SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/18/24 11:42:59 a.m.
Watch

That would be a point of debate. On another point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

21 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/18/24 11:43:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, going back to my original point of order, on which there was no ruling made, at that time I raised the issue that the leader of the Conservative Party had intentionally misled the House. That is what I am asking for a ruling on. I was—

49 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/18/24 11:43:24 a.m.
Watch

Based on the information that has been provided, I will table this ruling, which is that this is a point of debate about the facts. I would just ask members to please use the period for questions and comments to put their disagreements forward through the debate process. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

55 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Apr/18/24 11:44:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with its latest budget, the federal government has launched an unprecedented attack against Quebec and the provinces' powers. We saw it coming with the striptease leading up to the budget, when the Prime Minister, worthy successor of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, proclaimed that Canadians did not care about jurisdictional matters. Although the federal government has always tried to centralize powers, this time they are doing so without reserve, without restraint and without shame. Let us take housing, for example. While, on the one hand, the government has finally recognized the crisis and is proposing positive measures, on the other, it is taking advantage of the situation to launch an unprecedented centralist offensive. According to the budget, it is now in charge of everything housing, the provinces and municipalities being relegated to the position of executors of federal priorities. For example, the government is forcing the provinces to sign an agreement by next January. According to the budget, if Quebec rejects the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa or proposes different priorities, the federal government will ignore Quebec or any recalcitrant province and will negotiate directly with the municipalities. This approach is illegal in Quebec. In fact, since a decision rendered by Robert Bourassa's government in 1971, Quebec's municipalities cannot transact directly with Ottawa. The goal is to prevent the federal government from adopting a divide-and-conquer approach as it is wont to do, and from diminishing Quebec's negotiating power at the bargaining table. The federal government is encroaching on municipalities' urban development plans by imposing specific requirements for receiving infrastructure transfers. It is going so far as to establish the height and density of residential neighbourhoods within an 800-metre radius of educational institutions and public transportation routes. If the cities do not authorize the construction of certain types of multiplexes in these sectors, they will not be entitled to federal transfers. The government is also encroaching on property tax rights by announcing a tax on vacant lots in urban areas. Lastly, it intends to purchase land from the provinces and municipalities and lease it long-term to developers to construct buildings. Since these constructions will be built on federal land, they will automatically be exempt from municipal bylaws and provincial laws. This is a significant risk. The budget is full of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction that will cause repeated disputes concerning jurisdiction and delay service delivery to Canadians. In addition to housing, the federal government is interfering in health care with the announcement of a bill on Canada-wide standards for long-term care and with its prescription drug and dental insurance plans. The same is true in education. Ottawa has announced a lot of money for the energy transition. The budget explains how it will be distributed. The private sector and western Canada will receive generous subsidies and credits for carbon capture and nuclear energy development. That is the transition plan. In terms of compensation, Ottawa is offering a 15% tax credit to publicly owned corporations like Hydro-Québec for developing green projects. However, the federal government is going even further by interfering in how provincial publicly owned corporations are run. For example, it is imposing conditions on Hydro-Québec's rates. The publicly owned corporation can have the 15% tax credit for investments in its projects only if it commits to complying with the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa. This government is forcing Hydro‑Québec to use it to reduce electricity bills and publicly report “how the tax credit has improved ratepayers' bills.” The budget is a demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. Jurisdictions no longer exist in the eyes of the federal government. With this budget, the Prime Minister is declaring himself the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of every province and the mayor of every town. Since the Liberals are busy messing around in Quebec's jurisdictions like sorcerers' apprentices, we are entitled to ask who is taking care of federal responsibilities like managing the borders or employment insurance, which is badly in need of a long-awaited reform. This budget was made on the backs of Quebeckers. It is a clear demonstration of the damage that can be caused by the combination of the fiscal imbalance and the federal government's spending power by reducing Quebeckers' ability to manage their own society themselves. It is also important to note that the vast majority of the funds related to the new announcements made with great fanfare to the media are broken down in such a way that they will be spent only after the next election, so this is a budget of election promises. For example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion