SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Apr/27/23 11:11:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that currently in northern British Columbia, logging companies are shutting down mills. Under the Liberal government, logging cannot continue in this country. It also has a lot to do with the NDP government, which is a do nothing—

46 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/27/23 11:11:09 p.m.
Watch

It has the best economy in the country, the best job creation—

13 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/27/23 11:11:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby had an opportunity to speak. There might be another opportunity to ask another question, so I would ask him to hold onto any questions he may have. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

43 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:11:34 p.m.
Watch

—make sure nothing is happening in this country, make sure that our natural resources do not get developed, make sure—

22 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that under an NDP government, sawmills in northern British Columbia are being shut down and the Liberal-NDP coalition seems to be fine with that.

32 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/27/23 11:12:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a factual rebuttal. I know facts are difficult for Conservatives to come by. British Columbia, under the NDP government, has the best economy in the country, the best job creation record in the entire country, the best investments in terms of health care and education. The member should know this. If there is any model to look at in Canada, it is the B.C. economy and the B.C. NDP government.

76 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:12:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whatever the member is talking about is cold comfort to the over 600 people who have lost their jobs in Chetwynd and Houston, British Columbia. We know that the NDP-Liberal coalition is terrible for resource development. A Conservative government will ensure that our resources get to market and that people get paid a fair value for those resources.

61 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Apr/27/23 11:13:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and add my voice and those of the constituents I represent in raising concerns with both the budget and Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. This bill is the legislation by which certain provisions in the budget will be implemented. We have already voted against the budget, which includes over $40 billion in additional spending that will have to be paid for by taxpayers through taxes. It demonstrates the abject failure of the government to address the affordability crisis it has created. Earlier this week, I stepped into an elevator with a Liberal member of Parliament who, in making small talk, asked me, “How are things in Saskatchewan?” If I had had more time, I would have told him about my spring tour, which I held during our recent riding weeks. While we cannot go everywhere in two weeks, we visited 19 communities and toured a number of businesses. It was great to visit with hundreds of residents from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek over a cup of coffee. If I had had more time, I would have shared with that MP the issues that were raised, over and over again, that relate to this budget discussion, but one floor up did not allow for all that, so I am going to share them now. I guess I could have given him the one-floor elevator speech, which is that the consensus in my riding is that everything is broken. The first concern is the huge federal debt and the ever-present, ongoing Liberal deficits. People are absolutely blown away by the figure of $1.22 trillion in projected federal debt, a figure that has ballooned under the current Prime Minister, causing the highest inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt. Additionally, people are gravely concerned by the $43.9 billion, which is the amount projected to be the cost of servicing Canada’s national debt this fiscal year, a figure that has almost doubled in one year. They understand that this amount is only likely to increase, as more of Canada’s low-interest debt matures and Canada is forced to renew those loans at higher interest rates. Deficit spending, inflation and higher interest rates are a big deal to seniors living on fixed incomes, families struggling to make ends meet and young people desperately looking for an affordable place to live. Unlike the Prime Minister, who does not think about monetary policy, Canadians who do not have a trust fund are very engaged on the ramifications of the Liberal government’s poor management of Canada’s economy. The actions of the current government are having a direct negative impact on their quality of life, which brings us to the ever-present and ever-increasing carbon tax. For residents of Saskatchewan, especially those living and working in rural Saskatchewan, this Liberal tax is a source of deep frustration. Besides increasing the cost of everything, the carbon tax is a symbol in the minds of rural Saskatchewanians of the incredible disconnect between the reality in which we live and the Liberal elites and their ideological policies. They also understand that the carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan, which is why a commonly asked question I have heard is this: “With the Liberals having spent us into such a deep hole, will a future Conservative government be able to afford to cut the carbon tax?” While I do understand the question, I remind them that a Conservative government will absolutely axe the carbon tax. I also had the opportunity to visit with mayors, reeves and councillors. They, too, noted the negative impacts of the Liberals' carbon tax and inflation-inducing policies on their budgets. They expressed concern over how federal infrastructure programs are designed with big cities in mind and with a win/lose lottery-style methodology. They confirmed that municipalities need stable, reliable funding programs enabling them to do their work rather than dictating the infrastructure priorities the federal government wants to fund. We also discussed the housing crisis. CMHC data for January 2023 showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020, and while they are down in large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, we are feeling the housing shortage in smaller communities in Saskatchewan as well. Constituents and elected representatives also brought up labour shortages, rural crime and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, as well as Bill C-11 and the government's unrelenting focus on controlling what Canadians watch and post online. I again want to thank the hundreds of residents for coming out to share their thoughts and concerns with me. For the purposes of this evening's debate, I also want to address the mismanagement of our country’s finances, which has led to incredible waste at the expense of Canadians. Canadians are rightly asking what exactly the government has been spending their money on, and it is their money, as the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition pointed out. They are also asking what they are getting for the money the Liberals are spending, whether life is getting easier or getting better, and whether they are getting ahead. The resounding answer is no. Never before has a government spent so much to get so little. Let us just take a look at a few examples. There were CERB cheques going to prisoners and organized crime, and $94 million was spent on hotel rooms for asylum seekers in the last eighteen months. There was a $237-million contract for ventilators given to a Liberal insider and $54 million for the “ArriveSCAM” app. There is the Phoenix pay system. It has been seven years since the Liberals launched the Phoenix pay system, and it has been a disaster. In my role as the shadow minister for public services and procurement, it has become all too clear that the government has very little respect for Canadians and their tax dollars. While it is necessary for the issues with the Phoenix pay system to be fixed, there is an additional $1 billion dollars in the budget to continue to address the Phoenix pay system, and there is no end in sight. That is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in damages for the government's mismanagement. What was the Liberals' solution? It was to hire their friends at McKinsey, giving them a contract, which after three amendments, reached a value of almost $28 million. What was the result after McKinsey was contracted? The backlog increased. The continually increasing outsourcing by the government while it rapidly expands the public service is incoherent. One would think that, if the public service is expanding, outsourcing would be needed less. Instead, it increased just as rapidly, and when we have asked for answers on the extent of the outsourcing in our efforts to ensure that Canadians are getting good value for money, we are stonewalled by Liberals on committee, ministers and their departments. The Liberals have found great friends and partners in the NDP. At a time of record spending and 40-year highs in inflation, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, while well-connected Liberal insiders have never had it so good. There are 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because food is too expensive. With mortgage payments and costs associated with buying a home doubling, home ownership is an elusive dream now for nine out of 10 young Canadians. Rent has doubled as well. The reality is that the country is worse off after all the government's reckless and wasteful spending. Seniors, families, young people, farmers, business owners and workers all know this is true, and the NDP just keeps supplying the Liberal government with more shovels to dig a deeper hole for Canadians, all while claiming it is holding government to account. As I said, Canadians are struggling, and they need hope. They can count on Conservatives to turn the hurt that the Prime Minister has caused into hope. It is time for a change, and we are ready.

