44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to raise the issue of pharmacare, because so many people in my riding are struggling with the cost of living. When they also have to struggle with the cost of essential medication, it makes life so hard. No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and buying the medication they need.
I have talked to people who are cutting their pills in half and who are skipping doses. I know cases of people who have ended up in the hospital because they are not able to afford their essential medication.
The Liberals have been promising pharmacare for over two decades, but there was no mention of it is this budget. Along with my NDP colleagues, I am going to be pushing the government very hard this year to table legislation for universal single-payer pharmacare. It is a solution that would actually save Canadians money. Billions of dollars each year would be saved. Why, in this year's budget—
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 5:51:00 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.
The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that Canadians struggle with affordable pharmacare. I think we need to work on that with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure Canadians are well taken care of.
I know that seniors have the ability to access affordable pharmacare at this time, and young people do as well. However, we need to come together and make sure we have a robust system that is supportive of everybody, especially those who are working really hard to join the middle class.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise in the House today to contribute to the debate at second reading on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1.
I said it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise because it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise to express the concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington. While it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise, I am nonetheless disappointed and frustrated with the budget. Like many in the House, I feel like this is a case of déjà vu. Once again, Canadians are looking to the government for a budget to address their needs, yet all we have seen from the government is another failed budget.
Bill C-47 is the first step in implementing parts of the flawed 2023 budget, which the Minister of Finance presented on March 28. That budget, as presented, would produce a $43-billion deficit. Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that could balloon even higher to $45.1 billion. This is from a government that has already driven the national debt up to nearly $1.5 trillion.
Let us take a walk down deficit memory lane. What we see with the government is continuous overspending by spending more and achieving less. March 31, 2017, one year after the Liberals introduced their first budget, the national debt had already, at that point, climbed to $631 billion. A year later, it jumped up by $40 billion to $671 billion.
By 2019, the year before the COVID pandemic, the national debt spiked to $685 billion. A year ago, the deficit had jumped to $1.13 trillion. Now, in budget 2023, the Minister of Finance has told us that the national debt will reach $1.22 trillion by the end of this fiscal year.
This debt is a direct result of poor decision-making by the Liberal government. Only last November, the Minister of Finance rose in this place and told us the deficit for this year would be $30.6 billion. Five months later it was $40.1 billion.
In this budget, the cost of servicing the national debt is projected to nearly double to $43.9 billion. This $43.9 billion is just going to pay the interest on servicing the national debt. That is $43.9 billion that is not going to the Canada health transfer; not going to build better roads, bridges and wastewater treatment plants in Perth—Wellington, Simcoe—Grey or any riding across the country; not going to help ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the equipment it needs to do the important job asked of it; not going to help Canadians afford their rent; not going to prevent poverty; and not going to fully implement the Canada disability benefit. All that $43.9 billion is going toward is the interest owed to wealthy bond holders on the national debt.
We have been told in the past that we just need to look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, that it will continue to go down. For this year and next year, it is once again going to be going in the opposite direction.
In budget 2022, the Minister of Finance promised there would be a fiscal anchor. Well, that anchor has been dropped. For eight years, we were told this would be good. That we would see results from this deficit spending. Once again, we are seeing Canadians struggling to make ends meet.
If there is one topic I hear about time and time again in Perth—Wellington, it is housing. In every community in Perth—Wellington, where just a few years ago housing was affordable, it is now out of reach for those the government likes to call the middle class and those working hard to join it. My generation and younger, those under 40, are not seeing the hope there once was of owning their own home.
The government has created large, expensive programs without success. The national housing strategy has been a failure. The housing accelerator fund has been a failure. The Canada housing benefit has been a failure. When it comes to affordable housing, the Liberal government has been a failure.
Unfortunately, Bill C-47 will not address the growing problem of housing unaffordability. They promised one thing and delivered nothing.
Like many members, I often hear from young families, seniors and folks who are trying to make ends meet. They are telling us that they cannot afford their groceries. They are cutting back. They are making alternatives. They are skipping meals, yet what we see in the Liberal government is a failure to address the root causes of rising prices.
Its ineffective and inefficient carbon tax is forcing Canadian families to pay more for less. Canada’s Food Price Report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more this year than last year. This is after last year, in which there was an increase of nearly $1,100. If the Minister of Finance were serious about reducing the costs of food for struggling Canadian families, there is an easy way to fix it, and that is to remove the carbon tax from all elements of food production.
