44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 10:23:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can understand that women's shelters and other organizations that received funding from our government during the pandemic were able to get through the pandemic because our government stepped in at that time, when no one else was there to help them. Just like all Canadians, they were going through a very problematic period. Our government invested $300 million to help support them.
This funding is not being cut. It was a program created for the pandemic, and we have a lot of money in the pot right now to figure out a way to continue to support these organizations. The talks are continuing. The work is going to continue. There will be consultations in the months to come to figure out how we can continue supporting, with the support of the provinces as well, of course, and their operational funding responsibilities for women's shelters.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 10:52:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will not use any props as I ask my hon. colleague a question.
I know that it is not all fun and games here in the House, but things do get done. One of the things that gets me down is when members exaggerate.
The government announced $31.2 billion as part of the national housing strategy. That was in the previous budgets. This funding will be available until 2028. There is a measure in the strategy to assist people in urgent need of housing, such as victims of violence.
Instead of repeating misinformation, could this well-known member from Quebec occasionally admit that progress is being made? It is not always easy, but progress is being made. A lot of progress was made with the national housing strategy.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 11:46:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how helpful it is to speak in hyperbolic terms, and I think that we need to be more collaborative in this House. I take personal offence, given how hard we fight on this side for indigenous communities, at the suggestion that if we support this budget, for those who think it is wholly inadequate, we must never have set foot in a first nations community. That is certainly not true.
We are looking for creative solutions to address the housing crisis in indigenous communities across this country. Does the member support the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which will help indigenous-led solutions for indigenous financial institutions to leverage funding and ensure that these kinds of infrastructure projects can move forward?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 1:42:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course, as I mentioned quite strongly in my speech, we have a master's level of incompetence on one side of the House and, I believe, a master's level of competence on this side.
One of the ideas that we have been pushing forward is that we need to force municipalities, through funding and through different arrangements that we have with them, to actually increase the amount of housing that is available. One easy way to do that is to provide infrastructure spending for transportation. We need to make cities create housing around the transportation hubs that we are funding. When we have a large transportation hub, we would need to have housing and apartments around that. That increases the availability of housing, which, as I said in my speech, increases the supply. When they increase supply, they decrease the cost.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in a momentary fit of enthusiasm and sincere affection, I forgot myself.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum. Let us go back to that bare minimum. According to the NDP, the minimum was $4.6 billion. The NDP therefore wants there to be more than $4.6 billion. In my opinion, the NDP surely wants the $2 billion dollars that was in Bill C‑46 to also be included in Bill C‑47. That is my interpretation.
I will continue to read the quote: “The Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum—a deal that won't do nearly enough to recruit, retain and respect frontline workers, does not address the conditions in long-term care”.
I think it is clear that the leader of the NDP has the same objectives as us and that he wants the health care system to be better funded.
I will read a third statement by the leader of the NDP, who said, “Increasing the Canada Health Transfer is a start—but this is not enough to rebuild our public health care system.” Again, the leader of the NDP finds that the government is a bit stingy when it comes to funding health care.
In my opinion, $2 billion is not enough, but $4 billion might be enough. I have a feeling that my colleagues in the NDP are thinking the same thing. The $2-billion question, therefore, is this: Will the representatives from the NDP support us for better health care funding?
Based on everything the leader of the NDP has said, I get the feeling they will. Will they instead support the government and deny us a more robust health care system?
I would like to quickly address something else. It is the issue of energy and the environment. In Bill C‑47, $21 billion will be used for greenwashing oil companies and for funding madness, namely small modular nuclear reactors that will allow the oil and gas industry to use less gas in its processes. Essentially, nuclear energy, energy that is anything but clean, will be used to produce more gas.
That is a total aberration that everyone is against. It is all the more a total aberration because there is no country, to my knowledge, that considers nuclear energy to be clean energy, except Canada. It is well known that nuclear energy costs 10 times more than solar or wind energy. It is also well known that research has shown that every country that has wanted to go the route of nuclear energy in their fight against climate change in the past 25 years has clearly failed. It is known that the federal government's strategy is doomed to fail, and there are funds for that in Bill C‑47. That is another aberration.