1381 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 11:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, parts of that were really hard to listen to in terms of some of the revisionist history as it relates to support for municipalities and for housing. I think the member opposite was part of the previous government. I was a city counsellor during that time. There was no support for infrastructure for municipalities in her time in office. There was no housing support for municipalities. The Conservative government relied on trickle-down economics, hoping that someone, somewhere in the private sector would help with affordable housing. That did not happen. Our national housing strategy is doing that and providing support. What was she doing for all those years she was in office? Why could she not provide consistent support to municipalities and housing providers?

127 words

Housing

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know where that member was back in 2008-09, but we created Canada's economic action plan that saw Canada enter the recession in a less deep way than other countries did. Our infrastructure projects and funding saw us go into the recession in a less extensive way than other countries did. Our projects were timely, and they were targeted. The funding that we provided ensured that shovel-ready projects were built. The government has failed young Canadians. The dream of owning a house is slipping out of reach for them because of the failures of the Liberal government, supported by the NDP.

108 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Apr/27/23 11:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also found the speech interesting. In terms of revisionist history, I just wanted to clarify with the member across the way. I am not saying the Liberal government has done a good job of putting forward and using the Phoenix pay system, but I am pretty sure the Harper government brought that system forward. Could she explain that for me?

63 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:25:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was actually the Liberals who launched the Phoenix pay system back in 2016. They need to take responsibility. We can go back and listen to the testimony that we heard in OGGO committee; it was actually whistle-blowers in the bureaucracy who warned the current government that it should not go ahead with the Phoenix pay system.

60 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/27/23 11:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also remember that 2009 was when the Stephen Harper government launched an initiative to replace our 40-year-old payroll system, in which I do not think anyone ever failed to get paid, with what was described at the time as a modern, off-the-shelf commercial system. A different corporation, IBM, signed a contract in 2009 with Stephen Harper's government. They made out like bandits, and they built us a lemon. It is quite true that the Liberals decided to start trying to drive that lemon, but both governments deserve a fair share of the blame. I really do not think it is fair to say the blame is even. Harper steered that ship and started by laying off all the staff in all the different payroll groups in every department. Tellingly, the Treasury Board and finance never got rid of their own finance systems. They let all the other departments get stuck with the lemon. There is a lot of blame to go around. I hate to say it because everybody hates when we say it was all Stephen Harper's fault. However, that is what the history tells us, and that is what I remember.

