44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, discussions about investing in mental health, especially for first responders, always resonate with me. There are reasons why mental health deteriorates. It may be a lack of support, for example. Over the past 30 years, there has been a lack of support from the federal government. It is time to admit it and do something about it.
Health transfers have been inadequate and, as a result, governments across Canada have had to cut spending to ensure the sustainability of services, which has had an impact on first responders.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the importance of health transfers and the fact that the federal government should not interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and should look after its own affairs instead.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the member opposite is suggesting we have not made structural changes.
I can assure members that the Canada child benefit is the single biggest contributor to the reduction of poverty among young people. I can assure him that the introduction of the $10-a-day child care, although it has existed in Quebec for many years, will be a game changer in Ontario. The elimination of interest on the federal student loan program is critical. Dental care for young people is critical.
I would ask my friend opposite to rethink his perception of the things we have done.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw, which the member started to highlight at the very end, and that is the fact that the member is a separatist. He does not want Canada. He wants to see Quebec separate from the rest of Canada. He does not recognize that the national government does play a role, even though a majority of the people in Quebec, Manitoba and Canada believe that the federal government has a role in infrastructure, health care and many other areas in which we work alongside the stakeholders.
That is the difference. We recognize that to build a healthy, strong, united Canada, one needs a national government that reflects the interests of the population as a whole. That is why we continue to work, day in and day out, with provinces, indigenous communities, municipalities or other stakeholders in the best interest of all.
Does the member opposite not recognize that even his own constituents, a very large percentage of them, want federal participation in many of the programs that the member just spoke out against?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as an Albertan, I agree with some of what the hon. member says. Many Quebeckers and Albertans have the same problem with the federal government. The federal government thinks that it has all the good ideas and that no good ideas come from our provincial capitals.
With respect to health transfers, the provincial ministers of health and the federal Minister of Health are always fighting over who has control over our health systems. As an Albertan, I believe that my province is best equipped to manage our health care system.
I would like to hear more from the hon. member from Quebec.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.
Basically, he is asking about health transfers. That is interesting, because my speech was about infrastructure and what the federal government is doing, sticking its fat nose in other people's business and blackmailing us with a gun to our head.
The exact same thing is happening with health transfers. It is exactly the same situation. It will undoubtedly be the same story in all sorts of other files, because the federal government wants a central government where it controls everything and where the provinces have no say. Quebec will end up being entirely sidelined, and that is exactly what we do not want.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, there are 16 Northern stores in northern Quebec. Northern showed profits of $13.2 million, and it is subsidized by the nutrition north program.
I wonder if the member agrees that the Canada recovery dividend proposed in this bill needs to be extended to the profits of grocery stores, which are in the millions of dollars.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-32. The opposition's role is to point out what the bill is lacking. So far, it appears that the government's role is to boast a lot and not listen.
We are here to point out the flaws, the jurisdictional issues and the agreements that are not being honoured. Among those agreements is the one on infrastructure, which my colleague mentioned earlier, but there is another one that has not been respected for a very long time. It is the Constitution.
Strangely enough, in the last election, The New York Times said that the party that respected the Canadian Constitution the most was the Bloc Québécois, the separatist party. We are asking that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces be respected in accordance with the Constitution.
Since I am talking about agreements we want the government to respect, I would like to point out that the 1867 Constitution, the only one that Quebec has signed, has yet to be translated, despite the 1982 agreement to translate it within six months.
When will this finally happen, and when will the government respect its own Constitution? It is about time it did.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she said that The New York Times said that Quebec was the best at respecting the Constitution. I apologize if I am not willing to take advice from a foreign newspaper on Canada's Constitution and the way that various different parties contribute to it. I apologize, but I just cannot see how I can possibly answer a question that is based on the premise of a foreign newspaper weighing in on our Constitution.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: I cannot believe you just called The New York Times fake news.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to the fall economic statement, which is reflected in Bill C-32.
