44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 15, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for pointing out the fact that there are virtually no Conservatives here. I apologize.
20 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 12:22:41 p.m.
- Watch
I know we do this in laughter. We are not supposed to point out the absence of members or whether or not members are in the chamber. The quorum call should be just that: We count the members who are here to make sure that we have quorum; it is not to underline who is and who is not here.
I am looking at the time that we need to get the number of speakers in. I know the member for Davenport was wrapping up her thoughts. She has about two minutes and 53 seconds left. I think she was starting to wrap up. She had a couple of great ideas there, so I was looking forward to the rest of her discourse.
The hon. member for Davenport.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have lots more to say, but I know I only have less than three minutes left.
The next thing I want to point out in the fall economic statement is because the residents of Davenport are very passionate climate activists. They really feel very strongly that we need to move as aggressively and urgently as possible toward meeting our net zero by 2050 targets, so the fact that there are some measures in the fall economic statement that will accelerate decarbonizing our economy and meeting our climate change goals, I think, is welcome news to them.
We were all alarmed when we heard the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, say this:
And the clock is ticking.
We are in the fight of our lives.
And we are losing.
Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing.
Global temperatures keep rising.
And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.
It is incumbent on all of us to take as many measures as possible, so I am pleased to say that the fall economic statement proposes major investment tax credits for clean technology and clean hydrogen, which will make it more attractive for businesses in Canada to invest in technology and to produce the energy that will help to power a net-zero global economy.
The fall economic statement 2022 proposes a refundable tax credit equal to 30% of the capital cost of investments in the following: electricity generation systems, stationary electricity storage systems, low-carbon heat equipment, industrial zero-emission vehicles and related charging or refuelling equipment, among other things. I want to note that the Department of Finance is going to consult on additional eligible technologies. We, of course, are introducing these measures not only because we want to meet our net-zero target by 2050, but also in response to the adoption of the inflation reduction act in the United States, to ensure that we remain competitive in both the current and the future economy.
Given the fact that I have only less than a minute left, I will mention two other small measures, but I think they are significant ones that are going to be helpful to individuals, to all Canadians across the country.
The first is the elimination of interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans. Anything we can do to help students start their lives without debt or with as minimal debt as possible is going to be helpful.
The second is the new, quarterly Canada workers benefit, which is $4 billion over six years. We are going to be issuing that Canada workers benefit quarterly, which will be helpful and put money into the pockets of low-income Canadians sooner rather than later.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the fall economic statement on behalf of the residents of Davenport. I would urge my colleagues on the other side to support this bill as expeditiously as possible.
495 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the fall economic statement that addresses single senior women. There was a report from the CBC. I am sure colleagues have all read it. It was about two women, one in Nova Scotia and one in Toronto, who are still living in their cars and unable to afford housing.
What does the government plan to do to help single female seniors to have the retirement they so much deserve? If it were not for them, we would not be here today.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures that we have introduced. As I mentioned as a part of my speech, we have already introduced a doubling of the GST credit for the next six months. That is going to give individuals an additional $234 and seniors an additional $225. That is one of many measures.
We also have a national housing strategy that has put billions of dollars more of investment into building more affordable housing and to make housing more affordable for Canadians. That includes all Canadians, including our seniors. The fall economic statement has some targeted measures that I do not have time to go through, but I would urge the member to review this.
The message I want to leave is that we will continue to do more for Canadians.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find that surprising. I have been hearing the Liberals boast about the government's economic update all morning.
I do not understand why they think it is so positive, given that there is a really important request, not only from the Government of Quebec, but from all the provinces in Canada. It may be easier for the government to be amenable to a request when it does not come from Quebec. However, since it was not just Quebec that was asking for health transfers this time, we hoped that the government would listen.
Why are they not increasing health transfers? There is no mention of it in the economic update, and yet this is a unanimous request. Everyone is calling for this. I cannot understand it.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about our health care system. Not a day goes by that one of us does not hear stories about the backlog in our emergency systems.