202 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:27:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not really have a response for that. That is what she remembers, and she is entitled to her memories. As I said, we have heard from experts who have actually identified the Phoenix pay system and the fact that there were individuals working in the bureaucracy who warned the government that it should not go ahead and launch it, but it did anyway.

67 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/27/23 11:27:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to speak about the idea of freedom in Canadian politics because I think, underneath the debate we are having about this budget, there is a deeper debate about the nature of freedom. What is freedom? Freedom, in the modern context, in common usage, has the sense of describing a reality in which the individual has a broader range of decision-making space. An individual who is free can make more decisions about his or her life, and an individual who is less free has more decisions made for them by others. That is freedom at a general level. Freedom is the general ability to make unencumbered individual decisions, at least as freedom is commonly colloquially discussed today. I think it is important to notice that, within that general concept of freedom, there is significant divergence among political actors about what kinds of decisions are most important for individuals to be free to make. Every political party has a concept of freedom that comes from identifying different areas of life in which that range of choice making that is available is more or less important. Obviously, not all decisions are equally important. Certain kinds of decisions are more important than others. To speak of whether a person has the freedom to, say, run a red light, is obviously a trivialization of the concept of freedom because a person who is prevented from running a red light is still substantially free insofar as he or she can still make for themselves all of the decisions that truly matter. Here is another example. Whether justified or not, a restriction on the ability to purchase alcohol is a lesser infringement on freedom than a restriction on the ability to purchase books because, objectively, the decision to read whatever one wants is more important than the decision to drink whatever one wants. Therefore, the building of a robust concept of freedom requires a certain prioritization of goods and a sense of what kinds of choices are more important for an individual to be able to make. Every society, for practical reasons, limits the kinds of choices that people can make in certain respects, so a society must decide what choices are more fundamental and what choices can be more reasonably restricted in order to realize other goods. Another example of this is helmet regulation. I support the limitation on freedom associated with requiring people to wear helmets when riding motorcycles because the choice to not wear a helmet is relatively trivial, and there are other more important considerations. However, I also support religious exemptions to helmet requirements because the freedom to practice one's faith is very important and therefore, in the case of a helmet requirement, it is much more than a trivial limitation to individual freedom. Therefore, in that case, uniquely, it is not justified. Those who believe in the value of freedom generally believe that limitations on freedom can be justified to the extent that the limitations are trivial and also to the extent that a limitation on freedom produces some other harm. Within that general framing, let us look at the two rival concepts of freedom advanced by Canada's two major parties. The Liberals came to office with a bit of a freedom agenda. They legalized marijuana and have since decriminalized fentanyl and other hard drugs in B.C. They legalized and have since expanded the space for euthanasia, and they continue to promise a certain kind of expanded individual freedom associated with increasing public spending and subsidy. The idea, from their side, being that people who are given more money by the state have the freedom to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. These are the areas in which Liberals have emphasized freedom as being most important. On the other hand, Liberals have actively attacked freedom of conscience through efforts to impose ideological values tests for eligibility for certain government programs. They have limited people's freedom to work in cases where those people do not want to make certain medical choices. They have also imposed effective limits on freedom to work for those who work in certain sectors by imposing onerous regulatory constraints on those sectors and effectively trying to transition those sectors out of business. They have limited people's effective economic freedom by presiding over higher taxes, higher homes prices and higher levels of regulation. Most recently, they have limited Canadians' freedom through the passage of an online censorship bill. With this government, one is freer to take drugs, choose death and collect money from the government, but less free to follow one's conscience; work; make medical choices; keep one's own money; buy a home, given the state of housing prices; start a business or hear contrary ideas online. That is one approach to the issue of freedom. Conservatives have, generally, a different set of priorities when it comes to what freedom should look like. Again, this is not just because Conservatives think that freedom is important. It is because Conservatives believe in a hierarchy of goods and an essential character to the human person that leads us to prioritize particular kinds of choices as part of our doctrine of freedom. Most fundamentally, Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion. These are the most important freedoms. We believe this because we believe that individual human beings are most fundamentally truth and meaning seeking creatures. Freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion are the means through which we find truth and meaning. Therefore, intervention in our lives by the state that limits these freedoms is particularly harmful and dangerous. Close behind these concepts in terms of importance is the freedom to work, to build and to voluntarily share the fruits of one's labour with others. Protecting the freedom to work, build and share is fundamental to economic prosperity, but actually, the freedom to work, build and share is about much more than just the pursuit of material abundance. Economic freedom is not just about creating a more prosperous society. It does create a more prosperous society, but there is more to it than that. This freedom, too, is about the freedom of an individual to seek meaning. In order to be able to pursue meaning, individuals must be free to build things that are beautiful and then to look at those things with happiness, happiness in both what has been accomplished and happiness arising from the new thing that now exists. The freedom to build and work is intimately tied with the pursuit of meaning and happiness. Protecting people's freedom to build businesses, build into their jobs, build things with their hands as part of their jobs and build up strong families and communities is fundamental for human happiness. Happiness measurement literature actually shows that people who are employed are generally happier, not because of the money they get from working but because of the satisfaction and meaning they get from working. Incidentally, the loss of satisfaction is why I am so strongly opposed to government policies that pay people more for not working than they pay people for working. Poorly constructed benefit programs have robbed so many Canadians of the opportunity to feel the satisfaction and meaning that comes from work while still being able to provide for their families. It is terrible that people have been forced to choose between having enough money to provide for their families and working by government programs that effectively pay them more to not work than they are able to receive through working. As someone recently asked me, what is the essence of being Conservative? I thought about it and I came back with this: The essence of being a Conservative is to believe in building beautiful things that last. Liberals have a hard time with the “building things that last” part, often relying on the insecure foundation of deficit spending, but, more fundamentally, Conservatives understand that unleashing a free economy in which people can build things that they want is not just about prosperity. It is also about the happiness that accrues to individuals for being able to invest of themselves in creating something new and beautiful. Conservatives are champions of the idea of freedom, but a particular kind of freedom. The concept of freedom that we are championing is human freedom, freedom rooted in an understanding of what is important in human life and of the kinds of pursuits that lead to meaning and happiness. Sadly, this budget does not advance our vision of human freedom. It doubles down on the belief that higher taxes, higher spending and a kind of behind-the-scenes prodding but still highly interventionist industrial policy is going to produce the kind of country that we want. I was particularly struck by chapter 3 in the budget. The ineffective so-called affordability measures at the beginning of the budget read to me like a kind of late-stage add-on for political reasons by the government. I think the heart of where the government wants to go with this budgetary policy is in that later chapter. It is its belief that they can push the economy toward its preferred vision of an economy of the future through massive public spending and through selective privileges for certain sectors while piling on additional barriers for other sectors that are not preferred. This is still the steel hand of the state picking winners and losers but trying to wear a velvet glove in the process. I think what our country truly needs is a budget rooted in this concept of human freedom that I have outlined, a budget that seeks to give people more space to create beautiful things that last. Canadians are sick of a government that is content to let people choose drugs and choose death, but does not want to let them choose to keep more of what they have worked for and built on their own. We need a government that gives people the space, the encouragement and the freedom to build beautiful things that last.