The carbon tax has served to make life more expensive, especially for lower-income and working-class Canadians. While higher-income Canadians, such as the Prime Minister and others, simply pay the tax and absolve themselves of any guilt for their excessive emissions, average Canadians cannot afford it. Every time Conservatives have proposed measures to reduce costs, the Liberals have voted against them.
If we are looking at the roots of our food production system, we are looking at the agriculture and agri-food industry. Unfortunately, the Liberals fail to acknowledge that the high cost of groceries is their fault. There is the rising costs on fertilizer, with $34.1 million collected in tariffs, but none of that is being rebated to the farmers who paid those tariffs. The rising costs of fertilizer is making it more and more expensive for farmers and farm families to grow the crops that quite literally feed our families, our country and the world.
However, Bill C-47 does not address that. It does not address a rebate for those farmers and farm families who paid those $34 million in tariffs, and it does not remove the cost of the carbon tax. Farmers need fuel to heat their barns. They need it to transport their crops. They need it to dry their grains. There are no alternatives for these measures.
Sadly, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to side with the Prime Minister and his finance minister over the farmers and every other person along the food supply chain. From this, I can only conclude that either the agriculture minister is not really listening to farmers or the Prime Minister and finance minister are not listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As I conclude, I want to reiterate that budget 2023 has failed to address the real concerns of families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada. After eight years in office, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister has made life more unaffordable for Canadians. Now, with this budget, the finance minister expects to be congratulated for the benefits the government promises, despite the fact that those benefits do not even come close to matching the massive increases in prices caused by its inflation crisis.
I will be voting no. I will be saying no more. Canadians cannot afford any more of the Liberal government. I encourage all members to stand up for their constituents and vote against this failed Liberal budget.
1303 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite, in his speech, spoke about helping Canadians.
What I have heard, time and time again, coming out of the pandemic, was of the need for supports in our hospital system, supports for nurses and doctors and those health care heroes who supported Canadians across the country during the pandemic. In addition to that, families in my community talk about the need for dental care for young children and for people who cannot afford to take their family members to the dentist.
The member opposite spoke about supporting families. Perhaps he would like to tell constituents why he does not think they deserve investments in health care and, in their communities, investments in dental care. Could the member opposite explain how he is going to tell constituents why they do not need to take their children to the dentist?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps that hon. member would like to tell her constituents why her government's actions are driving up the cost of living by astronomical proportion. Why will she not tell her constituents why the cost of groceries for an average family of four is increasing by nearly $1,100 per year?
She talked about health care heroes. My wife is a nurse who works in long-term care. Why does the member not talk about the complete lack of respect she has for hard-working families? Because they have to drive an hour to work, the carbon tax is costing them more and more each time to drive that hour to serve that shift as an RPN, a PSW or a RN.
The fact of the matter is that the Liberal government is driving up the costs for everyday Canadians, the common people who have the common sense of how to run the government. Unfortunately, the Liberals are ignoring them.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague made a quick reference to the carbon tax in his speech. However, what farmers have been asking for is the supply management bill, which is critical. That is the real way to help them. That is what Quebec's farmers are asking for.
My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot asked a question earlier about why certain members filibustered in committee and delayed work on this important bill.
Now, to really help farmers and agricultural producers, would it not be a good time to work hand in hand to help the bill move through the final stages so that supply management is protected as quickly as possible?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Shefford for her question.
This is an opportunity for me to talk about the farmers and families in Perth—Wellington, where we have the largest number of dairy farmers and chicken farmers in the country. Supply management is very important for me and for the people of Perth—Wellington.
I was very pleased to vote for Bill C-282, which is very important, but let us be clear: This bill is only a small part of a big concern for farmers and families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the very beginning of his speech, the hon. member spoke to the housing crisis. New Democrats are going to be in agreement with him on that problem. However, I think the solutions are where we differ most.
It is a fact that there is a housing crisis in Canada. It is also a fact that we are seeing houses being built, but they are only being built for those who can afford them. The market is guiding housing toward increased housing prices, creating a bubble. New Democrats have tabled a solution to ensure that there is non-market housing available, such as social housing, for example.
