Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑59, the government is creating a new department, the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. None of those areas fall under federal jurisdiction. This means the minister can interfere more, impose conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and cause more bickering and delays. Pierre Elliott Trudeau already tried this in 1971. He created a similar department, and it was a total failure. During the department's existence, there was nothing but bickering until it was shut down in 1979. Does my colleague agree that when the Liberals do the same thing over and over again, it really seems like a farce?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that everything the Liberals have done on housing has been a joke. They have not built any new homes. We have seen that housing starts across this country have failed. They continue to reward gatekeepers rather than getting them out of the way. They refuse to work with provinces, and they continue to tread on provincial jurisdiction. The one place where they can actually make investments is in military housing on military bases, which is on federal land. They have not done that. In the budget that we have before us right now, the government says that we are short 6,700 houses. The government has built only 38 military homes in the last two years, and the budget has zero dollars for military homes. In the forecast for the next budget, under the DPU, there are zero dollars for building military housing. We know that, going forward in the next five years, the government has only $8 million to build houses. How would $8 million over five years build 6,700 homes? We will be lucky if it builds 20 houses. It is a joke.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could reflect on his comments. He said that we have not used military land to build houses. There was something called Kapyong barracks in the city of Winnipeg that he may want to reflect on. That was on military land. He talks about a government that is not investing in housing. That is mind-blowing in terms of the degree to which we have invested in housing. He also said that we do not work with other governments. I cannot believe the member said that, as we have had so many announcements with municipalities and provinces. Where has the member been sleeping? There has been an incredible amount of work and cooperation that we have been getting from different levels of government. Why should Canadians believe what the member is saying if he is so factually incorrect in a very short answer?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see Kapyong barracks under the control of Treaty No. 1, because I know the first nation will get houses built. It will be doing it on its own without any assistance from the federal government. It can do it under its own rules and regulations and build the homes. That is what we are seeing right across this country, including in places like Vancouver. The government continues to reward gatekeepers rather than get them out of the way. Despite all of the announcements the government has made, and it makes great announcements, the government has not built one single home. I actually used one of the government's announcements to build a really nice paper home, and that is about the only home that the government has been able to build, thanks to my hard work and its piece of paper.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up the issue around crime. Last month was the tragic one-year anniversary of a young mother and her young child being murdered on the streets of Edmonton by a man who had just been released on bail after assaulting a young girl and another person while he was out on parole after stabbing someone randomly and charged with attempted murder. He was out on parole after also trying to stab someone to death while also out on bail on four different violent assault charges. The Liberals introduced Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, soft-on-crime bills. I wonder whether the member could perhaps give some feedback on why he thinks the Liberal government is prioritizing the rights of criminals instead of innocent victims.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I just have to express my sympathies to the family that lost its loved ones in that murder. The government has never put victims first. It has always stood up for the criminal, and it is trying to reduce the number of incarcerations. We know that those who work at Corrections Canada do great work in making sure that we are kept safe and that people who are incarcerated are getting the support and help they need to reintegrate into society when they have served their sentence. However, the government continues to do bail instead of jail, and that has undermined our country. It has made us more unsafe, and our communities are being terrorized by repeat violent offenders whom the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to put on our streets instead of behind bars.