for the new Canada housing infrastructure fund. The same is true of 88% of the amounts promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's position in the area of artificial intelligence. The Bloc Québécois presented its requests to the government. It asked that the government provide support for seniors, give Quebec the right to opt out when it comes to federal interference, address the housing crisis, pay Quebec back for the money it spent helping asylum seekers and put an end to its oil worship. The budget does not address any of those things. When it comes to oil, the government recognizes in the budget that it is still subsidizing the industry by committing to develop and release “an implementation plan to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including by federal Crown corporations, by fall 2024”. The government is not committing to eliminate those subsides. It is simply committing to making a plan. If we read between the lines, it is clear that the government is going to continue to offer those subsidies. Meanwhile, there is not one word about the aerospace policy they promised. Quebec's $11‑billion deficit caused quite a stir, but people seem fine with Ottawa's $40‑billion deficit. Ottawa's continued interference is resulting in an unprecedented centralization of power that robs Quebeckers of the ability to evolve in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. Centralization is a trend dating back to the dawn of Confederation, but we must not forget that, in 1867, our nation agreed to be part of Canada on the condition that the federal model recognized two equal levels of government sovereign in their respective jurisdictions. Quebeckers want to be masters in our own house, but the feds are trying to be masters everywhere. That means we have a choice to make. We can let the federal government and the neighbouring nation dictate their priorities from the top down and use our own money to make choices for our society, or we can choose to pursue our own independence. The freer Quebec is, the better off it is. That is our goal, and that goal has informed our expectations and our analysis of this budget. All of Quebec's major social and economic leaps forward were made by opting out of federal programs that were unsuited to our needs, or by creating programs that, ironically, will now serve as models for the programs that the federal government wants to force on us. By refusing to join the Canada pension plan, Quebec was able to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a powerhouse of development and economic modernization in Quebec. By pulling out of the inadequate EI special benefits, Quebec was able to implement parental leave, which caused women's participation in the workforce to skyrocket and paved the way for work-life balance. By withdrawing from federal student loans, Quebec was able to implement its financial assistance for education expenses regime, making Quebec the North American leader in education access. By opting out of federal labour programs, Quebec was able to implement an employment policy that brings workers, employers and educational institutions together to align training with the labour market. This would have been a good time to stop interfering, which is wasteful and causes all sorts of problems. In an economy with a combination of persistent inflation and economic stagnation, the government should have targeted spending as to better maximize its impact. That meant focusing on its own jurisdictions, such as supporting seniors or reforming employment insurance, and not interfering even more. That also meant paying what it owed to Quebec, like the billion dollars to cover the expenses related to the asylum seekers. Ottawa also has to better respond to the current emergencies, such as climate change. It has to better control its cost overruns and stop interfering in jurisdictions that are not its own. This is the opposite of what is in the budget. Year after year, budget after budget, the federal government keeps interfering in areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. With this budget, it is interfering more than ever before, and it needs to stop. The Bloc Québécois demands that Quebec have the right to opt out with full financial compensation, unconditionally, in every instance where Ottawa meddles in areas not under its jurisdiction. The latest example is dental care coverage, which falls under health care, an area under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. This is a new power that Ottawa assumed, choosing to have a multinational manage it. It chose not to link it to Quebec's public program, which already covers dental care for children. Sun Life, a multinational, has been awarded $2 billion to manage the program; $2 billion in lost dental care. Interfering Ottawa is rolling out more and more complicated targeted programs, creating red tape and confusion that prevents projects from moving forward. In fact, one could say that the setback in Quebec's autonomy and in Quebeckers' ability to make our own choices is part of a common pattern. The Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, found last June that “the present trend is—

1730 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/18/24 11:55:06 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

Apr/18/24 11:55:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no quorum.

6 words

Quorum

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/18/24 11:55:16 a.m.
Watch

We will look at quorum. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum now. The hon. member for Joliette.

23 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 11:55:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for actively listening to my speech—

16 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/18/24 11:56:01 a.m.
Watch

I would like to make sure the hon. member for Joliette has the attention of all members present in the House. Since that is now the case, the hon. member for Joliette may continue.

