44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 21, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette, with whom I have worked for many years now on tax fairness, trying to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share do pay their fair share.
I want to talk about mental health fairness, especially for first responders and military veterans in our country.
I got a message from Blair Meadows, who is a veteran and a strong volunteer and committed citizen at the Qualicum Beach Legion, in my riding. He talked about the important costs associated with PTSD service dogs for military police and first responders and that they need to be fully covered by the federal government, including training, maintenance and aftercare. As Mr. Meadows has pointed out, “These dogs are part of our medical care and well-being. Personally, my service dog saved my life and you can't put a price on that.” Others have said similar things. These dogs save lives. When it comes to the people who put their lives on the line for our freedom and democracy, who put the sacrifice on, the government has a duty to ensure that the costs associated with these dogs are covered. It actually saves our health care system money.
I know this is an issue for my good colleague from North Island—Powell River, which hopefully should be North Island—qathet if she gets her way with the electoral boundary commission, which she should, in the future. I would like to say to my colleague that this was not in the budget.
We saw the Conservatives cut a third of Veterans Affairs when it was under their watch.
The government has failed to deliver the critical services that Blair Meadows and many other veterans and first responders need. Does my colleague agree that this should be covered and that it actually saves money when it comes to the mental health care system in our country?
328 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics.
Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance.
The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal.
Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec.
If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is always smart and sensible.
I would like to come back to the issue of employment insurance. The government is extending a pilot project that is not working at all and does not cover everyone.
How much does my colleague think it would cost the government to provide this help to people working in the seasonal industry so that there is no longer a spring gap? I am having a hard time understanding this lack of political will.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Manicouagan, and I commend her for all the work she does for the people she represents, including on the issue of employment insurance. Many people throughout Quebec and Canada, including her region, have seasonal jobs. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are.
Do we collectively want to make use of the land? Do we want people to be able to live and work in their region and flourish there? If so, then we have an EI system that is truly dysfunctional right now. It has not been reformed, and the government has been pushing back the reform every year since 2015.
On top of all the problems, there is the issue of the spring gap. There are not enough weeks of benefits for a person living off seasonal employment to have income all year round. A pilot project was rolled out, but once again there is insecurity. This is being put off for another year.
Will it be enough? Will it be as usual? This is the government's way of doing things. We are a little relieved that this initiative has been extended for a year, because the alternative would have been terrible for our regions, even though the problem is far from being resolved. How much would it cost to reform an insurance system that is broken? It will be a major investment for everyone, especially with a possible recession looming.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, earlier, when answering a question, my colleague stated that he was there, in Montreal, when the Liberal federal government announced the investment in a Volkswagen plant in Ontario. The announcement was made in Montreal. I was there.
I can tell my colleagues that many people looked confused. They wondered if St. Thomas was in Quebec, but in fact, it is in Ontario. It took several very long weeks to get the details, but the story finally appeared on the front page of the National Post this morning. I will come back to that.
My colleague and I were both elected in 2015, when this government came to power by promising small deficits for three years and a balanced budget in 2019. It obviously ignored that promise.
My question for my colleague is the following. Does he believe that $1.220 trillion in debt is a good thing? That works out to $81,000 per family. Does he believe that a constant increase in taxes is a good thing? What does he think of the deficit, which continues to increase and is being ignored by the government, which said that it would balance the budget in five years? What does he think of this government's management of public funds?
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning. Is the government doing a good job of managing public finances? The answer is no. The government is not paying attention to the cost of the services that it is providing.
I will give some examples. Issuing a passport costs four times more than issuing a driver's licence when Quebec does it. Processing an EI claim costs two and a half times more than processing an application for social assistance in Quebec City. Resources are badly managed. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified what is indirectly a fiscal imbalance by pointing out that the flexibility is here in Ottawa. Instead of funding, say, health care in the provinces, the government is increasing the number of programs and interfering in jurisdictions. That is unacceptable.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about what the NDP can add to the budget. As we know, the Liberals have been in power for years. They are doing the same thing that the former Conservative government did. They refuse to take action to help people.
This time, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus, including the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, were able to work to ensure that we do not have to settle for the same budgets we have seen in the past, budgets that do nothing for ordinary Canadians, but instead give a big boost to the banks and big corporations, just as the Conservatives did. We can see in this budget and in Bill C‑47, which the NDP supports, that dental care has finally been added to the health care system for people across the country. We are talking about $13 billion over five years.
