44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, first, I just want to comment on how disheartening it is to see the Conservatives' many tactics and games to stall the work that is necessary for us to move forward in representing our constituents. I do not understand the desire to ensure that Canadians do not have access to dental care. That is necessary. Constituents are reaching out to me in my riding, talking about how much they need this dental care, and I know many constituents in the Conservatives' ridings are saying the same.
I will turn to my question, however. In the budget there was a commitment to advance the red dress initiative for missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and we are not seeing that funding commitment attached to it. Could the Minister of Finance please clarify when we will see the advancement of this vital life-saving tool?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the continuing debate on Bill C-47, the budget 2023 implementation act, which proposes measures that will help Canadians and build a stronger economy.
Budget 2023, “a Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, arrived at an important time for our country and the world.
It delivers targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most, strengthens Canada’s universal public health care system with an investment of $198.3 billion and introduces a new Canadian dental care plan to benefit up to nine million Canadians.
Budget 2023 also makes transformative investments to build Canada’s clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. This includes significant measures that will deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, support investment in our communities and create good-paying jobs as part of a responsible fiscal plan that will see Canada maintain the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
One aspect of Bill C-47 I would like to address today is how it proposes to enact measures to help build Canada’s clean economy, and specifically, two important proposals that were first announced in budget 2022.
The first is the Canada growth fund, which would help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy. The other is the establishment of the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation, with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditures on research and development.
I will start with the Canada growth fund. It was incorporated in December 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. As a significant part of Canada’s plan to decarbonize and build Canada’s clean economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional and independent investment team ready to make important investments in support of Canada’s climate and economic goals.
Therefore, budget 2023 announced the intention to have the growth fund partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, to deliver on the growth fund’s mandate of attracting private capital to invest in Canada’s clean economy. Bill C-47 contains the necessary legislative amendments to enable PSP Investments to manage the assets of the Canada growth fund as a $15-billion arm's-length public investment vehicle.
PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with more than $225 billion in assets under management, and operates at arm’s length from the government. It will provide the Canada growth fund with an independent team that has extensive experience across the range of investment tools that the growth fund will use to deliver on its mandate and attract new private investment to Canada.
By partnering with PSP Investments, the Canada growth fund would be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term to support the growth of Canada’s clean economy. One of the investment tools the Canada growth fund will use to support clean growth projects is contracts for difference. These contracts can backstop the future price of, for example, carbon or hydrogen, providing predictability that helps to de-risk major projects that cut Canada’s emissions. Contracts for difference allow companies to plan ahead, supporting the growth of Canada’s clean economy by making clean projects more cost-effective than more polluting projects.
Relatedly, budget 2023 announced that the government will consult on the development of a broad-based approach to carbon contracts for difference that aims to make carbon pricing even more predictable, while supporting the investments needed to build a competitive, clean economy and help meet Canada’s climate goals. This would complement contracts for difference offered by the Canada growth fund. Notably, the Canada growth fund assets will be separate and managed independently of the pension assets of PSP Investments. However, it will maintain the market-leading reporting framework for public transparency and accountability that the government committed to in the 2022 fall economic statement.
I also mentioned earlier that Bill C-47 proposes to establish the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditure on research and development across all sectors and regions of Canada. Currently, Canada ranks last in the G7 in R and D spending by businesses. I think we can all agree that this has to change.
Solving Canada’s main innovation challenges, including a low rate of private business investment in research, development and the uptake of new technologies, is key to growing our economy and creating good jobs. Canadian companies need to take their new ideas and new technologies and turn them into new products, services and thriving businesses, and they need support to do that.
The mandate of the Canada innovation corporation will be to promote the improved productivity and growth of Canadian firms, which would contribute to a strong and innovative Canadian economy. It would work proactively with new and established Canadian industries and businesses to help them make the investments they need in order to innovate, grow, create jobs and be competitive in the changing global economy.