34 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 11:56:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the erosion of Quebec's autonomy, and of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices, is a strong trend. I quoted the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, which found last June that “the present trend is toward a more directive use of the spending power”, and that “the degree of federal-provincial collaboration in defining policy challenges has declined”. It went on to say, “Partnerships now seem to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision”. The most recent budget gives more weight to their findings. All of this is happening in a context where Ottawa is doing a very poor job handling areas under its own jurisdiction, spending more money without making sure that it is being effective or getting results, and cutting its transfers to the provinces while piling on conditions and delaying the payment of the amounts it promised. The example that comes to mind here again is health transfers. Their increase is six times lower than anticipated, and they come with conditions that have led to a power struggle. The result is that it is taking longer for the money to be paid out. There are also unacceptable delays when it comes to infrastructure and housing programs. It takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved money to be paid out because Ottawa is once again interfering. I thank know-it-all Ottawa for that. Ottawa is behaving this way because it has the upper hand as a result of the ongoing fiscal imbalance. In a federation, a fiscal imbalance occurs when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the other level is unable to finance its own needs independently. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats it year after year: Ultimately, provincial finances are not sustainable. It is not just Quebec; all of the provinces are unsustainable. Provincial status is just not viable. The fiscal imbalance is causing major problems that are limiting the government's ability to address the many challenges it faces. These problems are numerous, but they fall into three categories. First, by bringing in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, Ottawa is not making an effort to manage its own affairs properly. The federal government is notoriously inefficient and everything costs more than it should—just think of the ArriveCAN scandal. I have two examples that illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Everything costs more. Second, Ottawa uses its fiscal room to interfere in areas that are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. These intrusions blur the division of powers, make it less coherent, while undermining our autonomy. The jurisdictional overlap does nothing for efficiency. It only promotes centralization in Ottawa. There is a duplication of efforts with the new dental insurance. The same is true for the two tax returns. There is one too many, and that is the one that is collected by this level of government. Finally, with Ottawa indirectly controlling the purse strings of the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces, the capacity of the Quebec government to fully assume its responsibilities is diminished. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's observation is clear: The provinces will no longer be sustainable. I would add that they are at risk of collapsing, while the federal government's fiscal room will increase considerably. This continued interference has led to an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa, which will take away the Quebec people's ability to control their development according to their needs, strengths, characteristics and wishes. In Canada, the status quo does not exist. The third autonomist way that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation in which Quebec would be respected is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The status quo is actually weakening the Quebec National Assembly in favour of Ottawa. However, given the current context of uncertainty and crises, the fiscal imbalance must be addressed. The main way to achieve that is for the federal government to stop interfering and give Quebec the automatic right to opt out with full compensation. The many crises we are experiencing bring with them many challenges. We can come out stronger or weaker. The repeated crises we have experienced over the past four years have brought to light many problems. First, COVID-19 showed that our health care system has been weakened by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Meanwhile, the serious flaws in the EI system forced the introduction of a series of costly programs that were hastily thrown together. The sudden reopening of the economy exposed other problems: the housing shortage, the labour shortage exacerbated by the aging population and the considerable fragility of our manufacturing sector. That is not to mention all the problems caused by inflation. The government has not taken any of these fundamental issues seriously. We are calling on the government to stop interfering in jurisdictions that do not belong to it and to include a permanent and automatic mechanism for Quebec to opt out with full compensation everywhere the federal government has interfered. We demand that the federal government immediately and unconditionally transfer the voted amounts that are supposed to be transferred to Quebec. We are also calling on Ottawa to immediately reimburse the Government of Quebec for costs incurred to welcome asylum seekers. Quebec has a very clear vision of what to do to deal with the current challenges effectively. The solution is simple, but it requires more financial resources for Quebec. The government must address the fiscal imbalance by increasing federal transfers to ensure a fairer and more equitable redistribution. We can shape our future by building on Quebec's strengths, strengths that will become increasingly important in the economy of the future. Interference always costs more, always takes longer and never works as well as respecting jurisdiction. Interference will end once we have full independence. The 21st century belongs to Quebec. This is the century of innovation, advanced technologies and green technologies that balance wealth creation with ecology. We have an abundance of creativity in all areas, and they need support. This is the century of renewable energy and sustainable development. We have everything it takes—water, wind, forests and know-how—to become world leaders, if Ottawa stops pumping billions of dollars into fossil fuels. Canada's oil and gas model and Quebec's renewable and sustainable model are incompatible. This is the century of local farm distribution channels, where our production primarily serves to feed our population in a world of less fluid trade networks. We have to preserve agricultural diversification despite the current challenges created by an unpredictable global environment and climate change. However, this is also a century of social tension, where growing inequality is extinguishing the hope of a brighter future across the western world. Our government must have the means to preserve social cohesion, especially considering the urgent challenges posed by the housing crisis and rising property prices. Maintaining the purchasing power of seniors is also imperative, considering the disastrous economic consequences that would result from their impoverishment amid an aging population. In conclusion, this budget comes at a time when the needs are great and many, but the resources are not unlimited. The only way for Ottawa to deal with that is to take care of its own responsibilities properly. A rational and well targeted use of resources will allow us to avoid austerity measures left and right that will cause everyone to suffer. That is the opposite of what we have before us in this budget. That is why, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean, I move the following amendment to the amendment. That the amendment be amended by replacing paragraphs (a) and (b) with the following: (a) uphold the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and to grant Quebec and the provinces a right to opt out with full compensation;