Could the member be so kind as to offer the House and his colleagues, who would like to hear some clear dialogue on this, a solution from the Conservatives, a solution as to what they would do, rather than and absent of cutting the carbon tax, the three cents they have been talking about? What is the real solution Conservatives are proposing here?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, we would cut the carbon tax. What is more, we will incentivize municipalities. We will incentivize municipalities to remove the gatekeepers to get permits approved quickly. We will densify the population, building around major transit hubs in larger urban centres and, in smaller communities, such as mine and other rural communities, we will incentivize municipalities to broaden their definition of affordable housing to ensure that all Canadians have a place to call home. We need to bring it home for all Canadians.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to rise in the House.
However, it will quickly become apparent that my speech on Bill C‑47, budget implementation act, 2023, is half-hearted because there is not a lot of good news in this budget. On top of that, we were told this morning that we will not be able to discuss this for very long. We always get quite upset when the government prevents debate and deeper consideration. There is a lot to do. There is a lot we need to discuss.
Why are we displeased with the budget?
I am repeating myself, but I think that our message bears repeating so that it might end up being heard. It is unacceptable for the government not to respond to the demands of Quebec and the provinces on health transfer increases. People in emergency rooms and on waiting lists for surgery are waiting—no pun intended.
There is also the issue of old age security starting at age 65. Everyone talks about the cost of groceries, the cost of living and how difficult things are, and everyone forgets those aged 65 to 74, who are on fixed incomes and are left behind. Government members will respond in a while that they treated seniors very generously and so forth, but these people are not getting any real help. It is unacceptable to create two classes of seniors. We will keep repeating that until it is understood.
EI reform has been promised since 2015, and it is now 2023. That is not right. Promises made need to be kept. What is more, if I understand correctly, in this budget the government will help itself to $17 billion from the EI fund. It is not moving forward with the employment insurance reform so it can balance the budget.
Members who spoke before me talked about housing. It is urgent and essential that 1% of the budget be dedicated to social housing. The sunny-ways speeches and the hair-blowing-in-the-wind rhetoric about affordable housing need to stop. We recently held sessions in Berthier—Maskinongé with the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who has been working very hard on this file. People on the ground are telling us that even those in the middle class cannot afford affordable housing. That is why we need to act on social housing to get the less fortunate out of the market. It must be done. We have to act.
Obviously, this is a broad outline. However, members will not be surprised to hear me talk about agriculture, because I always talk about agriculture at some point in my speeches. The first disappointment is the tax on Russian fertilizer. They took the $34 million and put it in the on-farm climate action fund. I understand that this is meant to be ancillary compensation, because we are incapable of reimbursing the agricultural producers who paid the tax.
That already does not make sense, but let us say we go along with it. It was too complicated to pay back that money so the government decided to put it in the fund. Will the government do away with those tariffs for next year? Right now, farmers are funding their own program. I hope that the government does not think that that makes it generous.
We need to enhance the support programs for farmers. In our budget requests, we submitted a proposal from young farmers and that was for the government to provide lower-interest loans over 40 years. That would help them cover the cost of buying land, which has become extremely expensive. It is very difficult for a new start-up to be agronomically profitable because the initial purchase price is too high. Can we help them?
In recent weeks, members of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, sounded the alarm citing the results of a survey. According to this survey of its members, one in 10 agricultural businesses are considering permanently closing their doors in the next year. That is huge. This situation is a result of the huge hike in interest rates and the heavy debt being carried by farms, particularly those owned by young farmers.
The government is saying that it is good and kind and that it is going to feed people, but it needs farmers to do that.
They are the ones who have the courage to take over the family business, after watching their parents work seven days a week, countless hours, when they have endless career options. There is a labour shortage in every sector. It is very easy for a young person living on a farm to look at their parents and decide they do not feel like working all the time and struggling. Then they pick a different career. We need to put measures in place to encourage them to stay. Farming seems rewarding, but it is not easy. People like it and do it because they have a passion for it. I think we need to respect the people who feed us. Let us help them. Let us do as they ask.
I asked the minister this question some time ago. We got what seemed like a favourable response. She said she was thinking about it, but now we expect meaningful action. We often end up waiting for the federal government to take action.
As for improvements to the advance payments program, this budget increases the interest-free limit from $250,000 to $350,000. I applaud this measure. Bravo. I hope that the member from Winnipeg North will be pleased to see that I can point out the positives. However, this should be made permanent. It costs about $13 million, which I think is a quite small amount. It would ensure that our businesses have some flexibility to get through difficult periods. I am asking the government to consider it. Let us make it permanent.
