Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 48 of 48
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the facts show that Quebeckers cannot count on the federal government to take action against tax havens. There is nothing in budget 2021 to do away with them.
Unfortunately, there are provisions in Bill C‑30 that make it even easier to use tax havens. The federal government is therefore still complicit in tax avoidance schemes, which makes Canada part of the problem and not part of the solution in the fight against tax havens.
In budget 2021, which serves as a springboard for the post-COVID‑19 economic recovery, the federal government offers little or nothing to help small farms get better access to credit. This inability to access credit was one of the most serious problems that farmers encountered during the health crisis. That is unacceptable.
Agriculture is obviously not a priority for the Liberal government, but it is a priority for Quebec and an integral part of our culture. The Liberal government has never been interested in supporting a bill to better protect supply management, which is essential to the survival of the agricultural model. Protecting supply management has always enjoyed broad support within Quebec's agricultural sector, but it is also acknowledged by producers in the other provinces as well as in the United States, which says something.
Why did the Liberal government recently do everything it could to prevent Bill C‑216 being passed in committee? Well, it did pass, and we hope the accelerating pace of the coming days will bring this bill along for the ride. Quebec's agricultural sector is counting on us.
In the Bloc Québécois's view, parliamentary proceedings and debates too often take too long, things do not move fast enough, and people talk even though they have nothing to say. For years, and again this week, members have spoken at length in the House of Commons about various aspects of the housing problem.
Still, there remains a desperate need for housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as well as in several other regions of Quebec, and that need is only being made more acute by the communities' sustained efforts to attract workers.
What of the federal government's solutions to this problem? There are none. The federal government has not proposed any. I would, however, like to highlight a local initiative undertaken by the Fondation Martin-Bradley. They organized a radiothon and raised $301,000 to, among other things, build housing for people who are struggling, especially people living with mental health problems.
The Fondation Martin-Bradley got things done. I am thinking especially of Ghislain Beaulieu, and of Jean-Yves Morneau and his son, Jean-François, who organized a fundraiser among the region's entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The amount raised, $301,000, is huge, and I want to salute them. Among other things, the funds will go to finance projects, like for farm outreach workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue's farming community, for whom psychological support is so essential. I have to say it again: All this stems from the fact that the federal budget does nothing to address the situation.
Legitimate transfer payments to Quebec to encourage housing initiatives are both slow to come and hugely insufficient. Not enough construction is happening, which is having a direct impact on the economic and social development of our regions and Quebec as a whole.
Out of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, more substantial amounts need to be transferred, especially considering the current context, which includes the significantly higher cost of materials and labour. At the same time, tax incentives for developers would be a way to support and stimulate infrastructure initiatives that offer exciting opportunities for the recovery by building on what has been achieved in our communities, not to mention community-based housing projects that would provide a sustainable solution to this problem.
Finally, why will Ottawa not allocate funding for the regions, with no strings attached, to be administered by Quebec and people on the ground? This would encourage development projects based on specific parameters and priorities linked to specific needs. More than ever, labour shortages are hindering the economic recovery of my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. More than ever, the federal government needs to come up with solutions, because we are feeling abandoned right now.
I believe that the particular status of a region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which borders Ontario, places it in a certain situation. People back home are moving to the riding of the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing because immigration cases are processed in 12 months in Ontario, whereas in my riding it takes up to 27 months, or even 30 months in certain cases. That is ridiculous.
As I was saying, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue there is a housing shortage coupled with a labour shortage, and therefore it is important to stimulate housing construction. How can we attract and keep skilled workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue when they are unable to find a home for their families? The federal government must act quickly.
Bill C‑30 also attacks Quebec once more and its securities regulator. That is unacceptable.
How can we ignore one of the federal government's most blatant centralizing moves in recent years, its attempt to bring the financial sector under federal control by making it responsible for insurance, securities, derivatives, deposit taking institutions except for banks and the distribution of financial products and services?
The objective of this Canada-wide securities regulator is another example of the centralization of financial markets by the federal government. It wants Toronto to become a single Canada-wide regulator, which would be contrary to the independent economic development of all the other provinces. This is not just a jurisdictional dispute or a squabble between the federal and provincial governments, it is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec.
I remind members that the Bloc Québécois and Quebec are strongly opposed to this. Four times now, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously called on the federal government to abandon that idea. It is no exaggeration to say that everyone in Quebec is against it. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose this very bad idea of the federal government, which just wants to cater to Bay Street.
Let the federal government and Bay Street take note: The Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of creating a single Canada-wide securities regulator.
Having a financial markets authority is essential to Quebec's development. This is nothing short of an attack on our ability to keep our head offices. Preserving Quebec's distinct economic pillars is essential to our development. We will not let the federal government get away with this.
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 10:10 [p.8756]
Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear members of Parliament talk about housing. However, the interesting issue in this respect is that housing is one of the areas where exclusive jurisdiction has been sought, secured and delivered to Quebec.
If the member's riding is not getting housing money, why is he coming to Ottawa to complain? We have given every single dollar we spend on housing to the Government of Quebec. It distributes the dollars. It sets the priorities. It chooses the projects. It makes the investments.
I realize that the Bloc is here to antagonize the federal government rather than co-operate and work with us, but if the member opposite wants housing in his region, he should be going to Quebec City to get the dollars because that is where we sent them on the request of parties like the Bloc.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is plain to see that the parliamentary secretary did not listen to the first part of my speech. I can forgive him to some extent because I gave it at 12:48 a.m. two days ago.
I would say that one of the problems is that it took three years to get these agreements in place. The federal government really dragged its feet on transferring the money to Quebec. Why did the other provinces get their money quickly but not Quebec?
Furthermore, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, now that housing construction can start, the cost of materials is skyrocketing and these amounts are largely insufficient. I understand that the government did not anticipate COVID‑19, but it has a responsibility to take action on housing.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-06-18 10:13 [p.8757]
Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, the first speaker asked a question about housing and said that the federal government had invested enough, while the second speaker spoke about health transfers.
I just had a discussion with Marguerite Blais, Quebec's minister responsible for seniors and caregivers. She spoke about two things.
First, she spoke about how the federal government did not want to increase health transfers to 35%, even though that is Quebec's main demand to help our health care system. Second, she spoke about housing, about how we need to help workers—and therefore businesses—back home, in the riding of Shefford, who are struggling to find housing. She also spoke about how we must help seniors, who need safe, affordable housing.
There is not enough funding; we need more. On top of that, the agreements have been dragging on.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Shefford for her commitment to seniors. One of the key things missing from this budget is help for seniors aged 65 to 74. It is fascinating that the government wants to create two classes of seniors. I just cannot understand it.
How did the government determine that the needs of seniors aged 65 to 74 are not the same as those aged 75 and up? I am thinking here of prescription drug assistance and rent relief, or even the increase in the cost of Internet services and electricity. Only this government would think that people should have to wait until they are 75 to live with dignity.
Housing is a top priority in indigenous communities, as well as in our cities and towns. It is a matter of dignity. Housing is a tool for economic development, but it is also essential to every individual's psychological and mental health. Every Canadian should have a decent roof over their heads, and that should be the priority of this government and future governments in the years to come.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I was rather annoyed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services say earlier that the federal government had funded the search at Kamloops. In fact, the Toronto Star reported earlier this week that the province funded the search that led to this horrible discovery.
Why does he think that is? Should the federal government contribute more financially to these types of searches?
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that the federal government contributed $40,000 to the search at Kamloops. There may have been other partnerships and British Columbia may also have contributed, but that is a commitment we made several years ago.
We have set aside nearly $30 million to help first nations and Métis communities conduct their own searches. What is most important here is that we are working in partnership with the communities, because they are all different.
View Caroline Desbiens Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for her presentation.
What concerns Quebeckers is that federal funding is not always directed where it is needed the most. In this case, for example, the search was paid for by British Columbia, not the federal government—
View Caroline Desbiens Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I thank our colleague for her presentation.
Quebeckers and Canadians are concerned because the government did not directly fund the search that led to the discovery of these 215 innocent children. It was actually British Columbia that undertook the search.
We are wondering whether the government really plans to fund and support the provinces and Quebec for future searches.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, that is actually incorrect. The federal government did provide funding to Kamloops for the search for these bodies, these children. We have $27 million available to distribute to communities if they wish to carry out a similar process. As I mentioned earlier in the House, near my community of Oakville North—Burlington, Six Nations of the Grand River has already asked the federal government for support.
