44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/8/22 2:34:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, seniors have been left to deal with the surging cost of living on their own. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it yesterday. A total of 1.7 million seniors have seen their purchasing power slashed because the indexed increase in their old age security benefit is below the rate of inflation.
If the federal government does not fix this, it will be keeping a third of Quebec seniors from receiving $660.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to paying seniors back every penny they have lost, the next time OAS is adjusted?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to talk about the budget implementation bill or the budget in general.
I want to spend a bit of time on what I believe is a very important issue to Canadians, something that I have not really spoken about for a while now and needs to be reinforced. For the first time in many years, we have seen a government that is genuinely committed to a national health care system. We have seen that virtually since day one from the government.
Many years ago, I was the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I can say that back then, there was quite a bit of dialogue with Ottawa and many requests for money. Let there be no doubt that throughout every one of those years, the provinces were constantly asking for more health care dollars, and justifiably so, as the cost of health care has gone up. Our government has responded to that call in a very real and tangible way.
Back in the days when the Liberals were in opposition, the health care accord expired. We wanted a new health care accord to be reached, and it was through the efforts of this government that we were able to achieve that by going to the provinces and territories. Today we have agreements, and they will ultimately mean that health care transfers will increase over the next number of years. I see that as a very strong positive. In fact, if we look at the total amount of money we spend on health care today, it is at a historic high.
One could easily stop there, but we take the Canada Health Act very seriously. We want to be sensitive to what is taking place. The Prime Minister has argued in the past that there are many things we can learn from the pandemic. One of those things is with regard to health care.
All of us, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were expressed regarding long-term care, and the federal government responded to them. There was the immediate response of providing the provinces hands-on support, whether it was through the Canadian Forces or the Red Cross, some of which went into my own riding of Winnipeg North. It is the idea of working toward stronger and healthier national standards for long-term care, something we are very much interested in doing and pursuing.
On the issue of mental health, we have seen a huge investment in mental health by the government. We also wanted movement in the area of pharmacare. It was not that long ago that we reached out to willing partners to start exploring how we could develop a national pharmacare program. I am very happy that in this budget we talk about a dental care program, at a substantial cost. If I had a choice, I probably would have wanted more emphasis on the pharmacare side as opposed to the dental care side, but that is a personal preference.
The commitment over the next number of years to establish a dental program is a very positive move. I do not think we should forget about the pharmacare program, but I understand that discussions continue to take place. I say that because I often have the opportunity, as we all do, to have discussions with people and constituents. It may be that as we get closer to Canada Day, people reflect on how fortunate we are to live in Canada, but when I ask people about this, especially newer immigrants, I find that one thing allowing them to identify with Canada, which they really appreciate about Canada, is our health care system.
I think that is something that often gets overlooked. That is why I thought I would start on that issue today by recognizing our investments as a government into health care, whether it was in our very first budget and the investments that we made in health care or the most recent budget, which expands investment into dental care while still looking at pharmacare, as well as investing historic amounts into health care transfer payments and giving a great deal of attention to issues like mental health and long-term care. I would encourage members to reflect on those activities over the last number of years, and I suggest that we are moving forward on the issue of public policy on health care. It is one of the things I am very proud of.
Another issue I want to comment on is housing, because there is a great deal of debate and discussion on it and it is often a topic in question period. We are all concerned about the costs of housing and the shortage of supply, but we have to look at what has actually transpired over the last number of years and what has been incorporated into this budget.
This government established the first housing strategy in our country, committing literally billions of dollars. We have looked at new initiatives, and I have always been a very big fan of housing co-ops. I remember many years ago playing a role in the start-up of the Weston Housing Co-op. In my riding of Winnipeg North, we have Willow Park and Willow Park East. One of those is likely the oldest housing co-op in Canada, and some have suggested possibly even in North America. Our Minister of Housing has seen co-ops as a viable investment. It is an alternative.
There is a difference between living in an apartment and living in a co-op. In one situation we are a tenant and in the other situation we are a resident. There is a big difference. When we are a resident, we participate in ownership, whereas a tenant will never own the place they are renting. As well, there is a non-profit element in housing co-ops. The expansion of that program will do wonders, and I look forward to possibly seeing some new housing co-op start-ups.
