44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I too will speak to Bill C‑215, which is being debated today in the House.
Bill C‑215 seeks to make a change to employment insurance. I am getting tired of having debates on employment insurance. I wonder why we are talking about employment insurance in the Canadian federal Parliament.
In 1867, when Canada was founded, there was a division of powers set up. The federal government took care of the money, the army, international border contacts and customs, but all the social affairs fell under the responsibility of the provinces. The reason employment insurance is a federal jurisdiction is that someone pulled a fast one in 1940. The economic crisis in 1929 was still having ill effects, the Second World War had just started and, in the meantime, there was a Liberal premier in Quebec, Mr. Godbout, who did not necessarily want independence for Quebec and let it drop. That is why the federal government is responsible for employment insurance today.
I would like to use an analogy about the federal government. I have a five-year-old son. Sometimes when a few children are playing together, we often see one of them go over to a friend who is playing with toys and snatch the toy away from them. He will go over to another friend who is playing with a toy and snatch that away. He will want all the toys that his friends are playing with. He will take them all, he will not be able to hold on to any more toys, but he will still try to take some more. That is classic behaviour. Eventually, the toys will quite simply gather dust. He will no longer play or be interested in them.
That is more or less how the federal government operates. It tries to take on all the responsibilities, keeps taking a few more here and there, but then neglects them. That is happening with EI.
Employment insurance is not working. The federal government is not working, and I believe that there is no desire to see it working. That is sad.
That is not just for employment insurance; there have been problems with passports and the Phoenix pay system. The problems keep piling up. This sort of thing is always happening with the federal government, but that does not stop it from wanting even more responsibility. It tries to tell us how we should be running our hospitals. It decides to launch all kinds of programs that it should not be launching. Meanwhile, the EI system is not working. The government is not carrying out the reform that people have been calling for for years.
That is unfortunate, because every time there is an election the Liberals promise to reform the EI system. They hold consultations and then more consultations and in the end they do nothing to reform the system.
As a result, right now, only about half of unemployed workers are covered. That means that one out of every two people who lose their job is not covered by EI even though it is an insurance plan and they should be eligible. The federal government was even siphoning money off the fund, which ran surpluses for years. From 1996 to 2009, $60 billion were siphoned off the EI fund. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives put unemployed workers' money directly into their pockets and left workers in the lurch.
Today we are talking about Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend employment insurance, more specifically sick leave. Sick leave is another thing that is not working. A person who gets sick gets only 15 weeks and that is it. It is a season, nothing more. They can spend the summer recovering, but if they are not better at the end of the summer, then they do not get any more money.
It is sad because if someone loses their job and is the one person in two who is covered, they can usually get quite a few weeks of benefits, maybe even up to 50 weeks. I do not remember exactly how many weeks are available these days, but it is somewhere around there. A person can go about a year with that. However, if that person gets cancer and has to stop working, they are entitled to only 15 weeks. That is an inequity that does not work. The purpose of Bill C‑215 is to correct this inequity. This is not the first crack at this.
My colleague, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, introduced a bill in the House during the last Parliament to fix this. In her case, it was not about getting to 52 weeks, it was about going from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. If it were 52 weeks, that would be even better. We could applaud that. We support this initiative, obviously.
However, this shows how hard she worked at the time. Her bill was even known as the Émilie Sansfaçon act. Émilie Sansfaçon was a woman who was on sick leave. It is called a leave of absence, but really, it is a forced resignation due to illness. She was on EI for too short a time and eventually passed away. She did not live to see Bill C-265, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, pass.
It is sad, because her father, who supported the Bloc Québécois, later ran for the Bloc Québécois and hoped that this bill would eventually pass. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît worked hard. The bill passed first and second reading, was sent to committee and returned to the House for third reading. It went through all the stages. What was missing? Royal assent was missing. It just needed the government to say yes, nothing else.
