appalling. I am convinced that, while there are those who are just a bit complacent about this matter, there are others who find this extremely offensive because of their roots. I am sure that those who have indigenous or Acadian roots may find it offensive to have to recognize this archaic institution. Clearly, the government put this in a mammoth bill because mammoths are another archaic part of history. In fact, they have disappeared, just as the monarchy should.

For someone with Acadian roots, swearing an oath and recognizing this monarch in 2023 hurts deeply. We know the harm that was caused to the Acadian people and to indigenous peoples.

I do not get it. How is there not a majority of members here who agree with what I just said? They could make sure we have an honest bill and submit the issue in all honesty to the House in a separate bill. No, this is hidden in a mammoth bill that amends 59 statutes. I get the impression that the government is a bit ashamed of its monarch.

I am not the first member to speak to this bill, but the Bloc Québécois is voting against Bill C‑47. First of all, there is nothing in there for seniors. For years we have been asking the government why there is a two-tiered system for seniors, but it stubbornly refuses to change this. It is as though people between 65 and 74 do not have needs and were not affected by inflation. It is as though every senior between 65 and 74 had enough income to live it up every day, when the opposite is true.

According to epidemiological studies, many illnesses emerge at this age. If we add to that financial insecurity, instead of a life without too many worries about living comfortably and deciding to buy this or that product or this or that medication, we would see that it is far more costly, in many ways, not to make the program fair.

The bill should have included tax measures to allow seniors who want to work to do so without being penalized. Something should be done about that. I cannot understand this stubbornness. Obviously, this is the budget implementation bill. These measures were not in the budget, which is not surprising, but it will come as no surprise that I am criticizing it.

The bill contains no long-term solutions for funding health care. My colleague spoke before about Bill C-46 and Bill C-47. Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion transfer, without conditions, to Quebec and the provinces. Suddenly, Bill C‑47 decides that would be redundant. We thought it was a generous gesture, given the government's previous power grab.

Now the government is preparing an amendment to walk it back. We are going to work hard to ensure it remains in Bill C‑47. I am appealing to the social conscience of all so-called Liberal members. A Liberal is supposed to be a progressive who is in touch with what is happening. At present, I would truly like to see one Liberal rise and show me that, in the medium and long term, the health transfers being provided are enough to meet the needs that the provinces and Quebec will have over the next ten years. That is an impossible task.

This does not mean that we do not appreciate the one-time investments made as a result of the pandemic. However, the structural problems of the health care system will not be fixed with one-time investments. The government made non-recurring investments when medium- and long-term structural investments were needed to rebuild the health care systems and to ensure that a pandemic will never again undermine and weaken these systems to the point that we have to lock down for a year, for example.

It is appalling, what is happening here. Taking away this $2 billion is shameful. That they would even consider taking it away is shameful, indecent even. They are offering crumbs. As I said before, the provinces were asking for $28 billion a year, from coast to coast to coast. The government offered them $4.6 billion with a gun to their heads. Take it or leave it; the budget was already written. The government thinks that that will be enough for the provinces to be able to take care of their aging population and cover all other needs, which ballooned and became more acute during the pandemic because of the delays and the waiting lists.

The Standing Committee on Health has done a study on the collateral effects of the pandemic. In the midst of the third wave, the experts came to us and said that even if we injected that $28 billion during that wave, it would still take 10 years for us to claw our way out of the pandemic. Imagine that. The government did not inject the money until after the eighth wave, and offered only $4.6 billion in new money, thinking that it would be enough for the provinces to take care of their people.

There is nothing in the bill for EI. Worse still, the government is about to pilfer $17 billion from the EI fund, because the only budget item it has decided not to absorb is EI. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have ever put back into the EI fund the $57 billion the federal government stole from it.

My father worked and paid into EI all his life. He was proud to pay into it for his colleagues who might need it and for workers who would probably need it. It made him proud to pay into it out of solidarity, but to never have personal need of it. He took pride in that.

What has this government done? It has pilfered $57 billion from the fund and has never returned it. Today, when it should be able to pay back $17 billion of that amount, it has decided to pay it by increasing workers' premiums. It is shameful, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech. I would, however, like him to clarify something for me. I heard him criticize the government for making non-recurring investments rather than structural ones.

When I look at what is happening with the budget, I get the impression that the government is investing based on events. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the government is investing based on events, but the passage of Bill C-47 will not be an event. To clarify, I would say this.

The government boasts about having invested a lot of money during the pandemic. However, had it taken the necessary precautions, it probably could have spent a lot less money.

We likely would have been able to save the lives of more people in long-term care if the national PPE stockpile had not been completely depleted and if we had had masks to protect the personal support workers who had to work in two or three different facilities to be able to make ends meet at the end of the year, because the federal government has been making cuts to health care transfers for 30 years. The chronic underfunding of health care weakened the system, which led to anomalies during the pandemic.