We continue to support provincial governments and the many different non-profit agencies. We have literally tens of thousands of units across the country. I do not know the actual number in the province of Manitoba, but I suspect that probably around 20,000 units are heavily subsidized by Ottawa so that people who are financially challenged have an option in finding a home.
Initiatives within the budget include the intergenerational grants, a program that is going to enable people to look at their current home and maybe build on an addition, often referred to as a granny suite, or establish an independent unit in the yard for a parent to stay with them. The government is making it much easier to do that. It is a program that is very popular, and it will become even more popular once it becomes better known.
We can talk about the idea of renovations. There is the greener homes project, providing thousands of grants and involving tens of thousands of dollars, for people who want to fix up their homes by making their windows or whatever else more energy efficient. When I think of a program like that, I cannot help but think about our environment providing jobs just through the overall housing stock. Investing in home renovations, as we are doing, creates jobs. Renovations are very labour-intensive projects. They create opportunities to have more energy-efficient homes. With programs of this nature, we are improving the overall condition of Canada's housing stock.
We can talk about first-time homebuyers and enhancing that program so that people who are purchasing their homes for the first time have more financing that they can turn to.
We can talk about the millions going into the rapid housing initiative, not to mention the monies that have been there to support agencies like Main Street Project in Winnipeg and others, such as women's shelters. There is so much we have been able to do on the housing front.
Ultimately, I would argue that we have demonstrated that the national government is prepared to lead and work with others, because dealing with the housing crisis that we are in today is going to take more than just the federal government. We will need a higher sense of co-operation, whether it comes from municipalities or from provinces.
At the end of the day, we need to see more land being developed. I believe that we need to see individuals being able to acquire properties, as opposed to having to go through a developer, for example. I think there are ways to have provinces look at some of the reviews for housing condos, co-operatives, life-lease programs or the 55-plus types of programs that are out there. What we know is that there is a high need.
At the end of the day, when talking about housing and the costs of housing, I am very concerned, like all of my colleagues. However, I do not think we should give the false impression, as the opposition side often does, that the government is not taking action. The federal government today has taken more action on this file than many, many other governments before it. We are talking about generations, a historic amount of investment and an incredible number of programs that have been developed and ultimately administered.
I wanted to highlight those two areas because I do not really get to talk too much about those two areas of housing and health care, so I wanted to start off my comments on those.
Having said that, I believe that the big issues in regard to the budget can be rooted right back to having a consistent policy that recognizes that the backbone to Canada's economy is our small businesses, our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. This is where the government has done incredible work. From the very beginning, going back to the 2015 election until today, the cabinet and caucus as a whole have been focused on Canada's middle class and their economy.
I would like to cite a few examples of that. Prior to the pandemic taking effect, there were over a million jobs created in those first four or four and a half years. Let us keep in mind that Canada's population is 37 million. It was a million jobs.
It was not just the Government of Canada alone. We worked with partners and stakeholders. That is where a good part of our focus was. We saw incredible amounts of effort put into trade agreements. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government. That is the absolute truth.
In terms of North America and the European Union, those agreements were signed off. I can recall opposition parties saying that this process was derailed, that it was not going to happen.
Canada is a trading nation. We depend on trade. I understand that our trading deficit has virtually evaporated. For years, when I was in opposition, that was not the case. We understand the importance of international trade and we invested a great deal in that area.
Infrastructure is another thing. Infrastructure is so important to all of us. I would challenge any member to demonstrate another government that has committed as much in financial resources toward infrastructure in terms of real dollars. Again we are going into the billions of dollars. Not only was the government working with municipalities or provinces or other stakeholders, but we also created the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Mr. Pat Kelly: How is that working?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: It is interesting that I make that comment and then we witness the response coming from the Conservatives, as if it has been—
Mr. Dan Albas: It is a laughingstock of an organization.
Mr. Pat Kelly: A failure, yes..
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: The member says it is a total failure. To my friend who just said that the Infrastructure Bank is a total failure, my recommendation is to maybe do a little Google search. I am sure he can get some high tech going there and find out what the Infrastructure Bank has done.
