44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that institutional investors have been able to outbid everyday working-class Canadians for housing. Why? Because the government flooded the financial system with $400 billion of newly created cash. When it pumped that cash into the financial system, it went into mortgage lending. Who is preferred to borrow that money? Wealthy, well-connected institutional investors. They got their hands on that money and they used it to bid up housing prices out of the reach of the working class, meaning that young people, who not long ago would have been able to afford a home, are now permanent renters.
We need to change this system. We need to stop the money printing, ensure that we have a financial and monetary system based on hard, sound money.
Finally, we need to incentivize local government gatekeepers to get out of the way, deliver faster and more affordable building permits, so we can get houses built for our youth.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the official leader of our opposition for not only winning our Conservative leadership race recently, but also for laying out a clear vision as to how we can actually fix all of the problems created by the Liberal government.
It seems like we have seen this movie before. I look back to when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada and we saw inflation go out of control, because of out-of-control government spending and skyhigh interest rates. I bought my first chunk of farm land back in 1984 and I paid 21.5% interest on my mortgage. That was because of irresponsible Liberal government programs and increased money being spent, which affected our economy.
Is this a problem again of Liberal times always being tough times? Does the official leader of the opposition think that this is again, like father, like son?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are like the Bourbon dynasty: They learn nothing and forget nothing. They are right back to the same policies.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran monstrous money-printing deficits. Of course, that led to 12% inflation, 12% unemployment and then ultimately 19% or 20% interest rates. If we combine unemployment and inflation, we get the misery index. It reached a record-smashing 24% under the first Trudeau, which delivered the highest suicide rates in Canadian history in 1983.
My earliest memories are of that time, and my parents suffered because, while they were school teachers and did not lose their jobs, they got hit with those interest rate hikes just like everyone else and lost their rental properties. We ended up having to move to a smaller place because of that. We were among the lucky since we were able to get into a home.
We are following the same policies. We have 40-year highs of inflation. Inflation is higher than at any time since the last Trudeau. If we do the same things, we get the same results.
The good news is that after Canada was liberated from Pierre Elliot Trudeau, we spent a lot of years doing the exact opposite: shrinking the size of government, reforming our taxes, opening up our economy and standing up for working-class people. That is exactly what we are going to do again, and we are going to get even better results next time.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:12 a.m.
- Watch
We have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to interrupt today's debate, but this is an important question of privilege. I will be as brief as possible.
I rise on a question of privilege regarding threatening comments made by Mr. Dale Smith, an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, following a question I raised in the House yesterday. I am raising this issue as soon as possible after having been made aware of these comments.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Smith posted the following comments on Twitter yesterday: “Genuis tries to includes lyrics from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in his question, and I cannot adequately tell you how lame it is. When horses are this lame, you shoot them. #QP.”
Mr. Smith said he thought I was lame, and that when horses are lame, we shoot them. This is not normal political discourse, and I ask how I should respond to a comment like that. Some would say, “Oh, surely he was joking.” However, the problem with so-called jokes implying threats toward public officials is that as the target of these comments, I am somehow supposed to understand and be okay with a threat on the basis of someone's presumed intentions. I am just not okay with this.
If there is context to such a threat, not everyone is going to understand that context. Mr. Smith has 26.3 thousand Twitter followers. His tweet about me has, at the moment, 122 retweets and 824 likes. The process by which violence is incited against public officials is one in which comments are made that do incite violence that may or may not be serious, but then others pick up on them.
Furthermore, I do not think I should have to explain to my wife, my five young children or my parents what level of risk is associated with a violent comment like this. The plain language is going to be interpreted a certain way, especially by those who are close to me.
In the current climate, we should all know the risks associated with explicitly inciting violence against public officials. There is significant precedent for recognizing threats against members as constituting a violation of privilege. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells of an incident in 1758 when the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.
In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of Debates, stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”
On February 6, 1984, the member for Peace River rose on a question of privilege arising out of a telephone conversation between a member of his staff and an official in the office of the president of Canada Post Corporation. The member alleged that the official had been abusive. The official complained that the member for Peace River's office had not cleared questions asked by the member in the House with the president's office and warned that if this was not done in the future, the member could expect little co-operation from Canada Post.
