44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we have seen rent prices continue to increase. In Nanaimo alone last year, we saw rental prices increase by 30%, and those prices have continued to increase from there. This, as we all know, is disproportionately impacting seniors on fixed incomes, families and people living with disabilities.
When will we see the Liberals put an end to renovictions and put into place a national acquisition fund so that non-profits, for example, will have a chance to keep rents low and people can afford a place to call home?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, rent affordability is a major cause of concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Through our national housing strategy, we have committed billions of dollars to increase the construction of affordable homes. We have also provided funds for private sector companies to have affordable rental properties in their new projects. However, the fundamental thing that has to be addressed is the supply of new construction.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question relating to promises made by the finance minister.
Last year, in the budget debate, she made it very clear that her government had a plan to return to balanced budgets. In the more recent fall economic statement, the minister again said that she had a plan to return to balanced budgets, or, in other words, the government living within its means.
The most recent budget has no commitment anymore to returning to balanced budgets, so I would ask my good friend and colleague across the aisle this. Why is it that the government has now abandoned any commitment to returning to balanced budgets?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, these are challenging times in the challenging world we live in. Considering all of the things happening around the world and considering inflation, which is affecting almost every other country in the world, we are taking very prudent steps in managing the fiscal aspects of our economy.
We continue to have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries. That is due to the prudent approach we have adopted in the last eight years, which we continue to focus on.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this budget allocates $80 billion over 10 years for a green transition fund. However, there will be no accountability to Parliament for that fund.
Moreover, the eligibility criteria involve being able to invest in the oil industry, even though reducing GHG emissions means reducing oil consumption.
How can my colleague find it logical to invest up to $80 billion over 10 years in the oil industry while pushing for the reduction of GHG emissions?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, our budget has made it very clear that the investments we are going to make will be in companies that lead to the clean economy of the future. That has been made very clear and we will continue to stand by it.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Nepean for addressing Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.
I will point out, for those who are observing this debate, that the budget implementation act covers the variety of measures the hon. member for Nepean mentioned, changes the most favourable nation status for Russia and creates a vessel remediation act and a vessel remediation fund, which are going to be very important for areas in my constituency. Does he have any comments on that?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as members know, we have covered a lot of things in this budget, and there are many things there for everyone.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.
I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.
As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.
The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.
I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.
Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.
As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.
The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.
At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.
In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.
However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.
A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.
Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.
There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.
I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?
These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.
Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.
Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.
All that to say, this budget does not target—
1191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 1:02:38 p.m.
- Watch
I gave the hon. member a little extra time, but I cannot give her any more. We have to move on.
The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in what my colleague has to say, especially when it is about seniors' pensions. I have two questions.
First of all, I am wondering whether she is familiar with the D'Amours report that was released by the Quebec government about 10 years ago. According to that report, the real need for additional pension benefits begins at age 75.
Here is my other question. Could she comment on the Conservative Party's idea to raise the age of eligibility for OAS to 67?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's second question, the government has restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension to 65, and that was the right thing to do.
However, even though they restored the age of eligibility for the pension to 65, they are abandoning seniors. The elderly are no longer taken into consideration.
The D'Amours report is from another era; it is 10 years old. Yes, I am aware of it, as I was working with the unions at the time. Now it is 2023, and we are in an inflationary economic climate in which seniors have two concerns: housing and their safety. Overall, 60% of seniors live on a fixed pension as their sole source of income.
In my view, it is a disgrace that the Liberal government has decided to abandon seniors and discriminate against them in this way.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things I think we agree on. She mentioned the need to reform employment insurance. She mentioned the need to increase old age security for seniors who are struggling. I want to ask her a question about another group that is struggling to make ends meet, and that is people with disabilities. I met with a group on Friday in my riding that told me that half of the clients it works with, adults with developmental disabilities, are having the CERB benefits they received clawed back by CRA.
Does my colleague agree with me that the government should put a stop to the clawback of CERB benefits for people living with disabilities in this country?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, although some people had their meagre CERB supplements cut, I think some compassion is in order.
Concerning people with disabilities, I am proud to say that support is still available in Quebec. People with disabilities are not different, they are unique and should be treated as such. In other words, they are fully entitled to social inclusion. Every effort must be made by and for them.
We have one major concern in this regard. I think that CERB clawbacks, such as those that have affected some of our seniors, should involve at least some degree of amnesty.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier when my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle asked her questions.
I have often wondered how the Liberal leaders managed to pull a fast one on their MPs when it comes to increasing the old age security pension only for seniors aged 75 and up. Now I understand. They led their MPs to believe that a report from 2013 is still relevant today. That explains a lot of things and is very disappointing.
I congratulate my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville on her speech. She touched on all the issues. The main issue is seniors, and she spoke about them at length.
I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's inaction when it comes to relief measures or incentives for seniors who are returning to the labour market after just retiring around the age of 65 to 70. I would like my colleague to talk about that.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government does not address the important issues in this budget. It is unbelievable. We need to support these people. They are already contributing to society. They are prepared to lend a hand, but the government is penalizing them. Basically, not only is the government not supporting them, but it is telling them to stay home. I find that unacceptable. I am sure that my colleague hears a lot about that in his riding.
The Government of Quebec made changes to the Quebec pension plan to address these issues. We would have expected the federal government to do the same. The Bloc Québécois very clearly requested tax measures to support this contribution in the current demographic context.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.
This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.
This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.
Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.
We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.
We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.
With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.
This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.
The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.
First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.
In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending.
In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.
As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.
By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.
Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.
1519 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in an earlier intervention, I asked the Leader of the Opposition how many years he has been enjoying taxpayer-funded dental care. He refused to answer, but the answer is 19 years.
While Conservatives are actively fighting against this measure, which is going to provide dental care for the most marginalized people in Canadian society, more than a million Canadians who cannot afford to see the dentist, I would just like to ask for my hon. colleague's thoughts on why the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on “dental care for me but not for thee”? Why are they not going to fight for their constituents who obviously need this? Dental care is a part of health care.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been plagued by this question for quite some time.
All of us have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents, to make sure that we improve their quality of life. If those of us in the Chamber can benefit from publicly funded dental care, we have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents from coast to coast to coast who need it and should have that same benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has been benefiting from this for his entire adult life. I cannot understand why anyone in the House who has taken that benefit would stand here and say that Canadians who need it most, seniors and kids, should not get that dental care.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from some of the Liberals.
I would like to dig down into one specific part of this bill, which has to do with some of the aspects of the clean fuel standard and some of the regulations associated with that. I have great concern that we are at a point where, as a society, we would be diverting possibly millions of tonnes of food from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain. The results of that, at a time when there is so much global instability and food insecurity, the policies which are being promoted by the Liberal government, could actually have a dramatic, negative effect on global food security.
I am wondering whether the member could comment specifically on that, and whether or not he is aware whether his government has done a full accounting of how many people would be food insecure because of policies that are diverting from food into energy.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
