44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/18/23 10:18:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition today.
I want people to imagine working 30 or 40 years of their lives, accumulating perhaps $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 in savings, and those savings being taken away. Retirees are increasingly becoming targets of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over their lifetimes to help support their retirement years, and they are vulnerable due to the lack of controls and protections in the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. Seniors are seeing the savings they have built up over the years removed due to sophistication, deceit and trickery foisted on them by professional fraudsters to exploit them and the current Canadian banking system.
Petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors, in particular, from losing their life savings.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 10:19:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 11:29:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there has been no lack of leadership coming from Ottawa with respect to housing in Canada, whether it is the hundreds of millions of dollars, a national housing strategy or a multitude of different programs. The key to dealing with housing costs and shortages is to deal with them in a joint fashion. Municipalities need to play a strong and more important role. The issue is that city councillors need to recognize and facilitate, for example, individuals being able to purchase their own lots or zoning issues.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the following. Yes, Ottawa does play a role, but without municipal and provincial support, we will not be able to deal with the issue.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 11:44:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, back in the 1990s, I had a town hall debate with NDP member Bill Blaikie. At that debate, he argued that the federal government had no role to play in housing. In the 1990s, every political party in the chamber argued that the federal government had no role. I say that because we need to put it in perspective.
Today, we have a Prime Minister and a government that are more committed to national housing. We even brought in a national housing strategy. We have invested billions of dollars in housing. We have vested interests in rapid housing initiatives, housing co-ops and a multitude of housing supports in every region of the country.
Would the member not acknowledge that it is not just the federal government's responsibility? In fact, municipalities and provinces have to play a critical role. The national government's role is that of leadership, and we have demonstrated that hands down over the last number of years.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 3:20:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member has long been an advocate for seniors, and within this budget we talk about the grocery rebate and we talk about the expansion of the dental plan, both of which would help our seniors. Could she just provide her thoughts? I know, as I said, she has been a long-time advocate for seniors in Canada. I would like her thoughts on senior supports.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 3:21:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to highlight that the grocery rebate is a very important tool that is being used to support Canadians, could the member just provide her thoughts on the importance of the grocery rebate, overall?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 5:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I will try to do in a very short period of time is amplify the contrast between the Conservative opposition and what we have been doing here in government.
When we think of the budget, we need to recognize that the budget in its entirety is a reflection, based on what I mentioned the other day, of a great deal of consultation and a great deal of effort that has been put together in order to ensure that this is a budget that serves every Canadian from coast to coast to coast. It is very clear in terms of the manner in which it does that.
No matter how many times the Conservatives will say that there is no plan, there is a detailed plan. It is there in front of all of us. All one has to do is be prepared to do a bit of reading. There are many aspects of this budget that will continue to support Canadians, build our economy and build our society in a direction that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would approve of.
The Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that when the government spends money, it is not a good idea. I wanted to amplify the issue of child care. People will recall in the last election the Conservative Party said it did not support the national child care program the Liberals were talking about. We now have all provinces and territories onside. We are investing in child care and the Conservatives opposed that.
When we think of child care, it does mean that the government is spending money. A February report that came out said the participation rate for women between 25 and 54 is at an all-time high of 85.7%. I suggest that is the highest in North America. At the end of the day, a child care program that provides $10-a-day child care, what the Conservative Party opposes, will ultimately provide more opportunities and enhance the lifestyles of all Canadians as a direct result. That is investing in Canadians.
We can talk about the $198 billion over the next 10 years, which is a genuine commitment to financing our health care system, not only for today, but for future generations. It shows the federal government does have a role to play in long-term care, mental health and other issues that Canadians are concerned about. They are reflected in this budget. People understand and appreciate that health care is at the core of what our Canadian identity is all about. The budget reflects that desire.
We can talk about the inflation rate. The Conservative Party always seems to want to forget that this is a worldwide inflation situation. In Canada, we are doing so much better than virtually all of our peer countries, including the United States. We know we can do more. That is why we have the grocery rebate. It is a one-time grocery rebate because we understand the difficulty that Canadians are going through.
I see my time has already expired. I would suggest to members opposite that all they need to do is understand the budget, and then I am sure they will rethink their position and vote in favour of it.
548 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on a very important issue. The Canada Revenue Agency has demonstrated, particularly over the last few years, just how valuable it is to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I can understand why the Bloc would move this piece of legislation, but it is legislation I personally cannot support. This is primarily because the Bloc has underestimated what the CRA actually does for all of us, no matter where we live in the nation.
All one really needs to do is look at their annual tax forms and other things that I will get into shortly. However, I would like to emphasize the pandemic. When the worldwide pandemic came upon us, the CRA and professional civil servants stepped up to the plate in a significant way. Through the CRA, we were able to support Canadians when they needed to be supported. During a pandemic, something that was virtually unheard of for generations, people needed to get the funds that were necessary in order to pay for the food on their tables, utility bills, mortgage bills and so forth. I would suggest that the role the CRA played in providing direct support to the people of Canada was second to no other, whether a non-profit or government agency. Even today, we are looking to the CRA to wind up what has taken place through the many different programs that it was ultimately responsible for.