I want to remind the member that we have put a massive increase of funds into the health care system over the last few years and that we have made the commitment to put more money into it. I understand that while we want to put far more money into the health care system across Canada, we are looking for some accountability from the provinces and territories to ensure that money actually goes to reducing wait times, producing more physicians and hiring more nurses as opposed to tax rebates or tax cuts that a number of provinces are engaging in right now.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I was particularly interested in the member's comments about welcoming immigrants.
Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok said in a statement recently that Nunavut was not able to welcome immigrants because there was a lack of housing. I wonder if the member agrees that there needs to be investments in housing so that Nunavut can take part in welcoming immigrants?
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member 100%.
New immigrants cannot be brought in without having a housing plan and without ensuring there is sufficient support for settlement services across the country. Both of those things are absolutely necessary.
In the north, in my opinion, there is a need for additional IRCC resources in general just to support the population with respect to additional newcomers to that part of Canada.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.
I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.
Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.
However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.
As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.
An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.
There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.
In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.
Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.
As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.
Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.
For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.
First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.
I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.
Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.
Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.
There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.
Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.
Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.
Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.
During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.
One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.
In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.
As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.
For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.
1834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc is supporting the legislation and that it has concerns with regard to health care. When I reflect on health care, it is important to recognize that there is a strong role in health care coming from Ottawa, whether it is through the Canada Health Act or through recognizing things from the pandemic such as long-term care, mental health and so forth.
I am wondering if the member could provide her arguments as to why she believes the federal government should not play more of a role in health care. I would ultimately argue that a vast majority of Canadians want a national government that is there for health care and in more ways than just being an ATM.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question, and I will ask him the same question I asked the Minister of Mental Health yesterday.
How is it that he knows more about the health care system than anyone working in Quebec's health department? What does he know about running a hospital that they do not?
In the meantime, patients are being held hostage and waiting on stretchers. Do not talk to me about the debate at the federal level. The federal contribution was originally 50%, and it has dropped to 20% or 21%. That is a huge loss. The government needs to give back what it owes to the Quebec health system.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the status of women committee.
My question is on a lot of what she spoke about and what we work for at the status of women committee in particular. In the fall economic statement, the words “mental health” were only mentioned three times. The Liberal government continues to say that it cares, but its actions show the complete opposite. It continues to solve problems with the problem of inflationary spending.
I am curious to know her thoughts on that aspect of the fall economic statement.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I enjoy working with her at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as well.
As I said yesterday to the minister and as we can see, the management of our health care systems is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I brought in some organizations during the study in committee. They came to tell us that there are plans on the table that cannot be completed because the organizations do not have the necessary funding. They are being forced to save money by cutting corners because the federal government is not paying its share.
Again, the government says it is championing health care, but it is still incapable of implementing genuine EI reform and it thinks that cancer can be dealt with in 15 weeks.
To come back to mental health, the government needs to leave that to Quebec and the provinces. I think that they already have a plan to address mental health problems and help the women and girls suffering from mental health challenges.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague with regard to the crisis we are facing in our health care system. It is no secret that health care, whether in Alberta, British Columbia or Quebec, is facing a dire crisis. We are seeing hallway care prioritized and becoming far more common across the country, and we know the federal government must play a role.
The member spoke about the need for enhanced federal spending in our public health care system. However, what we are seeing in my province of Alberta is a concern that I hope she recognizes and shares with me. In Alberta, we are starting to see a decrease in public spending on health care and an increase in the allowance of private surgeries, which is something Canadians do not want.
We know we need a publicly accessible and publicly administered health care system. Does the member agree?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes the health care system must remain universal and free.
I think health transfers will breathe life into the system. This is important. It is crucial.
With respect to private medicine, as I said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of universal free public health care. That is essential.
That means the federal government has to stop shortchanging the health care system, as it has been doing for far too long. We all know the Liberals and Conservatives have been making cuts since the 1990s. Let us reinvest in our health care system and give Quebec and the provinces the money they need to make good things happen and give sick people the care they deserve.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as always, you seem jubilant and you are in shape, so I will be pleased to talk to you about health.
