Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 59
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:14 [p.6559]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak yet again on this very important matter. I was quite encouraged by a couple of things today. I understand that we have delivered more than 14.5 million doses of vaccine to the provinces and territories. I believe it is 14,700,000. While I was sitting at the convention centre in Winnipeg, I did a bit of research on my cellphone and found out, from one particular site, that 12,696,698 people have been vaccinated with their first dose. As of this afternoon, I am one of the individuals who have been vaccinated, and I am very grateful.
Like others, I waited for my turn. Other people's turns will come and they will become eligible too. It is therefore really imperative that all members of Parliament and leaders within our communities encourage constituents to get vaccinated. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 34% of our population has been vaccinated, and the rate is growing. That is really quite encouraging. Compared with other G20 countries, we are a strong and healthy third in getting out the first dose. I am really quite pleased and wanted to start off on this very positive note.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast have heard so many speeches, facts, numbers and statistics over the last number of months, so I thought I would pick up on something a little different. It is something we have talked a great deal about since last summer, going into September.
The Prime Minister has often said that as we go through the pandemic, there are things we can learn from, such as what was taking place in personal care facilities in different regions of our country and concerns related to the financial supports provided to Canadians. The Prime Minister wanted us to listen, take action, lobby and advocate not only for changes, but for ways we could build back better. A number of members of Parliament will often use the phrase “build back better”, and I really believe we can do that.
It is really quite encouraging to see how successful the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and the parliamentary secretary were in canvassing our country and the many stakeholders to ultimately present a budget. Others were involved too, but I highlight those three people in particular.
The Deputy Prime Minister put forward an economic statement in November of last year, and most recently, a couple of weeks ago, we had the budget. If we read it and get an understanding of what the Minister of Finance has put to the House of Commons, we will see that it reflects what we have been hearing across the country. I know this has been very important to the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus as a whole. We wanted to ensure that what was put on the floor of the House of Commons reflected what is being talked about in our communities. I will highlight a couple of examples of that.
We all know, for example, what has taken place with our seniors. They have had a very difficult time as a result of the pandemic, and there are things we have learned from that. We take supporting our seniors very seriously. We need to make life easier and more affordable for them. We understand that, and it is something we all heard about in a very clear and tangible way. We would often see in our newscasts, media reports and consultations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders that the need is there, it is real and it is tangible, and the government has responded very positively.
We are going to support Canada's seniors. This is absolutely essential, especially as many seniors continue to cope with isolation not only from their loved ones in particular, but in general. They are experiencing financial difficulties, not to mention the many different health struggles that have resulted from the pandemic and the outcomes that have followed. We are particularly concerned about the long-term care facilities as well.
Budget 2021 highlights a plan of action that deals with COVID-19 and the issues it has created, among many other things affecting our seniors. It is why I am so glad we committed to a one-time payment of $500 for old age security, which will be distributed in August 2021 for seniors who are age 75 and over. We also provided a permanent increase of 10% to the OAS pension, a significant increase, for those age 75 and over. It will take effect in July 2022. These commitments are going to strengthen the financial security of over three million seniors, and it is estimated that they will lift well over 60,000 seniors out of poverty. Also, when we look at the numbers with a gender lens, 65% of that group is women. I am very proud of that initiative.
At the same time, it fulfills a campaign election commitment the government made in the last election, just over a year and a half ago, when we said we would increase OAS for seniors over 75. To a certain degree it is a little disappointing that other political parties are being critical of us for giving that 10% to them, because it was an election promise. However, it is exactly what has been filled out, in addition to providing other support.
We also created, through budget 2021, the age well at home initiative. It will assist seniors in being able stay in their homes longer by funding supports for community-based organizations.
I was a fairly proactive member of the Manitoba legislature for just under 20 years, and I can can say that on many different occasions, whether it was inside the Manitoba legislature or in talking to seniors, we advocated for them. We can support our seniors best by providing supports wherever we can to enable them to stay living in their communities longer. Within this budget, we are seeing just that. I see it as a very strong commitment to seniors.
We talk about supporting provinces and territories to ensure that long-term care standards will be applied, so that seniors can feel safe in their environments and have dignified conditions. This is absolutely essential. We learned that while going through the pandemic, and the Deputy Prime Minister listened.
This government is responding to that, yet unfortunately there are still those who criticize the government for doing it, whether members from the Conservatives or from the Bloc. We need to recognize, as Canadians have, that the national government has a role to play and we can look at best practices in jurisdictions across Canada. We can provide some support financially to encourage that standard. Those who would say that the federal government has no jurisdiction need to listen to their constituents and to Canadians as a whole. The expectation of Canadians is that the Government of Canada will bring in, promote and encourage those national standards.