It would do this by offering needed support to transform new ideas into new and improved products and processes. It would also support them in developing and protecting intellectual property and in capturing important segments of global supply chains that will help drive Canada’s economic growth and create good jobs.
I would like to stress that the CIC will not be just another funding agency. It is intended to be a market-oriented innovation agency with private sector leadership and expertise. The CIC would operate with an initial budget of $2.6 billion over four years, and with the passage of Bill C-47, it is expected to begin its operations in 2023.
Overall, these measures from Bill C-47 are just part of the government’s plan to build a stronger, more sustainable 21st-century economy. They build on budget 2023's transformative investments to build Canada's clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.
With our made-in-Canada plan, our budget would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, more sustainable and more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast. Key measures in the budget implementation bill include, one, an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit; two, the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools; three, improved registered education savings plans; four, banning cosmetic testing on animals; five, strengthening Canada's supply chains and trade corridors; and six, continuing our efforts in supporting Ukraine by taking action against Russia.
I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-47 and to contribute to this effort.
1173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.
This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.
This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.
Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.
We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.
We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.
With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.
This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.
The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.
First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.
In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending.
In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.
As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.
By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.
Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.
1519 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 2:08:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the actions our government is taking to meet the housing needs of Canadians. Since the release of our national housing strategy in 2017, we have leveraged over $80 billion of investment, creating thousands of new units across the country and utilizing those same investments to renovate and repair decades-old, affordable housing units in every corner of the country. As an extension of this work, the minister recently announced the Canada greener affordable housing program that will provide $1.2 billion in funding over four years for much needed renovations to existing affordable housing units. The funding will allow affordable housing providers to make improvements to aging buildings that will improve energy efficiency and extend their lifespan, improving the living conditions and quality of life for tenants across the country.
While the leader of the official opposition villainizes our municipal partners, our government continues to work with municipalities and non-profit housing providers, ensuring our housing investments improve our affordable housing stock while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combatting climate change.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would say through you to the member and those moms that this is exactly why Bill C-35 exists. It is so typical of the Conservatives to say there is a problem, throw their hands up and do nothing. What Bill C-35 would do is commit the federal government to long-term funding to create additional spaces to make sure there is that access right across the country. In fact, included in the legislation is a comment specifically about rural child care. The member should talk to the provinces and territories, because they have really good access plans when it comes to increasing access to child care.
However, if it were not for this legislation and those agreements, none of those problems would be solved. We are working to do that.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a very good question of the Conservatives during the report stage on what the amendment was that they had proposed, and they were unable to answer. I congratulate the member for that.
In response to the member's question, the agreement that we have signed with British Columbia commits British Columbia to creating 40,000 additional child care spaces. What I would say about this legislation in particular and why it is so important is that it would commit the federal government to funding, to child care and involvement in child care indefinitely, for the long term. Without this legislation, we could see, as we saw in the past in 2006, a Conservative government coming in, ripping up those agreements and leaving Canadian families in the dust. That is what they did almost 20 years ago.
The legislation says to the member's daughter and his granddaughter that the federal government believes in their access to child care. It believes that people have a right to affordable child care and that we are committing ourselves, as a federal government, as Canadians, to building this system so that they too can have access to that child care. They can pursue their career and their dreams and we will be there for them.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, off the top of my head, there is not much in the budget about that.
Perhaps I missed part of my colleague's question. There is not much there when it comes to funding or content. Yes, obviously, there are some good measures.
However, in 2023, we would have hoped that this budget would contain more social democratic measures and something tangible to back them up. We are not seeing that.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise here to represent the great people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and speak to a very important bill.
My first question is this: Why are we debating this today? I remind all MPs that funding agreements are already in place and have been signed by all provinces and territories. The money is already flowing, and I would argue, there is a multitude of other higher priority issues around affordability that we could be debating that have yet to be addressed by the current Liberal government. Further, I would point out that Bill C-35 is not a child care strategy. It is a headline marketing plan.
