SoVote

Apr/8/22 12:10:54 p.m.
Watch

I would remind folks to take their conversations outside so that we can keep on with petitions. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

33 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Apr/8/22 12:11:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition today on behalf of the members of Development and Peace in Quebec, but also across Canada. This petition is signed by several hundred people who are calling on the government to ensure that Canadian businesses that invest in the mining sector in developing countries prevent adverse human rights impacts and environmental damage throughout their operations. Development and Peace is an important organization that invests in developing countries to improve people's quality of life.

84 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/8/22 12:11:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. The first petition has been initiated by Brenda Morrison, a human rights activist. She is calling for the government to take action with respect to the Afghan community. She notes that, for decades, after risking their lives to help the Canadian Armed Forces, many Afghan interpreters, other collaborators and their extended families were left in a highly precarious situation and were being targeted by the Taliban. With the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, many are desperate to get to safety but are unable to do so. The petitioners are calling on the government to immediately undertake an emergency immigration measure that grants a temporary residence permit and temporary travel documents, while suspending the usual documentation requirements until people are safely here in Canada. That would apply to all Afghans and their extended families who served the military, those who are human rights activists and those with immediate family members here in Canada. They call to expand the stream to extended family members, as well. They are also calling for the government to open up spaces for sponsorship-agreement holders and to waive the refugee determination requirements.

195 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/8/22 12:14:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am tabling was initiated by my constituents, Marie Udaga and Nick Potrovitch. The petitioners are calling on the government to enact a just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to make a significant contribution to emissions reductions in countries in the global south. They further note that there needs to be action on winding down the fossil fuel subsidy and related infrastructure, to end the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure. The petitioners are also calling for the transition to a decarbonized economy, the creation of new public economic institutions, and the expansion of public ownership of services and utilities across the economy to implement the transition. They note that creating good, green jobs and driving inclusive workforce development are key, and that we need to respect indigenous rights, sovereignty and knowledge by including them in creating and implementing this legislation. Finally, the petitioners are calling for the government to expand the social safety net and to pay for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest people and corporations, and financing them through a public national bank. The third petition is the same as the second, and has been initiated by my constituent, Leah Anderson. I hope the government will take action on these petitions.

222 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/8/22 12:14:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

20 words

Stand

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Apr/8/22 12:15:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be said about the budget; my colleagues will say more when we resume debate. Unfortunately, I have to call out the government's tradition of systematically presenting the budget just before a parliamentary break. It prefers to tour around selling its version of the facts than to face the criticism of every elected member and every legislator in the House, and I strongly object to that. We will have a great deal more to say. For now, I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean: That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “(d) increase health transfers as unanimously requested by Quebec, the provinces and territories; (e) increase the old age pension for those aged 65 to 74; (f) take concrete action against climate change; (g) offer solutions to the rising cost of living for individuals and their businesses; and (h) consult and respect the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and territories.”

163 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/8/22 12:16:49 p.m.
Watch

The amendment to the amendment is in order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

23 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/8/22 12:17:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think members from all sides of the House should be supporting is the government's ambitious commitment, through budgetary dollars going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to double the number of housing starts over the next decade, something we all know is critically important. We also know that it is not just the federal government that has to play a role. In fact, what we will see is the municipalities, the provinces and other potential stakeholders working with the national government to ensure we see a dramatic increase in housing starts in the country. I wonder if the member could indicate whether the Bloc party supports the government's efforts to double the number of houses being constructed. That support would imply that we will continue to work with the municipalities and provinces to make it a reality.

146 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/8/22 12:18:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada is short 1.8 million housing units. The government's plan is to provide 100,000 more units. It is true that we need to build more housing units, but saying so and doing so are two different things. I also want to raise the issue of social housing. Even though the budget does mention it indirectly, the government chose to use the expression “affordable housing”. That is not at all the same thing, and it could turn out that a two-bedroom apartment for $1,200 per month is considered affordable housing. The government says it is going to build 6,000 units, which is really not enough. We need clearly defined social housing, not affordable housing. I also criticized another aspect of the speech. In the budget, Ottawa is threatening municipalities by telling them they will get their infrastructure transfer if, and only if, Ottawa thinks they have built enough social housing units. It is not up to Ottawa to tell municipalities how to do things and play father knows best. We expected much better.

182 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Apr/8/22 12:19:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend. I very much liked my hon. colleague's speech. I thought he did very well, especially in the first half of it. I would like him to expand a little more on the paternalism that we saw in the budget. We could be excused for thinking that the Prime Minister might want to be a premier of a province after reading the budget. He is getting involved in the jurisdictions of our provinces, and I would like the hon. member to give us his insights on this topic.