Yes, there is an obligation to make one-time investments, but if we want to make our health care systems strong again, then we need to make long-term structural investments to get results.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member referenced the health accord quite a bit and the Canada health transfer, and mentioned that the government should demonstrate in some way that this funding will be enough. Well, it is $198 billion in new funding over 10 years, and it includes $46.2 billion in new funding for the provinces and territories.

One of the ways something like this can be demonstrated is by the Province of Quebec signing agreements. The Province of Quebec entered into negotiations with the federal government and agreed to this transfer of funds. The Premier of Quebec has come out in statements commending the government on providing these transfers, just like with the new funding for official languages and many other investments that have been made in the province of Quebec.

What would the member say about the province's support?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague and I see history differently.

The Quebec government was hoping for $6 billion in recurring funding every year to rebuild its network. It got barely $1 billion. Then the Minister of Health had the nerve to claw back $42 million.

Given that, the correct answer is not complicated. The Quebec government had no choice. It had to either accept the $1 billion, one-sixth of what it needed, or it would get nothing at all.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member about the structural investments we need in these budgets, and that is why I am happy to say the NDP has solidified structural investments in dental care. I am also proud to say that the NDP is putting in place structural benefits for child care, which Quebec has benefited from for over 25 years. I commend it on that.

I want to ask the member specifically about dental care. Does he support at least that part of the budget? The second piece is the red dress alert. Does the member support that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to dental care, the program got off to a very poor start. The government rushed to get it up and running.

Quebec asked for the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could actually use that money to improve its own program. The Canada Revenue Agency showed that the project was off to a bad start, because there was no way to confirm whether the $650 given to people was being used appropriately.

When it comes to health care, we cannot afford to waste any money anywhere. That is my answer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the defining issue of our time is how to keep the promise of a better future alive for everyone. We have a choice. We can settle for a country where a few people do very well and everyone else struggles to get by, or we can work toward a promise of a country where everyone gets a fair shot, where we all play by the same rules and where the strong do not get to pick on the weak and the rich do not get rich by exploiting the poor. That is what our government is about. That is what this budget is about. From Whitehorse and Vancouver to Toronto and Halifax, that is the Canada we believe in.

Middle-class Canadians need a sense of security. We cannot let that slip away. We should not forget that we are still recovering from an unprecedented time and still have a ways to go before the international economic order finds a steady state. However, every month, we are adding tens of thousands of new jobs to the economy. Canadian manufacturers are creating jobs here. Our government's investments in clean tech are creating high-paying, high-skilled jobs here in Canada.

As we move forward, far too many Canadians are being left behind. There are some gaps in policy, and folks have been falling through the holes. That is why it brings me great pride to speak to budget 2023. This budget is a budget of small victories with big impact, immediate focus and long-term vision.

Looking at budget 2023, I can point to so many measures meant to help those who are just starting out or those who are in vulnerable positions. For example, for too long, predatory loaners have preyed on vulnerable Canadians in our communities experiencing financial crises, such as seniors, newcomers and low-income Canadians, by extending them high-interest loans, loans that lock Canadians in dangerous cycles of debt that they cannot afford and cannot escape. Victims are far too often Canadians with poor credit who cannot receive a loan from a traditional bank.

Consider someone who takes out a single, small payday loan to deal with an emergency expense and finds themselves unable to pay back that expense within the usual two-week period. This can trigger significant penalties and can lead to extending the loan or securing an additional loan from another payday loan company.

Budget 2023 introduces changes so that payday lenders cannot charge any more than $14 for every $100 borrowed. That would be the fee over a two-week period. Additionally, we are also proposing to change the criminal rate of interest to 35% from the current 47% APR. These measures are crucial for stopping exploitation.

The Toronto Star has estimated that our changes to the system around payday loans would help Canadians save hundreds if not thousands of dollars that would otherwise be lost to predatory lending. This is a critical first step to ensure a more equal society, a society that does not not leave people behind and a society where we can all grow.

This is a budget of small victories with big impact, immediate focus and long-term vision. We can look at automatic tax filing. Up to 12% of Canadians do not file their taxes. The majority of these folks are low-income and would not pay much in tax anyway. In a lot of cases, they would not pay any taxes at all. However, by not filing their taxes, they miss out on the valuable credits and benefits they are entitled to even if they do not pay taxes. Examples include the Canada child benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and the climate action incentive.

A report by Carleton estimated that up to $1.7 billion went unclaimed by working-age, non-filing Canadians in 2021. The primary reason is that vulnerable Canadians find dealing with taxes daunting, as something that is difficult to navigate and just too complicated.

Budget 2023 outlines a pilot for automatic tax filing next year. Through this program, many vulnerable Canadians would have access to benefits and credits they have never had before. This is targeted relief for those who are feeling the worst of worldwide inflation. This is a small program that has the potential to be transformative in supporting low-income Canadians for years to come.