We talk about building, repairing and supporting an additional 35,000 affordable housing units for vulnerable Canadians, including seniors. There are many ways in which we are supporting seniors in Canada, directly or indirectly, through the last budget and through many actions to date.
Another item I want to highlight is in regard to the child care commitment. Members should all be saying that it is a great way to build back better, and that it will make a difference. We often talk about child care in the province of Quebec, and how Quebec has been fairly successful at enabling both parents or a single parent to get into the workforce because the desire is often there and sometimes the economic need is there.
We see that the government has recognized that value by supporting a nationwide program. It is a tangible commitment. We are going to be looking for leadership among the provinces, territories and even other stakeholders to come to the table to recognize the true value. Depending on whom we talk to, an economist or whomever it might be, we will see that there is great value in expanding the workforce, not to mention benefits for the individuals who will be recipients of child care. It is a generational change that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Whether or not people have children, they will benefit because a nationwide child care program will contribute to overall success and increase Canada's GDP, which will enable us to do more as a nation.
A list of things comes to mind that I could comment on, such as housing. I am going to be encouraging my constituents to look at opportunities so they can take advantage of federal programs to assist them with interest-free loans, if possible, to improve some of the structures within our communities: our homes. As our housing stock continues to age, it provides opportunities for our constituents not only to build or improve their homes, but also to be energy efficient. It will be better for our environment. Individuals can go to, for example, high-efficiency furnaces and air conditioners and look to the government for support to do that. It is a program that I believe will make a huge difference.
Having said all of that, there are some other aspects that I want to provide my thoughts on to members. I look at Canadian priorities. From day one, this government has been there in a very real and tangible way. It is one of the reasons why Liberal members of Parliament regularly provided information to the Government of Canada and the ministers, to ensure that we listened and brought in the programs that were necessary.
When I think of the pillars of Canada's COVID-19 economic response, I think of programs such as the emergency business account and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, not to mention the lockdown support program. My personal favourites were the emergency response benefit, CERB, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. These put cash into the pockets of Canadians when they needed it most. CERB was a hugely successful program, with close to nine million Canadians directly benefiting from it. The wage subsidy program literally saved tens of thousands of jobs in different regions of our country, as opposed to companies going bankrupt or having to permanently lay off workers. As a result of those types of investments, we are going to be able to recover more quickly.
We continue on through the recovery sickness benefit, the caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery benefit. We have seen a suite of programs to support Canadians. I made reference to our seniors already and the one-time payment for seniors last summer. I could talk about the disability payments or the many different supports for students and young people, such as the enhancement of the summer youth program. We are talking about significant numbers.
While the Conservatives have been focused on the negative side of politics, the Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal members of the House of Commons have been focused on minimizing the damage caused by the coronavirus day in and day out, 24 hours a day and, I would suggest, seven days a week. We want to be able to build back better and are committed to doing just that. That is where this budget and all of this consultation leading up to the budget has put us today.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I enjoyed his speech.
As usual, he obviously had no choice but to brag about his government and his party. That is okay. I understand. However, I think he is honest enough to say that it took the work of all of the opposition parties and the government to make possible the emergency programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy.
However, there is still a problem that affects our seniors. Today, Solange called me and she was very upset. She is 75 years old and will be receiving the $500 cheque this summer for the old age security pension. She will also be entitled to the 10% increase scheduled for next year. However, her sister Lise, who is 72, will not get any of that. Solange wants an answer from the government—not a politician's answer, but an answer that will truly explain why her sister Lise will not get the same benefits as her.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:35 [p.6561]
Madam Speaker, part of the answer, to make it very clear to the member's constituents, is that in 2019 there was an election promise that we would do 10% for those 75 years old and above.
Having said that, the member is right. There was a very high sense of co-operation within the chamber for the first few months, and then the Conservatives kind of cut out and the Bloc would have continued on. However, there have been some co-operative moments that have helped to facilitate things.
I would not want to give a false impression. The Prime Minister was clear at the very beginning that we wanted a team Canada approach in combatting the coronavirus, and that meant getting everyone onside working together, whether opposition parties, provincial governments, indigenous leaders, other stakeholders or so many others.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-03 18:36 [p.6561]
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about a little of everything, but the debate is on concurring in the finance committee's report on the pre-budget submission to the government.