1426 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/18/24 12:05:19 p.m.
Watch

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

8 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 12:05:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fiscal issues. I would like to remind him that Canada has the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among all the G7 countries. In fact, Canada not only has a AAA credit rating, but it is also one of only two G7 countries that has a AAA rating from two of the three independent credit agencies. Quebec has shown the solid move from the carbon-heavy economy to a clean economy. Quebec has very advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based companies. Does the member not recognize the importance this budget has given to knowledge-based companies and specifically how it would help Quebec companies, for example in artificial intelligence, with a $2-billion fund for the AI compute access fund, $200 million for artificial intelligence start-ups, and help for crucial sectors, such as agriculture, health care and manufacturing, to adopt artificial intelligence?

154 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:07:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nepean for his multi-pronged question. First, we recognize that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best, except that goes back to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. Members will recall that, in the 1990s, the federal government solved its debt problem by increasing the fiscal imbalance, or in other words, by reducing transfers to the provinces. The provinces are struggling because the federal government chose to increase the fiscal imbalance rather than dealing with it. When it comes to the various sectors of the economy, I would remind the member that the Minister of Innovation finally promised an aerospace policy. Canada is the only country with an aerospace industry that does not have such a policy. Is there anything about that in the budget? No. There is zip, zero, zilch.

141 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Apr/18/24 12:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some members of the Bloc Québécois are fairly sensible, but I would like to know how the Bloc Québécois can talk out of both sides of its mouth. When the NDP votes with the minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes against it. When the NDP votes against the Liberal minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes with it. The Bloc Québécois is actually keeping the Liberal minority government in power. How can my colleague talk out of both sides of his mouth? I would like to hear his thoughts on that because the Bloc Québécois is being inconsistent. Unfortunately, I have to say that the Bloc Québécois does not really represent the interests of Quebec.

144 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide who represents them in the next election, as they have done in every other election. That is how it works. We set a very clear criterion to determine whether we vote with or against the government: When it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour, and when it is not good for Quebec, we vote against. It is that simple. Between the two, the Bloc Québécois always tries to improve the proposals to better meet Quebec’s needs. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not always against the government. We do not spend our time denouncing the carbon tax, which does not apply to Quebec. We see whether it is good for Quebec. If so, we are in favour; if not, we are against. This budget is bad for Quebec’s economy and does not meet Quebec’s major needs. We will therefore vote against it. It is clear, and it is how we do things.