What will happen is that we will find that the Conservative talking notes are somewhat misleading. I will use an example that I used just the other day. In Brampton, we are seeing fossil-fuelled buses being converted into electric buses. That is happening because of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
You should think before you say something. You are the finance critic and you should know better—or rather, Madam Speaker, the member opposite who was just heckling should know better.
At the end of the day, let us take a look at the Infrastructure Bank and many of the projects.
Mr. Pat Kelly: Read what it says.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, do not read your Tory notes.
Mr. Pat Kelly: I am reading Wikipedia, and it is pretty good.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Look at the site. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on this issue. The member might actually be surprised. He might even want to change his talking points on it, because it is delivering in a very real and tangible way.
Our government that has been there to support people, whether it is our seniors through increases to the GIS, one-time payments during the pandemic, the 10% to seniors 75 and over or, as I said yesterday, the hundreds of millions of dollars to non-profit organizations that support our seniors through all sorts of wonderful activities like New Horizons and so forth.
Whether it is supporting small businesses through tax cuts all through the pandemic, wage subsidies, rent support or easier access to loans, all of these have enabled Canada to do relatively well in comparison to the world.
I will get another chance, possibly in answers. You will find that Canada is doing exceptionally well.
2365 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to commend and congratulate my colleague on another very interesting speech. He always has something constructive to say, both here in the House and in committee.
I am concerned about the length of the budget implementation bill currently before us. Bill C-19 is a mammoth bill that amends numerous laws and deals with many issues that have nothing to do with the budget, including, for example, enforcing the justice system in space and conducting strip searches in prisons.
What does my colleague think of the fact that the government regularly resorts to such mammoth bills that lump together so many issues? Can committees and parliamentarians study all this thoroughly?
On top of that, the paper version of the bill that was given to the opposition was some 420 pages long, while the official PDF version that was posted online was over 440 pages long. Could my colleague comment on that?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start with the second question. The fact that the version of the documents tabled in the House is not the full version is obviously a problem, and it is part of a broader issue that bothers me a bit. We no longer see paper copies being tabled these days. For example, as a parliamentarian, I was unable to get a copy of the blue book of the estimates. The government and the House of Commons only work on computers now, whereas I work better with a paper copy, so I am having a tough time adapting.
As for omnibus bills, that is something that has been highly criticized, and rightly so in my opinion. If governments want to keep introducing massive bills, then I think we might need a separate process for budget bills.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my dear Green Party colleague for his speech. I want to acknowledge his hard and heartfelt work on matters of social justice, the environment and persons with disabilities. He shows such compassion for people in vulnerable situations and I commend him for that.
I heard him say that he was disappointed that there was nothing in the budget about standards for long-term care.
Long-term care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Would my colleague not agree that the best way to support long-term care is for the federal government to transfer the money that the provinces and Quebec need?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful and articulate speech. I share his dismay at the $2.6 billion in this budget for carbon capture and storage, not because I do not believe that this technology will likely play some modest role in reaching our climate targets, but because this is a direct subsidy to some of the wealthiest and most profitable corporations in our country. The $2.6 billion is not pocket change. Could my colleague perhaps provide his thoughts on where that $2.6 billion could be better spent in meeting our climate targets and ensuring a healthy future for our kids?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is from Bay of Quinte, which also has CFB Trenton in his riding. He did not mention anything with respect to the additional $8 billion in funding for the Canadian Armed Forces in the budget. I know that he has brought forward the issue of Canadian Armed Forces housing and the issues that are facing the PMQs across Canada.
I would like to ask the member opposite for his opinion on the additional $8 billion in funding for Canadian Armed Forces members, which can include funding for housing. I know he has had some investments recently announced in his riding for Canadian Armed Forces housing. As a parent of two Canadian Armed Forces members and a mother-in-law of one, this is something that is very important to me, so I would like his opinion on the additional funding for the Canadian Armed Forces.
150 words
All Topics
- 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
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, if the hon. member had read the budget, he would know that there is an entire chapter on this. Not only has $8 billion been invested on the basis of the policy that was published in 2017, but I can go on to read what the government has announced in investments.