I will conclude my comments by reaching out to my colleagues in the NDP, because I am a man of good faith, so we can demand that the government adequately fund the health care system.
527 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:32:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this government has always been there for women and will continue to be there for women.
When the pandemic struck, we saw what was happening. We knew that grassroots organizations had to keep their doors open. We responded with $300 million in emergency funding. That work continues with the action plan to end gender-based violence, with half a billion dollars on the table. I am negotiating with provinces and territories right now to get this done.
We have been there for women. We will always be there for women.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑13 acknowledges that French is under threat in Quebec.
However, the Liberals introduced an action plan yesterday that gives Quebec $140 million per year to promote English. That is $700 million over five years for English in Quebec and nothing, or a few crumbs, for French.
Today, Quebeckers are wondering if the federal government has some statistics to prove that English is under threat in Quebec. If not, why are the Liberals funding English in Quebec when it is French—
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:41:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for this country's official languages.
The action plan makes a historic $4.1-million investment to support our official language minority communities and reverse the decline of French across the country, including in Quebec.
The funding we announced yesterday does not include funding for English in Quebec. On the contrary, we are funding the vitality of Quebec's English-speaking community with French courses and the help these people need to find jobs.
Once again, yesterday was a good day.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:43:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, yesterday, we announced and unveiled a truly historic action plan with $4.1 million to protect and promote our official language minority communities and reverse the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada.
We are not funding English in Quebec. On the contrary, we are supporting the vitality of English-speaking communities with employment assistance services and French as a second language programs.
We will always be there to support our communities and we will do everything we can to reverse the decline of French in the country.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:48:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservative gatekeepers simply are not serious when it comes to housing. When his leader was the housing minister, he did nothing to help Canadians with affordable housing opportunities. The Conservative position on housing is now to do nothing, cut funding and magically hope that things will get better. It is the same kind of thinking that underpinned his leader's call for the embrace of cryptocurrency to deal with inflation. That is not a serious plan. Our national housing strategy is serious, and it is getting help to Canadians.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her question, her leadership and her focus on the importance of protecting people's health.
That is why we are so proud of her bill, Bill C‑252, which protects children from the effects of food and beverage marketing. That is why we are introducing a new food guide and improving food labelling to help people make better food choices. That is why budget 2023 includes $10 million in funding for Participaction to help people, particularly youth, to increase their physical activity.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 3:32:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just had the opportunity to visit Kapuskasing, and many people said wonderful things about you.
I want to start with a positive view of the budget, and then go toward where there is some improvement required. Unfortunately there is a missing element that I think ought to be emphasized as well, but let us start where there are clear and incredibly important priorities. The federal budget rightly prioritizes better health care, affordability measures and clean economic growth.
On the health care front, we see major new funding to modernize health systems, including significant funding through bilateral agreements with provinces. We see measures to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, to support hourly wage increases for PSWs, to expand access to family health services, to increase mental health and substance use support, and more.
We see a major commitment to a dental care plan, and this is really one of the signature pieces of this budget, done in co-operation with our partners across the aisle in the NDP. We have made a $13-billion commitment over five years to expand dental care to families earning less than $90,000 a year.
We also see important new measures to combat the opioid crisis. While it does not quite get to the $500-million commitment in our platform, we are getting there. There is $360 million committed over five years for a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including community-based mental health, harm reduction services and more.
We see the Canadian Cancer Society saying, “#Budget2023 is a sign that there is political will to fund our healthcare system so people can get timely, affordable access to cancer care.” The Canadian Medical Association says, “We’re pleased to see the federal government confirm significant health funding commitments as part of budget 2023-24.”