97 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/8/22 12:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to greet my friend from Simcoe North. It is truly a great pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. Even though we are not in the same party, it is always a pleasure to listen to his proposals, which are always constructive. Unfortunately, since arriving in the House in 2015, I have seen the Liberal government bulldoze and crush what used to be federalism. We now have a centralizing, hyper-interventionist state where the provinces, and thus Quebec, my nation, have no freedom to exist. The historic compromise of the federation was that Quebec could have a place in Canada while being different from it. We do not believe it and that is why we are sovereignists, as it will be far easier for us to be good neighbours than bad roommates. Unfortunately, what the budget shows us once again is that Ottawa is going to tell us what to do in health care. As I was just saying, Ottawa is going to impose conditions before going ahead with the transfers. Ottawa is making funding for infrastructure contingent upon the creation of social housing. The Liberal government is telling everyone what to do. This stands in contrast to the recent article by Francis Fukuyama, who states that liberalism can exist in small nations such as Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia, where people are proud of who they are and where they can do things their own way and not just for the sake of doing it. However, this multiculturalist government, which wants to force everyone into the same mould, does not endorse this view.

272 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/8/22 12:22:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, people have been struggling since the beginning of the pandemic because our health care system is underfunded. The federal government has been reducing its share of funding to the provinces for many years. Instead of paying its fair share, this government chose not to announce an increase to health transfers in the budget. Can the member explain why it is important for the government to increase health transfers to the provinces and get back to paying its fair share?

81 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/8/22 12:22:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and congratulate her on her excellent French. We always appreciate being asked questions in French in the House. I commend her and I thank her. Indeed, there is nothing in the budget. In 2015 the government said that there would be consultations with the provinces the following year to come to some sort of agreement. We were told the same thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Yesterday we were told that there was nothing in the budget but the government would sit down and negotiate with the provinces next year. That is what the government told us during question period. We do not believe it. The health care system in Quebec, much like others across Canada, has been under a great deal of pressure for a little over two years because of the pandemic, and people are burned out. The system needs more funding. This is urgent. Quebec has been calling for more funding, but the federal government is missing in action. I humbly encourage my colleague to join us in saying that this is unacceptable and to vote against this budget.

195 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/8/22 12:24:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Joliette and his Bloc Québécois colleagues for their strong opposition to the Bay du Nord project. Today, I am disappointed that this budget contains a $7.1-billion subsidy for fossil fuels when we are talking about eliminating them. Could the member share with us the implications of adding a new fossil fuel subsidy at this time?

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/8/22 12:24:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener South-Hespeler. I completely agree with him. On the very week the IPCC released a report stating that there should not be any new oil projects, the former environmentalist who climbed the CN Tower announced that Canada is going to launch a new one-billion-barrel project. The next day, the government presented its budget. We were hoping that the Liberals would counterbalance this historically unacceptable compromise. We know that environment ministers around the world have resigned over much less that that. This dishonest compromise makes no sense. However, what do we see in the budget? Fossil fuel subsidies. We are cutting our emissions, so now we can produce more. There is an urgent need for action, but it seems as though the government is not there at all. For the government, the industry is the most important thing. The government is extremely short-sighted when it comes to fighting climate change. The Bloc Québécois will continue to put pressure on the government because this is unacceptable. I am very disappointed that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change compromised on this. It is historically unacceptable.

200 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/8/22 12:25:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the subamendment just introduced by my colleague from Joliette strikes me as a fairly reasonable social and progressive measure. It proposes increasing health transfers, increasing the old age security pension, taking action on climate change and offering solutions to the rising cost of living. The House will have to vote on these issues. I, for one, am a socialist. However, am I to understand that someone who considers themself a socialist might vote against this subamendment because the obligation “to consult and respect the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories” would bother them? I am just speculating. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

114 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/8/22 12:26:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in this subamendment, the Bloc Québécois is essentially proposing the expectations it had for the budget, which it had previously expressed to the Minister of Finance and at the Standing Committee on Finance. In order to prepare our proposals, we looked at everything that is happening in Quebec, what the expectations for the federal budget were, and what needs to be done. That is what we have put in this subamendment and what the people of Quebec all agree on. Our proposals should be welcomed by a left-wing party like the NDP. There is, of course, the temptation to centralize. If the Sherbrooke declaration is any indication, things should be fine, aside from the fact that the NDP has vowed to vote for the budget along with the government, so that it will not lose a vote of confidence. My guess is that the NDP will vote against our proposal, even if they are in favour of it.