Let me go on record just quickly about the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. The report was released today. I want to applaud the commission, particularly on its focus on reinstating all of Hants County as part of Kings—Hants. There was a lot of community backlash or engagement on this issue, and I certainly want to applaud the commission for its work. I know it is not an easy job, but as it relates to the boundaries in Kings—Hants, I do think objectively that it is fair and reasonable.
I am going to use my time this morning to talk about the fall economic statement and how what this government is putting forward is going to matter to my constituents. I am then going to talk about a few things that are going to be extremely important in the days ahead as we move into 2023 and start to focus on budget 2023.
This has been talked about a lot in the House. Right now, we know that times are challenging, particularly for those Canadians who are vulnerable and have lower incomes. I want to applaud the government for trying to strike the balance between fiscal discipline and making sure that there are targeted measures to help those Canadians who do need extra help right now.
First of all, there is a doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months. This is a targeted measure. Eleven million Canadians would receive it. It is something that is around $2 billion to the treasury, but it is something that matters to those families and those individuals who need a bit of extra help right now. It was approved by the House, and I certainly appreciate that it is there.
Along with that is a doubling of the Canada housing benefit. This is to about 1.1 million renters across the country who have lower incomes. I had the opportunity to speak to one of my constituents last week who was really struggling to be able to pay the bills. My riding is rural. It is outside of Halifax, but she was trying to pay a rental bill of about $1,500. That has increased significantly, even since I was elected in 2019. We know the challenges around housing, and this is a really important measure to help those who are needing the extra help.
By working together here in Parliament, we have been able to move forward on dental care support for children under 12. I believe that has actually passed the Senate. It is another important measure for children in households with incomes under $90,000 that do not have any private insurance. We are making sure those children have access to dental care. I was disappointed to see that the official opposition, the Conservatives, voted against this. I did not hear much of a rationale as to why they would not support something like this, which matters to constituents from Newfoundland and Labrador and all the way to British Columbia. However, I am pleased to see that it is going to move forward. I know it is going to make a difference for families in my riding of Kings—Hants.
Speaking as one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House, who does still indeed have student debt, albeit not federal, one of the big measures is to remove interest from the federal portion of student loans. This is something that matters. On average, it would save those who hold debt almost $400 a year, and it would make sure that we are not piling on interest at a time when students are trying to recover. This is in addition to the fact that we moved the student-loan repayment schedule from an income of $25,000 up to $40,000 before someone would have to start repaying. These are really important measures. I had the chance to be with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth at Acadia University last week. We spoke to students, and we know how important this measure is.
The Canada workers benefit is a benefit that would be brought forward on a quarterly basis. It will be automatically available to workers. Workers will not have to apply for this. This will come as part of the benefits from the government, and it is for workers who have family income below $42,000, so it is very targeted to help those who are working hard but are struggling to stay ahead. This is another affordability measure that I certainly support.
With respect to the tax-free home savings account and the doubling of the first-time homeowners tax credit, again, as a younger member of Parliament with a number of friends and people I know looking to get into the housing market, I know these are really important measures to make sure that they have tools to help purchase their first home. I applaud the government for moving forward on them.
In my riding, there is the most concentrated group of farms east of Quebec, and there is a number of supply-managed farms. Of course, this government made a promise to make sure supply-managed farms would be compensated, and I am pleased to see the government is moving forward with that. The Minister of Agriculture had the opportunity to announce that in Quebec on Monday. I know it is going to make a difference across the country, particularly for farmers in my riding. We know how important their work is, especially during the pandemic.
I have two other quick points before I transition to something else. There is the launch of the growth fund. This is a $15-billion capitalization of funds to try to draw private capital. For energy transition and opportunities for Canadian leadership on food and energy, this is a really good thing. I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance moving forward with it, along with the tax credit for the hydrogen and critical minerals sector.