Over the years, we have seen that the number of recommendations being accepted by the Government of Canada keeps going down. I think it is around 25% to 30%. However, I want to draw the member's attention to recommendation 123, which is to withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. An all-party committee has recommended something that I have been requesting for nearly four years now.
Why did the Government of Canada not withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank following the series of human and democratic rights violations we saw in Hong Kong, in China seizing the South China Sea and also in the continued persecution of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:37 [p.6561]
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a certain slant or spin that they like to take.
I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts at a future time as to some of the projects that have actually been accomplished. I can recall one, for example, that assisted in flood-proofing in the Phillippines, which was needed.
It is easy to bash China, and lately the Conservatives have been fairly good at it, but it should also be noted that it was Stephen Harper who agreed to a secret trade agreement, which did not even come to the House of Commons. It seems when he was prime minister, he was all gung ho: “Let's do everything with China.” Since the new leadership, the Conservatives seem to have taken a 180° turn.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, too many Canadian families are suffering from the high cost of prescription medication. The situation has been made far worse by the pandemic, because many Canadians have lost their jobs or seen their hours reduced and have seen their coverage under workplace plans eliminated. This can have devastating and very negative consequences for family budgets.
The Liberals first made a promise for a national pharmacare plan back in 1997, which was 24 years ago, yet here in the most recent budget, in 2021, we saw a half-page mention of it. I do not know what happened. Did the Liberals cave to the pressure from big pharma, or is this just another promise that they want to drag out for another few election cycles? Working families cannot wait. They need to have this kind of plan in place. It is the missing element for our health care system.
My question is this. How much longer are Canadians going to have wait before the Liberals actually get serious about this plan? When can we expect to see some substantive action on this file?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:39 [p.6562]
Madam Speaker, a few years ago I was with my daughter, Cindy, on Keewatin Street pushing for a national pharmacare plan, and the Winnipeg Sun had us on the front page of the paper. We have put forward petitions, and I have spoken on many occasions about it. I was really pleased to see it was in the throne speech back in September 2020. I am an optimist, and believe we are going to see a national pharmacare plan.
The NDP needs to realize that, in order to maximize the benefits of a national pharmacare plan, we need to have provinces on board. We cannot have a truly national plan that maximizes the benefits without the provinces. If he reads the throne speech, he will see it specifically references, I believe, needing to continue to look at working with provinces on ways in which we can implement a national pharmacare program. In the last four years, we have had more discussions about pharmacare than I have seen in the previous 26 years of my parliamentary experience.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, with the NDP asking why pharmacare has not taken place, and the Conservatives asking why we have not planted all these trees, one would think they were oblivious to the fact that we are in the middle of a global pandemic, which has capitalized a ton of the resources of the various departments and ministers. This is where their time has been focused.
At the same time, we are seeing promised legislation continue to advance, but perhaps not at the speed we would have liked had there not been a pandemic. Could the parliamentary secretary comment on how the government has responded to what is going on right now while balancing that against some of these other, very important initiatives, which have been brought forward?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:41 [p.6562]
Madam Speaker, I will answer in two parts. First, I love our announcement about the two billion trees. It is something tangible and Canadians can really relate to it. I look forward to its ultimate realization, as we have actually seen tangible movement.
Second, I have frustration with Bill C-14 and how the Conservatives decided to play politics more so than act in Canadians' best interests. It is an absolute and total shame that, when Canadians needed us most, when we needed to be there, the Conservatives squandered away opportunities to see Bill C-14 pass, which would have enhanced things for Canadians, whether through the wage subsidy or the Canada child benefit program.
I am very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister has never lost sight of the first priority of this government, which is the pandemic. We are combatting it and ultimately striving to build back better.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-03 18:42 [p.6562]
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question raised by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean a little earlier.
I too have had discussions with seniors about the controversial $500 payment and 10% increase in old age security. These measures apply to people 75 and over and ignore seniors 65 to 75.
I spent half an hour on the phone with a Mrs. Guévin from my riding, who was in tears at first. She was shocked, depressed and discouraged because she needs that money but is under 75. She wonders about the reason behind this decision to exclude seniors under 75 and to focus only on seniors 75 and up, when those aged 65 to 75 have just as many needs as those 75 and up.
I would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say about that.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 18:43 [p.6562]
Madam Speaker, shortly after being elected in 2015, one of the first things we did was increase the guaranteed income supplement substantially. I think about $920 would have been the maximum. At the end of the day, it lifted hundreds of seniors out of poverty here in Winnipeg North alone and tens of thousands, going well into hundreds of thousands, across Canada. This included people aged 65 and over.