The reality is that, in every riding, no matter where it is located in the country, there are some 30,000 people without access to dental care. Thanks to pressure from the NDP, in a minority Parliament, we were able to ensure that in every riding, those 30,000 people—families, seniors, people with disabilities and young people—can have access to dental care. This is extremely important, and we are quite pleased. Canadians who understand the changes the NDP has made to the budget are also quite pleased because they will finally have the opportunity to have dental care.
That is not all. We exerted pressure on the government to double the GST credit. That is extremely important. Like the member for Burnaby South, I know that people are struggling right now and that they need help. The fact that 11 million families across the country will be able to receive double the GST credit to pay for groceries is going to help a lot because people are having a really hard time.
The NDP is also calling on the government to change our economy and to work harder to have a clean economy, particularly in light of all the challenges posed by climate change. Things clearly need to change. The NDP once again exerted pressure in a minority Parliament to invest in clean energy and for those investments to go toward unionized jobs that come with a pension plan and social benefits. That way, the government will help the whole community by investing in clean energy. The NDP believes that, when it comes time to invest, the investments must help the community. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing with the Liberal approach or what we saw with the approach of the former Harper government, as I mentioned earlier.
We also need, and this is important, to change the situation that exists in first nations communities across the country. The member for Nunavut has spoken about this at length. It is important to make investments there immediately. Last year, we were able to force the government to make these investments, but now we need to build this housing as soon as possible. The government tends to announce programs and then do nothing afterward. This is urgent. The member for Nunavut has told us this several times. We need to take action to bring in these investments and build housing as soon as possible.
There is another thing that I find disappointing, despite the fact that the government is finally closing a tax loophole that cost $600 million a year.
This is something the NDP has been calling for from day one. We obliged the government, forced them to do it. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, most of the loopholes remain in place for the ultra-rich, the wealthy, but also the corporations that benefit from these loopholes. I will come back to that.
The NDP has made a difference in this budget, there is no doubt. I have to speak of somebody I will call Joanne. After I was elected as a member of Parliament, she came to me. She works in the service industry for minimum wage. Her teeth were literally rotting out of her mouth. She was in tremendous pain.
There were no programs I could point to to help her, as is the case with so many Canadians, millions of Canadians across the country, who do not have access to basic dental care. When we look at the average, there are about 30,000 Canadians in each and every riding right across the country.
This constituent, one of my bosses, Joanne, simply had nowhere to turn. She was in great pain. As we know, so many Canadians have to go to emergency wards across the country. The estimated cost in Ontario alone is $1 billion for Canadians going to emergency wards for dental emergencies that they cannot receive treatment for.
The reality of having a dental care program in place, which children and their families, youth, people with disabilities and seniors could all access, in a few months' time would be an extraordinary improvement to our health care system. Tommy Douglas always said that the health care system needs to cover people from the top of their heads to the soles of their feet. The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, also believes this. That is why he has been pushing so hard for the dental care program to be put into place.
How could any member of Parliament vote against a dental care program that would help 30,000 of their constituents? I cannot understand where they are coming from, that they would choose partisanship and ideology over the important primary role we have as members of Parliament, in the House, to work to help the people we represent.
That is just one of a number of things that the NDP forced the Liberal government, in a minority Parliament, to deliver to Canadians. We have also forced a doubling of the GST rebate, the grocery rebate, to help Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table at this difficult time.
We pushed the government to invest in a clean energy economy that would create good, well-paying union jobs. The ability to organize makes a big difference, as we know. Whether we are talking about the private sector or the public sector, workers who are organized generally have a higher return, better benefits and normally, as well, access to pensions. That makes a difference not only in their lives, but also in their communities, as unions make a difference in communities across the country.
When members of Parliament stand in the House to say that they do not believe in unionized, organized labour, they are saying to their communities that they do not believe in money staying within the community. Unionized workers have better pay and benefits, and a right to a pension, which means more benefits circulating in the local economy. There are some members of Parliament who would say that they want money to instead go to wealthy corporations offshore, and that they want that money to go to high-priced consultants who would take that money offshore.
New Democrats understand that a local economy is built from the ground up. It starts with good wages. It starts with jobs that actually make a difference in the community. Those people who live in the community shop in the community and spend in the community. That benefits everybody in the community. That is a fundamental difference between us and some of the other parties in the House.