We are committed to supporting communities in the process that they wish to move forward on. However, what the member said is incorrect, the federal government actually did provide the funding to Kamloops for the search for the graves.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.
It is with a great deal of emotion that I address the House today. I first want to extend my deepest and most sincere condolences to all first nations on the discovery of the remains of 215 children buried behind the Kamloops residential school. It believe that is appropriate. As a member of the Huron-Wendat nation, my thoughts are with the people who suffered too much neglect and mistreatment and whose pain I share.
This tragedy is a direct result of the violence of colonialism. In addition to defending many interests that are often self-serving, especially economic interests, the intent of colonialism, at least in the official line, is to civilize those perceived to belong to an inferior race. We can all agree that this is just plain repugnant, and that it is called cultural genocide.
Such atrocities must never happen again. As politicians, we need to offer our condolences, but that is not enough. We need to take action. Unfortunately, it is likely that this discovery is only the first of many. Other bodies may be found, not only at the site of the residential school, where not all areas have been investigated, but also in other Canadian cities. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, and we may find many other mass graves.
In fact, while the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation lists 4,118 deaths, former senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Murray Sinclair estimated that as many as 15,000 children may have died in the residential school system. This is an approximate number, and we need to investigate, because we have a duty to remember. According to an article in The Globe and Mail, however, we do not know the names of about one third of the deceased children, and the cause of death in more than half of all cases was not recorded by the government or the school. This is serious.
The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended erecting commemorative monuments in Ottawa and other capital cities to honour the memory of residential school survivors, as well as that of children lost to their families and communities. These monuments would honour both those who were lucky enough to survive and those who were not, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said in December 2020 that no subsidies had yet been awarded for the construction of a national monument in the national capital region.
There has been just as little follow through on the other recommendations. That is why we support the NDP's motion before us today. It is urgent and absolutely necessary that we accelerate the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, in particular by providing immediate funding for more in-depth investigations into the deaths and disappearance of children in residential schools.
The commission's report clearly indicates that “assisting families to learn the fate of children who died in residential schools; locating unmarked graves; and maintaining, protecting, and commemorating residential school cemeteries are vital to healing and reconciliation.” In other words, first we must know, understand, verify and investigate.
The issue is becoming increasingly urgent, since cemeteries are disappearing bit by bit, and many survivors still have no idea what happened to their loved ones. Since no one lives forever and we all eventually die, these people could pass away without ever learning the truth.
This investigation, which is absolutely necessary if we are to finally salve the open wound, requires funding. The discovery in Kamloops was financed mainly by British Columbia and not by the federal fund specifically earmarked for the purpose. The 2019 budget set aside $33.8 million over three years to fund the various actions recommended by the commission. That was a promising announcement, to be sure.
According to Global News, $27.1 million of the $33.8 million that was allocated was never spent. That is practically the whole amount. Since 2013, Ottawa has spent $3.2 million fighting a group of survivors from the St. Anne's residential school in Northern Ontario in court, which is almost as much money as it has spent on reconciliation efforts.
As members know, setting aside funds in the budget is only a statement of intent, as the allocation must also be included in a budget implementation act. The current government's 2019 budget, tabled during the last Parliament, set aside $33.8 million over three years. If we look at the Public Accounts of Canada for 2019-20, however, we can see that, although $5 million was spent on the national day for truth and reconciliation, there is not a single trace of any spending to implement the calls for action. There is nothing in the main estimates for 2019-20, 2020-21 or 2021-22. The amounts promised in 2019 were not even budgeted. What happened to that money? Why was it not released? We need an explanation. Was it an oversight? A stealth budget cut? I think that our first nations brothers and sisters have a right to know.
Just recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister reiterated that they were committed to implementing all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. They brought up the $33.8 million announced in the 2019 budget. Now, though, they have to actually budget that money. Reminding us that they announced it is fine, but now they must follow through and get things done.
The proposal to accelerate the implementation of the calls for action that was included in the motion tabled by our NDP colleagues has our support. My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I urge the government to act quickly. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently declared that it is essential that Canada do this work. Now we need to take the necessary steps. It is crucial.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am getting really frustrated by the members of the Bloc who continue to repeat in the House that the federal government did not provide funding to the search that was done in Kamloops. The fact is that the community applied for and received a heritage grant of $40,000 to conduct this search.
Will the hon. member and his party acknowledge this funding and stop accusing the federal government of not providing funds to conduct the important search that was done?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, what frustrates me is to witness so much denial. Also being a member of the Huron-Wendat nation, and having dug deeper and deeper into this issue, I must say that it is a legacy that has become important to me over the years.
However, the more I dig, the more I realize that there have been historic injustices and iniquities. We have a duty to remember. I am hearing denial and I am hearing about $40,000 that could have been put toward this discovery. I beg the House's forgiveness, but I want to address the comparison between $33.8 million budgeted over three years, and $40,000.
View Scott Aitchison Profile
CPC (ON)
View Scott Aitchison Profile
2021-05-25 10:52 [p.7284]
Madam Speaker, over the course of the debate on Bill C-30, there have been many points of view shared. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have justifiably raised concerns about the deficits and levels of debt the current government is accumulating, and the impact this debt will have on Canadians for generations to come. They have skilfully illustrated that, despite the Minister of Finance's description of her budget as a plan for jobs, growth and resilience, it falls dreadfully short of a real plan for economic growth that will create jobs for Canadians.
One of my colleagues has sounded the alarm about the impact of the government's inflation-inducing borrowing and spending plan and the real impacts this has on the daily lives of Canadians, whether they are trying to buy a home or pay for groceries. Of course, we cannot ignore the vast body of evidence confirming that the current government has proven itself very skilled at convincing Canadians of their grand promises of action on priorities like rural Internet, infrastructure spending and housing. The lack of meaningful results is, at worst, a betrayal of the Canadians who trusted this Prime Minister; or, at best, the vacuous panderings of an individual whose life experiences prepared him only for being famous.
While all of these issues are important and have yet to be addressed by the government, I intend to focus my comments particularly on what would appear to be the centrepiece of this budget for the Minister of Finance: a national child care program. There can be no doubt that access to affordable child care and early childhood education is a wise investment in our economy and can help ensure all Canadians are able to realize their full potential in the workforce. Personally, I believe a system designed to respect the choices of parents in the best child care options for them makes more sense than a massive government program, which, by the way, would cost $30 billion over the next five years, then roughly $9 billion annually thereafter. This proposal highlights yet another example of the federal government making a commitment in an area of provincial jurisdiction without the corresponding commitment of dollars needed to fund a program that most provinces simply cannot afford.
Here is a brief history, that I am sure all of us know. One of the primary reasons for Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick federating to form the Dominion of Canada in 1867 was the desire to fund the transcontinental rail link and to build a common market that would spur economic opportunities for the provinces and lessen the impact of any adverse economic policies of the United States. The new federal government was also designed to stabilize public credit. That was one of the first items of business in 1867 when the new Dominion of Canada assumed $72.1 million of the $88.6 million of existing provincial debt.
The British North America Act assigned the big expenses of settling, building and defending this new country to the federal government, and the provincial governments were responsible for, at the time, the less expensive services like education, hospitals and municipal institutions. Despite this original design, immediately after Confederation, the provinces had spending commitments higher than their revenue. This led to the creation of the dominion subsidy from the federal government, which was calculated at 80¢ per capita and, including other transfers in support of specific legislation, cost the federal treasury about $2.8 million or over 16% of total federal spending. This country was born into debt and the national government was established, in part, to manage that debt.
Now, fast-forward through those early nation-building years of World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, all eras where the federal government borrowed heavily to grow the economy, win a war, save the economy and win another war. Following the end of World War II, the economy expanded exponentially as did the level of government intervention in the daily lives of Canadians. New programs were introduced by the federal government, including unemployment insurance in 1940, the family allowance in 1945, old age security in 1952, the Canada pension plan in 1965 and the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. During this period, the dominion subsidy program evolved into the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in 1957, which was due in part to the federal government's desire to promise nationwide health and social programs, all made possible because of a 50% cost-sharing commitment from the federal government.
By the 1970s, the federal government had established an outrageously complex cost-sharing system with the provinces to partner in the costs for expanded health services, education and income security programs. All of this and a program of equalization payments to poorer provinces was funded by debt, which was funded by an exponentially growing economy. Then, 1973 hit and an already-slowing economy and increasing inflation were compounded by a quadrupling of oil prices. Government debt grew faster than ever, without the corresponding economic growth to pay for it.