As my colleague pointed out with respect to implementing the economic statement, we do not find the required measures in this bill to counter the reality that affects us today, that being inflation. Members can rest assured; I will not take the same direction as my Conservative colleagues. I do not think that the best way to fight inflation is to feed the gluttons in the oil and gas industry.
As my colleague demonstrated earlier, there are no measures to support seniors, either. This is very disappointing. We have been asking for that for many years now, almost three years.
I would say that the most glaring omission in the economic statement is the increase in health transfers. Whoever watched question period yesterday could see the Minister of Health's usual attitude when we spoke of health transfers, one that I might describe as “stubborn and arrogant”. This makes me want to dedicate all of my speaking time to these health transfers we keep hearing about.
I do not want to impugn the government's motives, but I know very well that, through their action, what the Liberals want in the coming weeks is to break the common front that has formed between the provinces in order to reach a cut-rate agreement. My colleague pointed that out earlier. However, the situation will not disappear that easily. The current situation is putting enormous pressure on our health systems. Mandatory overtime for nurses and population aging are but two of the factors that are putting pressure on the system.
I would first like to go back to why we have been making this request for health transfers for such a long time. Let us remember that this involves $28 billion, which would increase the government's share from 22% to 35%. If we put that into perspective, we know that when the health care system was first created in the early 1960s, for every dollar invested in health, 50¢ came from the federal government and 50¢ from the provincial government. What an interesting system. Health costs were divided fifty-fifty. That is no longer the case today. In Quebec, the government's share is barely 22%.
The pandemic has also played a major role in the drastic rise of health care costs, so much so that everyone now agrees that major federal reinvestments are needed. The Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion in this regard. The circumstances are clear: there are needs. Everyone, except perhaps the Liberal Party, agrees that the federal government is not doing its part.
Now let me try to explain those economic circumstances. I have no choice but to revisit something that is quite annoying to the government and federalists in general, namely the fiscal imbalance. I am not sure if members recall the Séguin report. I am not talking about the guy who has a goat or about Richard Séguin, the singer; I am talking about Yves Séguin, who was a Liberal finance minister. He was not a sovereignist, nor was he trying to embarrass Canada. He simply gave a presentation on Quebec’s fiscal situation in relation to the federal government.
As the Séguin report so well said, the definition of fiscal imbalance, according to Yves Séguin, is as follows: the provinces’ spending structure is such that expenditures grow faster than the economy, while those of the federal government grow at roughly the same pace. Furthermore, when it wants to revise its spending, the federal government can simply act unilaterally by cutting transfers to the provinces with no other political consequences for itself.
I will come back to this often. We should keep in mind what he said: with no other political consequences for itself.
The federation’s major problem is that the federal government can strangle the provinces by cutting its transfer payments, and it never pays the price for that. Allow me to demonstrate this. We have seen the same thing consistently for 20 years, according to reports from the Conference Board of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not just the Séguin report: The federal government rakes in surpluses, and it can balance its finances on the backs of the provinces without paying a price for it.
A 2013-14 Conference Board of Canada report stated that if nothing were to be done in subsequent years, which is what happened, the combined deficit of the provinces could reach $171 billion in 2034, while the federal government could amass surpluses.
This analysis predates the pandemic, of course, but it does demonstrate that even a neutral organization like the Conference Board of Canada realizes that the fiscal imbalance does exist. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also reported that over the next 25 years, Quebec's revenues will probably be 0.6% less than its spending, while the federal government's revenues will increase rather than decrease.
This does not come from a member trying to provoke the government, but from neutral entities. Canada has a fiscal imbalance problem, and it is usually addressed by cutting transfer payments.
That brings me to our friend, the Minister of Health. He has come out in the last two weeks saying that he is acting in good faith. I would like to see if my colleagues think the Minister of Health is acting in good faith in making these statements. When talking about unconditional transfers, he said, and I am paraphrasing, that all they want is a cheque made out to their finance minister with no strings attached. That is not a plan.