165 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/8/22 12:27:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the budget. I am sure it will come as no surprise to members in the chamber that I have a lot to say on the subject. It is an interesting budget, indeed. Lest I be accused of burying the lede, I want to start by saying that I think the most important element of the budget is the new dental care plan. This is the first major expansion of medicare in over 50 years, since Tommy Douglas first introduced medicare and took it across the country, getting it passed here in Ottawa. It is something Canadians have been waiting generations for now, and it is going to make a really big difference, at first, in the lives of children 12 years and under, who should have access to basic dental care services this year. It will then expand to children 18 years and under, then seniors, then people living with disabilities next year. There will then be a full implementation of the program, so all Canadian households with a household income of $90,000 or less should have access to basic dental care by 2025. This is a big deal, and it is going to make a difference for a lot of people. That is why I wanted to start off by reminding folks about it. Sometimes, in the media commentary around the budget, journalists and others have been quick to move on from that point, saying, “The NDP got dental care, but what have they done for us lately?” This is in the budget. It is new. As it rolls out, Canadians will see and appreciate what a massive difference it could make for so many of our friends, neighbours and the people living in our communities. Just like medicare in its day, once Canadians see how this works, and as people experience the benefits and see people they know benefiting from the program, it will be something Canadians would be very proud to say is part and parcel of being Canadian. Having a right to dental service would be part and parcel of being Canadian. I strongly believe that it is something Canadians will not want to give up. For me, that is the really big news in this budget, and it is the overwhelming reason why New Democrats are proud to support it. It is why we undertook negotiating with the government to get something out of this Parliament, which Canadians elected just six months ago. Having spoken a little about dental care, I now want to talk a little about the state of politics and what has been happening, not only in this place but also outside of this place, and why New Democrats felt it was important to take a constructive approach to this Parliament to deliver real results that are going to make a difference in people's lives. I do not think it is news to anyone in this chamber, who are all involved in politics in one way, shape or form to a very high degree, that the nature of political discourse has been getting really nasty, nastier and nastier, over the course of many years now. This started even before the pandemic. There is no shortage of things to be angry about in a time of rising inflation and uncertainty during the challenges of the pandemic. It is appropriate for people to feel concern, anxiety and anger at the changes that are happening around them and the impacts they are having on them in their lives. However, as elected people, as public officials, as leaders in our community, we have a choice to make. We could double down on that strategy of polarization, anger and division to drive a wedge between us and get as much political benefit as we can by going to people in their anger and ramping it up, taking advantage of that to elect more of those the people see as the best flag bearer of that anger, or we could recognize that things have been getting worse as our politics have gotten more polarized. As gratifying and as satisfying as that anger can be, and there is an important element in politics of giving expression to people's legitimate frustration, it has not been getting us to solutions. It has not actually been heading off the real problems that are the source of that anxiety and anger. We are called to try to do something different, instead of doing the same old thing. We know, in the NDP, if people want to double down on that strategy of anger and polarization, there is no shortage of places they could go for people who are going to encourage that. However, they want to see their politicians get down to work and recognize that there are real differences between, for instance, the NDP and the Liberals, just as there are real differences between the NDP and the Conservatives. Perhaps there are fewer differences than we are sometimes led to believe between the Liberals and the Conservatives, but they certainly like to ramp up the contrast on the differences that are there. I think Canadians do want to see us get down to work. They do want to see us move forward on constructive proposals. That message was very clear in the last election when Canadians elected a Parliament that looks very much like the one before, after telling us in no uncertain terms that they did not want an election. In fact, in the lead-up to the last election, just in June before we recessed for the summer that turned into the election that no one wanted, every opposition party in this place pledged to not cause an election because they recognized that it was not what Canadians wanted. It was not going to be the solution to our problems. When we came back here after the election, we asked ourselves how we could try to do politics differently. We did this not to disregard the important differences between us and other parties in the chamber, but to ask how we could work collaboratively. The first instance of successful collaboration for me in this Parliament was when I worked with members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois at the finance committee to pass an amendment on the new pandemic benefits program that the government had introduced. The amendment was to make sure that, unlike in the first iteration, in the new program, companies that were accepting wage subsidy money would not be able to pay dividends to their shareholders. We agreed that was something that was important to do. That is an example of New Democrats being willing to work with people in other parties to get things done that would matter for Canadians. In recent weeks, we managed to reach an agreement with the government to make sure that certain priorities that we fought for and believe are important, and that we think will serve Canadians well, would be in the budget. We are going to continue to work under the framework of that agreement to deliver on more, but there has been the beginning of delivering those priorities in this agreement. I want to talk a bit more about what some of those items are. I will start by talking about revenue because it is a big part of the conversation about how the federal government gets on a good fiscal track. Our contention here, and why we opposed a Conservative opposition day motion that called for no new taxes at all, is that revenue has to be part of that conversation. There is no credible path to balance without talking about the revenue side of the equation. That is why there was work done in the agreement between us and the government on moving on revenue. There were a few measures, but I am going to talk specifically about is the permanent increase of 1.5%. on the corporate tax rate for banks and insurance companies In addition to that, there was a pandemic dividend, another tax on banks and insurance companies, which was a one-time tax of 15% extra. That sounds like a lot. We have to bear in mind that it is 15% extra on their earnings over $1 billion. This is not about going after all of the mom and pop businesses that struggled in the pandemic, the ones that needed help and are still trying to get back on their feet. This is about giant companies that did very well during the pandemic and should be pitching in to help pay for the ongoing support needed to get Canadians the rest of the way through this pandemic. This is also about starting to get serious about tackling the climate crisis, which is something that, unfortunately, this budget does not do. I am going to come back to that in my remarks. We got started on revenue, but we were just talking in question period today about the fact that two reports came out this week, showing that a number of other giant companies in other industries have made record profits. Cargill alone, in 2021, made $5 billion in net income, which is over half again what it had made in 2020. That is a giant increase, and it is an increase that goes well above and beyond its rising costs, or it would not be an increase in net revenue but an increase in gross revenue. What we know is that a lot of companies are using this time of economic uncertainty to raise their prices much higher than their costs are going up. That is why we believe the government has not gone far enough in this budget. We believe that pandemic dividends should be applied to many more companies that have made much more money during