176 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/18/24 12:09:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who I am pleased to serve with on the finance committee, spoke about jurisdiction in pharmacare. The Canada pharmacare legislation currently before the House would work exactly as the Canada Health Act does. It would offer federal money to every province that agrees to deliver diabetes-class and contraception drugs free to the citizens of their provinces through the single-payer public system. No province would be forced to participate. If the province wants to participate, they would get the money and deliver it just like any other medical service through the public health care system, just like Quebec does with all the other services. In 2016, the Union des consommateur of Quebec made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Health on pharmacare. It said: The explosive rise in spending on prescription drugs in Canada requires immediate action...the most effective solution would be to adopt a universal public pharmacare program. We hope the federal government will act on this issue and assure you of our full cooperation. Does my hon. colleague not agree that Québécois deserve to have access to free diabetes medication and pharmaceuticals if 100% of it is being paid by the federal government, just like every other medical service that is available in Quebec?

219 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my new colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. It will be a pleasure to work with him, I am sure. Obviously, there are many major health care needs. Yes, I would like to know that everyone who needs medication can get it. Quebec has a partial prescription drug insurance plan; it has limited coverage for people who do not have access to private insurance. Yes, the price of prescription drugs is skyrocketing and it is quite the challenge. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to respect areas of jurisdiction. For example, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The role of the federal government is to finance health care. To meet its commitments in funding health care, the federal government needs to give six times more than it is currently giving. This shortfall means that Quebec and the provinces do not have enough resources to offer proper health care services, which should include universal pharmacare. On one hand, the federal government is underfunding the health care sector by not fulfilling its role; on the other hand, it is encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction. What are the consequences? Redundancy and a top-to-bottom vision of know-it-all Ottawa that does not reflect reality. If Quebec is given the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached in order to enhance its prescription drug insurance program or manage funding in its health care sector as it sees fit, we will support the budget. We have always said that what we do not want is to see the federal government usurp spending powers. Everything that is done here is more expensive. It is bureaucratic and out of touch with the reality of Canadians. There is not even a proposal to align with Quebec’s prescription drug insurance plan. The same goes for dental care. There is not even a proposal to align with the existing public insurance plan for children. That is being turned over to Sun Life; that is a $2-billion management fund that will enable the insurer to line its pockets instead of providing services to Canadians. That is Ottawa, right there. That is why we want Quebec to make its own choices.

387 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/18/24 12:12:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his quasi-scientific speech about the budget. I truly enjoyed it. I know he wants to get to the bottom of things and uncover the truth. Here is what I am especially curious about. We know Ottawa promises a lot of money, but that money is never spent because it does not take regional realities into account. Funding for housing does not reflect the reality of regions where conditions differ from those of the greater Toronto area. It is the same thing with indigenous peoples: Year after year, there is so much money that goes back into the treasury when that money should be going into the pockets of those who need it, so they can do things such as build housing. In my colleague's opinion, how does that impact budgets and the real deficit? When it comes to a challenge as big as housing, how could Quebec do better than Ottawa if it were independent?

164 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for sharing his outlook with us. I agree with him completely. Before I talk about housing, I will speak to infrastructure. The municipalities are asking us whether Ottawa is finally going to renew the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or TECQ, and distribute the funds, with no strings attached, on a per capita basis. When the dollars get out the door, municipalities can get projects done quickly. In the recent budget, Ottawa is proposing infrastructure programs that require agreements because interference is at issue. It takes one, two, three or four years to reach an agreement, and years more before the funds are disbursed. The needs are there, but the money is not. It is the same thing when it comes to housing. With regard to the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, Ottawa let Quebec choose which housing it wants to fund. The money was allocated quickly. In all of the other programs, it takes years for Quebec to get a single penny, for a single shovel of dirt to be turned. The government is passing the buck. Money that we voted on, money paid by Quebec taxpayers is being held up here in Ottawa for ideological and bureaucratic reasons. It is the same thing for indigenous people. Once again, the money is there in the budget, but at the end of every fiscal year, the money has not been spent. That is again because of bureaucratic management. Needs are growing and the money was approved, but it is not being spent. That needs to change. We need to tell Ottawa to cut the red tape and to stop creating obstacles by dictating conditions. Local governments are the ones that know what is good and where the needs are. The federal government needs to transfer the money and get out of the way.

