So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 187 - Apr/28/23

Jun/16/23 12:50:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8 Bill C-9 Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable. I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage. I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented. I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47 , the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee. One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.

372 words

Apr/28/23 12:43:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commenting on the time allocation that was just imposed on us. I just want to remind my colleagues in the House that the Standing Committee on Finance is already doing a pre-study of Bill C-47. It is progressing very well. Work is moving forward. We are sitting until midnight. This allows my colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-47 to do so. There was no need for the government to impose time allocation. This infringes on the rights of members of Parliament in the House. It is shameful. What does my hon. colleague think of this?

110 words

Apr/27/23 7:34:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-46

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech. On the topic of health, the primary role of the federal government is to properly fund health care. In Bill C‑47, there is $2 billion in unconditional transfers to the provinces. The member for Winnipeg North said that the government would try to remove that money from the bill because it is already in Bill C‑46, which was passed by the House. First, the government is not doing its job properly. It is forgetting to harmonize its own bills. That is not very professional. Second, we believe we need a lot more in health transfers from the federal government. We want this $2 billion to stay in Bill C‑47. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

136 words

Apr/27/23 7:18:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, currently, when big emitters pay the carbon tax, the money is put aside and is used to finance green projects in the province where the tax was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose that money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly. With Bill C-47, the money would not be lost at the end of the year. Oil companies would keep the money for future projects, which would give them no incentive to hurry to implement green projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What does my colleague think about that?

106 words

Apr/27/23 5:13:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, regional flights are very expensive and with the increase in the cost of fuel, ticket prices have continued to increase over the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 is making them more expensive with a significant increase in the air travellers security tax for both international and regional flights. Prices will therefore increase. What does my hon. colleague think about that? Would it not make sense to at least exempt regional flights from the tax increase?

89 words

Apr/27/23 4:14:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, we were expecting the government to use Bill C‑47 to eliminate the EI deficit that accumulated during the pandemic, but it did not. The Employment Insurance Act requires the EI fund to break even over a seven-year period. Ultimately, workers will have to pay off $17 billion through their premiums to wipe out the deficit. The government covered all of the other pandemic-related deficits, but not this one. As my colleague from Montcalm said a few moments ago, in the Chrétien and Martin eras, the government took $57 billion from the fund. Does my hon. colleague consider it fair to leave workers on the hook for this deficit?

119 words

Apr/27/23 3:43:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-46

Madam Speaker, we have been using Zoom for two or three years now. It is a shame that some people still have problems choosing the right interpretation channel. I have a question for my colleague. Bill C‑46 includes a $2-billion investment in health care. This measure appears again in Bill C‑47. Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, senior officials confirmed that, if the bill is not amended, a total of $4 billion will be invested in health care. The hon. member is saying that there is not enough money for health and mental health. This is our chance to ask his government to not remove that part of Bill C‑47, so that $4 billion will be invested in health care instead of $2 billion. Will he commit to working to keep the $4 billion?

146 words

Apr/27/23 3:42:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-46

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

Apr/21/23 1:23:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-46

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and the members of the House that Bill C-46 passed all stages on Wednesday and that Bill C-47 was introduced in the House on Thursday. Therefore, there is no need to introduce amendments.

46 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 1:16:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his interesting speech and for all the work he does in the House. On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which does two things. First, it doubles the GST credit cheque next July and, second, it transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health care with no strings attached. I was extremely surprised and pleased to see that these two measures also appear in Bill C-47, which is before the House today. The government did not take them out of the omnibus bill, despite the passage of Bill C‑46 earlier this week. This means $4 billion instead of $2 billion to the provinces for health care, and a second grocery rebate cheque for people with low incomes. Can the leader of the NDP assure the House that if the government ever realized its mistake and sought to remove that from Bill C‑47, the NDP would oppose that amendment, so the government could not make cuts to health care funding and the grocery rebate cheques?

