44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 30, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/30/24 4:55:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is over time.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support that New Democrats have provided on a number of progressive measures. I believe it is important. I think Paul Martin and others, such as Jean Chrétien, might question some of the member's comments in regard to child care. Ken Dryden did a phenomenal job on the child care program. Unfortunately it never got passed through the House, ultimately.
I for one have been a very strong advocate for pharmacare for many years now. I am glad that it is incorporated into the budget. We are, from my perspective, at a starting point for pharmacare. One thing we have to look at is what we add to it, and there is no doubt that there will be a lot of discussion over the coming months and years in regard to how we can make the pharmacare program stronger and healthier.
An example would be vaccination for shingles. Could I get the member's thoughts on that issue?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:56:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will take this time to say that all drugs need to be available for Canadians, and it is the work of the NDP to make sure that all drugs will be covered in pharmacare. I appreciate the member's comments on the importance of pharmacare and health care.
As such, I wanted to ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “British Columbia Priorities Panel on Primary Care: New perspectives and possibilities for primary care in Canada”.
This is a report—
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:57:06 p.m.
- Watch
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): There is no unanimous consent.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:57:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the member's comments on child care. We could have a debate about what would theoretically be a good child care system, but I think it is hard to deny that the current program from the government on child care is not delivering on the promise. We are hearing very clearly from child care providers across the country that the combination of price regulation with funding that does not match that price regulation is making it impossible for child care operators to maintain and meet the expectations. The result of this is government subsidies for some and less access for others.
Does the member acknowledge those failures, in terms of child care policy, and is she willing to hold the government accountable for them?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me at all that the Conservatives would stand up and try to stop access to quality, affordable child care for women. I am very disappointed that the Conservatives would stand up and say no to tabling information about British Columbia's priorities on primary care. These are Canadians across this country who want their voices heard in the House, and I am very disappointed that the Conservatives' decision not to have a simple report accepted here is the way they want to act.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:58:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but I am not sure it is in her usual area of expertise.
We know that 90% of the francophone minority in Canada lives in Quebec. Quebec is in a minority situation, and 96% of the funding allocated by the federal government to official languages is used to support English in Quebec. For the past two years, we have heard the Liberals boast about wanting to implement measures to protect the French language, but we see nothing in the budget, which contains no financial measures to protect French in Quebec, just like there were none in the action plan for official languages.
What does my colleague think about that? Does she think it is fair that funding for official languages in Quebec is used almost exclusively to support English?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:59:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam has the largest quartier of francophones in British Columbia. The executive director of Société francophone de Maillardville is Johanne Dumas. I want to raise my hands and thank her for all the work she has done, as she is now retiring, to try to get representation of francophones in Maillardville, trying to get some physical space. What I do not think is fair is that the government has been very lax in assisting those who move outside Quebec to keep their language, culture and community. It is very disappointing.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:00:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and address the 2024 budget.
I want to start with a few words about the truly shameful display that we saw today during question period. I was thinking back to my time, just a few weeks ago, on Haida Gwaii, where we celebrated the signing of a historic agreement. The president of the Haida Nation spoke about the Haida concept called yahguudang, or respect. It is about a respectful way that we govern our communities, that we engage with our neighbours and that we lead. The Wet'suwet'en, whose land is part of the territory where I live, have a similar word: wiggus.
I was thinking about those words and just how far from the spirit of those concepts this place was during question period today. Looking up in the gallery, I saw Canadian citizens looking at the governance of this country, embarrassed and ashamed of what it has become. As a member of Parliament, I too was embarrassed.
I do not speak to individual Conservative members, because there are many good Conservative members whom I respect, some of whom are in the chamber right now. However, the party and the leader are working not to try to change policy in this country, using the institution, but to erode public trust in the institution itself. We have seen that happen in other parts of the world and other parts of North America, and it is not a road that we want to go down as a country.
