44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 3:30:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are seized with the budget implementation act, which is several hundred pages long and will amend dozens upon dozens of acts. Toward the end of these hundreds of pages, division 31 recognizes Charles III as King of Canada. The clause in question reads, “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”.
Does my hon. colleague think it is appropriate to include this in a budget implementation bill, or should it be tabled separately from these hundreds of pages of amendments?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, toward the end of his speech, my colleague said that there needs to be money for mental health. Then he went on to quote organizations that say there is not enough funding. Something interesting happened, however. Last Wednesday, Bill C‑46 was passed by the House at all stages. The next day, Thursday, the government introduced Bill C‑47.
Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion, unconditional health transfer to the provinces. This is included again in Bill C‑47. At the Standing Committee on Finance earlier today, senior officials confirmed to us that if Bill C‑47 is passed as is, an additional $2 billion would be transferred to the provinces.
The hon. member says there is not enough money for health and mental health. Now, there could be an extra $2 billion if his government does not make an amendment to take that part out.
Will the hon. member vote to keep the extra $2 billion?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have been using Zoom for two or three years now. It is a shame that some people still have problems choosing the right interpretation channel.
I have a question for my colleague.
Bill C‑46 includes a $2-billion investment in health care. This measure appears again in Bill C‑47.
Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, senior officials confirmed that, if the bill is not amended, a total of $4 billion will be invested in health care.
The hon. member is saying that there is not enough money for health and mental health. This is our chance to ask his government to not remove that part of Bill C‑47, so that $4 billion will be invested in health care instead of $2 billion.
Will he commit to working to keep the $4 billion?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we were expecting the government to use Bill C‑47 to eliminate the EI deficit that accumulated during the pandemic, but it did not. The Employment Insurance Act requires the EI fund to break even over a seven-year period. Ultimately, workers will have to pay off $17 billion through their premiums to wipe out the deficit.
The government covered all of the other pandemic-related deficits, but not this one. As my colleague from Montcalm said a few moments ago, in the Chrétien and Martin eras, the government took $57 billion from the fund.
Does my hon. colleague consider it fair to leave workers on the hook for this deficit?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:29:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the recent budget, the government announced $80 billion for the green economy and the transition to a carbon-neutral future. In Bill C‑47, we learn how this will be managed and that has us concerned. Through a legislative change, the government is creating two institutions that will be in charge of administering the money the government plans to invest, money that escapes the control of Parliament. Non-elected people will be able to choose the projects they support without being accountable to anyone, without being accountable to the House and without any clear criteria.
What does the member think about that?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, regional flights are very expensive and with the increase in the cost of fuel, ticket prices have continued to increase over the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 is making them more expensive with a significant increase in the air travellers security tax for both international and regional flights. Prices will therefore increase.
What does my hon. colleague think about that? Would it not make sense to at least exempt regional flights from the tax increase?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:47:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to keep talking to us about the environment, in connection with the budget.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, currently, when big emitters pay the carbon tax, the money is put aside and is used to finance green projects in the province where the tax was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose that money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.
With Bill C-47, the money would not be lost at the end of the year. Oil companies would keep the money for future projects, which would give them no incentive to hurry to implement green projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What does my colleague think about that?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech.
On the topic of health, the primary role of the federal government is to properly fund health care. In Bill C‑47, there is $2 billion in unconditional transfers to the provinces. The member for Winnipeg North said that the government would try to remove that money from the bill because it is already in Bill C‑46, which was passed by the House.
First, the government is not doing its job properly. It is forgetting to harmonize its own bills. That is not very professional. Second, we believe we need a lot more in health transfers from the federal government. We want this $2 billion to stay in Bill C‑47.
What does my hon. colleague think about that?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:52:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for the answer he gave the government member who suggested that all sides of the House supported the Liberal austerity of the 1990s. Not only did the Liberals completely disengage from social housing, which devastated all of Quebec and Canada, but they also made cuts to health care funding. Since them, health care systems across the country have been struggling, including in Quebec.
The same goes for the financing of social services. Since that time, things have been going badly. I suggest that my colleague read the excellent book Combatting Poverty, which shows that that austerity significantly widened the wealth gap, created huge inequalities and made Canadians much poorer. Quebec picked up the slack for a lot of things, but with half the resources. As a result, there is less poverty and a smaller wealth gap.
Here is my question. Can members imagine what would happen if we had all the necessary means at our disposal?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