1695 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 11:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to give an example and maybe the member could provide his thoughts on this issue. That is the issue of Volkswagen. There is a difference. There is a contrast. The Government of Canada believes that by investing in St. Thomas and the people in the surrounding area, by getting Volkswagen and working with Premier Doug Ford, at the end of the day, Canada will benefit immensely. Yes, there is a substantial cost to doing that and that cost will be better known as we see the type of production, but it is all about an industry that is going to make Canada a leading force in the world with electric vehicle batteries, not to mention all of the different spinoffs, whether it is a lithium mine possibly in Manitoba, or other spinoffs. Does the member see that as a freedom thing or does he believe that his leader is actually on the wrong side of the issue and that the Conservatives better do a flip-flop and support this particular initiative?

176 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/27/23 11:38:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us answer the question in terms of freedoms. If we look at the many projects that have been proposed for this country, various kinds of development projects in various regions, in various sectors, I think of many examples, in particular in my part of the country, of projects that have been entirely viable based on private sector funding, would have created massive numbers of jobs and the government, in some cases, piled regulatory barriers on those; in some cases shut them down directly at a late stage. We have certain kinds of projects where the government is shutting them down even though they are viable in terms of private sector investments and other areas where the government is pouring massive public subsidies in order to get some kinds of developments to take place. I want Canada to be a country where any business can invest in any sector and grow without the kinds of barriers the government has been putting in, but where the government is not presuming to say this sector is one we like and this sector is one we do not, but where in fact the opportunities and the benefits are available for all sectors.