Interest rates skyrocketed, unemployment soared and Canada was in trouble. While tax reform in the eighties, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and significant deregulation of key sectors of the economy certainly helped spur economic growth, by the 1990s Canada was in a fiscal crisis with growing debt-servicing costs and an economy not growing fast enough to pay for it. Between 1995 and 1997, the Chrétien government was forced to cut spending to save Canada's finances. In that time period, the government cut direct program spending by almost 10%, but it cut provincial transfers by 22%.
While the fiscal imbalance in our Confederation existed from the very beginning, federal expansion and intervention in provincial jurisdictions exacerbated that imbalance. While the federal government failed to ever really fully meet those original commitments made to provinces, the debt crisis culminated in the 1990s with the federal government solving its debt problems by abandoning the provinces and also the municipalities. By 2007, with federal finances back under control, a new formula for provincial transfers was established that increased transfers, but not nearly enough to meet the demands on provincial services that the federal government helped create and agreed to pay half the cost of.
In the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent fiscal sustainability report, he noted, “subnational governments will face ever-increasing health care costs”. He also continued to say, “For the subnational government sector as a whole, current fiscal policy is not sustainable over the long term. We estimate that permanent tax increases or spending reductions amounting to 0.8 per cent of GDP...would be required to stabilize the consolidated subnational...net debt-to-GDP ratio at its current level of 25.7 per cent of GDP”.
In his report on budget 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer cautioned that the government's $100-billion stimulus spending could be miscalibrated, meaning that based on the current recovery it is not likely necessary, while he cautioned that the government's plan to continue borrowing could exhaust its fiscal flexibility in the medium to long term.
We have provincial governments, many of which are drowning in debt and a federal government borrowing and spending wastefully, all while advocating its responsibility to fully fund its share of provincial programs like health care, and now the federal government offers to add a new child care program to the provincial balance sheets with a promise to cover half the costs.
How could the premiers ever trust the government to live up to this latest promise, when the broken promises of the past are threatening the financial future of almost every province in the country? Clearly, German philosopher Georg Hegel was correct when he wrote, “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”
This budget is a buffet of spending, paid for with massive debts and designed to perpetuate the government's promises of being all things to all people. The government is not only ignoring the financial struggles of the provinces, struggles created in part by federal interference; budget 2021 seeks to push the provinces even further into debt.
We need a real plan that manages public debt and invests strategically to stimulate real economic growth that will create jobs. We need a plan that will restore fiscal balance to our Confederation. Restoring that balance will better prepare the federal treasury to manage the impending fiscal problems, grow our economy and build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the PBO has said that the provinces are not in any position to take on new permanent spending. Since they do not have the required 50% of the funds, it looks like this will be yet another failed Liberal program. How exactly does the member think the provinces will come up with the money?
View Kate Young Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Kate Young Profile
2021-05-07 12:38 [p.6912]
Mr. Speaker, the thing I am worried about is what would happen if we do not make these investments. It is very clear to see that if we decided not to invest in Canada, in Canadians, we would be far worse off.
It is important we all remember that we each need to do our part, and that everyone needs to be a part of the solution to build Canada back better.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-05-07 12:57 [p.6915]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. I really appreciate everything my colleague has mentioned regarding the shortfalls.
The Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Finance instructed her to not create any additional structural debt, and yet the flagship of this budget is a national day care program that would do just that. From the minister's speech, it seemed to me she was indicating this was going to be a major catalyst to restoring our economy coming out of COVID. That cannot happen, as the PBO officer said, with the provinces not having the funds they would need.
Does he see this as just another election announcement timed when Canada's moms, who really need to get back to work, will actually not have the support they need?
View Robert Kitchen Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my northern neighbour for the great work she does for all Saskatchewanians and especially for the people of Yorkton—Melville.
She brought up a very good point. Yes, the government has put forward things in this budget that are strictly election issues in order to try to attract people and buy their votes. That is unfortunate. I think back to 40-some years ago to a gentleman by the name of Gord McNabb, who was a great friend of the family. I remember him talking way back then about child care and child care benefits. He probably would roll over in his grave today with what is going on.
Even back then, in the days of previous Liberal governments, Liberals were making these promises for things to happen but they never transpired. That is going to continue with the current government, as it says things but does not live up to what it talks about.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” That is a quote from the great Charles Dickens in his novel David Copperfield. It was published way back in 1850, but is just as prescient as ever 171 years later. It is this basic principle of the need to live within one's means that has stood the test of time, keeping people and countries out of the poorhouse century after century. However, with the pandemic, we have seen common sense flung out the window, baby, bathwater and all.
Under the guise of the unprecedented nature of COVID-19, we have seen the government wield the heavy hand of opportunistic change in this budget, adding 16 billion dollars' worth of new permanent spending while Canadians are too busy trying to keep food on their tables and clothes on their backs to fight back. In a finance committee dissenting report, the Conservative members stated:
Now is no time for risky experiments or fantastical utopias. Instead, we must do what has always worked: free enterprise. Only voluntary exchange of work for wages, investment for interest and product for payment allows free people “to do well by doing good”....
Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance has ignored the true value and dignity that work affords a person, and has thrown the dice on a plan to print as much money as she wants to spend, hoping that her assumptions of low interest rates and low inflation last forever. What about the assumption that interest rates will remain low for the long term? Has the finance minister run some what-if scenarios with her team to see how much could change if any one of her hunches fail? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has intimated that there is no wiggle room in the current budget for inflation or interest rates to rise without serious consequences. It looks like we got a budget full of unicorn dreams that is long on hope and short on reality.
What is the reality we are currently living in? I can say with full confidence that inflation has reared its ugly head at every hardware and grocery store across the country, hitting those who can least afford it the hardest. Not only has damage to the global supply chain kicked low inflation in the teeth, but Canadians find themselves short on cash for necessities every month. In the latest consumer debt index survey from MNP LTD, just over half of Canadians surveyed said they are, at most, $200 per month away from being unable to pay all of their monthly bills and debt obligations. That is an incredibly scary statistic when we know that the cost of meat and dairy is rising, along with that of gas and rent, at a very steady pace.
With the continued implementation of quantitative easing, the Bank of Canada, in concert with the government, has decided to print money as fast as the government spends it. It has been proven by our own finance department that we do not need the huge sums of dollars the Bank of Canada is pumping off its printing presses. Our economy has been functioning well, with mortgage business increasing by 20% over the previous year. No one has been hoarding their dollars, which can be seen by the 20% increase in cash available on the market. The suggestion that these measures were necessary because of the risk of deflation has also been proven to be completely false.
As the government continues to spend, supported by the complicit printing presses at the Bank of Canada, our dollar is being seriously devalued, and the hardest hit are those who can least afford it. For those who rent, the rent is going up. For those going to the grocery store, the grocery bill is going up. For those getting gas at the gas pump, the gas bill is going up.
At the finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada was adamant that he is completely independent from the government and the finance minister's policy decisions. However, let us take a deeper dive into what that independence actually looks like.
Last year our deficit was $352 billion, and last year the Bank of Canada bought $302 billion of that debt. This year our deficit will be $154 billion, and lo and behold, the Bank of Canada will buy $156 billion of that debt. Is it a mere coincidence that these numbers look so eerily similar, or can we all just admit that the governor has no choice but to respond to the policy decisions of the finance minister?
At committee, the Conservatives put forward the following recommendation: “Restore the independence of the Bank of Canada to ensure it focuses solely on its mandate of targeting inflation to 2 per cent a year.” It is very deep within the report, but it is there, because we believe this is imperative for a strong economy.
As we see, inflation has risen above the 2% target, and the lockstep of government deficits and Bank of Canada debt purchases continues. It is clear that independence is not functioning as it should.
The business of creating dollars out of thin air that has been happening in our country simply debases the money that already exists. That is the money people have in their savings accounts. It is the money they got in last month's paycheques. It is the money they have been saving for down payments on their first homes. It now buys less than it did a year ago. The monetary policy this government is utilizing to cover its unhinged spending is costing Canadians big time. It is nothing but a tax by another name, and the poor middle class end up bearing the brunt of it.
The Liberal budget has been widely criticized by many economists for being more concerned with redistribution than with economic growth. The focus is not so much on earning the money, but on borrowing it, so much so that we will borrow more in the next six years than in the last 152 combined.