That did not happen, which is sad. The Senate could have helped, too. It is sad, especially when we look at all the people who have supported this over the years. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who introduced the bill, was not the first to come up with this idea. Yves Lessard, a Bloc Québécois member for the Belœil region, had already introduced a similar bill. Paul Crête, a Bloc Québécois member for the Bas-du-Fleuve region, had also already tabled a bill on this subject. Robert Carrier, a Bloc Québécois member for the Laval region, had already introduced a bill on this subject. Jean-François Fortin, a member of Parliament from eastern Quebec, had also introduced a bill on this subject.
The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly called for this problem to be fixed, for sick leave to be given to people who fall ill and for them to be supported during this difficult time. It is not a luxury for them to be able to eat, pay their rent and receive 50% of their pay, if not less, because it is 50% of the eligible amount. All we have been asking for is support to get them through a difficult time. By not giving them the money they need to heal, the government is adding to the stress they are under. It is sad.
I spoke about the members of the Bloc Québécois who worked on this, namely MPs Lessard, Crête, Carrier and Fortin, but there were also members from other parties. I must admit that we are not the only ones who had this idea. I could talk about the NDP MP Dawn Black, who introduced a bill three times to remedy the problem with sickness benefits and to provide more support for these workers. There was Fin Donnelly, a member who introduced a bill to resolve the issue four times. The next person that I name should certainly help the government understand that it needs to support this bill. Denis Coderre, a Liberal Party MP, once introduced a bill to resolve the issue with sickness benefits.
It is fascinating to see that members from all political parties have introduced bills year after year. This has been going on for what must be over 20 years now, maybe even 30. This is a problem that members are trying to solve. Unfortunately, they are not succeeding, either because their bills do not receive royal assent or because the party in power decides not to support them.
What we have now is a bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. It is important to highlight that it is his bill. We are at a point where this is coming from a Conservative member. We have reached a point where the Conservatives are also saying that the problem must be fixed. When everyone says that the problem must be fixed, there is no reason why it should not be fixed. It would be truly sad if the Liberals did not want to fix it. That would make the Liberals look more right wing than the Conservatives, more heartless than the Conservatives. I find that hard to believe. I hope that is not what happens.
Deep down, no one wants to leave sick people in the lurch. No one thinks it is okay for sick people to be in a position where they cannot afford to buy food, pay for groceries, be able to take the transportation they need, put gas—or electricity, I hope soon—in their car, so they can get where they need to go to receive care. It is sad. I hope that once the debate on Bill C‑215 is over, things will not end there. I hope we will finally find a solution and manage to do something positive for these people.
1670 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière has five minutes for his right of reply.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, now the die is cast. After a year and a half of work, we are the end of the process with my Bill C‑215.
I want to thank everyone who contributed from near or far at every stage of the bill and who participated in the deliberations on this important issue of ensuring the financial security of people living with a serious illness requiring a period of convalescence that goes beyond the 26 weeks being offered.
I would have liked to see in yesterday's budget an openness by the Liberal government to help seriously ill workers who are asking for EI benefits for a period that goes beyond the 26 weeks that were hard-won in December.
That being said, we have made progress in the debate on this social security issue that is important to all Canadians. I greatly resent the requirement to obtain royal recommendation from the government, one that has blocked the wishes and a majority vote of the House in favour of Bill C‑215. My thoughts are with all those who have a serious illness who will not get this financial help that would have given them a little more room to breathe.
Every year we lose special people to cancer. I would be remiss if I did not mention my friend and neighbour Roger Flamand, who has cancer. Roger is fighting for his life right now, surrounded by his wife Lorraine, his daughters Annie and Marie-Josée and his entire family.
With courage and resilience, Roger is going through a difficult time, and his qualities as a fair, helpful and generous man are serving him well during this trial. Family, friends and neighbours, above all neighbours, are supporting him day after day. Our thoughts and prayers are with him as he continues his personal journey with respect and compassion.
I would like to personally address the man who was the very best neighbour for 50 years. I remember the warm summer nights when Roger and my father Armand had long conversations. What a beautiful and close friendship they had. It was really heartwarming to see them.
When my father passed away, Roger often told me that he considered Armand, my father, to be like a second father. This evening, I can tell him that my father considered him to be one of his sons. Roger's presence will always be a source of comfort and solace. On behalf of Chantal, my children and myself, I thank him for being a part of our lives. We love him dearly.
