44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to stand in the House tonight to address concerns from my colleague.
I remember back to about a year ago when the member ran for the Liberal Party and I knocked on doors with him. He ran on a commitment to price carbon, and it was welcomed at the doors, as it is welcomed across our country. Canadians know that pollution should not be free. Canadians know that things like cap and trade, a price on pollution and, indeed, carbon pricing are a necessary foundation in a proper environmental platform.
At the time, the member was also proud of that platform, so I am not sure where he is going with this, but I am indeed really proud of the fact that for seven years now, our government has been putting forward real solutions and measures to help middle-class Canadians and those who have worked so hard to join them.
We have introduced and implemented measures that have helped grow the economy. We have created jobs and we have created a fair and more level playing field for Canadians across the country. We understand that rising prices, which we are seeing around the world, are also affecting Canadians across the country. However, high inflation is a global phenomenon. It is not limited to us here in Canada. It is mostly caused by the war in Ukraine and various other supply chain disruptions.
While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive an additional $2.5 billion in support. Over 11 million households will receive a doubling of that GST credit in the coming weeks. Actually, I believe it is this Friday.
Also, with Bill C-31 we are proposing to create a Canada dental benefit for children under 12, which will deliver $1,300 over the next few years in supports so that families can pay for their kids to go and see a dentist. The bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, which already provides up to $2,500 to Canada's most vulnerable and lowest-income families who are renting. This will increase it by $500 and put that in the pockets of nearly two million renters who are struggling to pay their rent.
The member for Spadina—Fort York can certainly recognize the impacts these measures will have for Canadians in his riding. Many of them are indeed struggling to make ends meet, and these measures will help.
Later this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will release the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country.
When it comes to the clean fuel regulations and pollution pricing, I would remind my colleague of the importance of continuing to work on the green transition while doing everything we can to make life more affordable in this country.
I spent some considerable time in the riding of my colleague. The fact is, his constituents are concerned about the impacts of climate change. His constituents were disappointed when Premier Doug Ford cancelled cap and trade, and his constituents were relieved when the federal government stepped in with supports.
I just got off the phone with a constituent who had valid questions about the price on pollution. As I explained it to him, this is a backstop program for provinces that do not have a plan to fight climate change. Previous to this, the province of Ontario had a $3-billion program. That was a revenue program for the province, called cap and trade, and unfortunately Doug Ford scrapped it. That is illegal. Every province and territory is bound by law to have a plan to fight climate change and to price pollution accordingly. The simple truth is that climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. It is an economic necessity. Our government has a plan that will save the planet. It will create growth and make life more affordable all at the same time. We will continue to move forward with that plan.
In conclusion, I would say that every single member, all 338 in the House, ran on a commitment to price carbon in the last election. There were a couple of versions of it, but it was a unanimous position—
764 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:22:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy from my colleague down the way is pretty stunning. In the last election he added his name to a ballot, ran for our party and, like all members in this House, ran on a commitment to fight climate change. To now use affordability as a wedge in that fight that we must collectively take on is rather shameful.
Our government is continuing to work day in and day out to make life more affordable for Canadians. We continue to be very open to good ideas. However, I did not hear any good ideas in my colleague's speech tonight.
On Thursday, the fall economic statement will provide further details of our plan to continue building an economy that works for everyone. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and indeed in Spadina—Fort York, can count on us to continue supporting them through this period of global, elevated inflation, while also continuing our mutual commitment to protect the environment.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:27:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about our efforts to help Canadians live healthier lives.
Chronic diseases are critical issues for Canadians and for our health care system. That includes diet-related diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, and they are claiming the lives of more and more Canadians every day. These chronic diseases increase physical vulnerabilities and put Canadians more at risk.
As we have just seen these past two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, these diseases have far-reaching impacts on quality of life, not just for those Canadians living with these diseases but also their loved ones as well as health care systems.
At the outset of my friend's speech, he mentioned that he sometimes meanders a little bit like a sinusoidal river, like a creek I used to paddle down, and I tend to agree. However, it is kind of a serious thing, because adjournment debates, late shows, are meant to achieve something. They are meant to allow me, as a parliamentary secretary, to come here to talk about an important issue my friend and colleague raised in the House of Commons and felt was not adequately responded to.
I appreciate sometimes, in the haste of trying to find some notes or answer a question on the fly, my answers might not always be perfectly adequate. We do not get to practise all of the answers. People get to practise a question. If they know they are up in 14 minutes, they can go in front of the mirror and practise their question. Indeed, we often see members of the opposition practising their questions beforehand, and that is good. It adds to the level of debate.
What does not add to the level of the debate is the abuse of the late shows. The adjournment debates are meant to do one specific thing. It is meant to provide a bit more integrity to this whole parliamentary system. I feel, in this case and in previous cases, members are choosing to abuse the adjournment debate system.
I am happy to come to have a conversation about any subject. However, to use the late show, we need to first indicate there is a specific question we would like more information on. I have two jobs actually. I think about it a lot. The nature of my work is divided in two a little bit. I am a member of Parliament, and I represent my neighbours in Milton, Ontario, but I also represent the government. I am a parliamentary secretary for two ministers on subjects I care deeply about, which are health and sport. I think they are connected, and I was very grateful when the Prime Minister asked me to serve in this dual capacity.