Last, to help us realize our highest potential, we need to ensure that our young people are supported. I want to work so that every student in this country receives at least the opportunities that were presented to me, because the young people of today will be the foundation for this country tomorrow. Students are looking for greater security and we cannot ignore that.

That is why it gives me great pleasure and great relief that budget 2023 includes measures for students. Thanks to changes we are introducing, students will be able to rely on their RESPs more going forward. While the cost of attending a post-secondary school has risen in recent years, the withdrawal limit for RESPs has not been increased in 25 years.

Every year, nearly half a million students rely on their RESP to fund their education. Students rely on the RESP to cover everything from course enrolment to buying textbooks to living expenses. Budget 2023 plans to increase the withdrawal limit for full-time students from $5,000 to $8,000 and for part-time students from $2,500 to $4,000. These changes would help ensure that the next generation's access to education is not compromised amid the rising cost of living.

Budget 2023 would also expand loans and grants for the 2023-24 school year, increasing the maximum grants available to $4,200, up from the $3,000 it was before, for low-income students. This represents a 40% increase to student grants for students who qualify in normal years. This is on top of our previously announced policy to erase interest on federal student and apprentice loans as part of our fiscal update last year. That move helped budget-strapped young Canadians who have borrowed to finance their education. It was a monumental investment for students across this country.

I truly believe that if we can outbuild, out-innovate and out-hustle, the jobs and industries of our time will take root here in Canada, people will prosper and the country will succeed. The only way we can make this happen is if we invest in our economy to give it a boost and spur industry and innovation so we can see around the corner to the industries of tomorrow and lay the bedrock of industry today.

However, we also need to make sure that as we move forward, we take everyone with us. Canadians should not be left behind, and that is exactly what this budget would do. Even as we cut out things we can do without, we have a responsibility to invest in things that will have the biggest impact on our future. That is especially true when it comes to measures that help vulnerable Canadians.

Here in Canada, the story has never been about what we can do by ourselves; it is about what we can do together. It is about believing in our future and the future of our country. That is why Canadians are working hard, with some balancing jobs and school and others learning our languages while they learn their jobs. It is about working hard. It is about pulling together and pulling each other up, and it is on government to enable our population to achieve their maximum. If we work together in common purpose, we can shape an economy that will cement Canada's place on the world stage, an economy that does not leave Canadians behind. That is something we can be proud of.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is spending, spending, spending. There is one thing that should concern all members in this House, something that is not really being talked about. We touched on it at the finance committee: the Bank of Canada, with $600 billion on the balance sheet. It was $120 billion in 2020.

For the first time in 87 years, the Bank of Canada lost $522 million last year. We do not see that in the budget. How are the Liberals going to account for that loss? Is the Canadian taxpayer, because there is only one, going to be on the hook for that?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my speech was on budget 2023 and that is what I will focus on.

In opposition to Conservative logic, we cannot just cut our way into growth. We have to provide subsidies to companies that are creating jobs here in Canada, and that is something we can all agree on. Short-sighted, crisis-driven spending is never the answer. The answer is a fiscally responsible blueprint for jobs, which is exactly what this budget focuses on.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we were expecting the government to use Bill C‑47 to eliminate the EI deficit that accumulated during the pandemic, but it did not. The Employment Insurance Act requires the EI fund to break even over a seven-year period. Ultimately, workers will have to pay off $17 billion through their premiums to wipe out the deficit.

The government covered all of the other pandemic-related deficits, but not this one. As my colleague from Montcalm said a few moments ago, in the Chrétien and Martin eras, the government took $57 billion from the fund.

Does my hon. colleague consider it fair to leave workers on the hook for this deficit?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, EI is something that is under consideration by this government. This government will never leave vulnerable Canadians behind. We will support vulnerable Canadians and our workers. That is exactly why my speech touched on automatic tax filing and on drawing more RESP loans for students. This government believes in the right of every Canadian to live in dignity, so we will support Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on the question of EI. Let us face it: The budget implementation act is very light on EI measures. One thing it does is extend the pilot program for the “black hole” by just another year. When this pilot program is something that has been going on now for five or six years, I think it makes a lot of sense simply to make it permanent, rather than continuing to extend it year by year. There are also some modest changes to the EI appeal board, but there is not really anything that addresses the important changes that were made during the pandemic and cancelled by the Liberals in September.

Why does the government continue to drag its feet when it comes to this important reform as we are being told that Canada is likely heading into a recession, when employment insurance is at its most important in terms of the lives of Canadians?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, EI was there for Canadians during the pandemic. We will continue to look at the system and how we can modernize it for our current day.