The member for Peace River argued that this was an attempt to inhibit his freedom of speech, influence his actions in the House and hamper him in his role as spokesman for the official opposition. The Speaker, on February 20, 1984, ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way: “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a Member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no Member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”
All of these past cases involved a threat from a person who did not have parliamentary access. Mr. Smith is currently an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, which gives him relatively unfettered access to the Hill. He may be up in the press gallery some time today. He may follow me in the halls or hang around outside our caucus room waiting for me. I should not have to consider whether or not I will encounter someone who has made a threat to me in the halls of Parliament. That current reality of access impacts my ability to perform my functions as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Smith is an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, and the gallery has its own policies and its own responsibilities. The press gallery's own website says the following regarding “Generally Accepted Journalistic Principles and Practices”:
Misuse of this access by any one member or member organization could erode the professional relationship that exists between the institution of Parliament and the Parliamentary Press Gallery, leading to negative consequences for the ability of members to perform their work.
As a result, accreditation is a privilege—not a right.
Madam Speaker, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of members, and I have no doubt that you will discharge that responsibility promptly and properly.
The press gallery also has responsibilities, and I would like to see the gallery take swift action to revoke Mr. Smith's privileges. This is an opportunity for the gallery to show that they do take seriously the issue of threats made against public officials. At the very least, Mr. Smith's privileges should be immediately suspended pending further review. I do not want to see a person who has made threats against me in the gallery anytime today or in the future.
I note that today, Mr. Smith is doubling down on his comments and accusing those who raise concerns about this behaviour of so-called rage farming. He has made it clear that he does not see his behaviour as wrong and that he will not relent.
I hope that all members of the House, along with the many principled and thoughtful members of the press, will be able to stand together in denouncing these kinds of threats and in defending our democracy and the security of public officials from these kinds of statements.
While in this case it is my privileges that have been violated, I know that politicians and journalists receive these kinds of threats in other contexts. This case is fairly unique because of the prominence and position of the person making the comments. When people like Mr. Smith make comments like this, it gives other people a feeling of licence to behave in the same way. Under these circumstances, and for the good of all members, the press gallery and the House must take a clear stand.
Madam Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
1106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:21:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the question of privilege by my hon. colleague, I rise in my capacity as the shadow minister for public safety to add to his remarks about a tweet sent out last night from a member of the parliamentary press gallery who insinuated that my hon. colleague should be shot dead. This is incredibly serious and I would ask that you give it your full attention and investigate further measures that can be taken.
This comes at a time when we are increasingly aware of threats of violence against members of Parliament and politicians of all stripes at all levels of government. This comes at a time when female journalists have felt brave enough to speak out against the violence they are receiving online. This comes at a time when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was threatened very aggressively and harassed over the summer when she was touring Canada.
This comes at a time when politicians have all experienced an aggressive person at the door, at events or when walking down the street, and we stay quiet. We do not want to seem like we are whining. We do not want to complain about it, and we certainly do not want to encourage others to act in a threatening manner.
I can say that I have certainly been threatened. I have certainly been aggressively pursued and shouted at by people far larger and more intimidating than me. We try to slip away. We try not to encourage them. We shrink ourselves down and try to remove ourselves from the violent situation. However, as the shadow minister for public safety, I feel that I have a strong responsibility to stand up against the bully who insinuated violence against my colleague.
We know in the House that we are going to encounter a lot of criticism, sometimes very personal criticism, and we just have to take it with a stiff upper lip; we all do. However, when someone insinuates that we should be shot dead, a very clear line in the sand must be drawn and must be drawn immediately and clearly.
This individual in particular is a member of the notable parliamentary press gallery of Canada, which is supposed to have the highest ethical standards of journalism in this country. They are supposed to lead by example. Just as we have a public obligation, they have a public obligation. They have a responsibility to investigate this in full. They have a responsibility to lead by example and send a message that this is completely unacceptable.
