44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I, too, was very pleased to see the opening of the Prince George passport office. There will be about 20 additional offices that will be providing passport services across the country over the coming months.
I do want to commend the leadership of the Government of British Columbia when it comes to workforce. It has some very innovative ideas when it comes to recruitment and retention. One of the things that they are leading the country on when it comes to recruitment is that they have created a new high school accreditation program for ECEs that is going to allow high school students to do their grade 11 and 12 combined with the college ECE program, so that once they graduate from high school, they can enter straight into the child care workforce. It is innovative ideas like these, which are happening through the funding that we have provided to the provinces and territories, that are really going to make a difference when it comes to recruitment and retention.
The federal government will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories, to ensure that we address the challenges that we are facing within the child care sector.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the legislation that we are going to be trying to get through the House, with or without Conservative support but I tend to think that it will probably be with, is the legislation that will genuinely impact so many Canadians. This is going to change not just the manner in which parents are able to care for their children, but it is going to change the way that our economy works. It is going to change the labour force participation.
I am wondering if the minister could comment specifically on the impact that this will have in so many more people getting into the labour market and what that will mean for our economy, as our economy continues to grow as a result.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely excited about this. This is a really exciting nation-building project that we are embarking on. All 13 provinces and territories have signed on. Are there challenges? Certainly.
Is this legislation working to fix them and to create a vision of access to early learning and child care across the country? Absolutely.
It is looking to grow our economy. We know that for every dollar invested in early learning and child care, we see $1.80 to $2.40 returned to the economy. We estimate that this will grow our GDP by up to 1.2%. That is significant. We see, with the example of Quebec over the last 25 years, what it means for female workforce participation. Quebec has the highest rate of women with children under the age of four working in the OECD.
We are looking forward to that across Canada. What does that mean for female economic autonomy? It means a huge amount. It means that women will have control over their finances. It means that as they age, I anticipate that we will also likely see a reduction in senior women's poverty.
These are huge opportunities for our country. I am glad that the NDP and the Bloc are supportive of this, that they are excited about it, and that the provinces and territories are excited about it. I would just hope that the Conservative Party of Canada would join me in that excitement and move this forward for Canadians.
251 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister may not have an answer to this question right off the top of her head, but I would ask that she come back to the House with an answer or send it to my office within one week.
How many new spots have been opened up in Northumberland County because of this program?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific number for the member's county, but I could sent it to him today if he would like, with regard to what Ontario's plans are for opening new spaces for the county and municipality by municipality. This program has only been in place for just under two years, but let us remember that Ontario only signed just over a year ago. It was the last jurisdiction to get on board, but it has a really thoughtful expansion plan and it is working on rolling that out.
No one thinks that Rome was built in a day. It took time to do that and that is what we are doing. However, let us not take the Conservative approach of throwing up our hands, sitting down and doing nothing. Let us actually work together to build this, to build the system and to ensure that Canadians have access to child care that it is affordable, that it is high quality and is inclusive of our diverse children's needs.
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my daughter Julia has an eight-month-old daughter, Mirabel, my granddaughter. She put her daughter on the list for child care before she was born, and yet she still has no prospect of getting that child care. I was very proud to see Julia and Mirabel featured on the front page of the Vancouver Sun the other day in an article about how difficult it was to get child care.
Could the minister comment on the hopeful words she could give to my daughter about the prospects of getting child care and on what this bill would do for them and thousands of others across the country?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a very good question of the Conservatives during the report stage on what the amendment was that they had proposed, and they were unable to answer. I congratulate the member for that.
In response to the member's question, the agreement that we have signed with British Columbia commits British Columbia to creating 40,000 additional child care spaces. What I would say about this legislation in particular and why it is so important is that it would commit the federal government to funding, to child care and involvement in child care indefinitely, for the long term. Without this legislation, we could see, as we saw in the past in 2006, a Conservative government coming in, ripping up those agreements and leaving Canadian families in the dust. That is what they did almost 20 years ago.
The legislation says to the member's daughter and his granddaughter that the federal government believes in their access to child care. It believes that people have a right to affordable child care and that we are committing ourselves, as a federal government, as Canadians, to building this system so that they too can have access to that child care. They can pursue their career and their dreams and we will be there for them.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 3:53:01 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 3:54:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 3:54:28 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Simcoe North.
18 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 4:38:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you.
In an Order Paper question, Question No. 1270, I asked the Minister of Families and Social Development how many child care spaces were provided by the government's commitments. In response to that question, the minister said there was no answer. However, the minister today, in response to the same question, said she has the data. I am curious and want to give her an opportunity to clarify—
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 4:39:22 p.m.
- Watch
That is getting into debate.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us.
This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians.
In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition.
The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything.
We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed.
It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights.
As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill.
For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers.
We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail.
How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way.
We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt.
I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed.
Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide.
The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population.
That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate.
The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy.
That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.”
What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected.
Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about.
In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined.
There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises.
The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts.
They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.
1583 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague is an economist and has taught economics.
As recently as February of this year, the Minister of Finance said that higher deficits would add fuel to the fire of inflation. That statement from the finance minister is the exact opposite of what she proposed in the last budget.
Does my colleague think that makes sense? Does he believe that the government has failed in its duty to manage the country properly by adding fuel to the fire of inflation, with such high interest rates and skyrocketing inflation?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that the government has developed a habit of overspending given the flexibility that it has.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that, to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, the government has roughly $40 billion in fiscal flexibility. However, the government has developed a bad habit of using its fiscal advantage to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction. We saw this in the case of child care and the infamous dental plan. The government has encroached on many areas of jurisdiction.
I believe my colleague will agree with me in part. I think the government could be more fiscally responsible if it took better care of its own areas of jurisdiction and let the provinces do their work as they should.
I think there is some confusion in Ottawa at the moment. All the Liberals want to do is stick their noses into just about everything, in order to win votes. It is highly unproductive.
I am sure my Conservative colleague will agree with my take on the situation.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Mirabel, on his excellent speech. He gave us a very clear picture of the situation.
I agree with him completely on the fact that Charles III is not the only one embarrassed to support the Liberal budget, but also on the fact that contempt is being shown for democracy.
Here is my question for my colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that, since the NDP and the Liberal Party formed an alliance, 26 time allocation motions have been used to speed up debates. Commonly called a gag order, this practice is anti-democratic.
In the House, the NDP, this new party that calls itself democratic, is engaging in anti-democratic procedures. It is taking speaking time away from parliamentarians.
There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for our institutions. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for democracy. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for the right to speak. In a democracy, we have the right to discuss bills and the budget, as we are now.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Democrat, thank God. I do not agree with the approach the New Democrats took when they decided to support the government no matter what.
I think they took their own risks, and at some point they will have to figure out when it stops being compromise and starts being a denial of who they are and what they believe in.
I think my colleague said it well. I can think of two examples, which I will briefly summarize.
The first is time allocation, gagging Parliament. It is very rare for opposition parties to support such a measure at all, let alone so often.
The second is the special rapporteur, David Johnston. Because of their agreement, they are conflicted. They go from one position on Monday to another on Tuesday and a third on Wednesday. It is obvious. As a result, they cannot do their job as an opposition party. It is becoming more and more obvious.
I am very glad I am not in their shoes.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Mirabel, for his comments, notwithstanding some of the little partisan digs he managed to fit in there.
Our goal is to make life better for Canadians. I am sure his goal is to make life better for Quebeckers in his riding. Does the member not see anything in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of his constituents?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan?
What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.
The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers.
The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people.
Tell me who is partisan here.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