Once again, these programs are meant to help vulnerable Canadians. That is exactly why I was touching on automatic tax filing for Canadians, which will help vulnerable Canadians who have not been able to access Canadian benefits. We also looked at students and the fact that the interest on their federal loans will be waived. They can also draw more from their RESPs heading into the next school year. These measures are there to help Canadians who are the hardest hit by worldwide inflation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to the budget implementation act. At the outset, let me acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

While talking about the budget, I want to preface it by outlining the current economic state of our country. After coming through the pandemic, Canada, while facing a number of headwinds, is in a very strong position. First and foremost, we continue to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the G7, but also in Canadian history. We continue to lead in building a green economy that responds to the needs of the day, including addressing the existential threat of climate change.

In many ways, the pandemic taught us that the government can be there to support Canadians of all stripes, whether it be through supporting organizations that work on the front lines or supporting businesses through wage subsidies or emergency loans, which, in many ways, were lifelines for our businesses. On an individual level, the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, supported so many Canadians in getting to the other side of the pandemic.

As we look forward, we realize that the issues around inflation and increasing interest rates are a threat to our economy and, as a government, we have been addressing these issues head-on. We have one of the lowest rates of inflation among developed countries. Also, our rate of inflation has gone down to new lows, and we are confident that we will reach the 3% mark by the summer and be well into the 2% mark by next year. That should give us some confidence.

As a steward of this economy, we have looked at our economy in a very different way than it has traditionally been viewed. We have made sure that our economy is very much linked to our environment. We do not decouple the issue. We believe that they are fundamentally related and we cannot, under any circumstances, decouple it. If we look at modern accounting practices, we will note that many companies are now reporting their environmental liability. As we go forward and as we see the impacts of climate change, whether it is floods or wildfires, we know that the environment plays a critical role in our long-term sustainability, directly linked to our economy.

In this budget, the Minister of Finance and her team worked very hard to put together some measures that will give individuals real support during the pandemic. As we know, in the fall economic statement we had very important measures that supported Canadians on affordability. First and foremost was the GST credit, and the second one was the $500 housing rebate for those in the lowest income brackets. Those were crucial in ensuring that affordability was maintained for the most vulnerable Canadians.

As we look forward, we are looking at a number of targeted initiatives, the critical one being the one-time grocery rebate, which will support 11 million Canadians in making ends meet. While we know that it is not a permanent fix, we do realize that in these most difficult times, we need to get Canadians to the other side of these economic threats. I believe this is a very smart way of addressing this issue.

With respect to predatory lending, when I was in my first year of law school, a professor by the name of Iain Ramsay was my contracts prof, and he was a highly respected professor at Osgoode. During our contracts class, his singular focus was on predatory lending. He did an enormous amount of research on the impacts of predatory lending on low-income Canadians, the cycle of debt that it brings individuals and, subsequently, young families into, and the systemic challenges of getting out of this debt. As a result, I learned a great deal about those who are dependent on payday loans, which can only be described as predatory.

I realize that this was over 20 years ago, so I am actually quite heartened and also somewhat disappointed that it took Canada this many years to get to the point where we are actually addressing this issue head-on, redefining the notion of criminal interest rates and ensuring that those who are dependent on payday loans, our most vulnerable, are supported. It is something that I believe is fundamentally important to the economy but also to those who may be struggling right now. In addition, we are cracking down on junk fees to ensure that businesses are transparent with the prices they are set to pay.

We are also looking to implement automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians. Every year, and I know my colleagues here will probably relate to this as well, we have a volunteer who, since I was elected in 2015, comes every February and offers up her time to do tax returns. In fact, even if we do not call her, she calls us. Every year, that service is full. She really does it as a service to her community, to those who are struggling and to those for whom the tax return is so critical to their income, whether it be the Canada child benefit, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement or other government entitlements. She is very diligent in getting this done, and there are literally thousands of tax preparers who do this out of the kindness of their hearts, to make sure they support other Canadians.

Automatic tax filing, in many ways, will ensure that those who are left outside of the ability to prepare their taxes or get the type of help that is provided by my office, and I am sure many of my colleagues' offices, are supported. I am very glad to confirm that automatic tax filing will be coming and is included in the budget implementation act.

We know that students have had a particularly difficult time. I interviewed for the summer leadership program that we have, and I am pleased to say that we have two students who are starting next week. As a government, we have over 150 students, with over 4,000 applications from students who have applied to our program. This is, I believe, our seventh year running this program. It is so good to see the quality of candidates who are coming forward, but when I speak to students, I know they are struggling. Whether it is through the youth constituency advisory council that I have or through the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus, which is located in my riding, or Centennial College, I hear from students about the issue of affordability. Oftentimes, it is the ability to pay the tuition or to make ends meet.

I believe there are many measures in here, including increased grants, that will enable students to ensure that their education is affordable. I often say that in our society education is our ultimate equalizer and the measures that we have in place will support students in attaining an education.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's legal expertise, I appreciated his legal analysis of the budget.

