SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 321

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
  • May/30/24 1:37:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, how is it possible for the hon. member to have listened to the first half of my sentence and not the second half of it? The second half of my sentence, after I said that I knew I was better off, I said that I had no problem believing the PBO when he said that that eight out of 10 Canadians were better off. To member's point, that is why we have a rural top-up. It is why the rural top-up was doubled in the last fall economic statement. The reality is that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. More important, as I indicated at the conclusion of my speech, 94% of households that make $50,000 or less are better off. The member is on a crusade to fight a price on pollution and to fight the carbon rebates that come along with them. He should know that his crusade is not with the least fortunate in our country. His crusade is with the best and the most well-off in our country.
181 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/30/24 3:20:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do agree with the member and what he said. In particular, I would bring to the attention of the Chair that there is still a member of Parliament on this side of the House who has not spoken in about a month and a half because he accused Conservatives of being pro-Russia. As a result, your deputy asked him to withdraw his comment. He did not want to withdraw because he believed what he was saying was correct. As a result, he has not been able to speak for about six weeks. In your consideration about this issue, I would ask that you also consider whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement like that, because I would agree with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin that this would be limiting the words we can use in this House.
151 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/30/24 4:20:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is interesting. The member is criticizing the government, saying that we are not listening. I am listening to the member, and she is talking about all these needs. We are bringing forward answers to many of those needs, whether through the dental program or the pharmacare program that I referenced. There are so many things we are addressing for the needs, including the disability plan. Then she brings it to an end by saying that we are not listening, and families will benefit by $670. That is just not true. Can she intentionally mislead as blatantly as that? The average Canadian is not going to benefit by $670. That is just wrong. The member cannot substantiate it. Can the member substantiate her statement that average Canadians will benefit by $670? If so, how?
136 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border