In order to do a good job on the second part of my job, which is to represent the government, I cannot just come to the House and tell members about all of my great ideas, where I stand or what the great people of Milton want to hear. I also need to do my job as a parliamentary secretary and represent the views and the position of the government. However, I cannot do that if I am not given a bit of a heads-up on what the nature of the question will be.
The member for Bow River had indicated that he wanted to talk to me today about front-of-pack labelling for ground beef. In the previous session of the previous Parliament, our plan was to provide more information to consumers on the foods they consume when they have higher levels of fat, salt and sugar. It is a good plan. Some members raised important concerns around ground beef, how it is a single-ingredient food that does contain a bit more fat. Most of the fat gets cooked off when we prepare it. It was a good, valid concern, so we changed the way we package and label ground beef.
However, that has nothing to do with the question the member asked. He asked me about plastics and the pharmaceutical industry, or how we dealt with that—
702 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:32:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member for Bow River has moved on from the question of front-of-pack labelling for ground beef. It is not an issue anymore because we do not front-of-pack label ground beef. We resolved it in the previous session. The member has moved onto a new issue.
Generally, in order to qualify for an adjournment debate, the member needs to ask a question in the House of Commons and then indicate that the question was not adequately responded to. In this case, the member is abusing the system. I would ask folks on the Conservative side to be more respectful of the adjournment debates.
My time is for members and I am here to discuss these issues with them. However, I would ask them to provide me with the opportunity to do a bit of research on the issue at hand.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:37:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I genuinely want to thank my friend and colleague for her sincere concern for the health care crisis in Canada, and I too wish to thank health care workers in my community of Milton, in the province of Ontario and across Canada. The burden they have shouldered over the last couple of years has been immense, immeasurable and unfair, and that burden continues today.
The pandemic is not over and the backlog ensues. People are counting on us as legislators to find solutions to problems, and today in the health committee we put the final touches on our committee report on the human resources in health care crisis. I am looking forward to it being tabled in the House of Commons, because I think it creates some really good recommendations for our government, as well as for the Minister of Health, whom I am very privileged to work with.
Obviously, the minister appeared a number of times, as did officials, doctors, nurses and representatives of the health care system across the country, and it is a good report. I am proud of the work and proud of the recommendations, and I am looking forward to seeing the outcomes from the meeting that is upcoming with the Minister of Health and all of the ministers of health from all of the premiers across the country.
However, the question today is about the human resource health care crisis. The current shortage of health workers has led to reduced hospital capacities. We have seen in some cases a complete closure of emergency rooms, which cannot happen in a Canadian town or city, and that is enhanced, as my hon. colleague pointed out, in rural areas. We know that people who live in rural and remote areas already have a harder time accessing health care, and now they are being hardest hit by health worker shortages.
Long-standing systemic challenges, which were exacerbated by the pandemic, have resulted in health workers managing high patient workloads, resource scarcity, fear for personal safety and unprecedented levels of burnout, absences and turnover. We have a health care crisis, because we have a health workers crisis.
From the beginning, our government has worked hard and hand in hand with provinces and territories in the fight against COVID-19. We provided them with an extra $72 billion to support health systems and protect Canadians. That included a $2-billion top-up just recently to the Canada health transfer to improve health care in Canada, including by reducing backlogs from COVID-19 and growing our health workforce. This will help to support the health and well-being of Canadians and those on the front lines of our health care system.
To support the mental health and well-being of our health force, budget 2022 also provided $140 million over two years to the Wellness Together Canada portal, which offers free confidential mental health and substance use tools and services for frontline health care workers.
As I mentioned, I live in Ontario, and the Premier of Ontario has been talking about the need to fund incrementally health care in Canada. We have been there very consistently throughout the pandemic and before. They are using some numbers I do not think are necessarily true, with respect to the percentage the federal government currently contributes to health care. I do think the federal portion of the Canada health transfer needs to go up. However, I think it would be irresponsible for us, as the federal government in Canada, to provide that transfer without listing some priorities and ensuring there are some targeted measures those provincial and territorial governments will ensure occur.
Canadians deserve to know these health care dollars are being spent responsibly, and as an Ontarian, when I receive hundreds of dollars in a rebate to my licence plate stickers right before a provincial election, which was right after that incremental $2 billion went out to provinces and territories, I am concerned the provinces and territories are balancing their books. Having budget surpluses is not spending—
677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:42:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that we have to increase the Canada health transfer. It is just not a matter of saying, “Here is unlimited money to spend on whatever you would like, including budget surpluses and $500 cheques to millionaires,” as they do in the province of Quebec. We need to spend that money responsibly and make sure it actually solves the problems my hon. colleague so eloquently pointed at this evening.
We all agree that the Canada health transfer will go up, but let us have a little look at the last couple of years and all the incremental funding we have provided, such as an investment of $115 million over five years, with $30 million ongoing, to expand the foreign credential recognition program and help 11,000 internationally trained health care professionals per year get their credentials recognized and find work in their field.
The list goes on. Our investments in the health care sector are vast, and they will continue to grow as the needs of Canadians continue to go up. We have to tackle this, and it is all about teamwork.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