The final point I want to make before I start to talk about the elephant in the room is the issue of housing, particularly in indigenous communities. The member for Nunavut has been a strong and powerful voice in this regard, as have the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Edmonton Griesbach. The first nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada have been deprived of the right to housing, the right to have that roof over their head.
The government is moving far too slowly to provide the affordable housing that is fundamentally important for the future of our country. We push, and we add our voices to the voices of the members of Parliament for Nunavut, Winnipeg Centre and Edmonton Griesbach to say that we need to build that housing now.
The money that was pledged last year has not rolled out, and it needs to roll out now. The money that the government is promising in a couple of years needs to be moved up, and it needs to be treated with the sense of emergency that is certainly felt in indigenous communities right across this country.
I am now going to come to the elephant in the room, which is the similarity between Liberals and Conservatives. They have a brand coalition of wanting to conserve a privilege that deprives so many Canadians of the investments that are critical for their future. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us, just before the COVID pandemic hit, that over $30 billion a year goes to overseas tax havens from profitable corporations and the ultrarich. Members will recall that the Harper regime put that secret network in place to really ensure that as much money as possible could be taken offshore, and it is $30 billion a year, which the PBO said was a conservative estimate.
Now, at $30 billion, it means that over the last decade, $300 billion of tax money was taken offshore. This was put in place by the Harper regime and has been maintained by the current government. This is a coalition of the financially irresponsible, who are depriving Canadians of so many things.
That elephant in the room is something that needs to be dealt with. We have a Liberal government, and a Conservative government before it, refusing to ensure that every Canadian pay their fair share, including Canada's wealthiest corporations and Canada's richest citizens. They should pay their fair share of income tax. It is as simple as that.
A fair share of taxes should go throughout the spectrum and ensure that every Canadian pays their fair share. This would allow us the wherewithal to fund a whole range of things that are not funded now, whether we talk about the dental care plan, which the NDP has brought forward, or pharmacare, which we know would save $4 billion a year for Canadians generally.
The reality is that pharmacare, like our universal health care system and like dental care, makes a difference not only for the individuals and the families involved, their quality of life and their bottom line, but also for Canadian businesses. Our universal health care system has a competitive advantage of about $3,000 per employee for a Canadian business compared to an American business hiring that same employee, because in the United States, if they want to keep that employee, they are going to have to invest in a health care plan. In Canada, those businesses do not have to pay for health care, which is so important for their employees. Dental care makes a difference of hundreds of dollars. Pharmacare would be a difference of about $600 per person. Making that investment in pharmacare is not just smart for the families involved.
We hear the horrific stories from across the country, and the Canadian Nurses Association is telling us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they do not have the wherewithal to pay for the medication that will keep them alive. I have a constituent family who is paying $1,000 a month in heart medication. We cannot tell them that universal pharmacare would not make a big difference in their lives. They are having that tough choice every month of whether they are going to keep a roof over their heads or pay for their medication, and that is the case for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. Universal pharmacare would make a difference.
How do we ensure that the federal government can do that? Well, we have to start ensuring that we close the massive loopholes that lead to $30 billion every—
2055 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We clearly do not have quorum.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 1:05:00 p.m.
- Watch
Let us do a count.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for getting government members to hear this. They need to hear from Canadians that they cannot keep sending $30 billion to overseas tax havens every year. Instead, they need to invest that money in health care and education, ensure that we have universal pharmacare, ensure that there is access to public education and ensure that every Canadian has a roof over their head at night and can put food on the table. They also need to transition to a clean energy economy. Liberals can do that if they close the loopholes, 30 billion dollars' worth a year. I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for telling the Liberals to come into the House.
I want to talk a bit about the dismal record of the Harper regime, because the member for Carleton, who is the new leader of the Conservative Party, basically seems to have a motto of “Elect me and I'll do even worse than Harper did.” I looked at what the Harper regime did over the course of that dismal decade. The overseas tax havens I talked about are largely the creation of the Harper regime. It put them into place, 30 billion dollars' worth, and now the Conservatives are saying they do not take responsibility for that.
What else did the Conservatives do? They forced people, manual labourers, to work longer. They basically deprived them of their pension. They ripped apart the environmental framework of this country; there is no doubt. They also ripped local offices away for veterans.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter when a veteran who is disabled has to travel hundreds of miles to get to a veterans office because the local offices have been closed. That is not something Conservatives should be laughing about at all.