Turning to the budget before us, I want to start with the context. The context, of course, as many Canadians know, is that we are in a very difficult time. People across the country are struggling with increased costs in terms of skyrocketing rent, groceries, home heat and just about everything. In these times, the government has choices. We all have choices to make. As New Democrats, our vision is that we must come together more than ever during difficult times. We must lift each other up and bring in programs that support each other and support the people who are struggling. Therefore, it is in that context that we are very proud that there are things in this budget that we fought hard for. These things have long been a part of NDP policy, and we are finally seeing steps toward their implementation. I will speak about a few of them, and they have been raised.
I want to thank my wonderful colleague for her words just prior, but I will start with pharmacare. This is obviously such an essential extension of universal health care in Canada. It has been five years since the Hoskins report laid out a very clear path for the government to take to implement universal single-payer pharmacare. We are finally seeing steps toward that, with the recent pharmacare legislation that has been tabled and, in this budget, a commitment of $1.5 billion over five years for the first phases of a national pharmacare program, starting with two essential classes of medication. One is diabetes medication, which affects thousands and thousands of Canadians. I was noticing statistics from Diabetes Canada that the out-of-pocket cost of type 1 diabetes is as high as $18,000 per year. People living with type 2 diabetes are paying as much as $10,000 a year, and this is precisely the kind of cost that the first tranche of a national pharmacare program would cover. We are very proud to see that in the budget and to see the legislation that is before this House.
A national school food program is something that would lift up so many students across Canada who are going to school hungry, and the idea is that having at least one meal per day of healthy food would help those students so much. It goes without saying. I was thinking back to my experience in Terrace with the wonderful community volunteers, such as Gurjeet Parhar, with the Kalum Community School Society, as well as Helene Fleury, of the group Groundbreakers in Smithers.
These folks have been advocating for years for a national school food program. A billion dollars over five years in the budget is going to be a huge step forward, helping deliver meals to over 400,000 students across the country.
With regard to the firefighter tax credit, I want to give credit to my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his hard work ensuring that this is in the budget. This is going to double the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue personnel in our communities from $3,000 per year to $6,000 per year.
Certainly, in the region I represent, which is a huge rural region, volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers play a critical role. I was in Houston the other day, talking with their search and rescue team. One figure that the individual shared with me was that, in British Columbia, search and rescue teams provide $200 million per year of value. If we think about all the volunteer fire departments and add that to the search and rescue teams, the figure would be a staggering one.
I think about folks in Bela Coola, Fort St. James, Bella Bella, Houston, Smithers, Telkwa and all the way up to Dease Lake. There, these small volunteer fire departments are made up of individuals who donate their time, contribute their personal time to keeping their neighbours safe.
This is a way we can recognize that contribution. It is going to help with recruitment and retention, and I think it is a huge step forward for our country.
Liberal budgets are often a bit of a mixed bag. There are things in this budget that are half measures and worse. There are policies that, on the surface, look as though they are heading in the right direction. However, when one looks at the financial commitment in the budget, it is hard to see how we are going to make marked progress on critical issues.
One that has received some debate already today is the government's approach to the Canada disability benefit. We were very hopeful when we saw the legislation pass that created the foundation for this benefit. However, people living with disabilities waited month after month, year after year, to find out what the amount was going to be, because the important thing here is the amount that was going to supposedly lift people out of poverty.
What we saw in the budget amounts to about $200 per month, or six dollars per day. That is a far cry from what is required to really improve people's lives in the way that is needed and to lift people out of poverty.
One of the most troubling aspects of that is that this number was arrived at without consultation with the disability community, without talking to the people who need this benefit most. It really contravenes the government's commitment to “nothing about us without us”, which is one of the promises that it made to people living with disabilities.
I want to mention the red dress alert, which is something we have been pushing hard for. I want to honour the work of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has been a fierce advocate for that service, but it is $1.3 million over three years. It is hard to see how we are going to build an effective program and ensure that a red dress alert is available to families in northwest B.C. and right across Canada with such a modest investment. Much more needs to be done. We are going to keep pushing on that front.
I will end with the concept of fairness. This is how the government has framed the budget, with the idea of working towards a more fair approach to the way we govern this country. While there are some very modest changes in this budget to address inequities in the tax code, it is clear that there is much more that needs to be done.