However, I am concerned about the economic trajectory of this country. With the data from the budget itself and from last year's budget, in fact, our GDP per capita is significantly lower than those of the Americans and of our OECD advanced economy competitors. In fact, it has gotten worse over the last three decades. In particular, we have seen stagnant wage growth over the past five years, compounded with record-high inflation and very high housing prices.

The Liberal government is spending all this money, and yet we are not seeing great economic growth trajectory for Canadians. I am very concerned about it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the expenditures we are talking about are investments in our community, individuals and businesses. Just last week, the Prime Minister was in St. Thomas announcing a record investment in the auto sector with Volkswagen coming to Canada. It is the first European carmaker to set up shop here, which we believe is transformational. While we have some challenges with respect to the economy today, we are poised for long-term sustainable growth because of the investments we are making in individuals and businesses.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the recent budget, the government announced $80 billion for the green economy and the transition to a carbon-neutral future. In Bill C‑47, we learn how this will be managed and that has us concerned. Through a legislative change, the government is creating two institutions that will be in charge of administering the money the government plans to invest, money that escapes the control of Parliament. Non-elected people will be able to choose the projects they support without being accountable to anyone, without being accountable to the House and without any clear criteria.

What does the member think about that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a bad thing for decisions regarding funding to be made by independent actors. I believe Parliament has a very important role in setting the agenda and terms of reference, and appointing custodians and managers to ensure the funds are managed. However, I believe that processes that are meant to adjudicate and allow funding to go to individuals and businesses ought to be managed independently of government and that it is wise for us to continue to do that. We have a civil service that does it. Oftentimes, we Crown corporations that do that. I believe that is probably a more prudent way to achieve the goals we are mutually trying to achieve.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I asked earlier about the urgency of employment insurance reform. I want to talk about another facet of the employment insurance problem that Canada has at the moment, which is the decision of the government to allocate $25 billion of CERB debt to the EI account. We know that EI was not in a good place prior to the pandemic. It was not adequate to the task. The whole system had to be revamped. It was effectively run like a program and not the usual employment insurance system that premium payers are used to. That was cancelled back in September.

How does the government imagine it is going to achieve an effective modernization of the employment insurance system when premium payers are preoccupied with paying down a $25-billion debt over the next seven years instead of seeing improvements to the employment insurance program?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course the issue of employment insurance is so critical to Canada, and to anyone who depends on a paycheque, which is the vast majority of Canadians. We know that any one of us could, at some point over the years, face the difficult challenge of applying for employment insurance.

During the pandemic, we were there for Canadians through the Canada employment response benefit. I recognize the member's concern with respect to the additional obligations under EI for the CERB shortfall, but we are confident we will ensure we will have a system that protects the most vulnerable, especially those who may be out of a job or temporarily see themselves seeking employment insurance because of seasonal employment and the like.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about budget 2023, and there are many serious issues facing Canada. Unfortunately, I do believe that many of them are not addressed in the federal 2023 Liberal budget.

I am the shadow minister for public safety and the vice-chair of the public safety and national security committee for Canada, and so when I was looking at the budget, I was looking at it through a public safety lens: How is this budget going to improve public safety in Canada? Again, there are very serious issues in public safety that need dire and immediate attention from the Liberal government, and I do not feel that they were given that attention in budget 2023.

We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015, which is the 2015-21 statistic. I am confident that, unfortunately, the 2022 statistic is going to be even worse, given the headlines that we have seen over the past year and a half. Also, 32% is not just a number. In fact, it represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country. That is how many more violent crime incidents per year we experienced in 2021 versus 2015, when the Liberal Prime Minister first came to power. So, there are very serious issues not being addressed, from my perspective, in the budget.

Many of us read the news and watch the headlines, and we have seen a lot of very concerning stabbings, shootings, murders, assaults on innocent Canadians and stranger attacks on public safety, and a lot of it has to do with repeat violent offenders in our community who continue to get bail and wreak havoc on innocent Canadians. For example, there was a violent knife attack on a Surrey SkyTrain, which is its public transit, that left a young man in hospital. The attempted murderer was released on bail less than two weeks later. A man was almost stabbed to death, and the culprit was back on the streets. This follows the death of a 17 year old who was murdered, stabbed to death, in B.C. on a bus. This follows a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed to death in a Toronto public transit station. There are countless other examples of these horrific attacks in Canada. It seems that there are more and more every day.

It is not just civilians; it is also police. In fact, 10 police officers have died in the past year, eight of them on the job, and notably repeat violent offenders is a theme in many of the murders. Of course, everyone has heard of OPP Officer Greg Pierzchala, a young OPP officer who was murdered just after Christmas this past year. He walked up to a vehicle in a ditch and the driver shot and murdered him. That driver, that murderer, was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition from ever owning a gun. Yet, he got out on bail, got a gun and shot and murdered that young police officer. We mourn the loss of Greg Pierzchala with his family.