There are other things the government is doing to hopefully make life a bit easier for all seniors. The age of 75 is something that was an election promise, and I think Canadians recognize the value of giving a 10% increase to the three million Canadians who are 75 and over.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to all of the members who are taking part in the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. As we know, finance committee reports mean budgetary policy.
At this stage, we are being asked to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, but since the budget has already been tabled, we might as well talk about that. For starters, it was two years in the making and was introduced one year into an unprecedented, global health crisis.
In Canada, this budget is the result of a tendency to want to erode the power of members, who are increasingly being asked to rubber-stamp the government's propositions in favour of ministerial power. Decision-making power is ever more concentrated within the Prime Minister's inner circle. This new culture is reflected in extremely lengthy omnibus bills that are tabled without the possibility of being amended and that are being rammed through the parliamentary process.
The budget comes after a year-long health crisis, a year of the government not being transparent with the public, parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the Auditor General's office, a year of scandals and failures—which, in a particular case, led to the resignation of the Minister of Finance, one might say out of an excess of charity—a year in which Parliament was prorogued for six weeks, paralyzing the democratic process.
It was never clear why the government was so afraid to table a budget, especially in these troubled times. The budget was long overdue, but not necessarily the one we were hoping for. Now that we have seen it, this budget marks a new offensive in Ottawa's gluttonous drive to centralize power. Indeed, this budget is in keeping with Ottawa's deeply rooted tradition of wanting to build a government that is the only one to set the priorities, strategies and actions that will ultimately be implemented.
On paper the so-called Canadian confederation is composed of provinces that are free to follow their own destiny and only share certain responsibilities, but this budget clearly says that that is just a sham. This budget shows us that Canada is not a confederation at all, that it can only have one legitimate state, Ottawa, and that the provinces are mere administrators responsible for managing the losses, begging for money and enforcing the decisions of the central state.
Canada—and this is its intrinsic logic—will be increasingly called upon to become a unitary state. The approach is disconcertingly simple but undeniably effective: to further drain Quebec and the provinces financially by deploying a maximum number of new pan-Canadian structures, national strategies and centralized and centralizing standards. That is how Canada will erode Quebec's ability to act and then impose its choices, choices that Quebec would probably not have made if it had made its own decisions freely. According to this vision, Quebec will no longer be the home of a nation, but a mere administrator for outsourcing.
I would like to make an aside. Last fall, when the Bloc Québécois moved a motion calling for an official apology from Ottawa for enacting the War Measures Act in 1970, under which hundreds of people were arrested, one government member spent 10 minutes of his speaking time talking about everything other than the motion. We asked him about this during questions and comments, and he told us that he was not interested in history and the past.
I am bringing this up because the Bloc Québécois has no problem looking back on, learning about or understanding the past. We can learn a lot from history, and what history tells us about the budget and the financial situation we are talking about today is that English Canada, whether you are talking about the British or Canadian government, has always taken advantage of crises to hold Quebec back. This was true in the 19th century after the patriots' rebellions, it was true after the 1980 referendum, it was true after the 1995 referendum, and it is true now in this health crisis.
After the failure of the Patriotes' rebellion in 1837-38, the government took advantage of the new balance of power to pass the 1840 Act of Union to take away our power. After the failure of the 1980 Quebec referendum, the government took advantage of the new balance of power to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, without Quebec's agreement, in essence excluding Quebec from the decision. To this day, Quebec is still not among the signatories.
After the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum, the government once more took advantage of the situation to put in place its plan B. It is very similar to what we see happening today. The plan involved several parts. The spectre of the partition of Quebec was raised. A law was passed, the Clarity Act, which denied Quebec democracy. A mass propaganda campaign was waged, along with an ideological invasion through the sponsorship program. Quebec's efforts at diplomacy were sabotaged. I would remind members that during the post-referendum years, the Premier of Quebec was uninvited from international ceremonies at the behest of scheming Canadian embassies.
Then came the financial destabilization, which has been known for years as the fiscal imbalance. In this case, the plan was to unilaterally reduce transfers and use that money to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions under the guise of providing assistance. Does that remind my colleagues of anything?
Between 1993 and 1997, the government reduced the provincial transfers in an effort to eliminate its deficit. These reductions were equivalent to five times the cuts the government was making to these programs. The government made more cuts, diverting money from the employment insurance fund. Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of unemployed workers eligible for benefits dropped from 65% to 49%.