On the affordability side, we see targeted inflation relief. There is a new rebate increasing the GST tax credit delivered to 11 million low and modest-income people. We see affordable higher education prioritized with increases to student grants and the raising of the interest-free loan limit. We see action for consumers and small businesses to reduce junk fees, crack down on predatory lenders and lower credit card transaction fees. We see measures to protect air passengers, enshrine the right to repair and more.
We also see a code of conduct to protect Canadians with existing mortgages and automatic tax filings. It is not a perfectly automatic tax filing, so there is more work required, but the CRA will be piloting a new filing service to help vulnerable Canadians receive benefits to which they are entitled. Everyone should receive the benefits they deserve.
Third, we see a major emphasis on clean economic growth. We see $21 billion over five years to really build on past measures. We have come a long way since 2015, and we need to keep moving forward.
We have seen a rising price on pollution to help shift demand and spur innovation, with the revenue rebated directly to ensure low- and middle income Canadians are not worse off. There is now a clean fuel standard, rules to phase out coal-fired electricity and increasingly stringent measures to slash methane emissions. Work is also well under way to establish a clean electricity regulation and cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, and we have put a climate accountability law in place that sets strong targets, requires the government to table a comprehensive climate plan and ensures regular progress reports to keep all future governments honest.
In past budgets, we have invested billions in retrofits, zero-emission vehicles, public transit, nature protection, clean technologies, critical minerals and more. We have also encouraged recent and multi-billion-dollar private sector investments in the clean economy, and the 2023 federal budget would build on this work with new initiatives to protect our fresh water and deliver clean electricity, clean tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen.
The Canadian Climate Institute called the budget measures “decisive steps to ensure Canada won’t fall behind in the global race to net zero.” The Pembina Institute said the budget “sends a clear message that Canada is committed to building a cleaner future.” The International Institute for Sustainable Development called the funding for clean electricity and fresh water “unprecedented,” and the David Suzuki Foundation called it “historic” and “an important turning point”.
Challenges remain, of course. I do not want to get into the $30 billion on TMX, which I wish we were spending elsewhere, but we do need stronger climate conditions to ensure money is well spent and there are safeguards against inefficient fossil fuel support.
Some programs need to be strengthened, especially for home and business retrofits. We need to increase international climate financing, and we need all provinces to step up to do their part. We lack a serious and credible climate plan here in Ontario, for example, and that undercuts our overall ability to meet and exceed existing national targets. Despite the significant federal action to date, we are not yet where we need to be, but we are on track, in a serious way, to get there.
The IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, lead scientist Dr. Otto said that its recent report highlights “the urgency of the problem and the gravity of it”. However, Dr. Otto also acknowledged that there are “lots of reasons for hope – because we still have the time to act and we have everything we need”. We certainly see significant action here in Canada.
The fourth item I want to note that is going in an incredibly positive direction is this. We see significant new spending, $4 billion over seven years, to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. I think some of these ideas should be pulled apart. An urban strategy ought to be different from one for the realities of northern and rural Ontario.
I just mentioned travelling in Kapuskasing, and I was in Timmins as well. I certainly heard concerns. When programs are being designed, whether at Queen's Park or Ottawa, they need to be designed with northern realities in mind. It really would make a lot more sense to pull the strategy apart and deal with urban, northern and rural realities separately.
On the fiscal sustainability front, before I get to where work is required, I will quote Kevin Page, the former PBO, who wrote, “On balance, the 2023 budget has a credible fiscal strategy.” He continued, “Net new spending in 2023 largely goes to people struggling with high inflation...and our health care system. This is not spending that will impede efforts to lower inflation.” He then concluded, “Fiscally credibility has to be earned budget by budget. The 2023 budget gets a thumbs-up.” Those are not my words but the words of Kevin Page.
It is important to not only look at Canada's situation in isolation but also to compare Canada's fiscal situation to our partners around the world. Budget 2023 notes, “Including new measures...Canada’s net debt as a share of the economy is still lower today than in any other G7 country prior to the pandemic—an advantage that Canada is forecasted to maintain”.