201 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/27/23 11:40:05 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittij, I guess another aspect of freedom is what we do and how we ensure that we ourselves practise in our country our own freedoms and how we ensure countries are safe. For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not allowing a lot of Ukrainians to be safe, to be free. The budget implementation act talks about amending the customs tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the list of countries entitled to most favoured nation tariff treatments. I think that this is going to be an important measure to make sure that we are doing better, to ensure that countries like Ukraine are getting the support that they need to achieve the peace that they need. I wonder if the member can comment on voting against this type of provision in the budget implementation act.

137 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/27/23 11:41:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously this omnibus budget implementation act contains many different kinds of measures. We are going to find pieces here and there where we say, yes, we agree with that, but we have to vote overall on the direction of the budget. I think there has been a great deal of unity in this House on many issues to do with Ukraine. In fact, where we have been critical of the government with Ukraine is where it granted exemptions to sanctions, where it failed to be tough in moving sanctions forward early enough or implementing them fully. For one example, we spent a long time trying to push the government to rescind a waiver it gave to Gazprom, effectively allowing the export of turbines that would have facilitated the export of energy from Russia to Germany. We think it would have been better to be promoting the export of Canadian gas to Europe to relieve their dependence on Russia, rather than the government's decision to grant a temporary waiver that could have helped Russia export its gas to Europe and, at the same time, not acting to allow Canadian gas exports to Europe. There has been a substantial measure of unity. If anything, certainly, we have been pushing the government to go further in its response to these events and, in particular, recognizing the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean, secure, stable energy.

239 words

Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC)

