44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/8/22 8:33:43 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has one minute to respond.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on this topic, I do not think a minute is enough. I totally feel for my hon. colleague and her question.
I consider one of my wonderful colleagues an older brother. My older brother from Surrey—Newton is very passionate about not just this issue but immigration as a whole. I met with some international students today in my office. I believe my older brother from Surrey—Newton did as well.
This is a big issue. On top of the hurdles they have, there is the incredible amount of money they spend to come to this country and the struggles their parents go through just to send them to this country. I think we do a disservice to hard-working, talented and energetic international students when they come here and do not have enough to survive and are left to fend for themselves. There are some really concerning things going on with them, such as human trafficking and abuse by employers. We need to work together to help address those issues, on top of the mental health issues that international students struggle with.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-19, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget.
Today I want to talk not so much about the measures that have been set out in this bill, but rather about those that have been left out. Believe it or not, despite the size of this bill, there is still a lot missing. Trying to understand this omnibus bill is quite the undertaking. Bill C-19 is 466 pages long and it has 32 divisions and 502 sections.
At the very least, we would have liked to see the government devote a substantial part of this massive piece of legislation to employment insurance reform. Here is a spoiler alert for those who have not had the time to read these 466 pages of pure joy: This bill contains virtually nothing about EI reform, and what little there is does not live up to expectations.
I want to share my disappointment and concerns. However, before I begin, I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the Standing Committee on Finance, which had the monumental task of studying this bill. I want to mention that and commend the members of the committee. They were sent on an expedition, a journey, an adventure that they had to complete in record time. I do not know how many witnesses they heard or how many briefs they received, but I want to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as his fellow committee members.
I am not in a position to lecture anyone about procedure. I am not an expert on House procedure. However, when I look at this bill that we have to debate in a hurry under closure, and I realize that we are going to be here until midnight talking about what is good about it, what we wish were in it, and our expectations, I just end up wondering what the point of this is. In these circumstances, would it not be better to give parliamentary committees time to study the issues thoroughly and come up with a bill that would do a much better job of meeting expectations? It is a suggestion.
I will now talk about workers. I want to talk about gaps in the bill and the lack of EI reform. It is not because I am a former union leader and still a union supporter. With all due respect and in all honesty, it is mostly because out of all the people who have called my office, not one has asked for a universal dental care program. I doubt I am the only MP in that position. No one has called me about that. Now, I am not saying it is not important.
My office has received calls about the labour shortage, the temporary foreign worker program, wait times for our businesses, immigration and payroll services. We are getting calls from our federal public servants, who are exhausted after two years of the pandemic. They are in negotiations and worried about what lies ahead for them. They have done their part, and continue to do so, but they are a little worried. All this to say that the federal government has a major issue to address: the employment insurance system.
That system is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. It has not been updated in 15 years; rather, it has been the subject of counter-reforms. Workers and employers alike have been demanding for years that this system be updated to ensure that it meets the needs of those who pay into it.
Nevertheless, successive Liberal governments have spent the last seven years promising to reform the system, but there is no sign of any intention to keep that promise in this budget. This is actually more like a step back for workers.
Let us review those broken promises. In 2015, the mandate letter for the minister at the time gave instructions to undertake “a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”. The fact that the system does not work properly is not news. That was from 2015, but the review never happened.
In 2019, the current minister was tasked with strengthening employment insurance through measures such as new special benefits models. That included improving the current pilot project for seasonal workers, which was supposed to become a permanent program that provided consistent and reliable benefits. She was even tasked with creating a new EI disaster assistance benefit. Well, that disaster happened. The COVID‑19 pandemic stressed the system like never before. There is a reason why the government had to make up benefits from scratch.
There are some serious flaws in the system. We have known that for many years. In 2020, the President of the Treasury Board told Le Soleil the following, and I quote: “We knew that the EI safety net had a few too many holes in it and did not provide sufficient coverage, but we did not move forward quickly enough with our reform.” I could not have said it better myself. It is really too bad that the government waited until it was backed into a corner before taking action. However, as the saying goes, it is never too late.
The reason I am so disappointed today is that, once again, the government has been making all sorts of other nice promises since the beginning of the pandemic. The minister's 2021 mandate letter states that it is up to the minister to, “by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers”. However, summer 2022 is in 13 days.