There is also money for the vaccine bank. I also salute this contribution. It is about time. Will the $57 million be enough? We shall see, but it is important to prevent illnesses from spreading. That is why, this morning, we were talking about protecting biosecurity on farms. That is a related issue. It is very important.
I am going to talk about support for modernizing processors. Unfortunately, there is nothing about that in the budget. I think it is important. I am appealing to those in government. When we talk about agriculture, we often tend to simply say “agriculture”, but the portfolio encompasses both agriculture and agri-food.
Most of what we eat has been processed in some way. Agri-food processing plants are in trouble. There is a significant labour shortage, but there is also significant underinvestment in our infrastructure. I have raised this issue in the House a number of times. I do not want us, as a state, to wait for the day when a multinational company that owns a processing plant in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada says that the plant is so old that it is no longer profitable and that it must be torn down and another one must be built, because there is no guarantee that the other one will be built here. That is also important.
Another positive point in the budget is the clarification regarding transfers of family farms. That is a positive. It is long overdue. It has been too long.
If the members of the government are listening in a constructive manner and wondering how they can do better, then I would tell them to act more quickly on things like this. We have been badgering the government to clarify its intentions for over a year now. This has blocked farm transfers, particularly in Quebec.
We need to support regional processing and regional slaughterhouses in particular. I have been talking about this for a long time. Government support will be required for that to work because it is hard for these businesses to turn a profit. I think we realized during the COVID-19 pandemic that our processing industry is sometimes too consolidated. We need only consider what is happening in the pork industry right now. The closure of one processing plant causes major disruptions. We need alternate sites that can help absorb the shock and fluctuations. We need to take action to make all that happen.
I want to talk about reciprocity of standards. Farmers are always talking to us about that. There is nothing in the budget about increasing inspections. Will the DNA test that poultry farmers created ever be implemented? Will vegetables from outside the country be required to meet the same quality standards as what is expected of local growers?
That is important. The government needs to quickly take practical measures to help the agricultural community. I am committed to collaborating, and the Bloc Québécois will be there to help pass appropriate, constructive measures for the agricultural industry. We will be there to support such measures, but they need to be included in this budget. I raised a few points, but there are a lot of things missing.
1541 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. I wish he were not a separatist. I like the idea that his contributions to the debate are delivered as constructive critiques. There is always room for improvement. The member highlights some areas which, no doubt, we can improve upon.
I want to emphasize that we have a Minister of Agriculture who virtually lives and breathes agriculture. She is very sensitive to the needs of farmers and is a strong advocate for things like supply management and making sure there are supports out there for agriculture, our farmers, producers and so forth. I have had the opportunity, on a couple of occasions, to host her in the province of Manitoba. The passion and knowledge she exemplifies speak volumes, with respect to moving forward as a government and getting things done.
My question for the member is this. Would he possibly look at taking some of those critiques and continue to advocate, maybe with the Minister of Agriculture, because he does have some good ideas? I look forward to—
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 6:17:59 p.m.
- Watch
Let us give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did not know I would make someone happy today. I am pleased too.
I want to reassure my colleague. When he says it is too bad that I am a separatist, I say to him that we are still able to work together. What is more, when Quebec becomes politically independent, we will work even better together because we will be equal counterparts. We will maintain ties and continue to collaborate.
As far as informing the minister is concerned, I do that weekly and persistently. We need to be heard. As far as supply management is concerned, we are pleased with the support that is offered and we would like the next steps to unfold quickly.
We are counting on people in the government to support this Bloc bill that we are extremely proud of. It is non-partisan and is aimed at rallying support for our farmers.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the alternative minimum tax. This is something in the budget that came up earlier in debate. The budget proposes to increase it from 15% to 20.5%. This is a measure that would prevent the wealthiest Canadians from using various tax measures to drive down the amount of tax they pay and to ensure the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.
We heard earlier that the concern of the member for Peterborough—Kawartha is that, if we tax the wealthiest Canadians, they will give less to charity, which is why we should not be supporting these measures. I wonder if that is a view that he shares when it comes to the alternative minimum tax.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers have always been in favour of revenue sharing. Therefore, we support this type of measure, which ensures more optimal revenue sharing, to a certain extent of course. I believe it is important for the state to redistribute wealth.