If it were up to members of the Bloc party, and unfortunately even some Conservative members whom I have heard debate this issue, the CRA would not be necessary. They would rather have a system where if a province wants to be independent with its own revenue collection, it would be allowed to do so. I do not think that Canada needs that.
I think of the people in Shawinigan and the surrounding area, with the thousands of good, middle-class jobs in that region. I wonder to what degree members of the Bloc have even considered those individuals and the impact this legislation would have on them, from an individual point of view. From a national perspective, we know that the Bloc does not really care about the whole idea of Canada as one nation when looking at the CRA, even today after the pandemic.
In debating legislation, I talked a great deal about budget 2023. One of the initiatives in that budget is the grocery rebate, which is actually being administered by the CRA. When we put it in perspective, we are coming out of a pandemic, during which we were very dependent on the CRA. We are virtually out of the pandemic now but dealing with inflation. Once again, we are turning to the CRA in order to provide direct support for Canadians in every region of the country. It is enabling us to alleviate some of the concerns that people have with respect to inflation.
That is not to mention the Canada child benefit. Somewhere between $9 million and possibly $10 million is going to Winnipeg North every month from the Canada child benefit. That is an incredible amount of money that is going to support children, and the CRA plays an important role in that.
However, surely for only political reasons, the Bloc wants to get rid of the CRA footprint in the province of Quebec. Those jobs in the Chicoutimi and Shawinigan area do not matter to the Bloc. The programs and services at the CRA that have been there during, after and even prior to the pandemic do not concern members of the Bloc.
At the end of the day, whether their votes are related to international tax evasion, providing services to Canadians or providing good-quality jobs, I would encourage all members to vote against this piece of legislation.
644 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 6:49:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to my friend across the way. Whenever he has the opportunity to amp up the whole concept of something wrong, or corruption or whatever it might be, he never passes on that opportunity.
Today is a good example if we take a look at question period. Here we are in the debates of the budget and the Conservatives are looking at ways in which they can turn it into personal attacks. Why is that relevant? The member himself makes reference to Dominic Barton and tries to give the impression the Prime Minister is buddy-buddy with Dominic. We have heard that consistently. Members opposite would say that even in the heat of the debate. They try to play up the fact there is this huge friendship between the Prime Minister and Dominic, and it is not true. When Dominic went to the standing committee to address a number of different issues, he made it very clear they were not friends, from what I understand.
At the end of the day, there is a process. At times, there is a need for government to look at contracting out. Putting things in proper perspective can be a very significant challenge for the Conservative Party because it goes against what its members want to focus on. If there were some deviations from the actual policy or protocols put into place, the member has standing committees in which he can raise the issue in expectation of getting some sort of response.
What I am expecting to hear when the members stands up is an exaggeration from a bias that always brings it back to looking for some form of scandal, even if there is no scandal to be found. That is 99.9% of the time.
I do not want to discourage the member, but I suspect if one takes a look at the history of McKinsey one will likely find there are Conservative administrations that also used that particular firm. Whether it is at the federal or provincial level, I would like to think the member would acknowledge there are times in which governments at different levels and in different regions of the world turn to professionals to look at how they might be able to facilitate the government in doing something it is hoping to accomplish, and that is done through a tendering process.
Canada is looked upon around the world as a nation that has a very good process. It does not mean we cannot improve upon it. We are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve procurement processes, because we understand and appreciate the importance of the integrity of the system. That is something I will always be advocating for.
458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 6:54:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member started off his four-minute question by talking about how the government was trying to hide things and was being secretive. A press release went out. When the government issues a press release, it is far from being secretive.
I asked the member a question in a heckle. I know we are not supposed to heckle, but I posed a question across the way. I asked him to tell me what rule was broken and the member had no idea. I do not think he has any idea whatsoever what rule was actually broken. If I am wrong, he can please stand up and let me know I am wrong, but I suspect I am not wrong.
He does not know what rule was broken, but it is good for amping this up and trying to make it look as if it is something that it likely is not. That is something the member across the way is fairly good at.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 6:59:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure the member's memory is at least as good as mine, and we were in a federal election not that long ago. He will recall that there were 338 Conservative candidates all over Canada saying to Canadians that they supported a price on pollution. That is the carbon tax. That is what the member was just talking about. Therefore, in the last federal election, 338 members of the Conservative Party of Canada went all over the country saying they supported a carbon tax. Then they got a nice, shiny, brand new leader, and now they say they want to be able to oppose the carbon tax, the price on pollution.