On January 1, the day of new year's resolutions, the minister stated in the Canadian Press that she was confident she would meet the timelines set out by the Prime Minister. She also indicated that in addition to instituting new rules and new benefits, the government was going to have to update its technology because the system is still running on code from the 1960s. In that regard, some Service Canada officials told us that they are still working with DOS. That is from another era, the era of the dinosaur.
If the minister was confident that she could meet the summer 2022 deadline, we can say without hesitation that she has failed. Where is the minister's plan? It is not in Bill C‑19 or in the budget. I am very disappointed to see that nothing is being presented before we adjourn for the summer.
I am also concerned. As the minister knows full well, at this time certain requirements have been temporarily relaxed. These adjustments are not perfect, but they have made it possible for several thousands of workers to access their benefits. Many have seen these flexibilities as a potential basis for reform. However, they will come to an end on September 25.
What will happen then? There is no plan. The most important thing is to avoid losing ground, because the status quo is not an option.
When we say that reform is needed now, that is not just some political slogan. As I said earlier, the pandemic has exposed the failings of the system and has demonstrated how urgently reform is needed for workers. There are many failings, but I will just talk about a few.
First, EI coverage must be expanded to as many workers as possible. It is a matter of fairness. As members know, just 40% of workers who contribute to EI qualify for benefits. Non-standard and part-time workers, the majority of whom are women and young people, are not eligible for the program even though they contribute.
Another problem is how EI fails sick workers. Organizations that specialize in this area are calling for a significant increase in the number of weeks of sickness benefits. A worker who has cancer, for example, needs at least 40 weeks of benefits to receive proper care and recover in dignity. This is what all studies have shown. These workers should be able to focus all their energy on healing, not on trying to make ends meet.
The government plans to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks. That was supposed to happen in July, but because of the computer system, it may only happen in the fall. Now we can say it is too little, too late. It is not enough. What sick workers need is 50 weeks. After 10 years of fighting and seven bills, this still has not happened yet.
When I was a union official, I defined my unionism in two ways: It was proposal-based and action-based. The Bloc Québécois continues to make proposals. We are asking the government to act, because the government is showing a real lack of ambition and keeps bringing in half-measures.
The Social Security Tribunal recently ruled that the current system consistently discriminates against women on maternity leave. A woman who loses her job during or after her maternity leave is no longer entitled to regular EI benefits. Once again, one would expect this self-professed feminist government to rectify the situation, but instead it has decided to appeal the ruling. That is outrageous.
The employment insurance spring gap is another major concern. We like to eat crab and lobster in eastern Quebec and in the Maritimes, but the plant workers in those regions are seasonal. It is not okay that in 2022, when the season is over, they end up without a job or enough income until the next season. We have to do something about that. We have to end the spring gap. We are talking about the vitality of our regions and seasonal industries such as tourism, forestry, the fishery and others. We cannot abandon these people.
The government has been regularly questioned on this issue over the past few years. However, all it did was simply renew the pilot project that provides for a maximum of five weeks of benefits, which is not enough. It is shameful to not go further than that. Honestly, this lack of political courage is disappointing.
Madam Speaker, I could keep listing the flaws in the system for the rest of the sitting until you stopped me. The thing to keep in mind is that these are major flaws that have direct consequences for the thousands of workers who contribute to employment insurance and are entitled to it. These workers are calling for an immediate reform of employment insurance.
I have been touring all the regions of Quebec for three months now. I have not visited them all yet, but I will. What I am hearing from people on the ground speaks for itself.
I have met with municipal officials, advocacy groups representing unemployed workers, local unions, national unions, consumer rights groups, women's rights groups, regional development corporations, youth employment centres, government officials, seasonal workers, and more. I have attended some incredibly enlightening meetings. I have seen the various regional and local realities. All the people I spoke to agreed that the EI program needs to be overhauled immediately.
They urged reforms that would strengthen the rights of workers, but I also heard countless stories about wait times. We have all heard such horror stories in our constituency offices. Workers who have paid into the program and are entitled to EI have been waiting months for their benefits because they are victims of fraud. They cannot pay rent or child support, and they still do not have their EI cheque.
At the last meeting we had with the ministerto discuss this at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, she said yet again that Service Canada answers calls. It seems to me that Service Canada should be answering calls more and that the minister should stop going on about how the department is meeting service standards. Workers waiting for their EI cheques could not care less about service standards. They want their rights to be recognized, and they want to collect all the benefits they are entitled to.