TD just released a report showing that wealthiest third of Canadians in the country increased their wealth by 6% in the last year alone. The rest of Canadians either saw their income stagnate or go down, as a result of inflation, when it comes to their real buying power.
We need to do much more. I welcome the concept of fairness, which is something we have long spoken of, but this budget is only a very small step in that direction.
1452 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:10:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to get the member's thoughts on the idea of co-operation and working together.
We do have a national situation with housing. I was very pleased to participate in a press conference where we had the Prime Minister, the premier of the province and the mayor of Winnipeg all together talking about how we are going to get more homes built in the city of Winnipeg.
Looking at the national issue of housing, would the member not agree that Ottawa does play the critical role of leadership, but it is going to take the different levels of government coming together to deal with and get optimum solutions on the housing situation?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:11:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suppose if the parliamentary secretary considers us dragging the Liberal Party, kicking and screaming, to be working together, then I am all for it.
His question was about housing. Of course, we need to see jurisdictions work together. My concern is that I represent a riding entirely made up of rural and remote communities. The government's focus on housing has predominately been in the larger urban centres where it can make commitments of tens of thousands of housing units.
Communities in the region I represent need infrastructure. They need a commitment to building drinking water systems and waste water systems. That is what would enable housing development in small communities, and it is something that we see is sorely lacking in the budget before us.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my fellow British Columbian about the Canadian disability benefit he talked about.
First of all, Bill C-22, which was the enabling legislation, simply delegated to the minister responsible, so the minister could introduce regulations that would define who was considered disabled, who would be eligible and for what amounts. Here we are, and the government is now saying it up to $200. It is not even a guarantee of $200. Does the member think we, as parliamentarians, did our job in accepting, basically at surface value, that the government was going to help persons with disabilities with this benefit?
For people who are on the Canadian pension plan disability, often times they are at a lower rate on that particular program than they would be, for example, in British Columbia, on social assistance. To me, it would make sense to at least help those individuals first, instead of telegraphing it to everyone. People had such high expectations and have only come to find out that persons with disabilities feel left out completely by this particular budget.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member makes some good points. His first question was whether we did our job in essentially giving the minister responsible carte blanche to determine the amount. I think there are reasons the amount of the benefit was not codified in the legislation.
Where the government has let us down is that the minister did not consult with the disability groups that are so important in this whole equation. If the government would have consulted on the actual amount, if it would have looked at what is required to lift people out of poverty, the benefit would have been a higher amount.
The member's second question is about prioritizing funding to those who need it most. I think, regardless of whether we are talking about CPP, disability or people on social assistance, the reality is that folks need what they need to get by and cover their basic costs. We need to ensure that this benefit, for everyone who is living with a disability and who needs it, is raised to a level where they are able to cover the basic cost of living. There are many details in ascertaining what those levels are, but the key thing is the outcome, which is whether people getting what is required to lead a decent life.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:15:08 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 5:16:48 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the amendment defeated.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one thing I have witnessed over the years is a general attitude toward how we can improve our EI system and how benefits are ultimately paid out. We often talk about what is being proposed in this legislation. For adoptive parents to have 15 weeks, from my perspective, with the child or infant is really important. Members should be aware that it was incorporated into the minister's mandate letter. We know the government was taking action on the issue. That is something members opposite would have been aware of.
When I think of Bill C-318, one of the things that crosses my mind is the economic statement from last year. Incorporated within the budgetary legislation is the change that Bill C-318 would achieve. I question whether this legislation is even required. Some issues have been brought forward as to whether it would require ministerial involvement or a general recommendation, because it would require additional funds.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has recognized the need to look at ways to improve the EI system. Legislation exists that we would like to pass. On the one hand, opposition members say what the bill would do and, on the other hand, they frustrate and filibuster government legislation that would ultimately do what the member wants to take place with this bill.
It is important to recognize that the connections that are made by adoptive parents, in particular, are just as significant as those of natural parents. The love between a parent and a child is something that I believe justifies the government taking the type of action it has. It is one of the reasons it was incorporated, as I said, in the ministerial mandate letter. It is one of the reasons we incorporated it into the budget implementation legislation.
