SoVote

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Apr/4/22 2:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week I joined the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and some businesses in my riding for a very frank discussion. With Canadian families facing record-high inflation, a skyrocketing cost of living and a growing housing affordability crisis, businesses in my riding are feeling the squeeze, labour shortages and a supply chain mess. The only thing on the rise for them are costs. They want to see real solutions and a meaningful plan from the government to fight the inflationary pressures, to get Canadians back to work, to attract capital, to support innovation and to do something, anything, about the regulatory hurdles that they face. The only consistent thing I hear from businesses at home, from those building the transformers that power our lives to those who build the medical devices that might save them, is this. They all say that it would make more sense to leave. They want to see a plan for growth with targeted investments to boost our productivity and improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace. Thornhill punches way above its weight when it comes to building great companies and I want to keep it that way.

194 words

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Apr/4/22 3:45:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the third recommendation in the report calls on the government to factor in population aging in the provinces and territories in the formula for calculating the Canada health transfer. Just this afternoon, Quebec's entire medical community called for a health care summit to be held so that the federal government can consult with stakeholders and the provinces and territories. They are all calling for health transfers to be increased to 35% of total costs. I expect to see this in the budget. Is that what the member expects as well?

93 words

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Apr/4/22 5:09:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this easy question. Having worked on the report published by the Ouranos group several years ago, which talked about the cost of climate change in Quebec, I would say that climate change is indeed very costly for society. There are certainly health costs associated with climate change, and some diseases are a direct result. Zoonotic diseases come to mind. There are also infrastructure-related costs. We need only think of flooding, erosion and permafrost. The government cannot see this, probably because its discount rate is too high. It is surely not a social discount rate, so it must be a private discount rate. By doing a cost-benefit analysis, the government would see that climate change is very expensive and that tackling it would be the better solution, both economically and environmentally.

139 words