SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 182 - Apr/21/23

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Apr/21/23 12:08:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy over the years. I have known him to support some of the world's most vulnerable. We know that when refugees or displaced people come to Canada they arrive with a heck of a lot more than what they are carrying in their bags. These are people who have skills to contribute. They will grow our economy and give back to the communities that have given them that second lease on life. That is why we recently announced an expanded program, the EMPP, or economic mobility pathways pilot, which taps into the skills that refugees bring to Canada and is going to allow thousands to come and live in our communities and give back. I met these people. They are working in health care and high tech. We are going to continue to welcome them. It is the right thing to do and it serves our interests at the same time.

161 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Apr/21/23 12:08:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2026 in Canada, we are calling on the Liberals to invest in soccer for kids in indigenous and northern communities. Now we found out that the City of Toronto cooked up a sweetheart deal that will divert public funds to Maple Leaf sports and entertainment. I know the Maple Leafs are not used to making profits come round two of the playoffs, so they want to max it out, but let us be real. This is a misuse of public funds. The Liberals must be clear. In the lead-up to the world cup, will they ensure that any public funds go to the public good, like investing in soccer for our communities so that all kids can play the sport they love?

131 words

Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.)

Apr/21/23 12:09:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a priority for our government to ensure that sport is accessible for as many people as possible. That is why we created the community sport for all initiative, which has made it possible for children and youth from all communities to access organized sports. Our government will continue to help Canadians access quality infrastructure to participate in organized sports.

63 words

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

Apr/21/23 12:10:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Apr/21/23 12:10:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of my constituents who are members of the Hazara minority ethnic community of Afghanistan. They are again reminding the Government of Canada of the ongoing genocide of the Hazaras in Afghanistan who continue to be persecuted by the terrorist Taliban regime in this ongoing genocide, especially going back from 1998 to 2001. The massacres, arrests, forced displacement and confiscation of Hazaras' lands are of ongoing concern for my constituents. They remind the Government of Canada, as part of the international community, of its obligation to promote justice for the Hazara ethnic community in Afghanistan. They are calling on it to recognize the ongoing genocide and persecution by the Taliban of the Hazara ethnic minority, and asking it to prioritize Hazara refugees as part of the 40,000 Afghan target by the end of this year.

144 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/21/23 12:12:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given the price of inflation and food, it is timely that I am bringing this petition on behalf of constituents from Cumberland, Courtenay and Royston in my riding. They cite the importance of farmers' markets as a key tool for COVID–19 recovery, as small business incubators, as domestic system and food security builders, and local economy community builders. Farmers' market coupon programs are a key support for new market development, and for existing markets and their provincial associations. The petitioners are calling for a national coupon-matching program that would assist in meeting the demands of people who are lacking healthy food and food security, encourage provinces without a provincial program to create one, and support those provinces that have a provincial program to expand and meet that demand. They are calling on the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to support my motion, Motion No. 78, and initiate a national coupon-matching program for all provincial farmers' market and nutrition coupon programs across Canada that would match provinces that are already contributing to their farmers' market nutrition coupon programs and encourage provinces that do not have a program to implement one.

198 words

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (York Centre, Lib.)

Apr/21/23 12:13:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of 274 signatories from the Turkish Canadian community in my riding of York Centre. Many of my constituents and their families have been deeply affected by the recent earthquake. This petition is calling on the government to take action to help them by easing the temporary resident visa application requirements that are currently in place.

66 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/21/23 12:13:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition from so many Canadians and recognizing the heartfelt words of so many of my constituents about addressing drug toxicity and the impact it is having on the many precious lives that are being lost. We know Canada's current drug policies have proven to be ineffective in the prevention of substance use and exacerbate substance use, harms and risks. We also know, from much research, that the decriminalization of personal possessions is associated with significantly reducing drug toxicity deaths in the countries that have adopted progressive drug policy reforms. So many precious souls have died. Once they are gone, they never have that opportunity, so the petitioners are asking the government to implement a health-based national strategy to provide access to a regular safe supply of drugs, and expand trauma-informed treatment, recovery and harm-reduction services and public education and awareness campaigns throughout Canada.

152 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Apr/21/23 12:15:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am once again pleased to present a just transition petition on behalf of 216 Yukon constituents. The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels and makes significant contributions to emissions reductions in countries in the global south; winds down the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure; ends fossil fuel subsidies; transitions to a decarbonized economy; creates new public economic institutions and expands public ownership of services and utilities across the economy to implement the transition; creates good, green jobs and drives inclusive workforce development, led by and including affected workers in communities and ensures decent low-carbon work for all workers; protects and strengthens human rights and worker rights, respects indigenous rights, sovereignty and knowledge by including them in creating and implementing this legislation; ensures migrant justice and emphasizes support for historically marginalized communities; expands the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit countrywide; and pays for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest corporations and financing through a public national bank.