315 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/18/24 12:15:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to budget 2024 and to deliver my first speech in the House as the shadow minister of finance for the New Democratic Party of Canada. I am deeply honoured to assume this important position, and as I do so, I am reminded of the core economic objectives of a progressive political party in a modern democracy, the principles that have underpinned impressive results in many social democratic countries around the globe. These include the following: to build a strong domestic economy that works for all citizens, not just the privileged; to harness national assets for the collective good while creating a thriving market that produces quality goods and services; to respect both those who utilize their entrepreneurial talents and the workers whose skills and energy are essential to their realization; to develop our resources in an intelligent, sustainable and responsible manner, respecting both future generations and our planet, which, after all, are the foundation of all economic activity; to incentivize productive activity, to reward hard work, to distribute wealth fairly and to take care of those who, through no fault of their own, need our assistance; and to advance equality and to create the conditions necessary for everyone to have a full and fair opportunity to realize their potential to contribute and to succeed. The document under debate serves as a crucial reminder of what a national government can do to help realize these goals, both in its observance and in its breach. It also shows what an effective opposition can achieve when we act maturely and work to fix what is broken, instead of engaging in division and pessimism. Although conflict may appear expedient to those politicians who want to exploit feelings of frustration and anger, it does not get results for people, and it weakens our institutions and democracy. As Jack Layton would often remind us, the opposition's job is not only to oppose, but also to propose. This budget is product of applying this approach. In contrast to the other opposition parties in the House, the NDP has worked to deliver tangible benefits for Canadians. In this budget alone, Canada's New Democrats have compelled the Liberal government to move in a number of important, substantive and positive directions. These include the following, which the NDP has championed and has fought for, in some cases for decades: to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters, helping address one of the most foundational issues in society; to set the foundation for universal public pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices, helping millions of Canadians and starting us well on the path to comprehensive drug coverage for all; to establish the very first national school food program, helping children learn and stay healthy while providing real relief to families hurt by high food prices; and to reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services, an area that cries out for resources and for reconciliation. Further, these also include the following: to invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care, a vital social support to families, and to women in particular; to increase funding for pure and applied research and to better support Canada's students, keys to Canada's productivity and innovation; to increase the capital gains tax on the wealthiest 1%, a measure that would return some $19 billion to the treasury over the next five years from the wealthiest 1% in Canada; to improve Via Rail capacity, helping connect communities and helping the environment; to double the volunteer firefighters' and the search and rescue volunteers' tax credits; and to create a dedicated youth mental health fund, continuing to move this critical area into our mainstream health care system. These measures would provide urgent relief for millions of Canadians, and make no mistake, they would not have happened without the pressure and the advocacy of every NDP member in the House. However, it is crucial to emphasize that while these achievements illustrate in part what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the current budget does not fully reflect the party's vision. This is the result of a major difference between the NDP and the two old-guard establishment parties. New Democrats see government as a profoundly important instrument of public good, as something that should stand firmly with and for people, not private powerful interests. We see it as a positive force that can provide resources collectively that individuals alone cannot, that can build institutions of opportunity available to all, regardless of personal wealth and station. We alone see the vital interconnectedness of social, economic and environmental justice. In contrast, the Conservatives treat government with suspicion; it is to be feared, scorned, reduced and marginalized. The Liberals, for their part, are beholden to crippling incrementalism, afraid to take bold action, even in the face of great social need or clear evidence. More to the point today, the Conservatives identify an economic crisis but deny that there is a climate one. The Liberals acknowledge a climate crisis but fail to fully recognize an economic one. Only Canada's New Democrats firmly understand that Canada faces both an economic crisis and a climate crisis. We stand alone in the understanding that these crises are intertwined and that we will make real progress only by successfully addressing both. The context for this