Mr. Speaker, the budget impacts people, as do the decisions being made here by the Liberals and the NDP. They impact everyone in this nation, and it is not for the great, at all. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, who was appointed by the Liberals, said that this is “the worst budget since...1982”. Why would he say that? I can tell members that the people I am talking to on the streets, in their homes and at their businesses are having a tough time. I think of Tyler. He bought a place and was paying $1,600 a month for his mortgage. Now that he has had to renew, it is costing him $4,000. He has no choice but to sell his home. I think of Candice, who told me that she cannot afford to buy new clothes for her kids. Even signing up for sports is a challenge. That is just because of how much more difficult things have become financially for millions of Canadians. I think of Shafi, who showed me on his app what his payments are now. He is a worker at Seaspan in North Vancouver. He told me that his mortgage has gone up astronomically. It is now $7,528. He says he has no freedom. He is working seven days a week, 10 hours a day and cannot give his body a rest, or he will lose his home. He said that it is not a fancy home, about 30 or 40 years old. However, the consequences of the Liberals' out-of-control spending is being felt. It was not that long ago that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance asked what the problem was with borrowing money as it is pretty much free. The interest rate was at 0.25%. Now it has gone up to 5% or 6%, and the Bank of Canada rates are being passed on to the people who are renewing their mortgages. Those who were first affected, immediately affected, were those who had variable rates, but those who now have to renew their mortgage are having to make really tough decisions as to what to do. I know in British Columbia, 37,000 people moved to Alberta because of the cost of living, the cost of housing, the cost of gas and the cost of everything. They are finding it very hard. That has a lot to do with the Liberals, supported by the federal NDP, and the decisions of the B.C. NDP government under David Eby. It is tough. People only have so much disposable income and only so many hours of the day to be able to work. I talked to one lady, who has a business, at an event with the Rotary last week. She said that she has never seen it so bad. Her clientele is shrinking, and it is much worse now than it was even under COVID, as people do not have that income. Conservatives have brought forward a motion to axe the tax and give Canadians a break over the summertime. The NDP and the Liberals have voted that down. In B.C., gas is hovering about or just below $2 a litre. That is money that is a very scarce commodity at this point with the cost of housing and everything else. Let us not forget the tremendous increases we have seen over the past few years with inflation in the cost of food. As well, people are not going to restaurants like they used to. A restaurant near where I live here in Ottawa just closed. It has been there for many years and it just does not have the clientele anymore. It is because people do not have the disposable income that they used to have. I have gone on a number of visits to work sites throughout British Columbia where the leader of the Conservative Party has spoken. There are blue-collar workers there. The response from them is that they are very attentive because of the Conservative plan. Our leader is aware of and is speaking to the issues they are facing. I was on Vancouver Island, and I was talking to a gentleman. He actually was a cabinet minister under a previous B.C. NDP government. He now has a Conservative membership, and not only does he have a Conservative membership, but he is also on the board. He said that the NDP has totally left the working-class people. It has become so woke on issues, and it is not talking about the bread-and-butter issues Canadians are facing. Ahmed Yousef was the Liberal candidate I ran against in the last election. He recently told me he will be voting for me in this election. He says the Liberals have just lost it. They have gone so far in their mismanagement, in their spending and in the decisions they are making, that the candidate I just ran against will be voting for me. A previous president in my riding told me a few days ago that he will be writing a cheque for the riding association. Why is that? He says this is not the Liberal Party of Chrétien or of Martin. This is a Liberal government that has gone right off the rails. It has gone right off the rails economically and right off the rails considering where Canadians are at. The Canadian standard of living is going down. If we look at the numbers for past years, our per capita income is going down as opposed to going up. We are now at, I believe, two-thirds of what the per capita income is in the United States. Why is this? A lot of this is because of the bad decisions made by Liberal and NDP members, and poor priorities. One example is waste. They have been a tremendous basket case for waste. I think of the TransCanada pipeline. This was a pipeline going from Alberta to the coast, and it was under the private sector. It was not going to cost taxpayers anything. However, through delays and everything else, Kinder Morgan was going to be paying about $7 billion to have it done. It sold its share, and the Liberals have now spent approaching $35 billion to $40 billion of taxpayers' money to get a pipeline through. It should have cost taxpayers nothing. All of that is taxpayers' money. This sort of thing impacts us. We are spending as much in interest on servicing the debt as we are on health care. We are spending more than we are on national defence. That waste and that overspending has led to increased deficits and debt, which means we have less money to put toward things that are important to Canadians, and we have to service the debt. One thing is for sure. Conservatives will be voting against the fall economic statement as well as the budget, and I hope the other parties will as well.

Madam Speaker, what the Liberals are about is increases, such as increases to the food banks, where in one month we saw two million visits, and now we have more than 1 million people going to the food banks. Why is that? It is because they are not only incompetent in their fiscal management, but also destroying our economy with their anti-resource drive. There has been a loss of jobs and a loss of investment happening across the nation.

Madam Speaker, on the question of cutting things, we are being told by our constituents that the thing they want cut is the number of Liberal government seats, but the reality of what people are telling us is that the costs are significant and the carbon tax is really brutal. As the government, in its budget, continues to want to increase it, I am hearing from my constituents about cutting the carbon tax. Is that something my colleague is hearing about with the challenges of a redistribution wealth scheme versus an environmental plan?

Madam Speaker, certainly the residents in my community, and across British Columbia and Canada, are saying they have had enough of this carbon tax, and they want to axe the tax. I cannot say how many people are phoning my office or meeting me and saying that they were voting for the NDP, or were voting for the Liberals, and they are not doing it again because of their poor management. The carbon tax is a case in point. If one looks at the facts and they realize that things are not working, they change their way of going. There is a carbon tax, and we are against that because it is not working. It is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From what I understand, there has been consensus among the parties for unanimous consent for me to present the questions on the Order Paper. If we can get that affirmed, I will do that.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2517 and 2523.