That is what the record of the Harper government was: dismal and appalling. It put in place many of the cuts that we have seen, devastating the health care sector.
We reproach, of course, the Liberals for not closing all the loopholes so that we have the money to reinvest in health care. They are starting to do that slowly and grudgingly, but far short of what is actually required.
When we look at the Harper regime and the member for Carleton's pretension that he will do even worse than Steven Harper, I think Canadians have reason to be worried by his attacks on Radio Canada.
I have no idea why no Conservative member from Quebec has condemned these attacks on Radio-Canada.
CBC and Radio-Canada share sites and facilities across the country. It is absurd to say that they will dismantle the CBC but Radio-Canada will be protected. It is ridiculous, because these two organizations share their resources. If the CBC is abolished or dismantled, Radio-Canada will be dismantled.
Not one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus rose to say that they were against it. Why be elected as a francophone MP and serve in the Conservative caucus if they are not even capable of telling their leader that he is wrong, that he must stop this foolishness with CBC/Radio-Canada and he must stop threatening to crush CBC/Radio-Canada?
I hope that others will speak out, as did the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who clearly understood how the extremism of the member for Carleton had to be called out. I certainly hope that at least one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus will rise.
That is what the member for Carleton is promising. He would do worse than Harper. He would cut more than Harper did. He would keep in place the privileges that billionaires get in this country and the massive transfer of wealth and tax dollars, more than $30 billion a year sent overseas, rather than investing in Canadians.
Of course, colleagues know what an NDP government would do. They have seen some signs of that with 25 members of Parliament under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. What it would mean is investments in health care, investments in housing, investments in education and investments in our economy, as well as transitioning to a clean energy economy and cutting the privileges that, for far too long, the wealthy and Canada's most profitable corporations have enjoyed.
We would end those massive tax loopholes. We would end the gouging that Canadians are seeing in the telecom sector and the banking sector. We would make sure investments happen at the local level, and we would build a local green economy. Right across the country, we would build a Canada where everybody matters and where nobody is left behind.
797 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide further thoughts in regard to the issue of health care and how important it was that we achieved the agreement to ensure we can provide ongoing support over the next decade to provincial and territorial jurisdictions. When I think of health care, I think of the core identity that Canadians hold very dear to their hearts. The expansion to include seniors, people with disabilities and now children up to the age of 18 is one of the ways we can deal with the issue of inflation, along with the grocery rebate that is being proposed.
Can he provide his thoughts, as he has to a certain degree already, on those two issues and the NDP's contribution to them?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first, it is not an NDP “contribution”; we forced the government to do it. The government would not have done dental care without the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushing, in a minority Parliament, to make sure it happened. It would not have happened, and we know this.
I want to address the issue of dental care making a difference for people. The member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right, but what would make an even greater difference for people is pharmacare. The government has pledged, as a result of the NDP forcing it to, to put in place the infrastructure for universal public pharmacare. This is vitally important, but the government has to also come up with the resources to make that a reality.
The difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be absolutely enormous, and what it would do, as members well know, is take pressure off the health care system. We have universal health care, where we are sending people who cannot afford to pay for their medication back to universal health care because their medication is not being covered. What is it about that picture that the Liberals do not understand?
Yes, we forced the Liberals to do dental care, but we are going to be pressing equally hard on pharmacare, not only because it is equally essential to ensuring the quality of life for Canadians and a better competitive situation for our businesses, but also because it is just a basic question of the fundamental human right to health care in this country. It is about time Liberals listened and put that into place.
279 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is on the public record having said that, if he did not receive a firm commitment from the Liberal government on pharmacare by December, he would end the supply arrangement they have. Clearly, there is not a single word about pharmacare in the budget, and in addition to that, on the second thing the NDP wanted, dental care, there are vague promises with no plan from a government that has shown over and over again it is incompetent to execute anything.
Will the member and his party quit supporting the government in raising the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, or will he end the supply agreement, because the government has not kept up its end?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I like the member and I enjoy working with her on Canadian heritage, but this is the complete emptiness of the Conservative dialogue. The Conservatives have offered one single idea in the past year, to buy Bitcoin, and we saw Bitcoin tank. If any Canadians had followed their advice, they would be ruined financially. That is the only idea Conservatives have brought forward, so I want to correct the record.