The last thing I want to touch on is division 32 of Bill C‑19. Actually, I would like to thank all members of the committee who accepted the Standing Committee on Finance's invitation to dig into the four or five clauses covering EI in Bill C‑19. Division 32, which is about the Social Security Tribunal, was the main issue that was discussed. There was nothing in the budget about reforming this significant aspect of the program, so news of this government legislative measure came as quite a surprise.
In a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, there is a section that deals with the board of appeal, which is tripartite in name only. It does not in any way meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019. Both the finance committee and the human resources committee heard from representatives of the major unions and representatives of unemployed workers' groups.
I would like to quote a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE:
Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C-19, that is, nearly three years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.
Union representatives, so labour, and employer representatives were unanimous in telling us that we needed to get rid of this division of the bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on Finance were unanimous in their recommendation: We must remove division 32 from the bill. We worked hard, we listened to people, we listened to employers, we listened to workers and we succeeded, because the minister announced that she would withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and make it a separate bill.
I hope that the new bill that will be introduced will respond to the consultation that was unanimous three years ago and to the needs expressed by the community. This does not bode well for the comprehensive employment insurance reform if the intention is to introduce it in the same way—
2543 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 8:55:05 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I apologize to the member, but her time is up. Twenty minutes went by rather quickly. I would also like to suggest that she use a lectern for her notes in future. The noise made by the paper near the microphone makes it hard for the interpreters to hear.
The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague focused on employment insurance. The government has made invested a lot in reforming EI. With unemployment at its lowest since 1976, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the investments we have made in training workers and helping them re-enter the workforce.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what worries me is that we are in the midst of a crisis, during which the government took action quickly. During this crisis, we saw the flaws in the EI system. However, the government is telling us that unemployment is down so it can wait a little longer to reform the system. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Clearly, training is necessary. It might be a good idea to increase training budgets so that workers can update, recertify and develop their skills. However, that work must be entrusted to the provinces, because it falls under their jurisdiction.
In Quebec, this responsibility should be given to the labour market partners commission, a unique commission that engages in social dialogue.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.
The Standing Committee on Finance found that the government and the Minister of Finance did not show the necessary willingness to reform EI.
Does my colleague have a theory to explain why she is right about the government and about what, exactly, happened with this budget bill?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 8:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
I congratulate the member for speaking in French. It was great.
The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to add that it was a pleasure to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA. I miss him. I congratulate him on his French and hope he will return to the committee, even if his colleague from Joliette wants to keep him on the Standing Committee on Finance.
He asked a very good question, but I am not sure whether I can answer him properly. The Standing Committee on Finance decided to assign some sections of this omnibus bill to other committees to make use of their expertise. EI reform falls under the purview of the HUMA committee, and therefore the Minister of Employment.
In spite of that, I had a hard time convincing the HUMA committee to study these issues. I was originally told that the Standing Committee on Finance would study them, but HUMA wanted to contribute.
The minister will present a reform because she committed to doing so in a bill she is to introduce in the fall regarding the board of appeal. In my view, these issues should be examined at the HUMA committee.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too would like to recognize the members on the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, the member for Joliette and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It was a huge task. Before this bill, we did have some great measures to help seniors with an increase to the guaranteed income supplement, and in this legislation, the Canada housing allowance did have a supplement added to it.
However, Canada still has some very great problems. We have problems with money laundering. We have problems with tax evasion. At a time of very high inflation, we also have a problem with excess profits. At a time when so many people are struggling and when we know that ongoing poverty costs our country much more, we need to make significant investments to address this situation.
I wonder if my hon. colleague can maybe inform the House of some of the measures she thinks were missing in this opportunity that could have levelled the playing field and addressed those serious financial inequalities that exist in Canadian society, not only for hard-working members of her constituency but right across this country.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a number of measures can affect equal opportunity: strong public services, key social programs and, most importantly, a fair redistribution of wealth.
What is glaringly absent from the most recent budget are efforts to crack down on tax avoidance and tax havens. This is a battle that my colleague from Joliette has been fighting for years, a battle that must one day be settled here. Given that we have the capacity to fight, it comes down to political will. Things cannot go on like this.
I do not subscribe to the dogma that the rich must be made to pay for the poor. I believe that we need to have fair taxation to make sure that people cannot legally run off with bags of money while others are left behind. We need to address this issue. It should be a priority.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the excellent speech by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.
I have to say that this has really affected me. When I was young, I remember seeing the signs at election time asking who had stolen money from the unemployed. Movements like the Sans-Chemise coalition spoke out election after election, reminding us that workers were always worse off after EI reforms, especially the poorest and the oldest ones. What is more, the government was going to dip into the EI fund to finance far different priorities.