197 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/21/23 12:16:25 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to submit this petition, signed by Canadians who state that over 29,000 Canadians have died due to apparent opioid toxicity between January 2016 and December 2021. This petition states that Canada's current drug policies have proven to be ineffective in the prevention of substance use and exacerbates substance use, harms and risks. The war on drugs has resulted in widespread stigma toward those who use controlled substances. It further states that decriminalization of personal possession is associated with significantly reducing drug toxicity deaths in the countries that have adopted progressive drug policy reforms. The signatories to the petition call for three items: first, that there be reform to the drug policy to decriminalize the simple possession of drugs listed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; second, provide a path for expungement of conviction records for those convicted of simple possession; and, three, with urgency, implement a health-based national strategy for providing access to a regulated safer supply of drugs and expand trauma-informed treatment, recovery and harm-reduction services, and public education and awareness campaigns throughout Canada.

185 words

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

Apr/21/23 12:18:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 1290 to 1292 and 1294.

16 words

Apr/21/23 12:18:43 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1290—

Questioner: Rob Moore

With regard to consultations by the Minister of Justice related to the future of the sex offender registry: what are the details of all consultations on the future of the registry which have occurred since October 28, 2022, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of consultation, (iii) names of individuals and organizations consulted?

Question No. 1291—

Questioner: Dave Epp

With regard to the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Regulations, Section 3(1): is Pelee Island considered to be an area that is not within either a census agglomeration or a census metropolitan area and, if so, are residential properties on Pelee Island therefore excluded from this prohibition?

Question No. 1292—

Questioner: Damien C.

With regard to individuals subject to a removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA): (a) how many such individuals were incarcerated in a provincial correctional facility as of March 6, 2023; (b) of the individuals in (a), what is the breakdown by type of crime and by specific criminal code offence which resulted in the incarceration; and (c) of the individuals in (a), how many were deemed inadmissible pursuant to sections 34 to 37 of the IRPA, broken down by relevant subsections?

Question No. 1294—

Questioner: Glen Motz

With regard to Via Rail trains on the route between Winnipeg and Vancouver, broken down by each stop: what was the total number of passengers who (i) embarked, (ii) disembarked, at each train station, including those in rural areas, broken down by year, for each of the last five years, and by month, for each of the last 12 months?

1230 words

All Topics

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

Apr/21/23 12:18:54 p.m.
Watch

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1289, 1293 and 1295 to 1301 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

29 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/21/23 12:19:01 p.m.
Watch

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

14 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/21/23 12:19:01 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Apr/21/23 12:19:01 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1289—

Questioner: Laila Goodridge

With regard to Health Canada’s approval of licenses to organizations to possess, produce, sell or distribute substances, as per British Columbia’s subsection 56(1) exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or any other similar type of government granted exemptions: (a) how many organizations are currently being reviewed for a Controlled Drug and Substances Dealer’s License (“Dealer’s License”), broken down by (i) cocaine, (ii) hydromorphone, (iii) diacetylmorphine, (iv) fentanyl, (v) methamphetamine, (vi) psilocybin, (vii) psilocin, (viii) 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, (ix) amphetamine, (x) oxycodone, (xi) MDMA, (xii) morphine, (xiii) opium, (xiv) other substances, broken down by substance; (b) how many organizations have been approved for a Controlled Drug and Substances Dealer’s License (“Dealer’s License”), broken down by (i) cocaine, (ii) hydromorphone, (iii) diacetylmorphine, (iv) fentanyl, (v) methamphetamine, (vi) psilocybin, (vii) psilocin, (viii) 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, (ix) amphetamine, (x) oxycodone, (xi) MDMA, (xii) morphine, (xiii) opium, (xiv) other substances, broken down by substance; (c) how many inspections of license holders have been conducted by Health Canada since British Columbia’s exemption was granted; (d) what number of enforcement actions have been taken by Health Canada against license holders found to be in non-compliance, including the number of licenses refused, suspended or revoked and the number of administrative monetary penalties issued; (e) what criteria were used to approve Adastra Labs for (i) their Controlled Drug and Substances Dealer's License, (ii) the amendment to include cocaine, on February 17, 2023; (f) is the claim in the February 22, 2023, press release from Adastra Labs that the company “received approval from Health Canada on February 17, 2023, for its amendment to include cocaine as a substance that the Company can legally possess, produce, sell and distribute” accurate and, if not, what is inaccurate about the claim; and (g) what are the details of all such licenses approved by Health Canada since January 1, 2022, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date of the approval, (iii) specific substances approved, (iv) type of activities permitted with the license (possession, production, distribution, sale)?

Question No. 1293—

Questioner: Bob Zimmer

With regard to the items listed in the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2022-23 under Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what is the detailed breakdown of the $1,653,000 listed under Reinvestment of royalties from intellectual property, including (i) how much money was received from royalties, broken down by type of intellectual property, (ii) how the money was reinvested; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the $280,000 listed under Funding for the proceeds of sale from disposition of real property, including how the funding was used and the details of all property sold related to the amount, including, for each, the (i) item description, (ii) price, (iii) location?