I was particularly pleased with the Minister of Finance's candour about the challenges we could face in the days ahead, particularly with the prospect that we could be facing a global recession in 2023. When I look at some of the challenges, such as health care, I was disappointed to see provincial health ministers not take federal money that was on the table in British Columbia on the guise that somehow a national sharing of data was a step too far for them to be able to work together.
We are seeing challenges across the country. We want to make sure that, if we are going to put federal money on the table, it is actually going to health care and it is going to deliver on results. I was quite disappointed, but it is going to be a significant spend. The Government of Canada has made sure there will be more money coming ahead. This is one element, when we look at the fiscal discipline and the fiscal ability for the government, that will be a challenge.
Next is reducing emissions and fighting climate change, and of course Canada's position in the world. I am going to take my remaining time to talk about things I think we need to be really focused on as a Parliament in the days ahead. First of all, concerning regulatory reform modernization and non-cost measures, we need to really start talking about things that do not cost money that can help us to achieve the results and outcomes that we, as parliamentarians, or the government, may wish to see because there is going to be a real challenge on the fiscal position in the days ahead. This could include interprovincial trade.
A Senate report suggest that 2% to 4% of GDP is being left on the table. If premiers want more money for health care, that is fine. First of all, they need to stop the fakery around the idea of national sharing of data and having the results, and get out of the way to make sure we can grow the economy so we can have a sustainable way to pay for it.
I would like to see us move away from command and control regulations. We are one of the worst in the OECD in this regard. That is really important. As well, I would like to see things like a presumptive health approval, and I have said this in the House before. If an applicant comes to Health Canada and already has approvals from a jurisdiction such as the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, jurisdictions that we trust their processes, why would we not give them a presumptive approval to operate in Canada until such time that Health Canada either can approve them outright or found a reason as to why they could not operate in the country?
I want to ask my colleagues if we have given thought to how we are going to double or triple energy generation in the country. As we move to EV vehicles, and as we try to move to a low-carbon economy, we need to have serious conversations on how we are actually going to generate that electricity. I submit to the House that nuclear energy needs to be a big part of that conversation. We have a tremendous opportunity in Canada to be a global leader, and we are already are. We are recognized as being one of the best as it relates to nuclear energy. When we look at a zero-emission opportunity to generate electricity, we need to get more serious on it. I would like to see the government introduce nuclear as part of its green bonds initiative.
I hear too much of colleagues in the House who talk about net-neutral and getting to our 2050 goals, but that are not talking seriously about the technologies that are available before us right now and how we get there.
I would be remiss to not talk about the Atlantic loop. I hope to see in budget 2023 a firm commitment from the government to make sure there is money on the table to drive this initiative. I will go on record saying I am disappointed in Premier Houston's government and the fact that Bill 212 at the Nova Scotia Legislature is creating real challenges for Nova Scotia Power and Emera to actually raise the equity to make this happen. It is unfortunate, and I really hope he can get to the table with our provincial utility to make sure we do not squander this historic opportunity to help get Atlantic Canada off coal.
I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, and I appreciate having this opportunity to speak today.
1832 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Nova Scotia on her speech. Her ears must have been burning yesterday. I was having a bite to eat with a friend who rents a house in Nova Scotia every summer, and we spent about an hour raving about how wonderful Nova Scotia is. We hope that hurricane Fiona did not cause too much damage.
I know that Nova Scotia's health care system must have had a hard time coping with the additional burden placed on it as the remnants of the hurricane passed through.
I am sure my colleague is in contact with Premier Houston, who is one of the provincial premiers unanimously calling on the federal government to provide an unconditional increase in health transfers to help the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec get back on their feet and restructure in order to respond to the growing demand resulting from situations like the one that occurred in Nova Scotia.
What does she say to Premier Houston when he tells her that the provinces want unconditional health care transfers?
I would like to hear her comments on that.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June.
This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers.
This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months.
The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin.
While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism.
We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing.
Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
387 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear that coming from the parliamentary secretary. I spent all 10 minutes of my speech talking about seniors and the most vulnerable, and he wants to talk about young people, who have their entire life ahead of them to build their future. Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile measure; unfortunately, it does not apply to Quebec.
