44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it.
Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:08:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to comment with regards to the mental health of Canadians. There is plenty of evidence to show that mental health is directly affiliated with an individual's economic well-being. When they cannot pay their mortgage, when they cannot pay their rent, and they are lining up at a food bank in order to survive, when they are sending their kids to school without getting the proper nutrition in the morning, yes, that does weigh on them.
I am so sorry, you are laughing—
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:09:06 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the chair and not directly to members.
Order, on both sides.
Again, I just want to remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair.
I would urge the hon. parliamentary secretary not to egg her on. If he has other questions and comments, he should wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Lethbridge.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:09:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member across from me is laughing at that. The mental health of Canadians and the economic well-being of Canadians are not laughing matters. I wish the Liberals would treat this with some sobriety.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:09:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lethbridge for her speech. Unsurprisingly, she spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax.
Now it is important to look at the objective of pollution pricing. The aim is to get people to change their habits. When too much greenhouse gas is generated, it has an impact on the climate and on health, and it puts the financial system at risk too. I always use the example of cigarettes. When we wanted young people to change their habits and smoke less, we raised the price of cigarettes and we also stopped advertising cigarettes.
Given the climate challenges we are facing, what does the member propose to ensure that people change their habits and try to adopt behaviours that are more in line with environmental protection?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:10:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member just compared the carbon tax to advertising against cigarettes. In the same way advertising against cigarettes helped bring down the usage rate, I believe the argument she is making is that a carbon tax would also bring down the usage rate of fuels.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:11:22 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I want to remind the hon. deputy House leader to keep his thoughts to himself, and if he wants to try to get up on a question and comment, he should try to do so. Again, I would ask him not to talk out loud and to maybe jot his comments down.
The hon. member for Lethbridge.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:11:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this way of thinking put forward by the Liberal government is absurd. We have folks across Canada, about 96% of them, who are dependent on natural gas for heating, which is not exactly an option in this country.
I come from Alberta, and we need to heat our homes in the winter. I think most other places, if not all other places in this country, need to heat their homes in the middle of winter. I think that is just a basic necessity of human life. Further to that, I come from a riding that is largely rural. Getting on a city bus or transit train is not really an option, so they depend on being able to drive a vehicle in order to provide for themselves or to get from point A to point B. Further to that, the transportation of goods in this nation is reliant on transportation units, such as semis and trains.
If we continue to attach a carbon tax to these necessities, these things that are just a part of our way of life, it is not going to bring down carbon emissions; it has been in place for eight years now. It clearly—
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:12:54 p.m.
- Watch
I have to allow for one more question.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:13:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge is correct when she is talking about the increase in oil prices, diesel prices and gas prices. However, that has coincided with a massive profit increase in the oil and gas industry. Since 2019, their net profits have gone up by over 1,000%.
I am curious as to why the Conservatives keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Is it willful ignorance, or are they that afraid of confronting their political masters in the oil and gas lobby?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:13:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, I am not sure what fictitious world the hon. member comes from.
In Canada, we very much rely on natural gas to heat our homes, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. We rely on using transportation in order to get our goods to market, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. Farmers do tremendous good to actually take carbon from the environment and use it to produce food, and yet they are penalized with a carbon tax. Further to that, grocery stores have a carbon tax applied to them just for simply hosting the goods that we need to purchase.
Then all of that lands on the backs of Canadians. A carbon tax is an absolute farce.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction.
The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.
Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59.
Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing.
The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years.
We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it.
As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks.
I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors.
The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes.
No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec.
The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use.
The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions.
In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.
1456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know, and the member most certainly knows better than I do, as I live in British Columbia, that many people in Quebec cannot afford groceries, while the grocery giants and CEOs continue to bring in billions of dollars in profits. It is a very unfair situation.
We know that the NDP, the leader of the NDP and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have done a lot of work to make changes to the Competition Act that are included in the fall economic statement, which includes stricter prices for companies involved in price-fixing.
I wonder if the member feels that we should continue to allow rich CEOs to reap extraordinary profits off the backs of people who are struggling to keep food in their fridge.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:25:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the $30 billion could have been allocated differently. Oil companies do not need money. Our families do. People are trying to find housing and there is none. Why wait until after 2025 to provide money for housing?
It makes no sense. The government is not taking action.
I think that families and children are what is most important.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:26:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are many good measures in the 2024 budget that resonate with the people in my riding of Sherbrooke, including the school food program, money for housing, money for the New Horizons program and money for homelessness. However, what I am hearing the most is that students are very happy to see that the grants for post-secondary education have been increased.
I am wondering if my colleague is also hearing positive things about that measure in her riding and if, as a result, she will vote with us in favour of the budget.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:26:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we must keep in mind that it has been 20 years since students have seen an increase. Thanks to my colleague who has worked very hard on this file, the government is taking action.
The important thing is that the government stop shelling out billions of dollars to oil companies. It is very important to help families and people in need. There are a lot of homeless people everywhere. We are seeing it in Val‑d'Or. We need to help these people too.
The money must be transferred to the provinces, and Quebec in particular, because there are needs and this is essential.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:27:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this bill talks a lot about the middle class. However, in my riding, the middle class is poorer because of rising taxes and the rising cost of housing and food.
What is the situation like in Quebec? Is it the same there?
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:27:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, the situation is the same pretty much everywhere, in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. Everyone knows that. I am still talking about families and parents who need a home or a place to live for their family. There are children going to school who do not even have enough to eat. Food insecurity is becoming more and more of a problem pretty much everywhere, so we need to help these people.
The government needs to do something about this, and fast.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:28:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very down-to-earth presentation describing what the Bloc Québécois had proposed to really help people.
When she talked about the billions of dollars going to oil companies compared to what could have been done, she listed a lot of things. She was full of ideas.
I would like to know which of these ideas she would prioritize if money could be diverted from the oil companies to something else. What would be her priority?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:29:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does great work.
I would like to see the environment prioritized more. Not enough money is being spent on the environment. We have had forest fires and we expect more. Other places have had floods. What is the government doing?
The government cannot wait. It must act now.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