No new taxes were another recommendation that the Conservatives included in our dissenting report. The Financial Post recently reported that our finance minister has indicated her support for joining President Biden's plan for a global minimum corporate tax, urging all countries to do the same. As a matter of fact, she called the idea “a breakthrough moment”. She made it clear that global interests are a priority over the best economic and financial interests of Canada, our workers and our young people, who will inherit our debt and our social programs.
What about $10-a-day day care? It is the centrepiece of this budget. The path to getting every Canadian back to work, we hear, is making sure every woman can put her children in a government-run institution for a mere 10 bucks a day. The finance minister would have us believe that all the mothers out there have been dying for this one-size-fits-all solution.
As a matter of fact, what I hear from constituents is that they want choice. Some prefer to leave their preschool children with close family, perhaps with grandparents where they are able to share their cultural and moral values. Others might want to share child care responsibilities with their neighbours, giving them flexibility around their very complex schedules. A one-size-fits-all program just does not fit the needs of Canadian parents for flexibility and alternatives. Does this government really think that it knows better than a mother what sort of care would be in her child's interests?
Add to that the challenge of getting the provinces on board. The finance minister has made this promise with some big strings attached. Since she will only foot 50% of the bill, the provinces will have to cough up the rest. Right now they cannot afford it, according to our Parliamentary Budget Officer. From where I stand, it looks like a very empty promise meant only as part of an upcoming election platform. The Liberals have been pledging this for years, and reneging on it just as often.
When Liberals stand up in the House and talk about their record, I would urge Canadians to stop and think about how much their grocery bills have risen since the Liberals came to power, about how much it costs to fill their gas tanks at the pumps or how far away their dreams of owning their own homes have become. Under the Liberals' watch, everything has gone up in price.
As Conservatives, we know that there is nothing better for our country than having its young people aspire to new heights, develop new ideas, and work with their hands and their hearts to create new wealth and prosperity free from government overreach. It is our commitment to all Canadians to create opportunities for them to be the solution and the economic drivers of our recovery. It is Canadians' hard work and ingenuity that makes this country great, not the Liberal government. I am thankful for all that Canadians do for their communities.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-04-22 14:05 [p.6033]
Madam Speaker, all Canadians living in long-term care facilities deserve to live in safe, modern spaces. Unfortunately, the pandemic has shown that all too often this is just not the case. In the city of Guelph alone, 10 residents of long-term care homes have passed away from complications related to COVID-19.
As we mourn their loss, we must also work to ensure that this type of preventable tragedy is never allowed to happen again. That is why I am proud to announce that on Friday, the federal government is contributing 80% of a $1.8 million investment, in partnership with the provincial government, to upgrade HVAC systems and improve the air quality in long-term care homes in Guelph, so that they are safer for both residents and health care workers. This represents just one small step forward in fixing the crisis in our long-term care system.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2021-02-04 10:15 [p.3970]
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition I am presenting is on behalf of over 9,500 Canadians, and I want to thank Don't Forget Students for its advocacy. Post-secondary students are taking on unprecedented amounts of debt. Student debt in Canada exceeds $36 billion, with $18 billion owed federally, and is the cause of one in six bankruptcies.
Thirty-nine per cent of students are struggling with food insecurity as a result of the rising cost of food, housing and tuition, and during the pandemic, youth unemployment has reached an all-time high.
The petitioners are asking the government to implement a plan for pandemic relief and stimulus for Canada's post-secondary students and recent graduates, and they emphasize that the government must extend the moratorium on student loan payments.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2020-12-07 20:15 [p.3085]
Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought unspeakable devastation on the Downtown Eastside community in the heart of my riding.
The Downtown Eastside is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Vancouver, and the diversity of its community members reflect its rich history. It is a community that has remained strong and deeply resilient despite the many challenges and struggles that come with poverty and a long history of colonization. The stigma against the people who live in the community is so strong, especially for those who are drug users or those who are homeless, that their struggles, their lack of access to basic human needs like housing, that the violence committed against them and even their deaths have been normalized to the extent that people no longer seem to care.
Recently, a disturbing video emerged where women appeared to be sexually assaulted in broad daylight, yet nobody did anything to help. Similar stories of horrific tragedy have emerged from the Downtown Eastside throughout the pandemic. A woman gave birth in a portable toilet and no one had noticed. The baby did not survive. Another woman was held captive and screaming in a tent for 15 hours, and no one intervened. Countless other reports of violence against women emerge from the Downtown Eastside, always tragic and always accompanied by apathy.
Similar apathy seems to exist for people who are struggling with substance misuse. More than 1,000 people have died in B.C. from overdose this year to date. This is an average of five deaths per day.
Street homelessness continues to increase amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health officials have made it clear that one of the most effective measures to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus is to stay home, keep social distance and wash our hands frequently. Needless to say, people without homes or adequate housing cannot self-isolate and cannot maintain the level of hygiene to keep themselves and others safe.
The Downtown Eastside now has one of the highest COVID infection rates in the city and the community members are suffering from violence, homelessness and the devastating impact of the overdose crisis at the same time.
The government says that addressing violence against women is a priority, that addressing homelessness and the opioid crisis are priorities, but its actions echo the apathy that have allowed these horrific deaths and acts of violence to perpetuate in our communities.
As 230,000 Canadians experience homelessness each year, the government continues to repeat the tired lines of 3,000 units of housing under the rapid housing initiative when the homelessness problem is so much bigger. The national housing strategy only aims to build 150,000 units of affordable housing over 10 years, effectively saying that it is acceptable to leave close to 100,000 Canadians without homes.
With this attitude, is it any wonder that homelessness has become accepted and normalized? The government has still not committed to the 50/50 cost-sharing with the Province of B.C. Nor has it committed to the recovery for all policy recommendations to end homelessness in Canada or the CHRA's indigenous caucus call for indigenous by indigenous calls for action. These commitments would truly make a difference in the lives and safety of Canadians.
With the opioid overdose crisis killing more people in B.C. than the COVID-19 pandemic, the government still has not committed to decriminalization as called for by the City of Vancouver. While all advocates of decriminalization, myself included, acknowledge that decriminalization is not a silver bullet, it is an important measure to help stem the tide of overdose deaths. Importantly, decriminalization is an important step to ending the stigma against drug users, a stigma that allows for the deaths and struggles of drug users to be normalized.
Every year, the Megaphone Magazine, sold on the streets by the homeless and low-income vendors, produces a beautiful calendar called “Hope in Shadows”. The photos in the calendar are taken by the magazine vendors and are beautiful images of the community seen through the eyes of community members themselves. The photos in the calendar capture images of children, friends, families and their pets. They live, work and play in the community. Other photos feature images of community activism, art, front-line workers and acts of caring. The calendar showcases the Downtown Eastside, a community that truly, once the stigma is removed, is a community of vibrant people, each with loved ones, hopes and dreams.
It is time for the government to take leadership in treating the community as such and to show, with concrete urgent action, that we care about the community and that our community members are not dispensable.
One urgent order of action is ensuring the availability and priority of COVID-19 vaccines for community members. In a briefing provided to MPs, we were informed that the priority vaccines would be given to individuals of advanced age, health care workers, first responders and indigenous peoples. I am deeply concerned that this list of priorities misses many people who are equally vulnerable and in need, many of whom reside and work in the Downtown Eastside.
The Downtown Eastside has the highest COVID infection rate in the city. Many residents have pre-existing conditions and other health concerns that make them especially vulnerable to the virus. The lack of safe, adequate and affordable housing in the community makes other safety measures, such as self-isolation and frequent handwashing, nearly impossible.
At the same time, I am deeply concerned about the safety of front-line workers in the Downtown Eastside. Front-line workers play just as much of an important role in fighting the pandemic as workers in health care settings, but they work in environments where it is extremely challenging to keep sanitary and safe.
Just today, we learned that there will only be enough vaccines to cover approximately 125,000 people later this month. That is not even enough to cover the 225,000 seniors in long-term care homes. Until there is a vaccine available for everyone, the government needs to do more to keep people safe.
A second urgent priority action for the government is to address violence against women in the Downtown Eastside. Three women's groups in the Downtown Eastside have called for the immediate creation of a task force to end violence against women in the neighbourhood. I call on the government to take immediate action and commit to lead that work. Gendered violence and violence against women are not new. Just yesterday, we commemorated the 14 women killed in the École Polytechnique massacre. With the COVID-19 pandemic, gendered violence and intimate-partner violence have increased exponentially. A women's crisis line in my riding reported early in the pandemic that crisis phone calls increased by 400% in the first months of the pandemic.
