44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, in the initial Bill C‑47, a $2-billion transfer for health care was included twice. It did not take very long for the Liberals and the NDP—
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even my secondary school students understood that aspect of basic respect.
The initial Bill C-47 contained $2 billion in health transfers. It was a repeat of a previous bill. That was a mistake, except that it was a good mistake that could have helped all of the provinces and Quebec, in particular given the aging population, which entails more health care needs. However, this government and its allies decided to withdraw the $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces.
What does my colleague think, and what does he think the impact will be on health care systems across Canada?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this budget allocates $80 billion over 10 years for a green transition fund. However, there will be no accountability to Parliament for that fund.
Moreover, the eligibility criteria involve being able to invest in the oil industry, even though reducing GHG emissions means reducing oil consumption.
How can my colleague find it logical to invest up to $80 billion over 10 years in the oil industry while pushing for the reduction of GHG emissions?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑47 included $2 billion in health transfers that were already voted on in Bill C‑46, to be sure, but that were still there.
The NDP joined forces with the Liberals to remove that $2 billion even though the needs are growing not only because of the current fires, but also because of the growing and aging population.
Does my colleague regret having removed that $2 billion from Bill C‑47?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my comments by talking a little about the situation in Quebec and Canada. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the fires, whether in Halifax, northern Ontario, or in Quebec in Abitibi, Témiscamingue or the north shore, where I have family and friends who are either out of their homes as a preventive measure, or unable to leave their village because the road is blocked by the fire. I send my love to my sister, my cousin and my niece.
We are here today to discuss Bill C‑47. It includes some interesting elements, including the creation of a real EI board of appeal. People who feel cheated will be able to assert their rights. That is a good thing. The air passenger protection system is also being improved. I attended a meeting on the topic in January, and most of the proposals we put forward were accepted, which better protects users. That is also a good thing.
However, several elements are missing. There is no increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. An increase of the tax credit from $5,000 to $6,500 is good. However, people who paid taxes for their entire lives still find themselves with rates that are similar to people who are single, without being able to put money into RRSPs or other forms of tax credits. Seniors' pensions are essentially a social program and, constitutionally, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The way things are going, seniors have a better chance of seeing Quebec repatriate all its pension powers for seniors than seeing Canada improve their situation based on current economic realities.
There is little in this budget related to housing. The supplementary estimates (A) include $973 million, but this one includes almost nothing. In terms of health, the population of Quebec and the Canadian provinces is aging, but is also growing across all age groups. That means that health care costs are higher. The government, with its wires crossed somewhat, had left $2 billion in health transfers in Bill C‑47, which were already voted in Bill C‑46. We thought the government had reconsidered its position, that it was acknowledging that the needs are actually greater, that it would increase health transfers and that that would help everyone. In the end, in a dramatic twist, the Liberals joined with the NDP to remove that $2 billion in health transfers, although the needs are still there.
Now let us now talk about employment insurance. This government has been promising EI reform since 2015. The only thing that has been done so far is a pilot project for seasonal workers, which is a good thing. Their benefits are being extended. Apart from extending the pilot projects, though, nothing else in this budget is new, as I said. The pandemic left a huge hole in the employment insurance fund. The act states that the fund may not run either a deficit or a surplus over an average period of seven years. This means that workers and employers will have to make up for the pandemic-related deficit through their EI contributions. It is important to note that the government does not contribute a penny to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute to it.
Over the next few years, there will be surpluses in the EI fund, as was the case before the pandemic, and those surpluses will be used to get rid of the debt brought about by the pandemic. The government could have solved the problem by using the consolidated revenue fund to keep a surplus in the EI fund. It chose not to do so and to make workers and employers pay down the deficit.
The surpluses generated over the next seven years will be used to cover the deficit created by the pandemic. That means that the government has no real intention of reforming the program for the next seven years, in other words, as long as the pandemic deficit is not eliminated.
Employment insurance is also a social program. Just like seniors' pensions, constitutionally, it is a program that should belong to the Canadian provinces and Quebec. At this time, Quebec repatriating its powers and putting in place a modern program is more likely than Canada even beginning to think about maybe continuing to reflect.
There are also surprises in this budget. Among other things, we learn that $80 billion will be allocated over 10 years to a fund for the green transition. That is good news, except that the fund will be distributed to organizations that are not required to report to Parliament. The eligibility criteria for obtaining funds include investments in the oil industry to create green energy, so oil and gas will be burned to create green energy.
By the way, the energy transition does not mean shifting from fossil fuels that produce a lot of greenhouse gases to fossil fuels that produce just a bit less greenhouse gases. The energy transition means shifting to renewable energy. The last I heard, there was no shortage of wind in Quebec and Canada. That is just one renewable energy that can be used. The technology is increasingly reliable.
There is another little surprise in the budget. While 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers say they are opposed to the monarchy, something was included at the very end of the bill, in clause 510, which is under division 31 of part 4, on page 325. It is recognition of the appointment of Charles III as Canada's monarch, the official head of state of Canada. It is an attempt to slip this by the 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers who are opposed to the monarchy. Some would say that Bloc members are sovereigntists who no longer want the monarchy. That would mean that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are also sovereigntists. The will of the people—a majority of them in this case, as I said—ought to be respected.
I will quickly end my speech. To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, a sovereign and independent Quebec will not need health transfers, equalization payments, housing transfers or infrastructure transfers. That is because Quebec will get to keep all the taxes it collects. It will also keep the revenues from customs duties. It will be the sole manager of monies paid by workers and employers into the employment insurance fund and the pension fund for seniors. It will be the sole manager of monies generated by this new country that Quebec could and must become. Quebec's independence will allow us to manage our own future so we can fully represent Quebeckers' aspirations for future generations, unlike this budget, which does not do so.
1142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, technology is advancing rapidly.
Solar, wind and hydro are types of energy that can be considered renewable. We need them. Increasing GHGs in various ways will not help minimize environmental damage.
By the way, the best energy is always the energy we do not use. Reducing our own consumption across the board will also change people's habits and make a difference.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to remind her of the opposition's role in democracy.
When I arrived in the House, someone told me that my role as a member of the opposition was not to enable the government to function, but to obstruct it at all costs. Personally, I see the opposition's role as being much more constructive.
No single party or individual can see all sides of an issue. It is just not possible for a government to introduce a perfect bill. It is important to consult all the parties and come to an agreement, to have a consensus.
The expression “political games” is wrong; we are not playing games here. This is about every aspect of people's future. This is serious. We have to work together, find consensus and represent the entire population, the people we all represent.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague's nephew a happy birthday.
I know the Remparts beat the Kamloops team and really enjoyed their stay in Kamloops.
With respect to consensus, time allocation is not the best way to reach it. We have to find other approaches, maybe different ways of talking to each other, to make that happen.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with some aspects of my colleague's speech but disagree with others. That is the beauty of being human. We can agree and disagree while respecting each other.
That said, I would like to know the member's opinion on a surprise tucked away in the deepest recesses of the bill, in clause 510, on page 325, concerning the proclamation of Charles III as Canada's head of state.
If it is in the budget, does the member think that means that huge amounts of money will be spent on it? If there are no exorbitant amounts involved, why is it in the budget, in his opinion? Would it have been better to introduce this proclamation in a separate bill?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, by establishing an early childhood education system, we are helping women return to work and also to school. We are creating an ecosystem that supports the local economy and community support.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