Notably, his death sparked a necessary national conversation about bail reform, which is not mentioned once in the federal budget, despite every premier in the country joining in on one letter, which is very rare, and sending it to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Despite big-city mayors and municipal police forces across the country demanding bail reform, we see no action, no results on bail reform from this government. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. I find it very concerning, and it is very serious. Last year, in Toronto, of the 44 murders when someone used a gun to murder someone, 24 of the murderers were out on bail at the time, and so 24 of 44 could have been prevented if our bail system was a bit tougher. It is quite serious.

In B.C., the NDP provincial government has written urgently to the Prime Minister just in the last few weeks outlining what they are facing in terms of bail and violent crime. Only about 16% to 17% of those who are going through a trial for a violent crime actually get detained. I was shocked at these statistics, and I had to read them a number of times. Fewer than 20% of violent criminals are being denied bail in B.C. Something is seriously wrong, and the B.C. NDP government is demanding bail reform as a solution from the Liberal government, and yet it is not mentioned as a priority in the Liberal budget. I found that very disappointing, given the national conversation and the deaths that we have seen. We could say that maybe bail will be mentioned somewhere else, but violent crime was not mentioned as a priority. Members can google it themselves; it was not in the budget.

Again, folks at home need to understand that a government's budget is telling Canadians what its values are and what it is prioritizing for the year ahead with the billions of taxpayer dollars it accumulates over the year. If violent crime is not mentioned, then clearly it is not a priority for the Liberals to fight violent crime or to deal with bail and repeat violent offenders. There are issues in our parole system as well.

What is in the budget? It is not something that is answering the calls of police. Before I move on, I want to say I found something quite shocking this week. The Victoria Police Department, just to drive this point home, recently released a news release about a vile rapist who was charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon. It says, “Why was this person released? Bill C-75....”

Bill C-75 was a Liberal bill from a couple years ago. Where is the mention of fixing this problem in the budget? Where are the resources to fix this problem in the budget? Why was it not prioritized by the Minister of Public Safety? I have not received any answers for these questions yet.

There are a few things in the budget that I did find notable in the public safety realm. There is $29 million over five years for an IT computer program for the government's so-called buyback program of long guns. I know this is very contentious. I have talked about this extensively elsewhere.

There is no evidence to suggest that long gun confiscation is going to do anything for all the issues I have outlined. In fact, of the multitude of violent crimes in this country, fewer than 0.5% are committed with long guns. We know the majority of crime committed with firearms is committed by people who are not legally allowed to own them.

Spending millions of dollars on an IT program, millions of dollars buying inventory from small gun shops and then billions of dollars buying property from law-abiding citizens who have been trained, tested and vetted by police to own firearms, is not going to make any difference to everything that I have been talking about.

However, it is a top priority for Canadians that it get solved. I put this to the minister. He said there are a lot of ways to fight gun violence. I said sure there are, but I asked what they were in his opinion. He said he is investing money in the border. Is he doing that?

I took a closer look at the budget since the Liberals formed government. In 2015, there were 8,400 frontline officers and investigators working for CBSA, our border agency. We know, as Toronto Police have told us, about nine out of 10 guns that are used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. We hear this quite universally from police departments across the country. It is a gun-smuggling problem from the U.S.

In 2015, we had 8,400 frontline workers who were tasked with stopping things like this from happening and stopping the gun smugglers. The Minister of Public Safety has said to Canadians multiple times, every time he gets a microphone, that he is spending all this money on the border to stop gun smuggling.

However, eight years later, there are only 25 more frontline officers, yet a lot of money has been spent. There are only 25 more frontline officers to fight gun smuggling, which is the source of violent crime in this country. Every chance he gets, he boasts about how much money he has invested.

Where is that money going? A closer look at the employees at CBSA shows that middle management has gone from approximately 2,000 people in 2015 to 4,000 people in 2023. It has doubled middle management, not the frontline workers who are working hard and putting their lives at risk to apprehend gun smugglers at the border, but the middle managers.

I greatly respect all of our middle managers in public safety, but the point is that it has doubled, while there has been almost no movement of the frontline officer numbers. How serious is he about cracking down on gun smuggling? The numbers are not telling me that the results are going to be there.

We know the RCMP is facing significant issues as well. Recruitment is way down, as is morale, across the country. Police say this is an issue, yet there is not any new money in the budget to encourage recruitment or for new recruits. We are seeing serious declines in recruitment in our police forces. Why is that not being addressed? We need more frontline police officers to fight violent crime.

We also know there has been a 12% funding cut to the Parole Board and a 36% decrease in staff at the Parole Board. Perhaps that is why we have major mass casualties like the murderer in Saskatchewan who murdered, with a knife, 11 people and sent 17 more people to hospital. He was out on parole with 59 prior convictions.

After all that, we see cuts to parole and no increase in this budget, yet increases everywhere else. Public safety is not a priority for the government from what I have seen in the budget.