Long before the pandemic, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission identified access to safe housing and safe spaces as fundamental to the safety of women and girls and 2SLGBTQ people. The pandemic has further eroded access to the safe housing and safe spaces that were already scarce before the pandemic. The government must meet immediately with these groups, work collaboratively with advocates to establish the task force in the Downtown Eastside, and develop and fund an immediate action plan to end violence against women.
The government must also immediately respond to the City of Vancouver's request for an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act within the city's boundaries. In fact, I would urge the government to go even further and enact a nationwide exemption to jump-start the process of decriminalizing drug use to save lives.
For any of these measures to have lasting impact, people's basic needs must be met. For people to be safe from violence and disease long term, every Canadian must have access to safe housing. The government must act immediately and commit to fifty-fifty cost sharing with B.C. and to the recovery for all policy recommendations to end homelessness in Canada.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented health emergency that has deeply impacted the lives of Canadians across the country. At the same time, it has exacerbated crises that existed before the pandemic, including gendered violence, the opioid crisis and the homelessness crisis. None of these crises can be addressed alone. If we truly want to successfully address these crises together, we need a coordinated intersectional response enacted with the urgency of our crisis response to the pandemic and delivered with a firm commitment to the indispensability of every single person living in Canada.
There have been too many deaths and tragedies already. We must leave no one behind. We can do this. It takes political will. It takes courage. It takes all of us to realize the realities and the value of every single person in our community. Humanity is what is needed at this time of crisis, and we need to recognize that no community is dispensable. Everyone is someone's mother, someone's daughter, someone's son, someone's aunt. We all have to—
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2020-11-03 11:10 [p.1585]
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.
Starting a business is one of the hardest things a person can do. I speak from experience. Entrepreneurs work hard, often more than 40 hours a week. They often take no salary. At first, they do not get paid. They are constantly looking for financing. They are often forced to refinance their home. We are asking these people, the cornerstones of tomorrow's economy, to make a tremendous effort. Close to 80% of businesses do not celebrate their five-year anniversary. It is extremely hard for these individuals.
Then the pandemic hit. This was the fault of neither the government nor the businesses. The pandemic came as a crippling blow. Some businesses were on the verge of becoming profitable. At last, they could see the light at the end of the tunnel. The pandemic put paid to years of hard work. It is incredibly sad.
Some sectors will feel the strain more than others. We do not know how they will be able to cope in the short or medium term. I am talking about tourism, hospitality, aviation and travel agencies. Unfortunately, the workers in these sectors are not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. We are therefore asking the government to make an effort to try to help them as much as it can.
Under these exceptional circumstances, exceptional measures were needed. Parliamentarians also needed to leave partisanship in the lobby. If we ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, he will say that he had a major ally at the beginning of the pandemic. The Bloc Québécois was in co-operation mode. I know this because I am the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, and I worked with the leader of the government. He said that the government was building the plane in flight, and unfortunately that was true. That is why we worked together. Unfortunately, the co-operation has eroded, giving way to partisanship.
On April 11, the emergency wage subsidy was created. Among other things, the Bloc asked that 75% of the payroll be subsidized. It was a good move on the part of the government, and naturally, we welcomed it. We wanted to include assistance for fixed costs in the subsidy. The wage subsidy was admittedly good for employees and employment relationships. Unfortunately, it may not have been enough to help businesses overcome the pandemic.
We asked the government to introduce assistance for fixed costs, and it agreed. However, the government did little or nothing to follow up on this request. The rent relief did not do the job. Less than half of the money earmarked for rent relief was spent. Perhaps the major issue was that the money was given to the property owners.
When I spoke with the government leader, I told him it was hard for us to say what help with fixed costs would look like. I told him that we were trusting them, because fixed costs are difficult to identify. They include electricity, insurance, rent and other things. We left the door open. We asked them to propose something, saying we were available to help if they needed input. We were there for the government, for the public and for the SMEs, our leaders of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the proposed help, as small as it was, did not serve its purpose. The government broke its promise, that is for sure.
The government broke another promise. We negotiated to adjust the CERB so that after the first wave, businesses could hire people who would benefit from returning to work. Business owners were telling us that they were unable to hire people, that it was too hard. That is when we got the idea to adjust the CERB. We needed to move faster to prepare for what was coming after the first wave.
The Deputy Prime Minister rose in the House and promised to respect the Bloc Québécois' idea of adjusting the CERB. That was another victory for the Bloc Québécois. Did the Deputy Prime Minister keep her promise? Unfortunately, she did not.
That is the recent history of the assistance offered by the government. Agreements came out of good-faith discussions between the Bloc Québécois and the current government. We had hope, but that hope is gone.
The help with fixed costs that was offered to businesses was too prescriptive and restricted to get the job done. We are now in the second wave of the pandemic, which in many ways is worse than the first, and, once again, we have nothing for businesses. That is the reality.
On October 1, in response to the second wave, the Quebec government added a fixed costs component to its concerted temporary action program for businesses and asked the federal government to follow suit. As I said earlier, it is hard to identify all fixed costs. That is why the Quebec government gave us the flexibility to determine which fixed costs the assistance should go to. All the federal government had to do was follow its lead, which it could have done quickly.
However, October 1 came and went, and nothing was announced. One month into the second wave of the pandemic, still nothing. At last, on November 2, the government came out with something to finally address the trauma faced by business people, who deserve our utmost respect.
We agree that the Conservative motion is interesting. It talks about helping businesses, and we cannot object to that. It talks about being flexible and giving businesses a break from the CRA until June 2021. Any time the CRA comes knocking, it is stressful for businesses. Giving businesses a break until 2021 is a welcome measure. Targeting sectors that have suffered more than others from the pandemic is important. I talked about that earlier. The Conservative motion opens the door to a possibility that we raised quite some time ago.
With respect to seasonal workers, the government has admittedly taken steps in the right direction, but it has not gone far enough. We are talking about tourism, hospitality and restaurants. How are restaurant owners supposed to survive? Many people in my riding are calling out in despair. We are trying to help them using the tools provided by the government. However, everyone here agrees that the help is woefully inadequate.
What about the aerospace industry and its 40,000 quality jobs? It is Quebec's main export. Montreal is one of only three places in the world that can build an airplane from nose to tail. However, the government has offered no assistance, a big fat zero. What a disappointment.
I know that I always seem to be in a good mood, but not right now. Why? Because the well-meaning Conservatives just told us today that despite raising $13 million in funding in the first three quarters of 2020, they will not be paying back the Canada emergency wage subsidy. This is shameful. They raised $13 million.
The Liberal Party is no better, since it claimed $800,000 in public money, Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money, despite raising $8.6 million in political contributions in the three quarters. The Liberal Party said it would stop collecting federal assistance because it had taken enough. This is shameful.
The two richest and wealthiest political parties in Canada are a disgrace to Quebec and to Canada.
Some are looking at me as I speak, and I have no qualms about saying that the new leader of the Conservative Party, who stated during his campaign that he would pay back the amounts that the party received under the Canada emergency wage subsidy, is not going to pay back anything at all. As for the Liberal Party, it is led by a Prime Minister who keeps lecturing everyone and who prefers to give to his party, to give $237 million to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis and to give $900 million to WE Charity. Shame on him.
We in the Bloc Québécois are here for the right reasons. We are here to stand up for ordinary folks, and we will continue to do so.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2020-10-26 14:25 [p.1220]
Mr. Speaker, on September 30, five million Quebeckers found themselves in red zones, with the resulting business closures. The next day, the Quebec government announced financial assistance to businesses to pay for fixed costs.
The response from this government has been non-existent. It has been a month, and we are still waiting for help from the government. Today, the Quebec government will announce that the confinement will continue. It is in the second month of managing the pandemic; this Liberal government did not even get involved in the first.
When will SMEs be offered assistance? This is important.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the very important question.
I absolutely agree that SMEs need help to cover fixed costs. In the coming days, I will present measures to the House to help businesses. I hope the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of these important measures.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2020-10-26 14:26 [p.1220]
Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this with the government since the pandemic hit. It was agreed that businesses need help with their fixed costs. When did we agree to put that in the motion? On April 11. That was over six months ago. After threats of an election, the Liberals are telling us that they are finally going to help businesses. SMEs have been waiting for six months.
How many bankruptcies have occurred because of their inaction?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we have already given a lot of help to SMEs across Canada, including through the emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account, which goes directly to SMEs. I agree that we need to do more, and we will in the coming days.