To offset those cuts, the Government of Quebec had to take on $845 million between 1990 and 1997 in expenditures normally covered by Ottawa. This was also the case for the health transfers. In 1997, when he was leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives, Jean Charest contradicted what he had repeated ad nauseam during his years in Quebec. He said, “Forget Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon. The person who is really responsible for hospital closures and the deterioration of our health care system is Jean Chrétien.”
Subsequent federal budgets contained numerous announcements of federal investments in areas of shared jurisdiction or areas exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, particularly health and education. At the time, federal Liberal minister Marcel Massé was disconcertingly candid when he said, “When Bouchard has to make cuts, we in Ottawa will be able to show that we have the means to preserve the future of our social programs”. He deserves credit for being clear, albeit extremely cynical.
Now, in 2021, nothing much has changed. As we know, the Government of Canada's budget does not provide for any increases in health transfers for the provinces. The COVID-19 crisis has shown how important it is to have an optimal health care system that is prepared to deal with the most challenging of situations. The effectiveness of the health care system is certainly not solely dependent on funding, but funding is an essential component. The provincial governments need to hire doctors, nurses and orderlies. Needs are increasing exponentially, and Quebec is responsible for dealing with them since health falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. However, the money remains tied up in Ottawa at a time when the health care system is overburdened.
This is a long-standing problem, as I said. Since 1995, federal transfers for health care have melted away like snow in the sun. Even before the pandemic, population aging was already a real challenge. In Quebec, the population segment aged 85 and over will triple over the next 30 years. When the Medical Care Act was first passed in 1968, Ottawa was to provide 50% of the funding for health care. Today, federal support is closer to 23%. I would remind the House that we were not even asking for 50%. We were asking for 35%, but even that was too much to ask. The financial shock has been enormous for Quebec. It has had to deal with mass retirements and chronic underfunding.
In Quebec, spending on health and social services represented 9% of GDP and 50% of the public budget last year. That is huge. According to an organization called Force Jeunesse, by 2048, those figures will increase to 15% of GDP and between 65% and 82% of public spending. Think about that.
This poses very serious political problems for provincial governments, which quite simply are losing their budgetary autonomy. The shortfall will continue to grow, and the provinces will have one obsession, which is to fund their health care system, ignoring everything else.
In the past, now and in the future, the transfers must be adequate and unconditional. I remind members that it would not be a gift from Ottawa. We pay our taxes, it is our money, and it should be spent on health care.
Liberal and Conservative federal governments alike have never increased the transfers. Even worse, the current Prime Minister lectured Quebec about its management of the vaccination rollout, even though it was his government that was unable to supply the provinces as it should have.
Of course, that was not the only criticism from the Prime Minister of Canada. He is also talking about imposing federal standards on long-term care facilities. He might want to look after our seniors the same way he looked after the borders during the pandemic, but I am saying no thank you.
The Bloc Québécois made health transfers a central issue a long time ago. As a matter of fact, in December 2019, I remember we had just started to sit. It was our first week. My first speech ever in the House, which at that point was not yet doing virtual sittings, was about this subject. If I am not mistaken, it was during debate on the throne speech. We will not back down.
Part of the reason we are pressing this issue is that we are thinking of the working conditions of our amazing health care workers. I commend them for their heroic efforts. Let us not mince words, they are working in veritable war zones, taking huge risks, yet they still manage to keep smiling. I sincerely commend them for their devotion and their courage. They deserve the greatest recognition.
As I was saying, costs will go through the roof, putting Quebec in an untenable position. It will no longer be able to concentrate on anything other than its health care system. This is the only issue we will hear about in the coming years and decades. Make no mistake, the window opened by the Quiet Revolution fostered Quebec's identity as a nation in its own right instead of a province among many, but this could close that window a little more. We were even at the stage where we were developing relations with other countries in the world through a system of diplomatic representation. We had developed our own programs, our own Crown corporations and even our own diplomatic ties.
Today, that is no longer in our reach. We are being reduced to the status of a local branch, a mere administrator, while Ottawa co-opts and monopolizes all the flexibility to make decisions. We can read in the pages of this budget that in conjunction with draining Quebec and the provinces of their ability to act, the federal tentacles are coming out, as they did after 1838, after 1980, after 1995. As it dismantles Quebec, Canada builds itself up. Ottawa is setting up the infrastructure to be able to permanently interfere in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
Let us take a look at what is in the budget: long-term care centres, a national child care program, possibly pharmacare, women's health issues, a framework for mental health with Wellness Together Canada, reproductive health, a Canada water management agency, critical mineral management, securities, a federal office for recognizing foreign credentials, a federal framework for skills training and other sectoral initiatives in employment, an initiative to help seniors age well at home, a national advisory board on child care, a new program to support skills for success, a new apprenticeship program, a new data commissioner, and a natural infrastructure fund.