We are on the right track and moving forward on an important issue. I only wish the Conservative Party would have recognized that and demonstrated a desire to, at the very least, allow the legislation that already exists and would make a difference in a much quicker fashion to take effect. In order for that to happen, the Conservatives, at least in part, have to stop the filibustering on all government legislation and agenda items.
385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak to this bill. I may not use up all of my 10 minutes. Sometimes when I say that, however, I end up running over my time. I therefore say it at my peril or the peril of the House.
Bill C-318 is a private member's bill that made its way to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I forget the name of my colleague's riding, but I want to commend this bill for its single focus, which is to ensure equity in maternity and parental leave by providing adoptive parents with a system equitable to that available to biological parents. I think that equity is what this bill seeks to achieve. In committee, we had the opportunity to meet with Adopt4Life several times—I commend Ms. Despaties, by the way—and it was recognized and shown that when it comes to the bonding experience of adopted children, regardless of their age at adoption, the child's origin or any accompanying difficulties, bonding time is very important.
This bill has to do with children's rights, but also with the time that should be granted to parents to ensure that they are available to welcome a child into the family properly and that the child gets all the services and care they need from their parent. I think that is self-evident. I heard the parliamentary secretary when he rightly said that the economic statement included a commitment to add 15 weeks. I would go even further than that and say that the former employment minister was on board with that. It is still part of the minister's mandate letter to add 15 weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents.
I think the only thing missing now—this is the first hour of third reading—is the royal recommendation. That is what is needed to move forward and fully enact this bill. I think that is what the government needs to do. My understanding is that it intends to do so. At least we hope so. Although when I hear the government, specifically the parliamentary secretary, say that the government plans to reform EI, I have to pinch myself. We are all a little ashamed—including workers, unemployed workers' groups and the members of the Bloc Québécois who are advocating for a comprehensive reform of employment insurance—that we thought the government was actually going to do it. The government promised this in 2015, 2019 and 2021. According to the minister's mandate letter, this reform was supposed to be implemented in the summer of 2022. It is almost summer 2024, and still nothing has been done. There has been nothing in either the economic statements or the budget to address the reality of workers and initiate a reform to strengthen EI.
Instead of this piecemeal approach, EI reform could have already included 15 weeks for adoptive parents. It could have already included 50 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 26 weeks, as the government did. It also could have specifically fixed the situation of mothers on maternity leave who have the misfortune of losing their job while on leave and end up no longer having access to regular employment insurance benefits. We need to correct these discriminations, provide better access and better benefits to the workers in the seasonal industry. It was all hot air and broken promises from the government. What is more, the current Minister of Employment had no qualms about telling workers and the unemployed at a meeting that this was not on the agenda.
In that respect, the government's actions—and its eight years of broken promises—are deeply disappointing. This mainly affects workers, but it also affects the unemployed. This government has admitted that it took too long to reform the system when the pandemic hit and that the system was full of holes. Not giving adoptive parents fair treatment in terms of parental leave, not giving them the 15 weeks of benefits under the guise of ensuring equivalency, is akin to discrimination or having two different levels of benefits in very similar situations.
Quebec has managed to address this. Since 2021, the Quebec parental insurance plan, which provides far more coverage than federal EI plan, has allowed for benefits to be adapted so that adoptive parents are treated the same as non-adoptive parents.
This reality has been acknowledged. Now what we need is a commitment from this government, a royal recommendation so this bill can see the light of day.
The people I am really thinking of here are adoptive parents. I met with some of them and their kids to learn more about how life-changing it is to be able to be with their kids from the start and have enough weeks of benefits to be with them. Adoption is a choice that comes from the heart, a choice parents make because they believe in it. We want to do everything we can to ensure that these children have the best parents in the world. In order to give them every opportunity, we have to recognize the challenges that parents may encounter during an adoption. Sometimes things go very well, but people should never give up the right to the same amount of parental leave that biological parents get.
I hope this bill will see the light of day as soon as possible.
929 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