I hope all members in the House will support these important measures.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, in March, the Bloc Québécois demanded support for businesses' fixed costs. On April 11, the Bloc got the government to vote in favour of a motion to help with fixed costs. Six months on, we are still waiting.
Another lockdown began on October 1. More than 12,000 SMEs are in jeopardy. The very next day, Quebec announced assistance for fixed costs. Meanwhile, radio silence on Ottawa's end.
Six months have gone by. When will the Liberals take action?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
The Bloc member is well aware that we promised to help SMEs with fixed costs in the throne speech. That is absolutely necessary, and it is even more necessary now because of the second wave.
Our government agrees. This is an essential program. We are working with businesses and the provinces and territories to set up a program.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, SMEs, like restaurants or bars, survived the first wave of COVID-19 by going into debt. That is no longer an option. Loans no longer cut it.
If we want to avoid thousands of bankruptcies during the second wave then we have to help our businesses pay their fixed costs. Quebec has brought in repayable conditional financial assistance for fixed costs and is calling on Ottawa to contribute to it. The Bloc has been calling on Ottawa for help with fixed costs since April.
Quebec has taken action. What is Ottawa waiting for?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which is truly important.
In the Speech from the Throne, we promised we would help SMEs pay their fixed costs. This assistance is more important than ever since we are in the second wave and the provinces, including Quebec, have taken strong measures to combat this second wave. We must truly be there for them and we will be.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, what the government announced on Friday is more loans. However, there is a limit to how much debt bars and restaurants can take on. There is a limit to what can be put off to tomorrow. In its throne speech, Ottawa promised to help businesses being closed by order of the public health authorities.
Will they finally put their words into action? Will Ottawa join the Government of Quebec and provide assistance for the fixed costs of businesses in the red zone?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I discussed this issue with Quebec's finance minister, Éric Girard, yesterday evening. He and I are going to be talking again this evening.
I have a question for the Bloc. Once we have completed the technical work, I hope the Bloc will vote with us.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-10-02 11:23 [p.480]
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is in the midst of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The restaurant and bar industry is in jeopardy. Bars and restaurants are SMEs that managed to hold on during the first lockdown, but today thousands of them are at risk of going bankrupt. Yesterday, Quebec announced that it would help with fixed costs for businesses in red zones that have to close their doors. Quebec is contributing. Now it is the federal government's turn. Quebec is asking the federal government to participate by sharing the cost of the program and enhancing it.
Will the federal government do its part and help Quebec with this program?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-10-02 11:24 [p.480]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois promised to trigger an election now, if possible, or else later this spring. If it could, the Bloc Québécois would like us to have an election this weekend.
While the Bloc Québécois is focusing on an election, we are focusing on the health of Quebeckers. There are over 1,000 cases today and seven deaths, and the Bloc Québécois's priority is to trigger an election.
Really?
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-10-02 11:24 [p.480]
Mr. Speaker, I heard nothing about assistance for SMEs, but I will continue.
There is one thing we should not forget: taking out loans means going into debt, and that is no longer an option. The government twice promised to help businesses affected by COVID-19, such as restaurants and bars. The first time, at the request of the Bloc Québécois, it promised to provide assistance for fixed costs, as a result of a motion passed on April 11. Need we remind the government that in the throne speech it also promised to support businesses that must close when ordered to do so by public health authorities?
Will the government keep its promise and help support businesses by providing assistance for fixed costs that will not be in the form of a loan?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-10-02 11:25 [p.480]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bloc Québécois announced that it had lost confidence in the government and would therefore be voting against the government's economic measures.
If we introduce economic measures to help seniors, the Bloc will vote against them. If we introduce economic measures to help workers, it will vote against them. If we introduce economic measures to help our SMEs, it will vote against them.
The Bloc Québécois has abandoned Quebeckers. We will never abandon them.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-02 11:35 [p.482]
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader just demonstrated a major lack of respect for my colleague from Saint-Jean, but particularly for Quebec restaurants and bars that are in red zones and at risk of going bankrupt.
Even if he regards us with contempt, can the leader answer our questions out of respect for the businesses that have had to shut down for another month and are at risk of going bankrupt?
Quebec has asked the federal government to join its program, share the cost and enhance it. Will the government do that?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-10-02 11:36 [p.482]
Mr. Speaker, there are moments in history where we recognize the leadership of a party by the way it reacts in a time of crisis. The Bloc Québécois failed that test yesterday by saying that it was going to ensure that our government does not make it past the spring of 2021.
What will happen if cases go up in 2021? What will happen if thousands of Quebeckers are still looking for work? Will the Bloc Québécois's priority be to trigger an election?
The Bloc Québécois promised to maintain a responsible position. This is very disappointing.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-02 11:37 [p.482]
Mr. Speaker, I am speechless.
A government stands when it has the confidence of the House. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is not answering legitimate questions. It should answer those questions, if only out of respect for the bars, restaurants and businesses that are in jeopardy.
These are serious issues, but he wants to play political games. We know the government is planning to announce loans for these businesses. The government needs to step up with programs that meet Quebec's needs. It has to adapt the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance for small businesses. The criteria are overly restrictive.
I am going to ask this question for the fourth time, just like my colleague from Saint-Jean did. What is the government going to do? Does it care about businesses?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-10-02 11:37 [p.482]
Mr. Speaker, I said it earlier. The Bloc Québécois is busy planning its election campaign. Meanwhile, we are busy working for businesses, for seniors, for workers who have lost their jobs, and for the restaurant and tourism sector. That is what taking concrete action means.
The Bloc Québécois can go ahead and plan its campaign. It can focus on that as much as it wants while we step up for Quebeckers.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-25 12:00 [p.1487]
Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
The Bloc Québécois is a social democratic party. We feel strongly about redistributing wealth and ensuring equal opportunities for all. We fully support the principle of progressive taxation, and we believe it should be implemented to a greater degree. The idea is that the wealthiest contribute more to funding public services, which are universal and used by everyone.
On that note, it troubles us that the big Canadian banks are not taxed heavily enough. It is not like these companies could relocate to another country. They are in a protected market. Furthermore, I cannot overlook the fact that these multinational corporations and banks still have legal access to tax havens, which means they do not contribute as much to the public purse as they should. The rest of the population suffers, because they receive lower-quality services while paying more taxes and fees.
As everyone knows, we think quality health care is important. We believe that a person who falls ill has basic needs and is entitled to comprehensive care. Unfortunately, the current lack of funding means that many people do not have access to the care they need. That goes for prescription drugs and dental care too. In this day and age, it makes no sense that a person with dental problems would not be able to get the care they need and see a dentist. Dental problems can be very painful.
Today's motion is problematic. Dental care is an aspect of health care, and health care is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Ottawa's role with respect to public services and health is to provide as much funding as possible, but Ottawa has not been doing that for quite some time. This problem goes all the way back to 1996, which, as it happens, was after the Quebec referendum.
Ottawa decided to deal with its debt problem by slashing transfers for health, social services and education, even though expenses are rising faster in those areas than anywhere else, as we can see from budgets tabled by Quebec and the provinces. Health and education costs go up year after year, but Ottawa is providing less and less money to cover those costs.
Originally, Ottawa promised to cover half of our health care spending. Ottawa was supposed to match every dollar spent by Quebec. This equality was completely wiped out at the end of the 1990s and the federal government has been retreating year after year ever since no matter who is in power in the House. Even though the total amount increases every year, the percentage of the federal government's contribution keeps decreasing. Quebec is now asking that Ottawa fund at least a quarter of health care spending. We are well below that and the percentage keeps going down every year.
In the last Parliament, the Liberal government pompously announced a plan to reinvest in health care. At the end of the day, it just cancelled the Conservatives' cuts and added a few crumbs, all while interfering in this jurisdiction. At the time, Quebec's health minister, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, even accused the Liberal government in Ottawa of engaging in predatory federalism. Coming from a Quebec Liberal minister, that is saying something.
There is a consensus on this in Quebec City. Every year, the Government of Quebec asks Ottawa to make an annual reinvestment of 6% to make up for lost ground and get the federal government's share to a quarter of health care spending. There is also a consensus among provincial governments who are all calling for an annual increase of 5.2% in federal spending on health. Between Quebec and the provinces, everyone agrees that it is important for the federal government to make up for lost ground.