186 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 12:49:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning. Is the government doing a good job of managing public finances? The answer is no. The government is not paying attention to the cost of the services that it is providing. I will give some examples. Issuing a passport costs four times more than issuing a driver's licence when Quebec does it. Processing an EI claim costs two and a half times more than processing an application for social assistance in Quebec City. Resources are badly managed. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified what is indirectly a fiscal imbalance by pointing out that the flexibility is here in Ottawa. Instead of funding, say, health care in the provinces, the government is increasing the number of programs and interfering in jurisdictions. That is unacceptable.

131 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 12:46:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Manicouagan, and I commend her for all the work she does for the people she represents, including on the issue of employment insurance. Many people throughout Quebec and Canada, including her region, have seasonal jobs. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are. Do we collectively want to make use of the land? Do we want people to be able to live and work in their region and flourish there? If so, then we have an EI system that is truly dysfunctional right now. It has not been reformed, and the government has been pushing back the reform every year since 2015. On top of all the problems, there is the issue of the spring gap. There are not enough weeks of benefits for a person living off seasonal employment to have income all year round. A pilot project was rolled out, but once again there is insecurity. This is being put off for another year. Will it be enough? Will it be as usual? This is the government's way of doing things. We are a little relieved that this initiative has been extended for a year, because the alternative would have been terrible for our regions, even though the problem is far from being resolved. How much would it cost to reform an insurance system that is broken? It will be a major investment for everyone, especially with a possible recession looming.

243 words

Apr/21/23 12:44:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics. Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance. The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal. Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec. If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.

173 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 12:42:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere. We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.

104 words

Apr/21/23 12:40:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. When Ottawa decided to save the auto industry with $10 billion in 2008, we noted that Quebec did not receive the equivalent. When Ottawa decided to save Muskrat Falls with $10 billion, we noted that Quebec did not get the equivalent. When the Liberals chose to buy the pipeline in western Canada for tens of billions of dollars, we noted that Quebec did not get its share. We want to make sure that Quebec gets its share. Quebec specializes in green energy and the green economy, that is, the economy of the future. Quebec had all the expertise it needed to have a successful battery plant, but that was not how it played out. To add insult to injury, it was the minister from Shawinigan who made this announcement with great fanfare in Montreal to say that the plant would not be in Montreal or the surrounding region, but in St. Thomas, Ontario. Good for them. Could Quebec get some of these structural investments to develop its economy? The proof remains to be seen, unfortunately.

197 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 12:19:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill. This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health. When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party. However, on seeing Bil C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not. This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion. I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries. We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that. Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough. This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program? That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions. As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said. Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47. This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly. Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill: The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill? The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it. I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment? That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill. In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria. Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent? Those are questions that I have. Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning. For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome. Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly. However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear. Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government. The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come. Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable. The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly. Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it. We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there. Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version? Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome. We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong. Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.

2823 words

All Topics

Apr/21/23 10:57:10 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, my regards to my hon. colleague for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I thank him for his speech. We might not always share the same values, but he always has something interesting to say during our debates in the House. I want to ask him about something that is unclear to me, to see if he feels the same way. In her budget, the Minister of Finance announced funding of $80 billion for the economic transition, as it is called. A lot of upcoming tax credits are absent from the bill. No money for investments, subsidies or support is directly announced, but the infrastructure development is there. From the way things are presented, it appears as though the money earmarked for this will not be part of the budget framework and will be managed separately, outside government accounts. That means there will no longer be accountability to the House. What does my hon. colleague think of that?

159 words

Apr/21/23 10:41:02 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, this is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long, amends 59 statutes, in addition to amending the Income Tax Regulations, and contains 39 divisions. When he was elected in 2015, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not allow this kind of thing to happen. Almost eight years later, he is doing it again for the umpteenth time. What does my hon. colleague think of this?

76 words

Apr/21/23 10:27:02 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47. Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following: The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead? For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?

147 words

All Topics