With regard to the impact of the carbon tax on school boards, divisions, and educational institutions across Canada, since 2019: (a) how many school boards, divisions, and educational institutions have been consulted or met regarding the impact of the carbon tax on their financial situation, and what are the details of each such consultation, including (i) the date, (ii) who did the consultation, (iii) who was consulted, (iv) the location, (v) the type of consultation; (b) of the 10% of carbon tax revenues earmarked for funding programs aimed at reducing emissions, how much has been allocated to school boards, divisions, and educational institutions, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description; (c) what is the total amount of carbon price revenues collected from school boards, divisions, and educational institutions since 2019, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year; (d) what is the government's estimate of the annual amount of carbon tax collected on gasoline or fuel purchased for school buses; (e) if the government does not have any estimate for (d), why has this not been studied; and (f) has the government conducted any analyses to determine the total financial net cost of the carbon tax on school boards, divisions, and educational institutions, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) the name of the study, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) the date, (iv) the findings? With regard to the government's response to the April 1, 2024, “Axe the Tax” rallies across Canada: (a) did the Minister of Public Safety issue any directives or advice to the RCMP or other police agencies in relation to the rallies, and, if so, what are the details, including the directive or advice; and (b) did the RCMP issue any directives or advice to RCMP officers assigned to the rallies and, if so, for each instance, (i) who provided the directive or advice, (ii) what was the directive or advice, (iii) what location or locations was the directive or advice intended for?

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2509 to 2516, 2518 to 2522, 2524 and 2525 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

With regard to the Public Service Pension Plan, as of January 1, 2024: (a) what is the number of (i) public sector employees, (ii) retirees, (iii) former employees, in Group 1 of the Public Service Pension Plan; (b) what is the number of (i) public sector employees, (ii) retirees, (iii) former employees, in Group 2 of the Public Service Pension Plan; (c) what is the projected surplus in the Public Service Pension Plan; (d) what percentage of the plan is funded; and (e) what plans, if any, does the government have to distribute funds over the permissible surplus level? With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC): (a) what is the total amount of grants and contributions provided by ECCC to (i) not-for-profit organizations or charities, (ii) academia, (iii) international non-governmental organizations, broken down by year since 2019; and (b) what are the details of each grant or contribution in (a), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose of the funding? With regard to the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2016: how many jobs were cut or eliminated from the federal public service, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) department and agency, (iii) job type? With regard to federal investments in Canada’s telecommunications sector, since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Rogers Communications Inc., (ii) BCE Inc., (iii) Telus Mobility, broken down by company, year and type of funding? With regard to bonuses paid out at government departments or agencies in the 2023-24 fiscal year, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent? With regard to bonuses paid out at Crown corporations in the 2023-24 fiscal year, broken down by Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by month since January 2022: (a) how many requests for technical assistance have been received by (i) income tax service providers, (ii) the general public; and (b) of the requests in (a), what is the breakdown by the (i) type of tax filer, (ii) type of issue requiring assistance, (iii) forms, (iv) tax measures involved? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by McKinsey & Company since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Deloitte since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by PricewaterhouseCoopers since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Accenture since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by KPMG since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available on line, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to funding allocated to Pathways to Recovery's Safer Supply Ottawa Program through Health Canada's Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP), since 2016: (a) what specific measures, if any, were implemented to ensure that companies owned or operated by members of Pathway's board of directors did not financially benefit from the funding; (b) prior to receiving the SUAP grants, did Pathways disclose any conflicts of interest to the government, including whether or not any of their board of directors would profit from funding provided; (c) do any of the terms within the funding agreements include prohibitions on conflicts of interests and personal profit from the grants, and, if so, which agreements include such terms and what are their summary; (d) what are the details of all funding provided to Pathways, broken down by the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) project description; and (e) what specific safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that substances provided by Pathways do not end up trafficked by drug dealers? With regard to the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, since fiscal year 2005-06: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Nanaimo Regional District, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by fiscal year, and total expenditure; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (e) what is the infrastructure funding of Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (f) what is the funding of highways, including, but not limited to, (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; and (g) what other infrastructure investments are provided through the funding of national parks, highways, the Building Canada Fund, Infrastructure Canada, the Gas Tax Fund, Small Crafts and Harbours, BC Ferries, etc., broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project? With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s AgriCompetitiveness Program, broken down by year for each of the last ten fiscal years: (a) which organizations applied for funding through the program; and (b) how much did each organization in (a) (i) request, (ii) receive, in funding?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.