First, in terms of dental care, yes, there is a plan, and it is thanks to the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the NDP health critic, that there is a plan for rollout to ensure that people with disabilities, seniors and youth in that member's riding, about 30,000 strong, would have access to dental care by the end of the year. On pharmacare, the government has to deliver the legislation that both Liberals and Conservatives voted against two years ago, including the hon. member. Shame on all of them who voted against the Canada pharmacare act that I presented in the House.
That legislation would be only a first step, and that is why our warning is to say to Liberals that, if they really want to heed the quality of life for Canadians, the right to basic health care and the competitiveness of our businesses, it is time to start ensuring that the next steps after the adoption of the universal pharmacare bill would be done to put in place the financing criteria so that we can roll that out in the coming years.
258 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his interesting speech and for all the work he does in the House.
On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which does two things. First, it doubles the GST credit cheque next July and, second, it transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health care with no strings attached.
I was extremely surprised and pleased to see that these two measures also appear in Bill C-47, which is before the House today. The government did not take them out of the omnibus bill, despite the passage of Bill C‑46 earlier this week. This means $4 billion instead of $2 billion to the provinces for health care, and a second grocery rebate cheque for people with low incomes.
Can the leader of the NDP assure the House that if the government ever realized its mistake and sought to remove that from Bill C‑47, the NDP would oppose that amendment, so the government could not make cuts to health care funding and the grocery rebate cheques?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, whom I was pleased to work with on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also appreciated his speech earlier.
I will start off by mentioning that I am not the NDP leader. I am the NDP House leader. I just had to make a slight correction there.
The NDP always makes sure that the benefits that Canadians count on continue to be there. That is why the member for Burnaby South worked to ensure that the GST credit was doubled a few months ago and has done so again with respect to this bill.
Certainly we will continue to keep watch, because we want Canadians across Canada, including in Joliette, to have the ability to pay for groceries.
Dental care is also very important in a riding like Joliette and across the country. We will continue to exert pressure for that to be implemented.
In my speech, I mentioned my constituent Joanne, who was experiencing a lot of tooth pain. By the end of the year, she will have access to dental care for the first time in her life as a senior. That is what we are bringing to the House when it comes to accountability.
The NPD continues to exert pressure for people like Joanne and millions of others who have been abandoned by the old parties.
229 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for his real championing of so many things that give Canadians a better life. One of the things he has been championing is the green new deal, the idea that we have to have a transition to a cleaner future and leave no workers behind. Because of the NDP pressure on the government, we have significant funding for clean tech in this budget that is tied to good union wages so people can have a respectable life in this new future.
I wonder if my colleague could provide further comments on that and on whether this should be standard operating procedure for future government infrastructure funding.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has had a very strong voice in the House of Commons, speaking up for good jobs in the community. Whether he is talking about the South Okanagan, the West Kootenay or anywhere in Canada, he has been one of the foremost advocates of actually ensuring that government investments are put to work to ensure that people have good jobs. The member is right to point out that we have learned the lesson from other jurisdictions where subsidies to green energy had tended to be soaked up by CEOs. We certainly continue to see this with the oil and gas sector, where billions of dollars go and are largely taken by CEOs and do not go to actually providing benefits to workers.
This is the same principle we have brought in when it comes to the issue of the just transition to ensure we can put in place all the elements for clean energy to make sure that Canada is keeping up with the developments in the rest of the world. Those investments have to go to people who have good union jobs. That makes a difference in the community. It means more money stays in the community and it helps to create indirect jobs as well.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the Bloc member's concern regarding the issue of Bill C-47 versus Bill C-46. The member is quite right. We need to recognize that it has been a priority of this government to provide inflation relief in the form of a grocery rebate. That is why it was incorporated into Bill C-46. It is also the government's priority to try to get hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces with respect to health care. That was also incorporated into Bill C-46.
As the member pointed out, it is also in the budget implementation bill. This is because we could not get agreement for the quick passage of Bill C-46 through the House. We only recently got the agreement to pass it. Following this logic, the member will recall how long it can take to get a budget implementation bill through the House from the last time we had one.
As a good example of that, today, there has already been an amendment to the budget implementation bill moved by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is going to hold up the budget implementation bill. Recognizing the importance of getting that grocery rebate to Canadians and getting the transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces for our health care system, the government had to come up with Bill C-46 after we got agreement that we could get it passed in the House. That is the reason for this.
I know the member appreciates the explanation. I would even encourage the member to move the amendment so we can rectify the situation once we get to the committee stage. If I could, I would be the seconder.
294 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 1:23:45 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