Again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. Ten dollars-a-day day care does not address the labour shortage and the lack of spaces. I will guarantee today that, if and when this strategy fails and has not delivered affordable child care for all those in need across Canada in all jurisdictions, the Liberal government will blame the provinces and territories for that failure.
I point out that back in January, during question period, the government House leader had the audacity to call these current agreements universal, as have other Liberal members of Parliament. How can these Liberal MPs say this program is truly universal when the current child care space shortfall is in the hundreds of thousands. It is not universal if hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not have access to it.
We have seen over the past number of years how increasingly difficult it is for parents to obtain child care at all, let alone affordable child care. Therefore, I can appreciate the efforts behind the bill and the idea of actually forwarding or advancing an affordable child care plan. However, if the spaces are not there, it is still not going to work. I further note that this impacts so many families across my riding, but it disproportionately impacts women. The current reality in Canada, which has been exacerbated by the current government's inflammatory and inflationary spending, is that the cost of living has skyrocketed, making all of life's necessities unattainable by many families, as it appears now. In most cases, two parents are required to work just to scrape by.
I am going to focus on three key areas of the bill, based on feedback that I received from over 20 different day cares and child care centres across my riding. The first one, as was already mentioned, centres around the issue of accessing the programs, especially in rural Canada. Number two is the labour shortages, which is an issue that is prevalent across many sectors. Finally, there is the rising cost.
I know I may get a question from the government members about amendments. I would note that our Conservative colleagues, specifically the shadow minister, put forward many great amendments during debate at committee and at report stage and, unfortunately, every single one of them was defeated.
Let us get back to my first point around the issue of access, especially as it pertains to rural communities like Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am not going to use my words. I am going to use the words of those from the child care centres in my riding when they were talking about this program.
They said that the demand for child care has seen huge increases. Every family wants access to a $10-per-day child care space. However, they are confident in saying that they have children on their waiting list who will age out of their programs before a space becomes available. They continued that families cannot go to work if they do not have access to child care. Their local communities are suffering, and having no child care has a far-reaching impact on all rural communities.
Therefore, as I noted, the primary issue around this program is that, while the government can artificially lower some of the costs through its funding arrangements with the provinces, the demand is so great that many families will not be able to achieve or get access to those subsidized rates.
I will give one example about the limitations around this program. My brother and his wife both work for a living. One works for Bruce Power. My sister-in-law works in the health care system. They have to commute 30, 40 or 50 kilometres one way. They have two young kids, who are now in elementary school, but playing sports and trying to go everywhere. They did not have access to a program. They depended upon family members or local privatized child care opportunities to get the necessary support they needed.
The second point I want to address is labour shortages. For quite some time, all the child care centres in my riding have been raising the alarm over the issue of labour shortages. While the lower cost of child care would definitely help the families who are able to access the program, increasing the program itself is becoming out of reach due to staffing shortages. One centre in my riding offered that expansion is impossible without qualified staff. Early childhood educators are in very short supply. This child care program is very administration heavy. As well as the extra work needed in centres, there are numerous government employees being employed to monitor and manage the plan.
This program is hindered not only by labour shortages of child care educators, but also the bureaucratic burden that is being put on the program itself through the additional administration required to meet the compliance and ensure the standards.
Here is another key issue and one that I can relate to personally. It is the shrinking of the before and after school programs. What I got from my local YMCA is that workforce shortages have reduced the number of school-age programs operators can deliver, resulting in a lack of enrolment fees in school-age child care, i.e. before and after school care, and in addition to workforce shortages for this age group, there have also been program reductions as a result of ongoing school closures, the pivot to online learning and a greater population of parents working from home and managing before and after school care differently.
This is something that, as a single parent, I am concerned about. As this program develops, access to the before and after care for many single parents across my riding is going to be an issue because, again, of the lack of labour.