Question No. 1295—

Questioner: Dan Albas

With regard to expenditures made under object code 3252 (Interest, administration or service charges, and other penalty charges), broken down by department, agency, or other government entity for each of the last five years: (a) how many expenditures were made; (b) what was the total value of the expenditures; and (c) what are the details of each such expenditure over $500, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) reason for the fee (late payment, incorrect payment, etc.)?

Question No. 1296—

Questioner: Dan Albas

With regard to expenditures on alcohol and alcoholic beverages by the government, since 2016, broken down by year and by department, agency, or other government entity: what was the total amount spent?

Question No. 1297—

Questioner: Gerald Soroka

With regard to expenditures related to conferences, since 2016, broken down by year and by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on conference fees (object code 0823 or similar); and (b) what was the total amount spent on travel expenses for public servants attending conferences?

Question No. 1298—

Questioner: Gerald Soroka

With regard to government measures to mark the one-year anniversary of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine: (a) has the Privy Council Office (PCO) provided any guidance or direction with respect to displaying Ukrainian flags on Government of Canada buildings and properties to mark the one-year anniversary of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine and, if so, what is that guidance or direction and on what date was it provided; (b) does the PCO support Government of Canada departments and agencies displaying Ukraine's flag on Government of Canada buildings and properties; (c) has Global Affairs Canada (GAC) provided any guidance or direction with respect to displaying Ukrainian flags on Government of Canada buildings to mark the one-year anniversary of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine and, if so, what is that guidance or direction, and on what date was it provided; (d) does GAC support Government of Canada departments and agencies displaying Ukraine's flag on Government of Canada buildings and properties; and (e) what is the rationale for not displaying Ukraine's flag on Government of Canada buildings to mark the one-year anniversary of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine?

Question No. 1299—

Questioner: Randy Hoback

With regard to applications received by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by type of application: (a) how many applicants were deemed inadmissible pursuant to (i) paragraph 34(1)(b), (ii) paragraph 34(1)(c), (iii) paragraph 34(1)(f), of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27); and (b) broken down by each paragraph of the act in (a), how many of the applicants who were deemed inadmissible were members of the (i) Kurdistan Democratic Party, (ii) Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, (iii) Movement for Change or Gorran, (iv) Kurdistan Islamic Union, (v) Kurdistan Justice Group or Komala, (vi) New Generation Movement?

Question No. 1300—

Questioner: Brad Vis

With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Canada Small Business Financing Program (CSBFP), broken down by fiscal years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and by province or territory: (a) how many businesses applied to the CSBFP; (b) how many loans were awarded; (c) what was the average loan amount; (d) of the loans awarded, how many were defaulted and what was the average claim amount; (e) how many loans have been granted, broken down by industry sector; and (f) how does the government track the success rate of the CSBFP?

Question No. 1301—

Questioner: Jenny Kwan

With regard to the processing of permanent residence applications of overseas dependents of protected persons in Canada and DR2s: (a) are processing resources within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada allocated in accordance with the immigration levels set by cabinet; (b) if the number of applications for overseas dependents in a year exceeds the high range of the level, what happens to the additional applications, i.e. those beyond the level; (c) what are officers instructed to do with applications after the high end range of applications is reached; (d) how is the number of permanent residence applications processed in any year distributed among the various overseas offices, and on what basis; (e) what is the size of the inventory for permanent residence applications for protected persons in Canada and DR2s; (f) are there two separate levels for DR2s and protected persons in Canada; and (g) what are the written policies, guidance, and instructions that govern the processing of overseas dependents of in-Canada protected persons and DR2s?

1227 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/21/23 12:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Apr/21/23 12:19:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill. This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health. When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party. However, on seeing Bil C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not. This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion. I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries. We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that. Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough. This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program? That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions. As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said. Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47. This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly. Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill: The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill? The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it. I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment? That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill. In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria. Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent? Those are questions that I have. Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning. For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome. Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly. However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear. Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government. The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come. Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable. The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly. Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it. We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there. Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version? Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome. We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong. Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.

2823 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/21/23 12:39:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

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

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/21/23 12:40:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. When Ottawa decided to save the auto industry with $10 billion in 2008, we noted that Quebec did not receive the equivalent. When Ottawa decided to save Muskrat Falls with $10 billion, we noted that Quebec did not get the equivalent. When the Liberals chose to buy the pipeline in western Canada for tens of billions of dollars, we noted that Quebec did not get its share. We want to make sure that Quebec gets its share. Quebec specializes in green energy and the green economy, that is, the economy of the future. Quebec had all the expertise it needed to have a successful battery plant, but that was not how it played out. To add insult to injury, it was the minister from Shawinigan who made this announcement with great fanfare in Montreal to say that the plant would not be in Montreal or the surrounding region, but in St. Thomas, Ontario. Good for them. Could Quebec get some of these structural investments to develop its economy? The proof remains to be seen, unfortunately.

197 words

All Topics