the pandemic, as a result of the pandemic and the permission it appears to have given the companies to raise prices. They should not feel that permission is legitimate. There is a way to stop that or curtail it, which is by taxing that extra profit and reinvesting it in the things we need. That is a little on the revenue front, and I could go on. We have talked about having a wealth tax on fortunes of $10 million and greater. We have talked about serious action on tax havens, which we do not see here. After successive Liberal and Conservative government have made cozy tax arrangements with tax haven nations, we know Canada is losing about $25 billion a year in revenue, and that is revenue that would well be spent here at home, if only our governments would stop allowing the wealthiest among us and the biggest companies to shelter their wealth from those legitimate taxes. This budget also brings measures the NDP fought for that are about value for money. Dental care is about value for money, because we know that when we do not get access to preventative oral care, it creates health problems that cost more to fix later, once they have gotten worse, than it eould have if we could have nipped it in the bud. That is despite all the other benefits to people's quality of life, and from having access to timely preventative oral health care. Value for money comes from the initiative on housing, and particularly the change in definition under the national housing strategy of what counts as affordable. For instance, prior to this budget and prior to the agreement with the NDP, the definition of affordable housing was 30% of the median household income in an area. That means that in many cases so-called affordable units could actually be rented out at higher than the market rate, and I will give some examples. In Edmonton, where the average market rent was $1,180 a month, under the definition of affordable in the Liberals' national housing plan, someone could charge up to $2,627 a month. We got the definition changed, so that it is no longer about the income of the people who we happen to live next to, but is actually about having units rented at 80% of market rate. That would mean that in Edmonton, that unit, which public dollars helped to build, and which could have been rented out at over $2,500 a month, under the new definition would have to be rented out at $944 a month. That is just one example, and there are comparable examples from many different markets across the country. That is about getting better value for public money, because we can announce as much money as we want to build new housing, but if we are contributing to new housing under the pretext of making new affordable units and those units are rented above market rate, we are never going to get out of the hole we are in, and we are not going to create affordable housing for Canadians. The New Democrats care very much about ensuring that when public dollars are spent, we are getting value for that money. We were not getting it under the national housing strategy, and we are now going to get it because of this important change in the definition, which does not cost Canadians an extra dime, but it will get a hell of a lot more value out of the money they are spending on housing. On the rapid housing initiative, we heard earlier about the importance of social housing beyond simply affordable housing. The rapid housing initiative is the only program under the national housing strategy that delivers any social housing units. There is no question that we need to do more, but that is why it was a priority for the NDP to see a year's extension of the rapid housing initiative. It is under that program that we are seeing some social housing units built. There is no question that we need to do more, but that is how we get value for money. I would add that we see reference again to pharmacare in the budget. I am very glad, because the reference to pharmacare in the Liberal platform was dropped altogether in 2021, and that reference to pharmacare would not be in the budget but for the NDP's negotiations. We used the leverage of our 25 seats in this place to get the government to do the right thing, which it said it would do. That is about value for money as well as better service for Canadians, because a national pharmacare plan, while it will cost $20 billion on federal books, costs less than the $24 billion that Canadians currently spend on prescription drugs through various provincial and territorial programs, individual payments, and company benefit plans and the premiums they pay on those plans, so pharmacare is a way to get better value for the money Canadians already spend on prescription drugs, and actually would lower the overall cost by $4 billion. The NDP is very much concerned about having good books, but not at the expense of individual Canadian households. We are not here to talk about how we take the real deficit, a deficit in services and the ability of Canadians to pay for the things they need, off the public books, transfer it onto individual Canadians and tell them to sink or swim on their own, particularly when so many are close to drowning financially after all the effects of the pandemic. We are here to ask how to pay for these things together, how to raise the revenue we need to pay for them and how we get the value for money that we need so that we are not paying more than we should for the things we need. That is what we are here to talk about. I know my time is running out, which is too bad as I have many more things to say, but I want to talk about some of the deficiencies in the budget, and I will zone in particularly on climate. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a lot of time to act. We do not have a lot of time to get it right. For decades now, Canada has been running a bet on the fossil fuel industry. We have been doing it in terms of revenue for government, hoping that it works out. We have been doing it on climate, hoping that it works out, and we have been losing on that bet. We have been losing on the climate side for sure. To the extent that eventually the floor is going to fall through on that bet, we have not been doing what we need to do to make sure that we have diversified our economy for the sake of workers who are going to feel it when the fossil fuel industry is not what it once was. We have already experienced some periods of that recently. We have also been failing to diversify the sources of government revenue that will also have to be made up when the fossil fuel sector is not the same cash cow for government that it has been. The problem with this budget is that it doubles down on the bet, hoping that carbon capture and storage is going to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue. We saw that not only in the budget but also in the recent approval of the Bay du Nord project. The government continues to hope that some new technology, as yet unproven at scale, is going to reduce emissions for fossil fuels adequately enough that we can pretend the fossil fuel industry is not the problem that it is in respect of the climate crisis. That is not the approach we need. We cannot continue to double down on the bet. We have to change tracks and start diversifying. That means investing in renewable energy. There is a proposal out there for a western regional power grid, for instance. That is a major nation-building infrastructure project that can put people to work who have a lot of transposable skills from the oil sands to build something that is going to be of massive benefit to the country, that can generate massive revenue for the country and that will actually displace fossil fuels as one of the sources of electricity generation in Canada. That kind of project is a good thing. I raise that as just one example of the kind of innovative, big-thinking projects that could go a long way to changing Canada's emissions profile. Instead, we see $2.9 billion, or thereabouts, for carbon capture and sequestration, which gives back to oil companies that currently are making a lot of money with high oil prices. That is a miss. Of course we know that when it comes to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which we heard earlier in question period, we need action. It has been years now since that report was released, and indigenous women and girls are still the object of violence. They are still disappearing. They are still being killed. Their families are still grieving. The bureaucratic kind of inertia of this place is not an excuse to deprive those families of justice or an excuse not to protect indigenous women and girls who are currently in danger just by virtue of living in our communities. That is completely unacceptable. We need to find a path forward. I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has been doing excellent work, pushing the minister and the government to get action. New Democrats look forward to supporting that work as best we can and seeing a much more definitive plan for how we make immediate progress as we move forward.

