44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 2:55:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when our farmers used the emergency account during the pandemic, they could not have anticipated all the other misfortunes that would follow.
The war in Ukraine has driven up input costs. The inflation rate is more than three times higher than in other industries. There is $8 of debt for every dollar of income, and the policy rate continues to rise. I could go on all day. As a result, one in 10 farm businesses are worried about having to shut down within a year.
Will the Minister of Finance allow farmers to defer their emergency account repayments without them losing the subsidy portion?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:57:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the question about the emergency account was for the Minister of Finance. It would be nice to get some answers. At a minimum, could repayment of the emergency account be extended?
Agriculture has been hit harder than other sectors, especially the next generation of farmers. That is why other groups are taking action. Other governments are also taking action. The Americans have invested $22 billion in agriculture. Quebec has provided emergency assistance through Financière agricole. It is now Ottawa's turn to collaborate. Current programs do not provide assistance for this exceptional crisis, which requires exceptional assistance.
When will the government finally support our farmers?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 9:27:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found the end of my colleague's speech rather interesting. According to him, we should be present in the House to give speeches. When we are here to give a speech, it is nice when there are people here to listen. Since I know we are not allowed to mention the presence or absence of members in the House, I will not do so, but I think people get my drift.
The member said that there should be guidelines and that members should attend question period in person. However, there are no guidelines for those situations. To date, I have seen only one guideline, and that is that the opposition needs to have 25 members present in person in the House to block government motions, while government members are free to vote remotely on confidence motions.
Does the member not find that to be a major power imbalance? It seems as though this motion was moved without consulting the real opposition parties, because it is an initiative of the NDP-Liberal coalition. I do not understand why the NDP is supporting this motion, because it will reduce their power.
Does this imbalance not make the member uncomfortable? Is he not open to really working together across party lines and creating a real, serious working committee to oversee these changes?
We are not opposed to every aspect of hybrid Parliament. We agree with many of them, but we think that what is being proposed is not balanced enough. I would like him to elaborate on that.
258 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:46:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Shepard for his remarks. As usual, they were clear and intelligent.
He addressed a very important issue, in other words, human contact and what I would call informal discussions. That is where we get to know one another and understand each other. It is through these contacts that we can develop a rapport and negotiate better agreements, better bills for the public every day.
Everyone will say that we will be in hybrid mode on an exceptional basis. However, since there is no framework to the proposal, it will be used increasingly more often and people will no longer come in person. That is what worries me. I would like my colleague to address that and tell us what he thinks.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:48:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
He focused on one important point, which is that it is a great privilege to be here in the House. We should act accordingly and with dignity. We should always seek the common good and strive for balance and consensus as much as possible.
This evening, we are watching the Liberal government use its fake majority to make permanent something that was obtained through consensus. This profoundly debases that decision. That is what is so shocking.
Now we are debating the possibility of being with our family, but we know full well that in a non-hybrid Parliament, it is possible to ask for permission. We know that every member of the House is open to compromise. The problem is that there is no discussion.
The difference between a decision by consensus and a decision by vote is that, with a consensus, no one is dissatisfied. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