With the time I have left, I will look at where work is required. On mental health, we have made progress. I highlighted new spending on mental health and addictions. However, it is not enough to meet our platform promise of $500 million. The CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association has said, “We are deeply concerned that this budget does not include critically needed investments in services delivered by community providers”. Our platform promised federal funding for mental health transfers, a significant commitment, and we are not yet where we need to be on that front.
To give a very specific, concrete example here, we are launching 988, the new national mental health crisis number. It is incredibly important as a matter of delivery on mental health, but callers need to be referred to services in their own communities for it to be the most effective. Therefore, we need to fund services in our respective communities.
I also want to emphasize the need to address the disability benefit. Many in the disability community were expecting a clear signal about what is to come. It is important that we see additional spending on consultation. We are going to do an expansive consultation to get it right, but to really make a meaningful difference, to deliver a transformative benefit, it is going to take billions in new spending every year to lift people with disabilities out of poverty in a way that they deserve. Much more work is required on this front.
So too with housing. I mentioned the importance of the new billions in spending for an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, but we need to do much more on housing. It is a matter of generational fairness. It is a matter of productivity. People are leaving our cities. People are leaving our provinces. We are not going to be as competitive as we need to be if we do not fix the affordable housing crisis. That means governments have to get out of the way and help build housing. Governments have to get back in the game on building social housing, and we really have to treat housing as a home first and an investment second.
Last, where there is a missing piece, we committed to increase foreign aid every year. We simply did not do that in this budget. Results Canada has rightly criticized the budget on those grounds. As wealthy a country as we are, we need to look after those in need in our country. We also have to look after and do our part for those in need all around the world.
With that, overwhelmingly, despite areas of improvement and despite some areas of criticism, there are many reasons to be positive and optimistic about what we see in budget 2023, and there are certainly many reasons to support the budget in the coming weeks.
1727 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
- Apr/27/23 4:00:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member referenced the health accord quite a bit and the Canada health transfer, and mentioned that the government should demonstrate in some way that this funding will be enough. Well, it is $198 billion in new funding over 10 years, and it includes $46.2 billion in new funding for the provinces and territories.
One of the ways something like this can be demonstrated is by the Province of Quebec signing agreements. The Province of Quebec entered into negotiations with the federal government and agreed to this transfer of funds. The Premier of Quebec has come out in statements commending the government on providing these transfers, just like with the new funding for official languages and many other investments that have been made in the province of Quebec.
What would the member say about the province's support?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague and I see history differently.
The Quebec government was hoping for $6 billion in recurring funding every year to rebuild its network. It got barely $1 billion. Then the Minister of Health had the nerve to claw back $42 million.
Given that, the correct answer is not complicated. The Quebec government had no choice. It had to either accept the $1 billion, one-sixth of what it needed, or it would get nothing at all.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:29:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a bad thing for decisions regarding funding to be made by independent actors. I believe Parliament has a very important role in setting the agenda and terms of reference, and appointing custodians and managers to ensure the funds are managed. However, I believe that processes that are meant to adjudicate and allow funding to go to individuals and businesses ought to be managed independently of government and that it is wise for us to continue to do that. We have a civil service that does it. Oftentimes, we Crown corporations that do that. I believe that is probably a more prudent way to achieve the goals we are mutually trying to achieve.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about such an important democratic exercise, specifically the budget and its implementation. A budget provides a framework and a guide for the government's policy agenda. It is normally quite thick and takes a while to analyze. This bill is huge, I have to say. The government has thrown a lot in there. This type of bill is called an omnibus bill.
There are many items in the budget, but a lot of reading between the lines is still needed. The government announces things without really describing them, so we have to guess what its intentions are, what those things mean and when they will be implemented.
In this budget, I noticed that the government wants to differentiate between the investments that have already been announced and those that are forthcoming. To do that, it is putting different markers at the start of each line. Checkmarks are used for investments that have already been announced. That implies that it has been done. Arrows are used for upcoming investments. When I flip through the budget, I see a lot of checkmarks. That means that the government is announcing things a second time. That is a rather odd strategy. Announcing an investment twice does not double the amount. That is not how it works. The government needs to stop treating us like fools.