I do not know if my colleague can give me a little hope today, but what good could new EI reforms do us after everything we have seen over the past 30 years?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. There have been no reforms, just the opposite of reforms really and the gutting of employment insurance.
The government has hollowed out a social safety net program, reducing it to a mere insurance program that is essentially funded by workers and employers. The government even pillaged the fund to erase deficits and make cuts.
Reforming employment insurance means fixing what was done and making sure it will never be done again. Most importantly, it means guaranteeing stronger, more equitable rights for everyone.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like very much if the member could provide some clearer thoughts in regard to something that goes beyond EI. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in generations. The federal government is providing more opportunities for people to gain employment through educational programs such as apprenticeship and through programs we support in our community colleges and our universities. Does she see that as a good thing?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with respect to training, I did not see anything in the budget about climate change, the environment or the just transition we need for workers. That is a gaping hole.
With respect to employment insurance and existing training programs, I completely agree. However, I would ask the federal government to transfer money to the provinces because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I said earlier. I applaud the work being done right now to have employers contribute a portion of their payroll to cover—
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 9:05:56 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me say up front that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, and today it is to speak on the ways the 2022 federal budget is failing Canadian, as we consider Bill C-19, the budget implementation act.
The number one issue facing Canadians is the cost of living. We have heard that time and time again. As summer approaches, perhaps the first summer without some sort of the COVID restrictions that we have seen the past couple of years, Canadians are looking forward to enjoying the aspects of life that are so great about Canadian summers, whether they are the warm weather; the longer days; our beautiful parks, beaches and trails; bike rides with the family; or the Blue Jays playing at the Rogers Centre.
Instead, Canadians are stressing out about paying their bills. They are worried that they really cannot afford that summer road trip with gas prices over two dollars per litre across the country, and for that picnic in the park, the groceries are going to be at least 9.7% more and probably higher. The price of food, the price of gas, the price of home heating and the cost of life are what I hear about every single day from constituents in Flamborough—Glanbrook.
This is especially true for people in rural parts of my riding. They need to drive to get to work and school, to engage in social activities and to get to medical appointments, and the price at the pumps is leaving them feeling that they are going in reverse, which is why a budget with no plan to address the cost of living is really no plan at all.
The federal government took in $39 billion more in additional revenue because inflation swelled its coffers, but it did not return any of that to Canadians struggling to get by. Instead, it piled on an additional $50 billion in inflationary spending. What is worse is that the NDP-Liberal coalition has rejected any reasonable common sense suggestions we made to bring relief to Canadians.
In March, the government rejected our motion to pause the GST at the pumps on the eve of a carbon tax increase and the excise tax increases that were going to take effect on April 1, which were certainly going to do harm to seniors, families, small businesses and everyone. Just yesterday, our motion to provide relief to Canadians in several practical ways was also rejected by the Liberals and the NDP.
We proposed two things that would have brought immediate relief at the pumps: a temporary suspension of the GST on gas and diesel, and a suspension of the carbon tax. These would be things that would actually be tangible in combatting high gas prices, which is what Canadians want and what people in Flamborough—Glanbrook are asking me about every day.
They cannot make ends meet, and that is not surprising when the price of gas is, as we said, over two dollars a litre and the price of food is up 10% or more. It is the highest rate of food inflation we have seen since 1981, so obviously making ends meet is getting harder and harder.
I want to share a few stories of conversations I have had with constituents in the past couple of months because I think these are the very real and concerning cost-of-living issues Canadians are facing. Sal is a constituent in the Stoney Creek Mountain community in my riding, and he tells me his single-income family is having a lot of trouble. In his words, they are having “serious financial struggles as the cost of living is exceedingly high”.
Heinz is a senior living on a fixed income in West Flamborough. He shares with me his home heating bill every single month. He is always shocked and dismayed, and he questions the amount of tax, including carbon tax, on that bill. As a senior on a fixed income, he finds it to be a monthly challenge to his budget.
There is also Gerrit, who lives in Mount Hope in my riding. He commutes to work, and he could not believe the increase in the carbon tax on April 1 at a time when gas prices were already going up. He notes that this cost of fuel is really a challenge for him and his household as they commute to work every day.
These are just a few examples of the very real concerns from the lives of ordinary Canadians. That is why it is puzzling to me that the Liberals did not use the windfall in revenue the government received from rising inflation to address the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. Maybe they could use some of the pragmatic suggestions we have proposed.