As my colleague mentioned as well, this man who sent the tweet out insinuating that my dear colleague should be shot dead for his question in question period yesterday could be up in this gallery today looking down at me, looking down at my colleagues, looking down at Liberal members, NDP members, Bloc members and Green members. When members get up with their courage to ask a question to the best of their ability, that man could be tweeting out criticism and insinuating that they should be shot dead in a tweet. That is unacceptable behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that you ensure this is quickly and swiftly investigated in full, and I would appreciate if the strongest consideration was given that the individual be banned from West Block, that a discussion be had with the parliamentary press gallery and that he be removed from the parliamentary press gallery pending further review or permanently.
584 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:24:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue, which really affects us all. It was directed at him, and I certainly sympathize with how that must have felt, to see that member of the press gallery openly calling for him to be shot after he did not like the question that was asked.
I would like to point out that, as we move around the very building we are in right now, we can see that the House administration has put up signs in every hallway and near every entrance to stop harassment. They are signs with a big red stop sign that encourage all who work here, staff, MPs and visitors, to stop and call out incidents of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation. I just wanted to flag that.
We have all been seized with this, as an institution, over the last few years, and members must, after every election, take training to make sure we are aware of the very highest standards of professionalism as to how we conduct ourselves individually, how we structure our offices and how we expect our staff to interact with each other. We gladly do that. In fact, members of Parliament from all parties got together to enhance the code of conduct for members and their staff.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, there is a direct relationship with the parliamentary press gallery. Its members' accreditations for security run through the House administration. I believe it is entirely reasonable for you and the Speaker's office to look into this matter to find a prima facie case of privilege. To not find a question of privilege, I believe, would seriously undermine the efforts that are constantly being made to make this building and this environment more safe and secure.
I sincerely hope that you, Madam Speaker, will find for my hon. colleague's question of privilege.
318 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:26:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise here as a member of Parliament, but first and foremost as a man and a citizen of this world. As a citizen, what I saw yesterday was completely unacceptable. We see intimidation all around us, but I do not recall ever seeing it this bad.
I am also speaking as a former journalist. I was a journalist for 20 years, including six years as a parliamentary reporter at the National Assembly. I even served as president of the National Assembly's parliamentary press gallery for over a year. I know what a great privilege it is to be a journalist, and even more so when you have direct, daily and even physical, immediate access to our elected decision-makers.
We must have zero tolerance for intimidation of this kind, especially since this individual has access to places we frequent. The member did a good job describing the reality of the situation. As a former journalist, I call on all journalists to take a very strong stand against this utterly unacceptable situation.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:28:03 a.m.
- Watch
I want to thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for raising this serious issue through a question of privilege. I also want to thank the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her interjection, as well as the official opposition House leader for his.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
This is certainly an issue that we will take seriously, and the Chair will make a ruling soon.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with my admirable colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:29:05 a.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker: It is agreed.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents in the beautiful riding of Mirabel for putting their trust in me one year ago today. Every day, I am reminded what an honour it is to represent them.
I have been thinking about my constituents. I was thinking about them yesterday. I was thinking about them this morning. I was thinking that last year, the people of Mirabel, along with all Quebeckers and Canadians, voted in a minority government. They voted in a government that was meant to work with the other opposition parties, discuss with them and be constructive. That is what the people of Mirabel wanted. That is what Quebeckers wanted. That is what Canadians wanted.
A minority government is not necessarily a weak government. It can be a government that is strong because it seeks consensus, engages in dialogue, listens and communicates with the provinces and Quebec. A minority government can be a strong government if it goes about things the right way. However, what the current Liberal government decided to do is an admission of weakness. It has rejected the mandate it was given. Rather than doing the work that Canadians and Quebeckers asked it to do, this government decided to give in to the NDP's laundry list of demands to circumvent democracy.
There is a reason we are presented with flawed, convoluted, last-minute bills like Bill C-31. Drafting good bills, especially budgetary and financial bills, takes time, thought, preparation and consensus. To top it all off, the bill before us today deals with health care.
It is important to note that dental health is part of overall health. What is more, this is a field in which Ottawa does not know what it is doing. It does not have the expertise or the jurisdiction. It is not set up for this.
This summer, the people of Mirabel saw that the federal government was unable to issue passports, so they are not convinced that they want the federal government messing with their teeth. We understand. That is fair. What is worse is that there is no connection—
360 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:31:51 a.m.