Apr/27/23 11:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier to a number of people, and I think one thing we all agree on in the House is that it is an honour and a privilege to serve the people who elected us to be here. I want to thank the people of Niagara West, and I do not think I could ever thank them enough. I would never take that for granted. I was reminded of that as a number of my constituents were in Ottawa today, whom I had a chance to meet and get caught up with, from various parts of my riding, such as St. Anns, Wainfleet, West Lincoln, Grimsby and Jordan. It was great to have them take the time to come up here. I rise today to talk about this year's budget. As we all know, every year the budget is one of the most important items we discuss in this chamber. It is important because it is a road map for our country's finances for the next year and beyond. It is important because it is an opportunity to support families and businesses, and to grow our country's economy. Each year, many of my constituents look forward to reading the budget to see how this country's finances will be managed. Currently, our country has several crises the Liberal government is unable to address. The first is the overtaxation of families and businesses. The second is inflation-inducing spending. The third is the cost of living crisis we are in. Last, but not least, we have a major housing crisis. The folks in Niagara West and, frankly, millions of families from across Canada, are not happy with how things are going financially for them. Families and businesses are struggling. I truly do not believe the government is addressing the needs of Canadians and Canadian businesses. I have said that many times in the House over the past eight years. I get many phone calls and correspondence from constituents saying that their paycheques are no longer covering their monthly expenses. That means they have to go deeper into debt each month to pay for the essentials, whether that is for food, heating their home, putting gas in the family vehicle or other necessities. Seniors on fixed incomes in my riding are also expressing the same concerns. As prices for everything increase, on what seems like a weekly basis, household budgets are not just strained, they are broken. This is something that is extremely concerning to me. My constituents have made it clear to me that their quality of life has become worse under the Liberal government. At this point, my constituents do not trust the Liberal government to ensure their money is well spent or that it will deliver on its promises. From the Liberal promise that the carbon tax rebate would cover the cost to families, to the promise that the deficit this year would go down, my constituents simply cannot rely on the Liberals to be honest. I have had to tell folks who were calling my office that the reason gas for the family vehicle went up again on April 1 is because of the carbon tax, which added another 14¢ per litre this year. Driving kids to school and hockey is not the only thing that will be more expensive with a yearly rising carbon tax. Every year the Liberals hike the carbon tax, they also make it more expensive for families in my riding to heat their homes and get to work. Let me put it this way so the folks who are listening will understand what is really happening: Every time the Liberal government increases the carbon tax, virtually everything we purchase and pay for gets more expensive. It is that simple. Out of the many misguided fiscal policies of the last eight years of the government, the carbon tax is especially devastating to family budgets. Believe me, the Liberals know it. I am just not sure they care. They promised the carbon tax scheme would be revenue neutral. They promised that what Canadians pay through the carbon tax would be returned in rebates. They promised that Canadians would not pay more. The Liberals broke that promise. Who is paying more? Canadian families around the country. Folks feel like they have been scammed, but for how much? The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the average Canadian will spend at least $1,500 more in taxes than what they get back in rebates. At the end of the day, Canadian families realize that the carbon tax is a tax plan and just another tax. The government was disingenuous when it said it would help the environment. Why is that? It is because it has not hit a single emissions target yet. What did it do instead? It implemented the tax, which increases every year on April 1 and leaves families, on average, $1,500 poorer each year. Ultimately, the carbon tax is not an environmental plan, as the Liberals continue to falsely claim. It is a costly tax plan that is especially damaging to Canadians, especially those on fixed incomes or living in rural Canada. I have heard colleagues tonight talk about the differences and challenges of living in rural Canada. We do not have public transit. It is not easy to get around when we need a car for everything we do. We should have that choice. The government continues to have this false idea that it can spend and tax its way to prosperity. That is a fundamental mistake that is costing millions of families across Canada thousands of dollars a year, and it will only get worse. The government is unable and unwilling to rein in its spending, so it will just increase taxes to cover its extra expenses. Its out-of-control spending is pushing up inflation. It knows it, and we know it. At this point, everyone is feeling it and knows it. The Liberal inflationary spending has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. As a result, one in five Canadians are skipping meals and people are literally going to food banks asking for help to end their lives, and not because they are sick but because they just cannot afford to eat. This is actually happening right here in our country. Let me repeat this because I do not think it can be stressed enough: People are going to food banks, asking for help to end their lives and not because they are sick but because they cannot afford to eat. By the way, food bank usage is at its highest levels ever. In the meantime, the government talks about its grocery rebate. Sure, it is giving a rebate; that is true. However, the rebate would give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of food that the Liberals' inflationary deficits helped create. They are giving with one hand and taking with another, so that kind of reminds me of the Liberal government's view of the economy and it can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, they tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidize it. In fact, Canada's Food Price Report 2023 predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. That is almost $600 more than the $467 rebate they will receive. That is why it is difficult to hear the government members consistently repeating falsehoods, misinformation and disinformation with respect to how good they think Canadians have it, especially when I hear folks in my riding struggling because of the Liberal government's misguided and flawed approach to the economy. More inflationary spending and increased taxation will put our country in increasingly worse shape, year after year. The interest rate alone on the debt that the Liberals are racking up is mind boggling. Most Canadians are not aware of the astronomical amount of debt that our country owes and the enormous interest payments that have to be made on this debt. For the folks watching at home, Canada's federal debt, as was mentioned earlier by my colleague, for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household. The cost to service Canada's debt this year is projected to be at $43.9 billion. Imagine that: almost $44 billion just to service our national debt. These kinds of numbers are almost impossible for people to relate to and easily understand; perhaps that is the Liberals' intention. Look, it is quite straightforward. At a time when Canadians are facing rising costs of living, thanks to inflationary deficits, families and small business owners cannot afford to pay more and especially not more taxes like the carbon tax. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, when we form government after the next election, is committed to scrapping this monumentally flawed tax. We believe that we should protect our environment with technology and not with ever-increasing taxes that clearly do not work. We do not believe in punishing working people for heating their homes and driving to work. If you will allow me, Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss another topic that I find particularly troubling. Everyone knows and even the Liberals acknowledge that we are in a housing crisis. There are just not enough houses for Canadians and houses on the market are ridiculously expensive. The average rents are almost out of control. We are seeing the dream of home ownership disappear for young new Canadians under the current government. A staggering statistic is that nine in 10 people who do not own a home say they never will. That is because since 2015 when the Liberal government came to power, the down payment needed to buy a house has doubled. The minimum payment has gone from an average of $22,000 to $44,000 across Canada. Forty-five thousand dollars is almost impossible to save for a down payment. In 2015, the average monthly payment of a new house was $1,400. Today, it has gone up to over $3,100. In 2015, one needed only 39% of the average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. That number has risen to 62%. These numbers are clearly unsustainable. These numbers indicate that there is something immensely wrong with how the Liberal government has approached housing since being elected in 2015. What is even more concerning is that there is no end in sight. My concern is that we provided solutions to the Liberals' failures, but they are not listening. It seems like they are not listening because the ideas are coming from the other side of the House. I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues when I say that we stand ready to provide effective ideas to get Canada back on the right financial track. If the Liberals do not take us up on this offer, we will have to clean up their mess after we form government in the next election.

1866 words