It is safe to say that the 739-page budget document does not skimp on intrusions of all kinds, in every way and in every facet imaginable. Need I point out that there is no right to opt out with compensation? No, because that goes without saying.
These multiple intrusions were even denounced in a letter from André Pratte that was published in the Montreal Gazette. Remember, André Pratte was a senator and editorial writer for La Presse, and he is most definitely not a sovereignist.
I also want to quote the columnist Antoine Robitaille, who wrote:
...as is often the case in Canada, when something seems necessary and desirable, the federal big brother ignores the constitutional rules and takes the lead.
In his article, Antoine Robitaille quoted Justice Rowe, who was himself quoting constitutional expert Peter Hogg:
According to the latter, if in a federal nation paramount central power “completely overlapped regional power”, then that nation stops being federal. In such a system, the provinces can exercise their jurisdiction as they please—“as long as they do so in a manner that the federal legislation authorizes”!
It is a declaration of war, war on independence, war on the merest hint of the people's desire to assert themselves as a nation or affirm provincial autonomy.
Whenever we raise these issues, as we do on a regular basis, people always accuse us of trying to pick a fight. What are we supposed to do, though?
Should Quebec keep quiet, suck it up, accept these limitations, settle for never being more than a province, never being more than a minority? Every day that it exists within this system, Quebec loses a little bit of itself. Are we supposed to tell ourselves that is not so bad? No thanks.
Contrary to what the feds would have us believe, political power and the ability to act is a real issue, especially in times of crisis. This is not some wacky fixation on a fight over a flag. This is about power, political power.
Naturally I am going to say that the only way to escape dependence is to gain independence. This will certainly not come as a surprise to anyone, but independence requires that we have budget autonomy in every respect and at any price.
Former separatist finance minister Bernard Landry spoke of strangulation by the tentacles of big government. One of his successors, the former federalist finance minister Yves Séguin, directly compared Ottawa to a vampire. His metaphor was even stronger, adding a bloody touch to the comparison.
This must stop at all costs. Ottawa must stop and re-examine its boundaries. To be honest, I do not think it will happen. As I was saying, I believe that the only way to escape dependence is to gain independence.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-03 19:02 [p.6565]
Madam Speaker, I liked that the member gave us a history of political debates in Quebec over the past 30 years.
However, I would like to come back to a comment one of the Bloc Québécois members made about old age security. In the budget, the federal government decided to give $500 to those 75 and older.
Can my colleague tell me why, in his opinion, the government decided to proceed in this way, when the best option would have been to give that amount to seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement, in other words those with an income of less than $18,744?
I know that the Bloc is interested in this topic. We know that the demographics of our country is changing and that our life expectancy is going up. I would like my colleague's opinion on this.
If the government really wanted to help seniors, why did it decide to give this money to a certain group of seniors, but not another, when it could have done more to help seniors who have a much lower income than others in this country?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Shepard for his question.
He rightly mentioned that the population is aging, which would require an increase to health transfers, even during the pandemic. The pandemic has exacerbated the situation, but it did not create it. Regardless, the government should have increased these transfers because of the aging population and the increased costs associated with that.
In response to his question about seniors, I would say that the solution we would advocate for, do advocate for and will advocate for is a permanent increase to the GIS, as opposed to a single payment in the lead-up to a potential election. We are talking about a real, permanent increase.
Seniors are people over the age of 65, not 75. When I talk about increasing old age security I am talking about all seniors, no matter what age range they fit into.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, right before we started the debate to concur in the report from the finance committee, we spent most of the day today debating the government's bill, Bill C-12. I think there is widespread agreement that the bill needs some strengthening at committee.
I specifically notice recommendation 66 of this report to increase serious investments in infrastructure for fighting climate change. That is a very worthy initiative, and I do not think we will find any disagreement on that. However, what does the member think when we see a recommendation like that but then contrast it with the fact that the Liberals spent billions of our taxpayer dollars on buying a bitumen exporting pipeline? Of course, they are now spending billions more trying to upgrade its capacity. We are all being warned that this is the most serious decade for us to get real climate change action coming from the government.
I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the actual infrastructure spending that is going on versus what is being recommended in the finance committee's report.
Results: 1 - 15 of 59 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data