- Watch
Order. I will remind the member that he cannot hold up documents during his speech, especially when they have the party logo on them. I am reminding the member as he knows full well that he is not supposed to do that.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize. I am sorry for having to be told and I will be sure not to do it again.
Bill C-31 has no teeth and has nothing to do with dental health. It does not meet dental needs. It is not insurance, and it is not dental insurance. This bill reflects a total lack of understanding of the existing programs in Quebec and also in other provinces.
I am going to explain what Bill C‑31 really does. All it does is top up the family benefits and the Canada child benefit that already exist. The Bloc Québécois asked for targeted measures to help families with children, low-income families, taxi drivers and people currently affected by rising prices. However, all the government is saying is that it will top up the Canada child benefit for families with an income of less than $90,000 a year to help them deal with the increased cost of living. Now the NDP is telling the government that this bill has no teeth. The government says that those who want the benefit should submit the dentist's bill, even if it is just for $1, $2 or $3 for strawberry-flavored fluoride, for example, and they will be fully reimbursed.
The Minister of Health is an economist, so he should know that there are no assurances in that. He should know that this program may help families, but instead of increasing their benefits, the government wants them to submit their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency, fill out forms in triplicate and use the My Account portal. We all know how well MyAccount works and how much everybody loves using it. The government wants people to fill out paperwork, and if they do not have the money to pay for care up front, then they need to fill out even more paperwork to get the money up front and eventually receive care. Ordinarily, if the NDP were not here to get in the way of families and these benefits, the government would give the people money and they would go to the dentist or wherever. This bill is a benefits increase disguised as a dental program where families are asked to spend their time filling out paperwork. I congratulate the NDP.
This whole thing is meant to give the NDP members a chance to parade around their ridings, lying through their teeth about having achieved something for dental health. I have news for them: They have been shafted, and on top of that, families will to deal with red tape. This is unacceptable.
It is especially unacceptable because Quebec is getting shafted even more than the NDP on this issue. To qualify for this Canada child benefit top-up, the child's dental care must not be fully covered through private or public insurance. However, since 1974, Quebec has had an extremely progressive policy for children under 10. It covers most of the services that families need. This program could be enhanced, which would be possible if Ottawa would provide health transfers. This program means that Quebeckers who go to the dentist for routine care do not have to pay a cent. They are not eligible for this federal money. What should Quebeckers do, ask for strawberry-flavoured fluoride or an extra filling? Should we ask for additional services and try to spend more at the dentist, just so we can get a benefit that could have been enhanced, by consensus in the House, at the touch of a button? This is all because of the little deal reached between the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals do not want to talk to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Greens in order to work the way a Parliament should work.
Not surprisingly, when the Liberals unveiled Bill C‑31, they came off looking kind of foolish. The day they made the announcement, there just happened to be a press conference in Quebec where people in the field, people who had spent more than just a couple of weeks thinking and talking about the issue, people who are very familiar with the issue, asked the Government of Quebec to increase public coverage in Quebec and urge Ottawa to boost health transfers. These people were asked what they thought of the federal government's Bill C‑31, which will not actually cover any additional services and will get families tangled up in red tape, forcing them to take the kids on fun family outings to the Canada Revenue Agency instead of helping them with their homework.
Unions, seniors' advocacy groups and the poor responded quite eloquently to Bill C‑31. I want to read from a document that I have here. The response is so clear that I could not have said it better myself. They said that it is nonsense.
That is what people in the know are saying. For years, they have been asking for services, for real coverage. They are asking to be able to go to the dentist under an existing program and have the services already covered.
We have gotten to this point because the federal government broke its promise to negotiate health transfers with the provinces. Since the start of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has been telling us that there is a pandemic going on, that now is not the time, that it is too soon. The government said that once the pandemic was over, it would negotiate increased health transfers with the provinces, as Quebec and the provinces are calling for. Everyone agrees on increasing health transfers, except the federal government. When it comes to health transfers, the government has no money, but when it comes to things the NDP wants, there is always money available.
The pandemic is over. The temporary EI measures are set to be lifted on Sunday. Some 60% of workers in Quebec and Canada who are receiving EI will be left high and dry, on the basis that the pandemic is over. It does seem to be over, since Bill C‑31 would implement measures to increase families' purchasing power, given that we are in the midst of a postpandemic surge in inflation, which we hope is temporary.