Another issue is the nature of the jobs themselves, which makes life much more difficult for the current employees when there is already a labour shortage. Another child care centre said that, not to mention, it is a very selfless and exhausting job, often without breaks. The burnout rate is high. It is a woman-dominated field, and the paradox is that is an essential service for parents to be able to re-enter the workforce with a young family.
My final key point is around the rising operating costs. Many of these child care centres confirmed to me that the funding set out by the current child care program does not cover expenses, with many organizations in my riding stating that the funding afforded for the program does not cover current expenses. Their utilities, food and insurance have increased by double digit percentages, and every other cost has increased. Their compensation to cover these increases was under 3%, but the math does not add up. Funding rural and urban centres equally is not equitable. They are operating with huge deficits every month, and it cannot continue.
As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives have put forward common sense amendments at the committee to ensure program flexibility, so that the families and child care centres are not punished for adhering to an “Ottawa knows best” approach. Families in my riding are increasingly demanding better access to quality child care services that fit their schedules, and it appears as if the Liberals do not understand that they cannot simply lower the price of a service that does not exist.
In conclusion, affordable quality child care is critical, but if people cannot access it, it does not exist. Bill C-35 does nothing to address accessibility. All Canadian families should have access to affordable and quality child care, and should be able to choose child care providers that best suit their family needs. This is especially pertinent in rural Canada. Bill C-35 is good for families that already have a child care space, but it does not help the thousands of families on child care wait lists or the operators who do not have the staff or infrastructure to offer more spaces.
Finally, again, we see the Liberals promising what they cannot deliver. The $10-a-day day care does not address the labour shortages and the lack of spaces.
1500 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Indeed, having accessible and affordable day care is so important for families, and especially to mothers. We went through it in Quebec, we saw it. Quebec was a pioneer, a trailblazer, with its network of child care centres. That has provided immeasurable services to families.
The NDP is very proud to have worked on this bill to improve it. It was even a requirement of our agreement. We wanted to make sure there would be long-term funding for the provinces. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre even insisted that funding be given in priority to public day cares, as well as to non-profit day cares. I think it is a priority for us, as progressives. I would like my colleague to comment on this aspect of the bill.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for another inspiring and enlightening speech. I think she is absolutely right. As I was saying, the Quebec model of early childhood education centres, the CPEs, has helped people enormously. It is a great social benefit for families in Quebec.
What does my colleague think about the fact that an agreement has been reached between the federal and Quebec governments? It improves funding to perhaps add more child care spaces.
In terms of long-term federal funding, what does she think about the fact that priority has been given to public and non-profit child care facilities, and that we are trying to ensure that families across the country have access to child care?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will not disagree with my colleague. There is, absolutely, a lot more to be done. If anyone thinks we are going to suddenly dust our hands off after the passage of Bill C-35 and say that all is done, that is simply beyond any reasonable thought.
I do not see Bill C-35 as being in opposition to that fact on the ground. In fact, the passage of this bill's enshrining in legislation the federal government's commitment to this funding formula is precisely the kind of action this Parliament and the leadership in this Parliament need to demonstrate in addressing the problem my colleague brought up. Therefore, I will agree with the member that there is a lot more work that needs to be done. It is my hope that, through Bill C-35, we are actually going to pressure the federal government to follow through with those agreements with the provinces. It is great that we would have an advisory council that would keep the government honest and transparent on that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is clause 7 of the bill that talks about funding, but it only talks about the not-for-profit care providers. There is no provision for moms who decide to stay at home and raise their kids. That is the problem.
What actions are the Liberals taking? I have listened to their speeches. I have not for a single speech, ever since second reading, seen one of them get up and talk about the value and importance of a parent being at home with their kids. It could be a father. It could be that the mother is the primary earner, and that is fine; no one is begrudging that. The point is that if somebody decides to stay at home with their kids, there is zero commitment from the government to make sure those people can actually afford to do that, even though a huge percentage of the population would like to do that but cannot because of the predicament the government has put them in.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