3331 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Apr/8/22 12:47:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this budget has been described as modern supply-side economics. The traditional supply-side economics, as brought forward by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, went for deregulation and big tax cuts for big business so that it would expand. It worked, except it worked in Asia and not in North America, and we lost a lot of good middle-class jobs. According to Janet Yellen, the U.S. treasury secretary, modern supply-side economics prioritizes labour supply, human capital, public infrastructure, research and development and investments in a sustainable environment. I would like the hon. member's comments on whether he sees this budget in the same light.

110 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Apr/8/22 12:48:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be more inclined to see it in that light, first, if we recognize that indigenous people are a large and growing segment of the Canadian population, particularly in Manitoba where I am from, and that we need to invest in indigenous people. We need to make sure they have the housing they need so that they are not concerned about overcrowding where they live or mould in their homes while they are trying to get an education so that they can participate in the labour market. I would be more inclined to feel that way about the budget if it gave a meaningful timeline for employment insurance reform, which is a really important part of helping workers navigate a difficult labour market at the moment. Despite the fact that there are a lot of jobs available, it does not mean that every worker is the right match for the job that is available. We need to do more on that. I was remiss in not mentioning the Canada disability benefit and I hope I am going to get a question on that so we can talk a bit more about that. Certainly, when we talk about a limited supply-side economics focusing on workers, there is a lot more focus we need to put on workers for this budget to earn that title.

229 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 56