There are some good measures in this document, such as lowering credit card interest rates for small businesses. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for that for a long time. If we are talking about people who have been forgotten, I would mention farmers. Input costs and inflation have had a devastating impact on their income.
I would have liked to see the government propose a program similar to the emergency account or the RRRF program that was created during the pandemic. It could have offered low-interest loans, along with subsidies to reward those who pay off their loans, because there is a tremendous need for cash flow in agriculture. That is what we hear about most back home.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:03:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since 1997, this organization has been helping the people of Saint‑Eustache and Deux‑Montagnes retrace the history of their ancestors, their place of origin, their date of arrival in the country, their occupation, the descendants, and so forth. It offers different workshops on things such as mastering research tools for paleography, where you learn to read notarized documents of the time. Every month, it organizes conferences and outings to historic sites. Although it had far more members before the pandemic, today the society is 200 members strong and remains one of Quebec's most dynamic.
As activist Marcus Garvey famously said, “A people without knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots”.
In Saint‑Eustache and Deux‑Montagnes, our roots run deep and if we have any knowledge of our roots it is thanks to the Société de généalogie et d'histoire de Saint‑Eustache.
I thank them and wish them a happy 25th anniversary.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:27:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the shortfall in health care funding for Quebec is around $6 billion. Stretchers are piling up in emergency rooms. Surgery waiting lists are suffering a similar effect, with all the anguish that goes along with that. There is also a national mental health crisis, with its prescriptions and fears of suicide attempts. At this rate, we will not be sending help abroad; we will be receiving it here.
The government claimed it wanted to work hand in hand with Quebec, but now it is being unbelievably arrogant. How can the government justify that arrogance?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:27:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we understand that we all need to invest in our health care system and that we need to work closely with the provinces and territories. Yesterday evening, I discussed this subject with my Quebec counterpart, Eric Girard.
The Canada health transfer will provide the provinces and territories with $45.2 billion in support this year, an increase of 4.8%.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:28:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, rather than talking about what the government is giving, let us talk about what is missing.
In general, the government has begun to treat Quebeckers and health system managers as though they are no good. The Prime Minister and his ministers think they are better than everyone. The only thing the federal government has that the Quebec government does not is money. No one in the federal government has any knowledge, experience or skill in emergency room management, mental health or the hiring of doctors and nurses. The government does not have those skills and it is creating delays at the expense of the most vulnerable people.
Can we get a decent transfer now?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:29:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this year, Quebec received $10.1 billion through the Canada health transfers. That is a 4.8% increase. Add to that $450 million to help the province clear backlogs in procedures and surgeries.
Canada was there for Quebec and Quebeckers during the pandemic. We will continue to be there for them.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:57:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is right there in the economic update. The federal government decided that Quebec municipalities may lose $2.7 billion in infrastructure funding if they do not submit their proposals in 2023 instead of 2025, as originally planned.
In a public statement today, the Union des municipalités du Québec asked the federal government to change its mind so they do not lose the infrastructure dollars they need.
Will the federal government listen to Quebec's municipalities and reinstate the 2025 deadline set out in the agreement it signed with Quebec?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:59:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite was reading from the wrong notes again. Maybe he did not understand that the Government of Quebec and the federal government signed an agreement stating that municipalities have until 2025 to submit proposals. We are talking $2.7 billion—
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 3:00:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I hope the next time the member opposite will use the right talking points when answering me.
I was saying that the Quebec government cannot believe it. The government opposite has decided to rip up a signed agreement stating that cities had until 2025 to submit projects. Now, $2.7 billion is at stake. We are being told that we are in the wrong. We are in the wrong because we thought the agreement would be respected. That is rich, is it not? The Union des municipalités du Québec has just said that they will be severely penalized by this.
Will the government reconsider its position, respect our cities, stop its bullying and reinstate the 2025 deadline?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