With that, I will conclude the debate.
439 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The following is a statement from the Speaker on Bill C‑215:
It is my duty to inform members that the notice requirement in respect of a royal recommendation has not been met. Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2), the question on the motion for third reading of the bill will not be put. Accordingly, the order for third reading is discharged and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If you seek it, you may find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House call on the government to provide a royal recommendation for the bill.
An hon. member: No.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:49:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at this hour to bring forward a question I asked the Prime Minister on February 1 of this year.
The budget was tabled yesterday, so when I referenced it in my question, it was in the drafting stage. I had thought that one might, in drafting the budget, look to the previous promises made by the governing party to see if they did not create a framework or guidance to assist the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance in drafting the budget.
I suggested that, for instance, if times are tight and we want to contain spending, it would be a good idea to cancel spending money on fossil fuel infrastructure. The government had suggested, in previous election campaigns, that it was a priority to meet climate targets and follow the advice of scientists. I also asked the Prime Minister if it was not a good time to stop spending money on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Between the time I asked the question and today, it has risen in its estimated cost to over $30 billion.
Its original price tag, back when I intervened at the National Energy Board and it was a private sector project being run by Kinder Morgan, was approximately $5 billion, so that is a six-fold growth in the price and a remarkable $12-billion increase since this time last year. That is really quite astonishing.
I also asked if it would not be a good idea to save money by cancelling buying the F-35 fighter jets, which remain controversial in the United States, where Pentagon critics are wondering if they are good value for money because the F-35 is still plagued with problems.
I asked whether, going forward, we should not deliver on the promises the government has made, such as funding the disability benefit, following up on promises for pharmacare, and delivering on an independent Canada water agency and the promises to live up to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My closing question to the Prime Minister was whether he would use the budget to deliver on his promises.
Now, we know the answer, and it is a partial yes. I will start with the good news. At long last, the budget does commit to, along a specific timeline, the Canada water agency. I will congratulate my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, who is here tonight to respond. The Canada water agency is something he cares a great deal about. It is now to be based in Winnipeg.
There is more funding for fresh water than we have seen in some time, although not as much as was promised in the Liberal platform, but let us say that is a partial delivery on a promise. I hope my question helped. Who knows if it did? The Canada water agency is an important promise. It will be independent, and it will see legislation brought forward. Again, the clock is ticking on that. I hope when they say “soon”, they mean “really soon”, and not “two years soon” like the last ones.
The Trans Mountain pipeline is not mentioned in the budget. We know the price and the cost of that are falling on Canadian taxpayers because it is now a Crown corporation. We know the debt load from buying it definitely falls on the government. The various promises to not spend money on it really ring hollow, as construction continues against the interests of sovereign first nations, such as the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, Squamish and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, which absolutely protest its existence. We know it is a climate killer.
There were various ways we could have reduced fossil fuel subsidies, but in the budget the government expands them, as we are now seeing dirty fossil fuel used to create hydrogen, so it is no longer green hydrogen. We also have seen, and this is the worst part of the budget for me, a commitment to open the Arctic offshore to oil and gas development.
I will close there.
686 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:53:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to participate in tonight's debate and talk about budget 2023, a made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future.
I am going to respond to a few of the promises the government made that are referenced in the member's original question. One of those was regarding funding for a Canada water agency.
We know how essential healthy lakes and rivers are to Canadians, communities and businesses across the country and we know the threat that climate change and pollution pose to our fresh water. This is why, in budget 2023, we are moving forward to establish a new Canada water agency, which will be headquartered in my home community of Winnipeg.
I really want to thank the hon. member, leader of the Green Party, for her steadfast support of the concept of a stand-alone departmental agency, independent of Environment and Climate Change Canada, reporting directly to the minister. This will be a legislated Canada water agency, and that legislation will, I hope, be introduced soon. Meanwhile, the Canada water agency will be operable in a form that will be effective until it formally becomes that stand-alone agency.