On that, we have to take into account the aging population, since seniors require more health care, which is more expensive. At the other end of the spectrum, young people get more money for education, which only makes sense.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made several updates to his “Fiscal Sustainability Report 2018”. He noted that Ottawa is the one with the fiscal flexibility, and that the provinces have no more wiggle room. This is true to such an extent that, even if the government chose to incur massive debt and run up the debt, it would have the means of maintaining the net debt at its current level. Based on future projections, the Parliamentary Budget Officer expects that Ottawa will have completely reimbursed its debt, while the provinces will still be drowning in massive debts because funding needs in health and education are increasing, but Ottawa is contributing less and less. That is a big problem.
The motion we are debating here infringes on provincial jurisdiction. We are not opposed to the idea of funding dental care, but we believe that that decision is up to Quebec, which does not have the money to fund all general health care services. When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has a system that works, even though it is far from perfect. Obviously, a dental program is also necessary, but we should not be discussing it here. Our role here is to decide to increase health care funding so that the provinces can move forward with their plans.
I would like to read out a brief passage on this subject. I will then ask the members a question.
This asymmetry vis-à-vis du Québec can be applied in real terms through opting out with compensation. The right to opt out applies where the federal government, on its own or with the agreement of the provinces, intervenes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (in particular health and social services, education, family policy, housing, municipal infrastructure, etc.). In such case, no conditions or standards should be applied to Québec without its consent, obtained after consultation and negotiation. The principle of opting out is very important, as it makes it possible to reconcile the exercise of federal spending power for provinces that want it with respect for Québec's constitutional jurisdiction.
As members may have guessed, I was reading a passage from the Sherbrooke declaration adopted in 2005 by the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It is odd that after adopting those principles, the NDP is now moving a motion in Parliament that encroaches directly on provincial jurisdiction and does not mention that Quebec should automatically be allowed to opt out with full compensation if the federal government implements this measure.
Sadly, our party is no stranger to this treatment. If former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe were here today, he could remind us how many times motions like these, ones that encroached on areas of provincial jurisdiction, have been moved.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois is a social democratic party. We believe in quality public services, but the role of the House is to provide health funding. It is up to Quebec to decide how to invest that money, whether in emergency care, dental care or pharmacare. It is not up to the House to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is why we will be voting against today's motion.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I read the motion moved by my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. I must confess to this honourable House that I was blown away by this motion.
For a moment, I felt like I was in Quebec’s National Assembly or a Canadian provincial legislature. It was so surreal that I asked my assistant to pinch me. I asked him if Québec Solidaire had just tabled a motion in the House of Commons. He replied that no, it was the NDP.
Under the circumstances, before I even go into what I think of how the motion is worded, I would like to remind the House that this is 2020. The fact that we are once again debating a motion that falls under provincial jurisdiction in Ottawa is incredibly sad. It shows a lack of respect for the legislators that should legitimately make those decisions based on their values and their resources. Perhaps you have heard the expression “a leopard cannot change its spots”. This is a perfect example of that concept.
In 2005, after spending 45 good years fighting for the centralization of legislative powers in Ottawa, the NDP adopted the famed Sherbrooke declaration, in which it claimed to recognize asymmetrical federalism and it intended to give Quebec the systematic right to opt out.
Today, five or six elections later, with one MP back home, they have written off Quebec and its legitimate right to legislate its own affairs.
The NDP and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby know perfectly well that health is not a federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, they are still trying to impose social programs that Quebec and the Canadian provinces have the authority to bring in if they want.
No one here is against apple pie. I love apple pie. No one here is against pandas. We all love pandas. However, imposing dental care coverage through, I assume, the Canada Health Act, is nothing short of overriding the Constitution that allows us to be here—a Constitution that Quebec has never signed, by the way.
A few seconds ago, I chose the verb “assume”. That was not a coincidence and that brings me to my second point. This motion is so vague it feels like we are heading into murky waters.
The motion talks about wanting to implement dental coverage for families whose income is less than $90,000. The motion also says that benefits would be made available to individuals who earn less than $90,000 a year. With all due respect, the motion's wording is so vague that it almost contradicts itself. It does not take much imagination. One example that I am very familiar with is my own experience from around 15 years ago.
I was 23 years old. I had just had my best year in the film industry. I had been working in the industry for four years. I earned more than $90,000 that year. I bought myself a triplex with my sister. Then, my wife, Mylène, gave birth to our son Émile Duceppe, our first child. My wife was in school that year. The following year, in 2004, I earned about $30,000 because I was freelancing. I was a contract worker.
Since my wife was still in school and I had a mortgage to pay and we had a young boy to raise, if I had had any kind of dental problem, my previous year's income would have been used and I would not have been entitled to the dental coverage proposed today.
I am sorry, I lost my train of thought. Someone I know is here and that stressed me a little.
An hon. member: Is it me?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my colleague.
We were not rich, but we were doing well. According to the NDP, I would not have been entitled to dental insurance. That is exactly why Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to develop social policy. The provinces manage those sorts of things. They are closer to the people and should be the ones to administer the program. They have a legislative scalpel and not a bazooka.
Once again, there is no respect for the true lawmakers in this area.
While the NDP wants to give orders to Quebec and the other provinces, the provinces are asking the government for just one thing, an annual increase of 5.2% in health transfers. The provinces are not asking to have another health care program rammed down their throats. They are simply asking for an annual increase of 5.2% in health transfers. This is not rocket science.
While health care systems across Canada are groaning under the burden of the aging population, the NDP is talking about dental care in the wrong legislature.
The Quebec National Assembly even unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to do its fair share with regard to health care. This does not make any sense. While the Government of Quebec estimates that the health transfer deficit will be $13.7 billion by 2027, the NDP is insisting on talking about dental coverage without even knowing how it will be paid for.
The federal contribution to health was 23% in 2018. Today, it is 21% and, in 2027, it will be just barely over 20%. The federal government's real problem is not the details of the health care coverage. The problem is that the House is not contributing to the rising cost of health care. What is worse, the federal government has been gradually pulling back for decades, whatever its political stripe.
Right now, federal health transfers are going up by just 3% per year. Health care costs are going up more than that, so the provinces are essentially getting less money.
Health transfers should have no strings attached. Only Quebec can determine its own priorities. Health transfers must be sufficient to provide care for our people.
The worst thing about this motion is not just that Quebec does not want it, but that unions regard federal programs as interference. During the 2018 national consultation on implementing pharmacare, both the FTQ and the CSN emphasized the importance of taking Quebec's unique needs and independence into account.
I would like to quote from their brief, which summarizes the situation and is relevant here. I am sure this will be of interest to our NDP colleagues.
The federal government has consistently interfered with provincial jurisdiction over health ever since the early days of the welfare state. The Canada Health Act is an instrument of that interference because one of its objectives is to establish the conditions the provinces must meet to receive federal funds.
The brief then goes on to say the following:
...our two organisations [the FTQ and the CSN] cannot ignore the declining federal contribution to health care funding. Rather than negotiate a new health transfer agreement, as promised during the election campaign, the Liberal government opted to maintain the Conservative reforms, which limit transfer increases tied to GDP growth to 3% annually. Previously, those increases were capped at 6% annually.
Lastly, it also states:
To ensure the sustainability of Quebec's health system, the federal government must first increase its contribution to health care funding to an adequate level.
The issue of drug coverage is pretty much the same as dental care. The federal government cannot go shopping on behalf of the provinces when it is not paying its fair share for the current system. That is not how it works.
I will wrap up my comments, as I am sure my colleagues are eager to seriously debate this matter with me.
As the House devotes precious time to debating this proposal, can we at least agree to respect the sharing of legislative powers? That is why we were elected.
The Bloc wants to work collaboratively. We like that, and we proved it last week. However, when we are forced to work on somewhat vague and incongruous texts that are written almost deliberately to be rejected by certain parliamentary groups, it seems to me that our debates lose some of their relevance.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here while you are presiding over this meeting. I want to thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak today about the government's plans in this area.
With respect to the suggestion on how savings from changes to the tax system could be used, I am pleased to talk about the government's commitment to strengthen health care for Canadians.
The mandate letter of the Minister of Health includes a commitment to support Parliament in studying the issue of dental care so that we can better understand what the government's role may be in helping to improve access to dental care in Canada. This debate provides an opportunity for members of Parliament to share their views on this issue.
Across the country, many Canadians have coverage for dental care through private employee health benefit plans, while many are supported by government programs. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, $15.5 billion was spent on dental services in Canada in 2017. Of this, 54% was covered through private insurance plans, 40% was paid out of pocket and 6% was publicly funded by a variety of federal, provincial and territorial government programs.