Instead, the 2022 federal budget includes another $50 billion, as I have said, in uncontrolled spending. If we add that up, that can only be paid by higher taxes in future years.
The size of the federal government, we know, has grown 25% since before the pandemic, yet one cannot get a passport in a timely fashion. As the member for Calgary Forest Lawn articulated earlier this evening, one cannot get other government services or IRCC either, so that really begs the question.
The government’s lack of concern about the cost of living contrasts with our neighbours to the south where U.S. President Biden and treasury secretary Yellen have acknowledged that inflation is a real problem and they are acting. Here we have no plan.
I also want to talk about another issue I am hearing about from my constituents in Flamborough-Glanbrook. I have had a number of conversations about the the tariffs on fertilizer. It is a frustration for farmers in my riding who have done all the right things. They ordered their fertilizer over the fall or winter. They work hard as stewards of the land, yet they were slapped with a punitive tariff on fertilizer just at the time when they are looking to plant their crops for this year's season.
In fact, I met with family farmers who run a grain operation in Glanbrook a month ago. They took time from their very busy planting season to discuss this issue. They had pencilled it all out. On handwritten pages, they showed me their calculations, and I was astonished. Their fertilizer costs grew from $900 per tonne in 2018 to over $2,300 this year. On top of that, they showed me their gas prices, their diesel prices and their propane costs. They are all up, so the economics of their operation are increasingly out of whack.
These are the people who produce our food. They assure the food security of our nation, as well as our world. Yes, I understand and support the need to combat Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are doing that in many ways, but we cannot do that on the backs of our farmers.
Canada is the only G7 country to apply a tariff directly on imported fertilizer from Russia, and it is a large one at that, at 35%. Conservatives have called on the government to exempt farmer and suppliers who ordered fertilizer before or on March 2. However, the minister of agriculture told the agriculture committee that the government would neither exempt these orders nor offer compensation to farmers to offset the costs of these tariffs. Yesterday, the Liberals and NDP voted down our motion on affordability, which included a provision to eliminate the fertilizer tariffs.
I know my time in winding down, so I want to conclude with a conversation I had a few Fridays ago with Darlene. Darlene is a senior living in the Upper Stoney Creek community in my riding. She was incredibly frustrated and concerned because she could no long make ends meet on her fixed income with the cost of groceries. In fact, other costs that were unforeseen included some medications that she needed to take that were certainly exacerbating the problem, as well as just running her household. She unfortunately had to make the decision to sell her house and move in with her daughter. How sad is it that a senior who worked all her life and contributed to this country, while living in a modest home in a modest neighbourhood, could not make ends meet? She questioned what the government is doing to help her and all Canadians dealing with this affordability crisis.
This is the question that Darlene has for the government: Does it understand? Does it know that cost of living is the number one issue facing Canadians? If so, why is fixing it not the number one priority in the budget and for the government?
1502 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member referred to the United States and compared it to Canada. He says that he wants the government to deal with inflation and then referred to how the United States is doing something, yet Canada's inflation rate is less than the United States.
We can look at what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has done in managing our economy. Our debt-to-GDP ratio shows we are doing well compared to the United States. We can take a look at job creation. We are at 115% of pre-COVID jobs, those being the jobs we lost because of the coronavirus. We are at 115%, while the United States is still less than 100% in terms of recovery of jobs.
If the member does that comparison, I suggest it would show that we do have a plan and that plan is working. Would he not agree?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a new member in the House, I am always impressed with the number of interjections by the member for Winnipeg North and the sense of humour that he often adds to his questions.
The member cited a number of different metrics. Whether the cost of inflation is a couple of points higher in the United States, I do not think that answers Darlene's question. I do not think that answers Sal's question, Gerrit's question or Heinz's question. Despite the debt-to-GDP and the number of jobs, they are still dealing with that daily struggle of the price at the pumps. They are still dealing with that daily struggle of the prices at the grocery store.
If we want to talk about employment, we know the labour shortages are exacerbating the inflation crisis in the country, so I would not agree that we are on the right path.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook is this.
How can he remain so calm when dealing with issues as fundamental as the dignity of our seniors? These individuals are in distress right now because they cannot make ends meet. The government is not doing anything, nor has it done anything over the past year, except one small gesture for a certain category of seniors. It has created two classes of seniors and refuses to give additional income to those aged 65 to 74. It is shocking.
How can my colleague remain so calm when discussing this issue?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