As for sending a cheque to the provinces without a plan, with no strings attached, is it the role of the federal government to establish a health plan? I would simply like to point out that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health, with the exception of military hospitals, quarantines, indigenous health and drug approvals. The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over everything else. Why would the federal government want to come up with a plan of its own?
In my view, the plan should come from the people who have expertise in this field. Who has expertise in health care? It is the people who work in the system, people from within the sector. The Minister of Health has said we need to let health professionals do their jobs. I find that interesting. Perhaps we also need to listen to what they are saying. I do not know if my colleagues recall, but with my colleague's help, we got all the stakeholders in the health sector together: physicians' associations, medical specialists, people who work in public health and the major unions. We brought together all kinds of health care personnel. They came here to Ottawa and told the government that it needs to increase transfers. Why will the Minister of Health not listen to those individuals?
The Minister of Health said we must work together to ensure that patients get the care they need, where and when they need it. I will take the minister at his word. If he wants us to work together, why does he refuse to do what we have been asking of him all along, which is to hold a health summit?
The minister also talks about old ways of doing things. However, the current health care crisis shows that the old ways of doing things do not work. When he talks about old ways of doing things, do members know what it makes me think of? It makes me think of the Liberal government's ongoing cuts. In 1997 and 1998, the government cut $2.5 billion a year in provincial health transfers. Who paid the price at the time? It was Lucien Bouchard. The same thing was done when a Liberal government was in office. Who paid the price? The Couillard government had to bring in austerity measures.
What is worse, the Minister of Health is talking about effectiveness and results. He basically said that before we can talk about money, we need to agree on the objectives. I can give him objectives for immigration, passports, insurance and old age security. There are 70,000 new retirees who are waiting for their cheques. Worse still, the Liberals implemented a dental cheque scheme that is going to be twice as hard for Quebeckers to access.
The culmination of this bad faith is the futile debate. The Minister of Health told us that this debate is futile. The day that the federal government has to invest 42% of its budget in a single budget item, then it can tell me that this debate is futile.
This means that the remaining 58% of Quebec's budget must cover everything else: education, the fight against poverty, child care, infrastructure, municipalities and support for Quebec businesses. Quebec only has 58% of its budget to cover all that. It feels that it is still not enough.
In closing, I would like to say that I had a lofty goal in life, that of making my son and my wife happy. Now, I have another goal, which is to hold the Liberal government to account for all the terrible things it is doing in the area of health care.
1582 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation, and I know he is not going to like what I am going to say.
He likes to talk about the 22% health transfer, but I do not know if he is aware that in 1977, which may be before he was born, the federal government transferred tax points to all the provinces. The federal government reduced its tax room and transferred it to the provinces. If we take into consideration the tax room acquired by Quebec and the other provinces, the federal government's contribution to health is actually 33%.
Is my colleague aware of the historic 1977 decision to transfer tax points?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware, but I feel like asking my colleague whether he is aware that since 1977, health technologies have advanced and the tax points given in 1977 are no longer adequate.
Is he aware that the Séguin report came long after 1977? Is he aware that the reports from the Conference Board and the Parliamentary Budget Officer that prove that the federal government is not paying its share came long after 1977?
It is unacceptable today to know that only 22% of health care funding comes from the federal government.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from the Bloc, and in particular the conversation around the fiscal imbalance of it. In the context of Alberta, there certainly is a significant fiscal imbalance between transfers going into the federal system and what are being paid out.
More specifically, my question for the member from the Bloc is related to how the Liberals have been hedging a lot of their policy decisions, and we saw a continuation of this in the fall economic statement, on Ottawa determining how provinces should do A, B, C, or D. That flies in the face of what our federation is supposed to be and it is certainly contrary to the work of many provinces. I know there was a meeting with health ministers this past week.
I would be curious to hear his thoughts on how Ottawa should stick to what Ottawa does best and let provinces do what provinces are supposed to do.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