I do feel very strongly about this, as does the Conservative Party. We know Canadians care about public safety. I call on the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal government to bring forward real measures to address public safety because so far, they are getting a failing grade from me.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I also studied the budget from a security perspective. I realize that not enough is being done, as she said, to counter gun violence.

Yes, we are working on Bill C‑21. There are good things in there. Is this going to solve all the problems? Unfortunately not and it is certainly not going to solve the problem of illicit firearms trafficking.

For months, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing that more people work together and that we create a sort of squad of New York police officers, Akwesasne Mohawk police officers, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec, police officers from Ontario and Border Services officers. They also need to be given more resources.

When these people appear in committee, they tell us that guns are crossing the border and they do not have the resources to stop it. Does the member think that the government is putting money in the right place?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure to work with my colleague on public safety. It is great to have two young, strong women fighting for public safety in Canada. I appreciated the guns and gangs study that the two of us and the others at the public safety committee spearheaded, and we all signed on to that report. It is amazing what we can accomplish when the Liberal cabinet does not stick its nose into public safety affairs, I will say.

That aside, we did learn significantly that, just as the member outlined, there is a lot of gun smuggling and drug smuggling coming in. Actually, this is happening near her riding, I believe. I firmly believe in empowering first nations policing and first nations community resources to stop that sort of thing. I think they clearly need to be an equal partner at the table in that regard. I am not happy with the results we have seen, and I do not believe the first nations are either, because we have had them at committee and we have talked to them. It does not seem like they are getting the resources they need, which is very odd given the money being spent.

This is where the problem is. Why are we not investing more money? They are spending money everywhere else. Why not do so to stop the problem?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, we are actually struggling with a series of crises. We have a homelessness crisis, and we have a drug poisoning crisis; we have a mental health crisis where people need mental health support and are not able to access it.

I wonder whether the Conservatives would support an approach whereby all levels of government are brought together, including federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with the community and indigenous leadership to find a way to address the crisis that we face. This would be similar to what is in place in Winnipeg, in what is called the Winnipeg accord, and formerly in Vancouver, in the Vancouver agreement. Then, in a non-partisan way, we could take a concerted approach to addressing the situation that we are all facing, and particularly, in my situation, in the Downtown Eastside.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with the member when we were on the immigration committee together. This collaboration is something I would personally support. I cannot speak for the Liberal government or any other level of government, but I certainly believe that when we come together and collaborate, especially across party lines, we see real results. We have seen collaboration across party lines at the provincial level. All premiers of multiple different parties signed a letter demanding bail reform, which is a consequence and part of the problem the member outlined. This problem is that there are repeat violent offenders who are wreaking havoc on our communities and taking advantage of vulnerable people, particularly those addicted to drugs, thereby putting them at risk or even hurting them.

I think that there is a lot that the member and I would work well together on, and collaboration is certainly a female strength. I would love to see something like that happen given all the lives that we have lost, particularly young lives in the last number of years, to the drug addiction issue.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. There are many things in this budget that are very good for Canadians. I wanted to ask about her opinion on the dental plan, which is now free for children under 12. By the end of this year, we will be expanding it to those with disabilities, seniors and those under 18.

What does the member think about providing this plan for Canadians?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, when looking at the budget, I think we all need to be concerned about children and what the future will be for them. On the dental plan, I believe in provincial jurisdiction. Dental is a health care issue. I believe that we need to allow provinces to lead the way on health care issues. I feel that the Liberal government has really waded into provincial jurisdiction way too many times and way too much.

I appreciate the member's question. When we are talking about children, I know that she heard when I mentioned there were multiple deaths by stabbing, notably from those repeat violent offenders I mentioned and talked about at length. Those were children who were murdered. What is her government doing about that in terms of protecting those children and ensuring their future? It is not doing a lot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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, Government Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Health; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and enter into debate about budget 2023.

There are many issues I want to touch on with the budget, but first and foremost, I must speak about the situation with the housing crisis that Canadians are facing from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter if one is in a large or a small community; there is a housing crisis all across the country.

There are encampments in communities big and small, and unhoused people are in fact dying on the streets, unable to access safe, secure and affordable housing. Long-term renters are getting pushed out of their apartments just so that corporate landlords can turn a bigger profit. Tenants cannot find an affordable home, and prospective homeowners are priced right out of the market.

Housing costs went up 77% under the Harper government and by another $300,000 under the Liberals. Therefore, successive Conservative and Liberal federal governments have abandoned their responsibility to invest in social and co-op housing. They are letting housing profiteering go unchecked right under their noses.

Real estate investment trusts enjoy preferential tax treatment, and the seven largest real estate investment trusts alone have saved a combined $1.5 billion through federal tax loopholes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just released a report estimating that the federal government will lose another $300 million in taxes over the next four years. Yes, the Liberals are letting corporate landlords profit off Canada's urgent housing crisis by purchasing affordable housing stock and renovicting long-term tenants to jack up rents.