This is in addition to proposing major investments to strengthen our freshwater action plan. For example, we will invest $650 million over 10 years to monitor, assess and do restoration work on the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake of the Woods, the St. Lawrence River, the Fraser River, the Saint John River, the Mackenzie River and Lake Simcoe. These are water bodies from coast to coast to coast, and these investments will support better coordination of efforts to manage and protect fresh water across Canada.
Again, I want to thank the hon. member for her support of our freshwater investments. I agree with her that we need to go further and faster. Indeed, there are future budgets where I certainly hope those investments will be considered.
The hon. member also asked about seeing progress on advancing reconciliation. Since 2015, the federal government has worked with indigenous partners to advance reconciliation and make significant distinction-based investments to respond to the unique histories, interests and priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Through budget 2023, the government continues to advance reconciliation by supporting healthy communities and investing in self-determined solutions. For example, budget 2023 proposes investments to improve safe and affordable housing, which is critical to improving health and social incomes, and to ensuring a better future for indigenous people and their communities.
I will end there and continue my remarks after the next question.
444 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:57:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to recognize progress on a key commitment, the Canada water agency, but nothing is more pressing, particularly in light of the intergovernmental panel on climate change's last report, which says that we are absolutely running out of time. There is no wiggle room and there is no time for procrastination.
I have to say that I was deeply shocked to find, on page 117 of this budget in case others are looking for where they might find it, a commitment to Arctic offshore oil and gas. This runs counter to everything we know, just like opening up Bay du Nord for offshore drilling. Opening up our Arctic for more oil and gas in the region, the part of this world most changed by the climate crisis, to start thinking we should be drilling for oil and gas there, is an abomination.
We know that what we have to do is to cut emissions. The only way to cut emissions is to be bold and stop being cowardly.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, budget 2023 will make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger and greener economic future for all Canadians. In the end, these will make Canada a better place to live, work and thrive for everyone.
I am proud of the fact that budget 2023 will mean better public health care, progress toward truth and reconciliation, new opportunities for Canadian workers and, as I think the hon. member wishes, as do I, building a stronger, cleaner, greener and more sustainable 21st century economy.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:59:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is more urgent than ever, with deadly heat waves, summers of smoke and wildfires, extreme flooding and hurricanes. These events are happening now, and they are only getting more frequent and more severe. While the Liberals say they believe in climate change, they are unwilling to take the action needed at the scale and with the urgency that matches the crisis we are in.
In this week's budget, New Democrats were able to successfully push the government to invest billions into clean energy, sustainable jobs and green infrastructure, but I was very disappointed that there was no concrete action on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in Canada. We have heard promise after promise, but instead the government is headed in the opposite direction, with more handouts to profitable oil and gas companies, ostensibly to provide them with financial help to reduce their emissions. Why would the government not regulate this? Why not make them reduce their emissions and pay for it themselves?
U.S. President Biden's budget eliminates billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, and he has talked about how these companies are making “more money than God”. In contrast, the Liberals think the Canadian taxpayer should be helping out these rich oil and gas CEOs.
A report earlier this month by Canada's spy agency, CSIS, warned that the climate crisis poses a profound national security risk. This confirms what scientists have been saying for decades. It also confirms what many indigenous communities have been warning us about: the melting of Arctic ice and permafrost, rising sea levels for coastal communities. These changes will threaten the Inuit, Métis and first nations ways of being and ways of life, many of which have been in place since time immemorial.
Droughts, flooding and extreme weather in Canada and around the world will mean decreasing food supplies, which means increasing costs for groceries. CSIS highlights the likely increase in violent extremism because of the climate crisis, as well as migration we have never experienced before, with millions of climate refugees, people who will be displaced due to climate disasters and famine, or simply fleeing areas that are too hot to live in.
Our world is changing rapidly and people are scared. They are scared for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren.
The world’s top climate scientists have made it crystal clear that we must reduce our emissions now. Given the urgency, scale and gravity of the crisis we are in, why would the government continue to hand out billions of dollars to the profitable oil and gas industry? These companies are making record profits. They made more money last year than they have ever made before. Why would the government not force these companies, which are fuelling the climate crisis, to pay to clean up their own pollution?