We know that oral health is an integral element of overall health. By the time they are adults, 96% of Canadians have been impacted by dental decay. It is largely preventable and disproportionately and more severely impacts our most vulnerable populations, such as those living with a disability, those from low-income households, those in marginalized communities and seniors.
Twenty per cent of Canadians have moderate to severe gum disease. This number is amplified in older adults and those with lower incomes. Not only can this cause tooth loss and related problems with eating, speaking and social interactions, it has been shown to complicate a number of medical conditions. Further, the Canadian Cancer Society advises that in overall cancer incidents in Canada, oral cancer ranks ninth in men and 13th in women, and the trend line is increasing. About 5,300 Canadians will be diagnosed with oral cancer annually, and nearly 1,500 will die of it.
That is why the government welcomed the Standing Committee on Health's recent decision to study the issue of dental care in Canada and stands ready to support the committee in its work.
At a national level in Canada, good data on unmet dental care needs does not exist. We know that three-quarters of Canadians visit a dentist at least once a year, higher than the OECD average, and that wait times for dental care are among the shortest in the world. Approximately two-thirds of Canadians report no dental needs. At the same time, we know that approximately one-third of Canadians are uninsured and that approximately six million Canadians have reported avoiding a visit to the dentist because of cost.
To address data gaps, the Canadian government has partnered with Statistics Canada to design an oral health surveillance component for an upcoming cycle of a Canadian health measure survey, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and in collaboration with leading researchers from all 10 of Canada's university faculties of dentistry and experts from the United States and the United Kingdom. This work will provide key information for those developing oral health programs and policies for Canadians.
In addition to improving data on dental care, the federal government provides dental care services for certain groups of people through the non-insured health benefits program delivered by Indigenous Services Canada. The government provides dental coverage for recognized first nations and Inuit. In addition, the children's oral health initiative provides dental coverage for many first nations children and their parents.
Through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the interim federal health program provides coverage for emergency dental care services for some refugee claimants and protected persons. In addition, the federal government provides members of the Canadian Armed Forces, some veterans and inmates of federal penitentiaries with dental coverage.
Alongside these federal programs, all provinces and territories fund and manage their own dental care services, which cover medically necessary in-hospital dental services for all residents. Many provincial and territorial programs also cover some dental services for certain groups of people, such as children in low-income households, people receiving social assistance benefits, people with certain disabilities and senior citizens. However, specific eligibility requirements, types of services included and the financial coverage levels depend on the province or the territory.
Provincial and territorial health care programs, including those with dental coverage, are supported by federal funding through the Canada health transfer, or the CHT. The CHT is providing $40.4 billion to the provinces and territories in 2019-20. This will continue to increase each year in line with the growth rate of the economy, with a minimum increase of at least 3% per year. Over the next five years, CHT funding to provinces and territories is expected to exceed $200 billion.
In addition to direct federal spending on dental services and fiscal transfers to the provinces and territories, assistance for dental care is already provided through the federal tax system. About two-thirds of Canadians receive dental coverage from their employee health insurance benefits. The federal government supports these Canadians by not including the value of these insurance plans in the taxable income of employees.
Forty per cent of dental care costs are paid through out-of-pocket payments by Canadians. The federal government provides assistance with these costs through an income tax credit called the medical expenses tax credit. This is a non-refundable tax credit for eligible medical expenses that can be claimed by taxpayers if the expenses exceed 3% of an individual's net income or $2,352, whichever is less, in the 2019 tax year. An additional refundable medical expense supplement is available for working individuals with low incomes and high medical expenses.
In addition to support for dental care, the federal government improves the oral health of Canadians at the national level through health promotion, disease prevention and professional and technical guidance. In the area of health promotion, and in consultation with the national oral health professional community, last year the government incorporated oral health considerations into the Canada food guide and into its ongoing information campaigns.
In terms of prevention, the government has worked with the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Alberta to produce user-friendly online information on proper teeth cleaning for infants, children, adults, seniors and pregnant women, as well as for caregivers supporting older adults living with dementia at home. The government has also partnered with the University of Manitoba and collaborated with many key national health professional organizations to produce the Canadian caries risk assessment tool, which will now enable Canadian health practitioners to confidently assess their preschool patients and take the steps necessary to prevent early childhood caries and guide those patients into the appropriate care approaches.
The government has also worked with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to produce comprehensive knowledge products for community decision-makers on water fluoridation. Community water fluoridation remains a safe, cost-effective and equitable public health practice to prevent tooth decay.
In the areas of professional and technical guidance, the government collaborated with leading Canadian researchers in the areas of the oral health effects of cannabis and vaping to develop knowledge products for Canadian oral health practitioners to consider as they care for their patients who may be using these substances. The government has also partnered with McGill University to create and launch the Canadian Dental Connection website for rural and remote communities seeking oral health practitioners, and provide online training modules for these practitioners on cultural competency and trauma-informed care.
To support the improvement of the oral health of Canadians and fulfill our international responsibilities, the government works with partners and stakeholders nationally and globally, including organizations in the professional, regulatory and educational domains, such as the Canadian Dental Association and the Canadian Dental Regulatory Authorities Federation. We have also collaborated with international health and dental organizations, such as the World Health Organization, and oral health authorities around the world.
These initiatives demonstrate that our government is playing a constructive role in supporting access to dental care for Canadians. We look forward to participating in the study of dental care to be conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, of which I am proud to say I am member.
However, we know that dental care is only one aspect of the health care system for Canadians. The government has a strong interest in improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians now and into the future. With an aging population, increasing rates of chronic disease and cost pressures tied to new drugs and technologies, our system must adapt if it is to deliver better care and better outcomes at a cost that is affordable.
Our government is committed to strengthening health care, including improving access to primary care, mental health services, home and palliative care, and implementing national universal pharmacare for Canadians. These commitments build on our actions over the last several years to improve access to mental health services, home and palliative care, and prescription drugs.
Our joint work with provinces and territories has been particularly successful and provides a good model for future joint work on health care. Federal, provincial and territorial governments reached an agreement on a common statement of principles for shared health priorities in 2017, which outlines key priorities for federal investments in mental health and addictions, as well as home and community care.
The common statement reaffirms our shared commitment to report on results to Canadians through common indicators; to improve the affordability, accessibility and appropriate use of prescription drugs; to support health innovation; and to engage with regional and national indigenous leaders on their priorities for improving the health outcomes of indigenous peoples. Under this agreement, federal investments of $11 billion over 10 years are being used by provinces and territories to address specific needs in our health care system, such as increasing the availability of home and palliative care and helping youth access needed mental health services.
We will continue to build on this progress as we work to implement the commitments outlined in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health, including improving access to primary care, setting national standards for access to mental health services, and continuing to make home and palliative care more available across the country. In this respect, the government looks forward to learning more about the challenges faced by Canadians in accessing dental care and will actively participate in the study of this important issue by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-01-31 11:25 [p.762]
Madam Speaker, we have been saying for years now that expanding targeted infrastructure programs with all kinds of strict criteria does not work. The program to deal with flooding is blocked, and that is according to the government's own report. Since no agreement could be reached with our national government, not a single project has been funded in Quebec. Not a single dollar has been transferred. Meanwhile, flooding is only getting worse and the cities are crying out for help.
When will this government do the only thing that actually is its responsibility, namely, transfer the money?
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Catherine McKenna Profile
2020-01-31 11:26 [p.762]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Of course we are delivering on our commitment to invest in Quebec and the rest of the country. We are investing in green infrastructure. We are investing to ensure that our communities are more resilient. We are investing to create more public transit. There are many projects in Quebec.
We will continue to do so. We will continue working with Quebec and the municipalities.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-01-31 11:26 [p.762]
Madam Speaker, the report clearly states that the government provided no funding to Quebec this time.
Floods are worsening and happening more frequently as a result of climate change. So-called 100-year floods are now happening every 20 years. Floods that should happen every five years are now commonplace. People are starting to dread the arrival of spring, yet the money is frozen in Ottawa because the government insists on making all of the decisions and adding strict criteria for these programs.
How much more global warming will it take to thaw this money?
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Catherine McKenna Profile
2020-01-31 11:27 [p.762]
Madam Speaker, we are working with Quebec. We have already launched 10 projects in Quebec to make communities more resilient. We have projects all across Quebec, including the blue line in Montreal, the tramway in Quebec and the Champlain Bridge. We are working with Quebec and we will continue to do so. We do indeed need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and make our communities more resilient.
Results: 1 - 48 of 48

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data