This is what the financialization of housing means, and it has to stop. Housing is a basic human right and not a commodity. Budget 2023 was an opportunity for the Liberal government to tackle the housing crisis and stop wealthy corporate landlords from treating housing like a stock market. Sadly, it fails to take the necessary action to ensure that Canadians' basic right to housing is met.

The Federal Housing Advocate calls the budget a “sorry disappointment.” Previously, the Auditor General issued a damning report stating that the government will not reach its own targets to reduce chronic homelessness. The 25 largest financialized landlords held more than 330,000 units last year, which is nearly 20% of the country's private purpose-built stock of rental apartments. It is time to put people before profits, and the NDP has real solutions to address housing profiteering.

I am calling on the Liberals to take a human rights-based approach to housing, as enshrined in the national housing strategy. The federal government must stop rewarding real estate investment trusts for pushing out long-term tenants and jacking up housing prices. We must end special tax treatment and make them pay their fair share.

It is time for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable homes by real estate investment trusts and other corporate landlords, which are making big profits while driving up the cost of housing, as well as renovicting and demovicting Canadians. It is time to put housing back into the hands of the people.

The federal government needs to use the taxes from real estate investment trusts and create a non-profit acquisition fund to allow not-for-profits, co-ops and land trust organizations to purchase at-risk rental buildings when they come on the market. There should be no more profiteering, no more renovictions and no more special tax treatment for corporate landlords.

Aside from addressing the issue of the financialization of housing, or profiteering, we need to take other actions as well. The coinvestment fund is a program within the national housing strategy. In the budget, this fund is almost depleted. I had been looking for the government to actually make new investments into the coinvestment fund to support non-profits in the development of social and co-op housing. However, that did not happen.

What the government did was rob Peter to pay Paul; it took repair dollars within that fund to put into the construction arm of the fund. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is actually not going to get projects done. If the government does not replenish the coinvestment fund, we are not going to see those projects become viable; thus, we will not see the much-needed housing develop in the community.

Strangely, the Minister of Housing, with the ministry, decided to put a cap of $25,000 per unit on the dollars that non-profits can access out of the coinvestment fund. In the face of the rising cost of housing, inflationary costs and so on, that cap will only kill projects. It will just mean that the projects cannot be developed. That makes no sense whatsoever. The federal government needs to lift the cap on this requirement.

The NDP also wanted the government to invest in the rapid housing initiative. This is one program that is working relatively well, but we need to make sure that the community knows there is sustainable funding in that stream. Therefore, the NDP called for the government to invest $1.5 billion annually into the rapid housing initiative. Sadly, we did not see that investment either.

One investment in housing that we did see, which the NDP fought tooth and nail for, was this: the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern housing strategy. For too long, indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples who have lived away from their home communities have not gotten the housing supports they need. Somehow, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not recognized when they are away from their home community. This is wrong. Therefore, we have been pushing the government and demanding that action be taken.

I am glad to see that, in this budget, there is an investment of $4 billion over seven years to be made in a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. That is a start, I will say, and more needs to be done. This amount of money may sound like a lot, but it is still absolutely deficient when it comes to addressing the housing crisis for urban, rural and northern indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in our communities.

We also need to make sure that the government rolls these dollars out quickly. It should not slow-walk or back-end load the program, as it has done with other programs in the national housing strategy. I would also say that it has to be true that the programs are delivered as a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy. The government has to hold true on this. We need sustainable funding for this into the long term.

I would also say that, in the budget, I was glad to see what the NDP had pushed for and forced the government to take action on, which is the dental program. I cannot tell members how much seniors in my riding need this program. I have met seniors who have lost their teeth and are unable to afford to get dental services, where they are blending up their food to drink it in order to get the sustenance that they need to stay alive. This is just wrong. Our seniors are desperate for this program, and I am so glad to see that the NDP prioritized this and demanded that the government put forward this dental program. Therefore, at the end of this year, seniors, people with disabilities and people aged 19 and under would be able to access this program, and it is high time that we actually look at health care from head to toe and ensure that people's oral health is taken care of.

I have much more to say about this budget. There are some good parts, and there are some parts that are missing. No matter what, the NDP will continue to use our power to force the government to take action. I will continue to speak up on the things where the government fell short and to fight for the community so that every member has access to fair and equal treatment and can live with dignity in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the member for her support of the budget and for her advocacy on the housing file. As the member knows, we are going to start the financialization of housing study soon at HUMA. I know the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who is the author of that motion, is here tonight. I look forward to that.

I just want to ask a question about social housing and the importance of investing in that. The member mentioned the rapid housing initiative. We have now had three rounds of rapid housing funds that have benefited my municipality, in particular, in my riding, and I know Vancouver has been a leader on the modular-build front. I am anxious to see further investments in that area. Could the member talk about and highlight the benefits of rapid housing and the modular builds that we have seen across the country?