481 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's questions and enjoy working with her on the environment committee of Parliament.
To start, the Government of Canada is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We are not giving it a free pass, as is implied in the question. We have committed to cap and cut oil and gas emissions at a pace and scale necessary to achieve Canada's 2030 and 2050 climate targets. We are doing this in a way that allows the sector to compete in a global economy that is transitioning to net zero, and of course, keeps good, green jobs growing here in Canada. This policy will send a clear, long-term signal to invest in clean technology, low-emissions energy assets and supporting infrastructure while avoiding investments in oil and gas production that do not incorporate best-in-class technologies and infrastructure.
We are working closely with industries, provinces, territories, indigenous partners and civil society to design this approach. Putting a price on carbon pollution creates a financial incentive throughout the economy to reduce emissions and invest in clean innovation. Heavy industries across Canada, including oil and gas activities, are subject to carbon pricing under the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS for short, or equivalent provincial systems.
We are taking action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Current federal regulations require the oil and gas sector to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% below 2012 levels by 2025. In 2021, Canada joined the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce global methane emissions by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. As part of this pledge, Canada committed to develop regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by at least 75% below 2012 levels by 2030.
Implicit in some of the member's questions is that the government is not doing enough. I would emphasize for the hon. member, and I know she has heard this from me before, that I think we would agree on this side of the House that we need to do more. However, we are working very hard to cap oil and gas sector emissions; we are implementing a clean fuel standard; we are investing in carbon capture and storage, which is going to be very important, as pointed out by the IPCC; and indeed, we should be phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. That is this year, and it is two years in advance of the G7 target that was set some years ago.
434 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member. I enjoy working with him on the environment committee in Parliament.
The member brought up the oil and gas emissions cap, and I want to briefly touch on that.
We know that the Liberals have been dragging their feet on this, and that the oil and gas companies have been aggressively lobbying for delays, loopholes and more subsidies. Therefore, we need a strong oil and gas emissions cap if we have any hope of reducing our emissions.
However, the member did not answer my question, and so I will give him another opportunity. Why not force these rich oil and gas companies, which are making more money than God, to pay to reduce their own emissions?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member on a couple of things. One is that the energy sector is making record profits. I also agree with her that emissions must come down, and we have very aggressive targets for 2030 and 2050. This is why we have invested $9.1 billion in our emissions reduction plan.
It is time that the oil and gas sector puts the shoulder to the wheel and works with us to create the economy of the future and the good, green jobs of tomorrow, as well as ensuring a livable planet for our kids and grandkids.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:08:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here tonight to talk about the Canada Post surcharge that was brought into play, as we know, to reflect the increase in diesel costs across Canada, but as we have seen gas prices increase, it has become so unaffordable for families.
Over the Christmas holiday season, we saw that surcharge grow to 39.5%. Families right now are struggling to make ends meet. They are seeing skyrocketing grocery store prices, skyrocketing prices at the pumps, skyrocketing fees at the banks, skyrocketing telecom fees. What did Canada Post do? It imposed this incredible surcharge that is having a huge impact on small businesses that are struggling to make ends meet. Many of them trying to get out of the debt load that they are carrying from the COVID-19 pandemic.
I find it really frustrating. We have seen greedflation, and big oil and gas companies, especially, have record profits at the pump. Here we have consumers getting dinged by a Crown corporation with a 39.5% surcharge and, at the same time, the same companies that are charging these astronomical fees for oil and gas are having record profits. There is a huge disconnect by the government.
We know that governments around the world have charged an excess profit tax and have given it back to their citizens. Even in Britain, the Conservatives are imposing an excess profit tax on big oil and gas. We know how important it is for governments not only to intervene when we see big oil and gas and Crown corporations like Canada Post taking advantage of consumers but also to ensure that the money goes back to support citizens.