budget is clear. The reality is that millions of Canadians are grappling with the rising costs of living and are struggling to pay for essentials like food and housing. At the same time, forest fires lay waste to entire towns; droughts threaten our food supply; floods destroy our communities; unprecedented heatwaves claim the lives of our elders; and children are confined indoors when the air is unfit to breathe. While politicians, like the Conservatives, who are in denial or who are ignorant of these realizations, point to the costs of dealing with these crises, they fail to recognize the far more expensive price of not dealing with them. The result is that Canada is falling behind in meeting our climate commitments and in the need to pivot to a sustainable economy that works for all Canadians. While this budget promises considerable progress in a number of areas, progress that will depend on real implementation, a perennial shortcoming of the current government it must be noted, it also falls short in making the necessary investments and the policy changes that the current crises demand. I will highlight housing. There are many issues in politics, but some are foundational, existential even. Housing is one of these. Housing is not just a commodity, but also a necessity. It anchors us in community and connects us with family, neighbours, friends, school, work and services. However, because of decades of successive Liberal and Conservative government policy failures, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels in both urban and rural areas. The federal housing advocate has called this a “life and death crisis”. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, along with 30% of purpose-built rental buildings. Young people are shut out of the housing market, and renters are losing hope of ever owning a home. Mortgage and rent payments are devouring an unsustainable share of people's incomes. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate recently released an analysis of Canada's housing supply shortage, which found that we are missing 4.5 million homes that are affordable to people in housing need. International evidence demonstrates that direct financing to scale up non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, is the most efficient and effective way to address this shortfall, yet the Liberal government continues to rely heavily on the for-profit housing industry to fix the problem. This does not mean that the private market has no role in housing construction; instead, it underscores the importance of ensuring that public investments yield tangible public benefits and prioritizes housing solutions that truly serve the needs of our communities. It is important to note that public spending on non-market housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market. Moreover, if public spending is offset by measured, fair tax increases, the net effect on aggregate demand remains neutral. This budget makes a lot of promises about housing, which if carried out will go a long way in helping meet our goals. However, the problem is that we have heard this before. In 2017, the Prime Minister announced a $40 billion national housing strategy, saying that it was, “a robust, comprehensive, life-changing plan to help Canadians get into homes, and stay there.” Seven years later, what Canadians have really experienced is a robust, comprehensive and life-changing housing crisis, one in which rent and home prices have doubled. Home ownership is further away than ever, and we have lost 11 units of affordable housing for every one built. While New Democrats support the investments announced in this budget, the real test will be ensuring they are realized. We will do our part to monitor and to press for that to happen. I must say a few words about several weaknesses in this budget. The allocation of a paltry $200 a month for the Canada disability benefit for Canadians living with disabilities is beyond deficient. It is insulting. It is far below what is necessary to lift these citizens out of poverty. Combined with provincial disability programs, it fails to meet even this government's own assessment of subsistence at $2,000 per month when it set the CERB amount during COVID. This is unacceptable and New Democrats call for it to be raised substantially and immediately. This budget aims to slash 5,000 public service jobs through attrition. This is short-sighted and wrong. We need our public servants to deliver the programs Canadians rely on. We all recall how vital our civil servants were during COVID, delivering the benefits we desperately needed when we were in a national crisis. What we ought to slash is the use of government outsourcing and private consultants, something that is far more costly and, in many cases, scandalously wasteful. We need only look at this government's outrageous expenditure of $60 million to produce the ArriveCAN app, which proved unreliable and of questionable utility, something that should have been produced for, at most, one-tenth that cost. This budget is a missed opportunity to address the gaping tax unfairness and imbalance that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have created in Canada. For decades, both old-guard parties slashed corporate taxes, making individual working and middle-class Canadians increasingly shoulder the cost of government. Today, Canada has one of the lowest rates of corporate taxes in the OECD, ranking 33rd of 38 countries. Our federal corporate tax rate of 15% is over 5% less than the United States, and President Biden recently announced