Enough with this nonsense. People need real care. Children need real dental care. The provinces are the experts here, and that is how it should be. The government must keep its word.
I want to conclude by saying that we will vote in favour of the bill because we support the principle. I think it needs some work in committee. With a few fillings, some fluoride, a good brushing, a rinse and a few amendments, this bill might just pass the smell test.
1141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is going to be supporting the bill. It is a good piece of legislation. There are some provinces that actually advance dental care more than other provinces. The legislation we are talking about would assist thousands of children in all regions of the country, including in the province of Quebec, where I would see it more so as complementing the services Quebec currently offers.
Why, in any fashion, would the Bloc prevent a federal initiative that would provide badly needed dental care to children of all regions of our country?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am starting to have some experience here, so I know not to expect the member for Winnipeg North to actually listen to my speech. I said that the bill is full of cavities, but, speaking of care, there might be a way to make it better.
I understand that the member comes from a province that does not have a progressive provincial dental insurance program like Quebec does. I understand that it is not part of his culture to know that Quebec already has this type of program. The government is not helping families by duplicating the program, by complicating it and by creating obstacles for families who want an increase in family benefits. Rather than giving them money, the government is telling them to go to the CRA to have their claims verified. How is that good news for families? I would like someone to explain that to me.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I am more hopeful and optimistic than he is because, last year, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, when I met up with people in parks or went door-knocking, people really seemed to care about dental coverage whenever we talked about it. Not everyone has supplementary insurance or coverage through some kind of public plan, so people really want this.
After the Liberals voted twice against NDP proposals to make dental care available to the poor and the middle class, we used our leverage in the House to force the Liberals to do just that, for the benefit of families, workers and anyone who cannot afford dental care. By the end of the year, dental care will be covered for kids aged 12 and under, and by next year, it will be covered for teenagers and seniors. This is good news for poor and middle-class Quebeckers, and it is all thanks to the work being done by the NDP.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the NDP member just demonstrated the problem.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie is going to tell his constituents that they have dental insurance. However, when parents in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie go to the dentist with their nine-year-old child, they will realize that they still have the same insurance they had before, the one from Quebec, and they will have to ask for a slightly higher receipt and get services that are not covered in order to get the full amount.
It seems that the member spends a lot of time in parks like Molson park. I hope he will take the opportunity to tell people that to get better benefits for children they will have to waste a lot of time with CRA and maybe even suffer through an audit if the dentist cancels their day. I wish him luck at the parks.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, allow me to begin this first speech of the fall session by taking the time to salute my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, not only those who re-elected me just a year ago, but all my constituents since I share my days with them. What brings us together goes beyond partisanship and politics, and so I send them my regards.
My speech today should be of interest to my constituents because it is about things that affect their daily lives, things they work hard for, in other words, rent, dental insurance, quality of life and so on.
I will talk about two things: the dental benefit and the rent support program.
This spring, when we were getting ready to vote on the budget implementation bill, some members in the House stated loud and clear that they were voting in favour of the bill in order to keep one of their promises, which was one of the reasons they reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, namely the implementation of dental insurance.
However, the current bill does not actually establish dental insurance. A benefit and insurance are two completely different concepts. Insurance pays for all or part of the dental care a person receives in a year. A benefit is an amount of money given at some point during the year. Too bad if it does not cover all the costs, but it is nice if it does.
In this case, we are talking about $650 a year for a family earning less than $70,000 in that year. I have four children. There have been times in my life when my spouse and I have made less than $70,000 a year. Quebec covers some dental care, but not basic care like annual scaling and cleaning, or sealing pits and fissures in adult teeth to prevent cavities. It was over $400 a year for basic care for my four children. Two of them required appointments every six months. I am fastidious about dental hygiene. There are years when we had to cut our budget to make sure our children saw a dentist. There are years when they did not see one at all because we could not afford it.
In addition to not adequately covering people's needs, getting the benefit is going to be a pain, because parents have to claim it through CRA's My Account portal. As my colleague said, that means parents need access to a computer and the Internet, which not everyone has. When people have to cut spending, the Internet is often one of the things they let go of. Parents also have to trust a system that has either lost data or been hacked in recent years. Sounds great, right?