That was the most recent flip. They have been all over the place. They are like fish out of water. Has anyone seen a fish flip and flop all over a deck? That is kind of like how the Conservative Party has been on this issue. To top it off, its most recent position is to get rid of the price on pollution, or the “carbon tax”, as the Conservatives like to call it. They say it is such a burden. Do members know that 80%-plus of the constituents I represent will actually get more money than they are paying into it? A vast majority of my constituents are going to realize a larger net gain because of the price on pollution. That comes out of the office of the independent budget officer, when we look dollar for dollar.
As such, when the Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, they would be taking money out of the pockets of almost 80% of Canadians. That is what they would be doing, but they do not talk about that. When they talk about how we are going to increase the price on pollution, or the “carbon tax”, as they like to refer to it, they do not talk about the increase for the environmental tax rebate that is going to Canadians.
These are the types of questionable comments we get from the Conservative Party of Canada. They are flip-flopping on all sorts of different issues, including the price on pollution, or the carbon tax. They are then trying to mislead Canadians by giving people in Winnipeg North the impression that, if the Conservative Party killed the price on pollution, they would benefit. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. A vast majority of my constituents would lose on the Conservative promise to get rid of the carbon tax. That is the reality.
When a Conservative member stands up and says it is about the cost of living, we should deal with the cost of living. What is the Conservative Party doing? There is the dental plan expansion. Members can imagine the tens of thousands of seniors whom the dental plan would benefit, helping them with the cost of living. The Conservatives have voted against that. They are going to be voting against the budget; they told us that. That is where we would be getting the grocery rebate. Members can imagine the 11 million Canadians who would be getting a rebate for groceries, under this budget, to deal with the cost of living crisis. That very member has constituents who would benefit from it, yet the Conservatives ignore it and vote against the things that are going to benefit Canadians.
575 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 7:04:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that we are not exporting natural gas, but what is LNG? The federal government worked with the NDP provincial government in B.C. on the biggest-ever government and private investment in the exportation of natural gas. That is one hit against what the member just finished saying.
Then the member said that we do not build pipelines. What does he call Trans Mountain? Stephen Harper, in 10 years, could not build an inch of pipeline to coastal waters, yet we have Trans Mountain. However, we still understand and appreciate the important issues of indigenous consultation and the environment. That is why we passed legislation for net zero by 2050. We have set targets and brought in government tax benefits and programs of all sorts to ensure that we get to that net zero.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 7:08:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned, especially in comparing the current minister to the previous Conservative administration, is that there is a great deal of good will. Our minister took into consideration a wide spectrum of factors in coming up with a policy that has ultimately led to thousands of refugees, and I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35,000, coming from Afghanistan.
It is an incredible number, and we are still hoping to do more. I can appreciate that the member has some specific ideas and that he wants to share them with the House. I am sure that the minister will do what is in the best interest of all the parties sitting around the table and the people who are making these types of decisions.
I say that because I am thinking of the Daoud family. The Daoud family are residents in Winnipeg North and Mr. Daoud is a translator from Afghanistan. I have had a meal in his home with his lovely wife and family, and I can tell members that it really warms my heart when I see people, such as those in the Daoud family, come to Canada. The service they provided to our Canadian forces personnel and others had a significant footprint in Afghanistan.
In fact, it is interesting that we would be talking about this tonight. The first time I raised this was before Daoud had even came to Canada. I was the immigration critic for the Liberal Party then, when we were the third party, and the government Conservative minister was not open at all to translators. The record will show that I was, on behalf of the Liberal Party, advocating for recognizing our translators in Afghanistan, who were in predicaments that, ultimately, Canada should have been opening our doors for.
That is why I am very proud that we have, in a relatively short period of time, increased the overall numbers and the manners in which people could come to Canada. When it comes to Afghanistan and Ukraine, they are virtually customized programs, so we can facilitate people coming from both Ukraine and Afghanistan.
The safe passage issue is a very serious issue because it is not like we can just bring a plane into Afghanistan and have people exit from Afghanistan. When the member responded to the original question, it was legitimate to talk about safe passage since the incident we are all familiar with had taken place during the summer just prior to the last federal election.
We are all very much aware of it. The difference is that we have a government that is a whole lot more sympathetic in taking actions, tangible actions, than the previous administration was. That was when I was the critic for immigration, asking for the same sorts of considerations for the Afghani translators who were supporting our Canadian troops and others.
486 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 7:12:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member, in a sarcastic manner, tries to say that it is nice that we are a caring government. I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to express compassion on such an important issue, because there are members of the Afghani community and others who might be following this debate.
To try to give a false impression that the government is not sensitive to the issues that are being raised, including this one, would be wrong. We understand, very much, a wide spectrum of issues that are there, and we, whether it is within the ministry or with others, are taking those into consideration. I suspect, wherever we can and when we are provided the opportunity, we will act.
If the member has some specific files, as I have one specific file, I would think the member would be using that—
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