Some believe that if peoples' taxes are too high, they will stop donating to charity. This allows me to clarify the following point. Some media say that Quebeckers donate less to charities than other Canadians. Quebeckers pay much higher taxes than other Canadians, and they have collectively chosen to have a more robust social safety net than that of other Canadians, who are beginning to realize it. For example, they just created a child care program. People should be cautious about making judgments.
In answer to my colleague, I believe that these are easy answers. I believe it is important to have concrete measures for sharing revenue.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commended the Liberals on the fact that they have finally recognized they have been part of the problem in getting major projects built across the country. We have not seen many. Fourteen LNG projects have been shelved and no pipelines have been built. I know that, in northern British Columbia, a number of forestry mills have closed down.
Does the member think this budget will be what restarts major projects being built in this country?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have only 15 seconds left, which is not much time to answer that question.
We need to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as possible and start investing directly in that. That is what the member for Berthier—Maskinongé believes. It is urgent, and I wish everyone understood that.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I did a brief video with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who was a physician in his previous career, recognizing National Physicians' Day. However, my sister told me it is also National Principal's Day, so I am going to give her a shout-out. My sister Rosie Caputo gets a shout-out for being an elementary school principal. Happy National Principal's Day to all those out there as well.
When I looked at the budget, one of the things that stood out to me, actually referenced in question period by the Minister of Public Safety, was a discussion about foreign interference. This is really appropriate today to discuss. The reason I bring that up is because of the news story that was broken by The Globe and Mail in respect of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I do feel as though it is relevant to what we are discussing because we are talking about the budget and what will be invested and also about foreign interference.
The question I have is this: Why now? Why is this coming up now? From what I can see, the government was aware of some degree of foreign interference some time ago. It seems almost trite at this point. It is not even debated. I do see that the government has committed some money when it comes to a national foreign interference office; it may not be enough, given what we have heard today. The money has been budgeted, but one of the concerns I have is that, if I recall correctly, the Minister of Public Safety has not spoken about when this registry would be operational. From what I can see, this is something whose time has come on a number of different fronts.
One thing that I would like to speak about and something I talk about frequently is what it is like to be a member of Parliament. Something I will never forget is walking on this green carpet; sitting in the green chair; addressing you, Madam Speaker; the decorum here and the sceptre. This is an honour and a privilege. When I say it is always an honour and always a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I am mindful of the fact that every time we walk in here we never know when there could be an election. There are 338 of us and we sometimes forget that out of the 36, 37 or 38 million people, we are entrusted with captaining the ship of democracy. A lot of members give up a lot. A lot of people in here have heard me speak about my young children, one of whom has special needs, and about the sacrifices my wife undertakes and my family undertakes in order that I can be here and not only fulfill a dream but also do what I think is really the right thing to do in being here. We all may disagree on different things, but most people here think they are doing the right thing. We may agree on where we are going, but not necessarily on how to get there.
That is why I was so troubled by today's news. We give up a lot to be here. Not only do we give up a lot, but a lot is expected of us. Therefore, when the Globe and Mail story broke, it spoke about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his press release. We can all agree that the member is of the highest calibre of integrity and knowledge that this House has seen in some time. I was very troubled by the fact that his statement said that he had not heard about this. Therefore, here we are in the federal legislature of a G7 country and a member of Parliament is not even advised about the impact on their family in relation to a foreign government.
I find that very difficult. On election day, for instance, I had a situation where somebody came up aggressively when I was with one of my children. They were very inappropriate. My Liberal colleague who ran, came up and expressed his dismay. We are here as colleagues and we may not agree, but at the end of the day we are colleagues. In my prior profession as a lawyer, sometimes we would duke it out in the courtroom, but at the end of the day we still took the same oath. We all took the same oath to be here.
Some of us may not believe in the strength of that oath, and I am mindful of that. However, we all took it. Therefore, it really should not matter what side of the House a member is on. However, here we have a situation where the member's family, perhaps for the last two years, has been targeted, and there was not even the courtesy of letting him know from the Prime Minister's Office. This is a Prime Minister who, we are told by his chief of staff, reads everything.
I am puzzled as to how that is acceptable. I know that not everybody can speak out, but I am sure there are people on all sides who really take issue with the fact that somebody who is actively participating in Canadian democracy had their family allegedly targeted, and that person was not informed.
928 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This may be a very important issue for an opposition day motion. It may be an issue of privilege. However, it has nothing to do with the budget, and we are debating the budget.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