It is difficult to see what new announcements this government is making. For example, in the housing section, all we see are checkmarks. There is nothing more for the regions of Quebec, despite the fact that they too are experiencing a housing crisis. The housing crisis is not something that is only happening in big cities. There is a crisis in the largest regions of Quebec and in the smallest, and I am sure that the same is true elsewhere in Canada. Unfortunately, the funding is not reaching the smaller regions.
I do not like it when politicians criticize everything all the time. We see this every day, and I believe it does nothing to counter the cynicism people feel toward politics and toward elected members who find fault with everything.
I looked at the budget that was brought down in Quebec City shortly before the one in Ottawa. The opposition parties had some harsh criticisms. They ranted and raved, saying there was nothing good in the budget. I decided I would do my homework and acknowledge the good things when it was Ottawa's turn. It is nice for our constituents to see us commend things instead of always criticizing the government. It is nice to note the positive things, the aspects that are good, while pointing out what could have been done better.
When I received the federal budget, I realized that it would be hard to point out the good things because there are not that many, especially when I look at what Quebeckers were asking for. Often, what the Bloc Québécois suggests aligns with what Quebeckers are asking for. What Quebeckers want is what we are going to bring forward and ask for in the House of Commons.
As I was saying, the bill includes nothing for housing, nothing for seniors, nothing about the EI reform we have been asking for for years, and no long-term solution to health care underfunding. I am willing to recognize the good points, but is it that hard to meet the public's expectations?
Still, I did want to go through the process of trying to find good things in this budget. For example, the government seems to want to resolve, once and for all, the uncertainty around the calculation of the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfers of small and medium-sized businesses, especially farms. That is good. At last, this is happening. Farmers have been talking to us about this issue for a long time. Will it be resolved soon? We hope so.
Another good thing in Bill C-47 is that the government is planning to establish a real employment insurance board of appeal by incorporating elements of Bill C-37, which was introduced before the holidays. Great, that is a good thing. That is progress.
However, in all honesty, what we would have liked to see is nothing less than EI reform. That is what we have been asking for for years. Every year, unemployed workers' advocacy groups in every region of Quebec are promised that EI reform is coming and that it will be in the budget. They have been hearing this since well before 2015. Every time a budget is tabled, these groups realize they have once again been taken for a ride.
Need I remind the House that about 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot get EI, even if they paid into it with every paycheque? Need I also remind the House that it is worse for women and youth because many of them work in non-standard jobs?
The only other EI measure in the budget is a one-year extension of the pilot projects to provide an extra five weeks of benefits in regions where seasonal work is particularly prevalent.
We can hope that this is good news for our ridings, but obviously there is a “but” because only unemployed workers who have access to EI can benefit from that. As I was saying, unfortunately, 60% of seasonal workers are excluded from the program. Yes, it is a good measure, but there is always a “but”.
The problem is that the measures are temporary and ill-conceived. That is what workers in my area have been complaining about for years. We wonder whether it would be possible for the government to have a more long-term vision, or any kind of vision at all, really. The government seems to think only about tomorrow, not about what might happen in the coming years. It cannot keep using one-time cheques and temporary measures, because that will never really solve the problems that have been going on for far too long.
It is a little disappointing, and it is kind of symptomatic of this government. I believe that it would not be that difficult to put in place a more well-thought-out measure, one that might perhaps take more than two weeks to create. I understand that EI reform cannot be done quickly, but people have been proposing solutions for years, and everyone has been weighing in and saying that there are solutions and they just need to be implemented.
I will quickly address another point that my colleagues have already brought up. This is the proof that this whole thing is half-baked. Bill C-47 contains items that were in Bill C-46. We thought this meant that the GST would be doubled once again and that there would be an extra $2‑billion top-up for the health transfer. It was a nice surprise for us, but it was actually just a little mistake. When Bill C‑46 was passed last week, the government forgot to remove those items from Bill C‑47. These are really rookie mistakes.