The government has provided $875 million to address the cyber-threat landscape, based on Canada's first comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. On misinformation and disinformation, the government has provided $13.4 million for the G7 rapid response mechanism. The government has provided $10 million for the Privy Council Office to coordinate, develop, and implement government-wide measures designed to combat disinformation and protect our democracy. The government has also provided $385 million for IRCC and CSIS, plus the—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to pick up on what my colleague from Joliette was saying, there was indeed not much of a connection between our colleague's statement and the subject at hand, which has me wondering if he is tacitly acknowledging that there is nothing in the budget.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely, if the member had taken some time to read the budget, there is a whole chapter on this. As I mentioned, there are many investments on many different levels that deal with the defence of our country and the security aspects of our country. Every single one of these things has been derived from the budget.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to respond to the previous comments that were made by my colleagues across the way. I take a lot of offence at the fact that they were stating there was nothing in the budget with respect to cybersecurity and nothing in the budget with respect to defence, which my colleague spent 20 minutes highlighting.
I sat on the national defence committee during the first mandate, and I know full well exactly what the threats facing Canada are today. The fact is that we had to look at “Strong, Secure, Engaged” and shift and pivot, given the new realities.
That is what the member just mentioned, and he spent 20 minutes highlighting the new realities here, so I find it quite offensive that people are accusing the member of not discussing what is actually in the budget, on page 136.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that we are talking about Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, not the budget itself. Not everything in that speech is in Bill C‑19. My colleague may take offence, but that speech had no connection to Bill C‑19.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, maybe the member could clarify and clear the air. Did he write that speech, or did he literally just take sections of chapter 5 out of the budget? I would just like to know.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Niagara Falls. Niagara is a beautiful spot in Canada, but not as beautiful as Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to share my thoughts on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
The first thing that came to mind when I read the budget was the phrase “out of touch”, because I was really upset to see how out of touch the government and the Prime Minister were with the reality of Canadians and their daily concerns.
Inflation is at its highest in 30 years. Absolutely everything costs more. The price of gas has skyrocketed. In my riding, the price per litre of regular gas is around $2.03 right now. The price of food has climbed by 9.8% since last year, and house prices have doubled since the Prime Minister came to power.
All these increases have a direct impact on ordinary Canadians, but the government is doing absolutely nothing to help. We pored over the budget, but we did not find anything that would help families cope with these three key issues.
The government is just as out of touch with two important sectors of our economy that are especially important to me and that are being hit hard right now: the agri-food chain, which is severely affected by inflation, and the tourism industry, which suffered tremendously during the pandemic. The budget offers only a few crumbs for these two sectors.
Madam Speaker, there is so much noise I cannot hear myself speak.
294 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to my colleague's point, during the pre-budget consultation period, all the tourism stakeholders came forward to the government and indicated some of the programs they needed to continue moving forward going into the 2022 tourism year, including the extension of CEBA and the tourism and hospitality relief fund. However, what happened was they all ended. The government committed $1 billion to the tourism sector, but that was in the last budget for the tourism sector. That was last year.
This year, it has all ended. If the government is going to tie the hands of the tourism sector behind its back, it should allow them to do what it is they do best, and that is to welcome tourists from throughout the world. One way it could that is by getting rid of the disastrous ArriveCAN app. That is one thing the government could do, and it could do it right now.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Yukon. I visited his area of the world, and it truly is one of the most beautiful places that I have ever visited.
He mentioned zero emission vehicles. Coming from Oshawa, I know that it is extremely important that we support the industry as we transition. One of the challenges I have with this budget is a lack of investment for charging stations. According to the European Union, we would need about one charging station for every 10 electric vehicles, which means we would need about four million charging stations for 40 million vehicles, and this budget really does not put any plan forward to fulfill that necessity.
I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the lack of investment for charging stations as well as the lack of investment for the provinces and territories to upgrade their grid in order to handle the huge influx of zero emission vehicles by 2035.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I often hear people in my riding talk about access to health care, mental health, their housing needs, and investments to fight climate change. Those are Yukon's priorities. I am very pleased to see investments in these areas in budget 2022.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, throughout this debate on the budget we have been talking a lot about the affordability crisis and people being able to make ends meet. Throughout the member's speech he was talking about his constituents, meeting a lot of targets and helping indigenous people in his riding.
One of the proposals the New Democrats have put forward is for a guaranteed livable basic income, which meets the requirements of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I wonder if the member would be supportive of our colleague's bill, Bill C-223, which would support a guaranteed livable basic income.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