his intention to raise U.S. corporate tax rates by some 7%. The upshot is that we could and should implement a prudent and measured increase as well, providing billions of dollars of revenue for programs Canadians need and reducing our deficit while remaining competitive among our peers. This budget also missed a clear opportunity to implement a tax on windfall oil and gas profits. While Canadians were suffering from the after-effects of the pandemic, in 2022 oil and gas extraction companies in Canada made a record-breaking $63 billion in profits. Although data for 2023 has not yet been published, it is shaping up to the be the second-most profitable year in the history of the oil patch. The 2022 federal budget introduced a one-time tax of 15% on profits above $1 billion for banks and insurance companies. The PBO report found that extending the tax to the oil and gas sector could generate $4.2 billion in revenue over five years. New Democrats think that this is a policy measure that is eminently warranted. I would like to also point out the lack of sufficient emphasis in this budget when it comes to the climate crisis. We believe that this is the most important issue facing our planet, another truly existential issue. While addressing it will take concerted global action, Canada must do its part. Although the budget has a number of laudable steps in this direction, including money for the transition to zero-emission vehicles and heat pump retrofits, in our view it should go much farther and faster if we are to meet our international commitments and obligations to future generations of Canadians. Finally, I would like to address the important discussion in Canada regarding productivity. The statistics on productivity levels in Canada are indeed concerning. The Bank of Canada's senior deputy governor recently noted that the need to improve productivity has reached an emergency level in this country, but we do need to analyze and interpret the numbers cautiously. We are clearly still experiencing the after-effects of the pandemic and the unprecedented shocks it imposed on our economy, integrated supply chains and our labour market. We must be careful not to give credence to outdated and offensive ideas that the best way to improve productivity is to blame or put the burden on workers, compelling them to work harder, faster, longer and for less money. A factor that is far more important to address in the productivity problem is the ongoing weakness of business capital spending in Canada. Spending on machinery and equipment by businesses and on R and D and innovation has been falling as a share of GDP for many years, dating back, in fact, to the large corporate tax cuts Paul Martin introduced at the turn of this century. That is an ironic fact, since it was argued, at the time, that corporate tax cuts would spur more business investment, not less. However, the truth is that even with rapid job creation and population growth, business capital investment has not kept up. To address this, the New Democrats believe the federal government must implement strategies that are more effective at increasing capital investment and innovation in Canada, rather than the tired, old, trickle-down theories, like tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, that clearly have not worked. Other countries, like those in northern Europe and east Asia, have shown it is possible to combine strong investment and technology with strong labour standards and public programs. Canadian workers are skilled and productive. In fact, by some measures, our workforce is the best trained of any OECD country. To put those skills to work to their full potential, workers need good, secure and stable jobs, with access to proper machinery and equipment, lifelong training and the opportunity to earn better wages along with their productivity so that they can share in the wealth their talents and skills create. That is why New Democrats support better vocational training, stronger labour standards and unions that can be active partners in technological change, training, safety and job quality. To conclude, allow me to draw a clear distinction between the diverging economic paths that lie ahead for our country. The Conservatives would prioritize corporate interests, even at the expense of ordinary Canadians. If they have their way, essential services will suffer. There will be no dental care, no pharmacare, no renter protections, no investments in affordable housing or child care, and no school food programs for our children. Under the Liberals' watch, Canadians have been left grappling and struggling with rising costs, while big corporations and wealthy CEOs are thriving. It is a stark contrast. The privileged few prosper, while the majority struggle to make ends meet. That is unconscionable in a country as wealthy as Canada. The affordability crisis has reached a breaking point, yet the Liberal government still hesitates to take decisive action. It only acts when pushed by the NDP. It took the New Democrats to force its hand in budget 2024 to push for policies that genuinely benefit people. Our vision extends beyond the present to a future where our federal government champions affordability, equity and the well-being of every family. It would be a Canada where no one is left behind, where accessible health care, housing and opportunity for all are not mere aspirations, but fundamental rights and the reality. Together, we know we can build a Canada that thrives on fairness, compassion and shared prosperity. Do not ever let them say it cannot be done.

2772 words