There is another thing I am equally concerned about. Many rural and suburban Canada Post mail carriers who are filling up their tanks and delivering mail get a certain amount of money to buy that gas. It is a set amount, and they did not get an increase despite the fact that we saw this surcharge escalate to 39.5%. It is like Canada Post imposes this surcharge based on the diesel prices of the day but then it does not apply that same principle to the very important postal workers who we rely on to transport our mail in incredibly difficult conditions.
We also see Canada Post failing to exercise and implement important asks of Canadians to bring in postal banking to create more profits within the corporation. Imagine the surcharge for people living in Nunavut or in the northern communities who are already paying an astronomical amount of money for medicine and groceries that some of them are counting on Canada Post to deliver. This also affects small businesses in rural Canada. This is completely unaffordable and unacceptable.
We are calling on the government to make sure that it invests in Canada Post, supports postal workers and creates fairness there. The government also needs to impose an excess profit tax on the greedflation that is taking place right now with big oil and gas to ensure that we provide relief to Canadians, whether it be returned to them through the doubling of the GST in the future or in supporting Canada Post so it does not have to charge this levy.
544 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:12:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern for Canadians dealing with the rising cost of living.
It is true that throughout the world, people are living in times of economic uncertainty. Inflation is driving up the price of necessities like groceries and rent and Canadians have been feeling it greatly. I certainly agree with the hon. member.
Canada Post was there for us as the needs of Canadians changed dramatically in recent years, connecting this country from coast to coast to coast. We know that Canadians continue to rely on the essential service that Canada Post provides us.
The inflationary pressures are happening across the board, including at Canada Post, where the cost of its operations has risen. It should be noted that this Crown corporation is funded by the sales of its products and services. This government has consistently worked with Canada Post to ensure that Canadians get the services they need. Those actions include searching for opportunities to improve the financial sustainability of its operations, which are so vital to us all.
While Canada Post operates at arm's length from government, as the Minister of Public Service and Procurement stated in this House, we are monitoring this issue of fuel surcharges closely. Canada Post manages the largest transportation network in Canada and fuel surcharges are applied year-round, which is a standard industry practice for parcel shippers.
I can say that fuel surcharges are being reviewed every week and are lowered and raised based on the average price of diesel across the country.
We know that Canada Post greatly values its relationship with all Canadians and the investments that are being made in its operations and client service are all in the name of meeting its mandate to serve every address in Canada while remaining financially self-sustaining.
When it comes to dealing with higher costs of living, the Government of Canada is working hard to make life more affordable for Canadians. That is what the budget was all about.
For example, our government is supporting about 3.5 million families annually, through the tax-free Canada child benefit. We have increased old age security benefits for seniors over 75 by 10%.
We have reduced the cost of regulated child care by 50% on average across the country. We are also strengthening the Canada pension plan and enhancing the Canada workers benefit for our lowest paid and often most essential.
Let me conclude by saying that we are building on these supports in our latest budget, for example, through the newly proposed grocery rebate that I know the hon. member will support. Budget 2023 will deliver targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most.
Our government will continue to be there for Canadian families.
464 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:15:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, it is absolutely unacceptable that oil and gas companies are having record profits at the same time that consumers are not only paying at the pump but are getting charged fuel surcharges that are at 39.5% by Canada Post.
It is having a huge impact on Canadians and we know that there is this unfairness for rural and suburban mail carriers who are also filling their own vehicles out of pocket. They get a fixed vehicle allowance per kilometre. Last year, they did not anticipate the high increases in fuel prices. This is a huge financial burden on them to be able to do their job. It is absolutely unfair that Canada Post is not giving them better support.
Those very workers that we rely on in Canada to deliver mail from coast to coast to coast should be getting an increase so that they can afford the fuel, so that they can do their job.
They love their job. They serve our community—
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:16:59 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to support the middle class and people who need support when they need it most.
Canada Post has been keeping us connected during the pandemic and this government will continue to work with the corporation to ensure that it remains self-sustaining while serving every address in Canada.
Although there is economic uncertainty around the world, the Government of Canada will continue to be there for people with measures to improve their cost of living and put more money back in their pockets when they need it.
This will help us build an economy that works for all Canadians.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 7:17:43 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:17 p.m)
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