I will now talk a bit about the environment. I see that time is flying and I have a lot of things to say. The government is announcing significant sums of money for the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are talking about $80 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of cash.
To me, the energy transition means transforming our energy sources, our economic model, our consumption habits and our vision of production. That, in my opinion, is where we should be investing our money, but that is not all the government's vision. No, the government says it wants to continue to do everything the same way, but by polluting less. Obviously, we wonder how that could be done and how we can do the same thing and hope for a different result. How can we increase production while lowering greenhouse gas emissions? The government says it will be easy with carbon capture and storage technologies. Oh, that is interesting.
Now we are left to wonder whether it actually works. No one knows, because it is virtually non-existent in Canada. The Minister of Environment himself said in a Radio-Canada interview in 2021 that he wanted to lower expectations around this technology. He said that the government wanted to invest in these technologies, but added that it must be understood that nothing will happen overnight. He said that this is not the best way to reduce our emissions over the next few years. He also said we are going to need a lot of new technologies in the years to come, including things like carbon capture and storage. He said we are several years away, maybe a decade, from commercial use. That is what the minister said in 2021.
Between you and me, I would not count on it too much. This is the same government that announced in its 2015-19 policy agenda that it would ban single-use plastics by 2021. However, that ban was only put in place a few weeks ago, and it is 2023, so we will not put too much stock in that. Considering that Canada began developing this technology in 2021, perhaps we can hope that it will be ready for 2031.
The problem is that the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the next milestone year is 2030.
The government's plan for 2030 is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45%. The Minister of Environment often says that our emissions are going down, but everyone knows that was because of the pandemic. Even in 2020, emissions started to go up again due to transportation and oil and gas production.
I see my time is up, and I am ready to answer questions about the environment.
1677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, being from B.C., I know there are many issues the member and I share in many areas. I get lots of people asking about health care. I have asked another member of her caucus the following question, and being from B.C., I think it is important to hear her answer. John Horgan, the former premier, was actually the chair of the Council of the Federation. All the premiers had asked the government specifically not to fund new, expensive, untested and, in some cases, duplicated programs, like dental care, and instead to focus on health care and giving provinces what they need. We saw for the longest time the government did not give any of those things.
How does the member square this expansion of a program, when B.C. already has a program for low-income seniors as well as for children under the age of 12? Why has she said that, instead of funding those important programs, now we have bigger government in Ottawa doing duplicative things that do not actually help people in her riding?
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:07:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
I tried to lay out, as best I could, the reasons I cannot support the budget. There are many of them, not the least of which is the carbon tax and the disproportionate effect it has on the people and the businesses I represent in Barrie—Innisfil.
One of the things that is extremely concerning for me, which was not really in the budget, related to the Canada summer jobs program. We saw that cut by a third this year, yet we see contracts, to companies like McKinsey and others, to the tune of $21 billion in total contracts. Why are we taking away from the future and work experience that young people are getting to apply down the line, yet outsourcing and putting a priority on government contracts for friends and connected insiders of the Liberal Party?
I am really disappointed in the Canada summer jobs program and the cut in funding. I know many of those people who would benefit, particular the kids, are really disappointed.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:33:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the recent announcement that we made for funding for the Great Lakes action plan. It was $420 million to assist with cleaning up the Great Lakes. As a member whose riding borders the shoreline of Lake Ontario, I know how important that investment is in terms of cleaning the environment and cleaning the lakes. That is in large part due to my friend and colleague from Niagara Centre who worked very hard over many years to make that investment happen.
I certainly took into consideration some of the constructive criticism the member provided as it relates to the budget, but can I ask his opinion in terms of what would be considered a historic announcement? He is from the vicinity there, the region of Niagara. I know his constituents enjoy Lake Ontario and probably some of the other Great Lakes. What are his thoughts on that investment? Could he support something like that?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