Why not set up a simpler process, such as using health cards? True, health cards are within the purview of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, not the federal government.
Need I remind the House that dental care is health care and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec and the Canadian provinces? Quebec has dental insurance, as I said earlier. It used to be much more comprehensive, but is only partial now. When federal health transfers were pared down in the 1990s, Quebec and the Canadian provinces had to make tough choices. One of those choices was to reduce the age of eligibility for free dental care from 18 to 10. My father did not have to pay for my dental care because it was covered.
The federal government is once again infringing on an area of Quebec or provincial jurisdiction rather than fulfilling its constitutional duty with regard to health transfers. It is rather ridiculous that the separatist party in the House is the one reminding the federal government of its constitutional duties. The government wants to look like the great saviour when it is actually the one that has been causing these problems since the 1990s. Basically, the government is pulling a Perry, the firefighter who set fire to the Montreal Parliament building in 1849. He knew how to set fires and put them out.
By cutting health transfers, the federal government knew full well that the burden would fall on the shoulders of Quebec and the provinces rather than on its own. It knew that Quebec and the provinces would be forced to cut public services and programs. It knew that those cuts would tarnish the reputation of Quebec and the provinces. It knew that, as a result, over time, any separatist movement in Quebec or the other provinces would be undermined. However, the bad news is that the opposite is happening. What is good news for Quebec and the provinces may not be good news for the federal government.
The federal government is the main reason for the cuts in Quebec and the provinces, the same federal government that, today, is setting itself up as the great saviour of services and keeps repeating that it is not an ATM. I would like to remind the federal government that the money in that so-called ATM belongs to citizens. That money did not grow on trees. The federal government needs to abide by the constitutional agreements and increase transfers to the amount called for by Quebec and the provinces. That is a good deal, because they are only calling for 35% when, under the agreements, the federal government should be paying them 50%.
Some are sure to argue that the current bill introduces an interim measure for two years while a real insurance program is being created. What will happen in two years? There will probably be an election. The interim measure might end up being in place longer than expected, to the point of being seen as permanent. It is kind of the same thing with employment insurance, which has its share of problems. We are told the situation is temporary and that improvements will be made. That was supposed to happen this summer. The reform will be put off indefinitely even though the government says it is urgent. We have heard that before.
In the parliamentary process, suggestions can be made in the form of amendments introduced in committee. The first suggestion would definitely be to respect constitutional agreements regarding health transfers. The second may be to give Quebec and those provinces that may choose to do so the option of opting out with compensation. Doing so would be in line with the Constitution in that it would keep the federal government out of jurisdictions that are not its own.
I now want to briefly talk about my daughter's experience as a renter. My darling Zoé managed to find a place to live 20 minutes from her work and 40 minutes from her school by bus. The apartment is two rooms, in a dark, unheated semi-basement. The cheapest she could find was $900. The $500 a year would represent around 0.46% of her housing costs. That does not include food. She is fortunate that mom and dad can help her, but that is not the case for everyone. The figure of 0.46% in no way commensurate with inflation, which is hovering around 7% and is even higher for rents. It makes no sense to me when someone claims that taking 10% off of $2,500 makes a housing unit affordable. That is more expensive than a mortgage and it makes no sense.
Sending this cheque is not unlike patching a crumbling wall with a glue stick. The wall needs to be fixed. In other words, we need programs that are sustainable and predictable. It is ridiculous that an organization would go through the hassle of creating an entire housing program only to be told, “sorry, but the deadline has passed”. The organization wasted $35,000 to $50,000 on expertise and wages that turned out to be completely useless.
Starting in 2016, 100,000 units per year were supposed to be built in order to meet the growing demographic need. 2016 was six years ago, so we are talking about 600,000 units. Things are not getting any better. I would hope that no one here has had to cut up towels to make diapers, like I did. I hope that no one here has had to stock their cupboard with beans, instant rice, peanut butter and bread to feed their family, like I did. I hope no one has had to roll their pennies to buy milk. That is where unaffordable rent gets us.
I still have laundry—
1435 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
