Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 26190
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2021-04-20 10:04 [p.5825]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting its participation at the 12th gathering of the ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality, held virtually on September 23 and October 2, 2020.
Collapse
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2021-04-20 10:05 [p.5825]
Expand
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to table this important piece of legislation. For many rural communities across Canada, crime has reached a crisis point. Rural Canadians too often do not feel safe in their own homes, many are victimized, often they have given up reporting property crime altogether and they cannot get affordable insurance, if they can get any insurance at all. My constituents are tired of being victims. They are tired of the revolving door of the justice system and of crime not being taken seriously. They are losing faith in the justice system because too often it works in favour of the criminals, to the detriment of the community and the victim.
My bill is taking a step toward protecting these vulnerable Canadians and putting the needs of lawful citizens ahead of criminals. It would create a new aggravating factor at sentencing for crimes committed where there is evidence that the offence was directed at a person or a person's property that is experiencing increased vulnerability due to remoteness from emergency, medical or police services. It would make the aggravating factor associated with home invasion more inclusive of rural properties by ensuring outlying structures are included. It would ensure that the use or possession of a weapon in home invasions can trigger the aggravating factor and ensure that if offenders do something so egregious that they do not receive bail, the judge considers that rationale for why they remain in custody when giving credit for time served.
I want to thank all of my colleagues for helping me with this bill, my colleague from Lakeland and all of the citizens in Alberta, who helped me come up with this idea.
Collapse
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-04-20 10:07 [p.5825]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the following petition in the House of Commons.
We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:
Whereas, a new report published by the Associated Press has revealed that there has been an ongoing campaign of Uyghur birth suppression by the Chinese Communist Party which includes methods such as forced sterilization and abortion; and,
Whereas, in addition to the recent news of coordinated Uyghur birth suppression, there is also a body of mounting evidence showing that Uyghurs are being subject to political and anti-religious indoctrination, arbitrary detention, separation of children from families, invasive surveillance, destruction of cultural sites, forced labor, and even forced organ harvesting; moreover, it is estimated that up to three million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in what have been described as concentration camps; and,
Whereas, evidence now makes clear that the Chinese Government's treatment of the Uyghurs meets most, if not all, of the criteria for genocide as outlined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and,
Whereas, Canada cannot remain silent in the face of this ongoing atrocity.
Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the House of Commons to take the following actions to address the situation:
1. Formally recognize that Uyghurs in China have been and are being subject to genocide.
2. Use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act ("Magnitsky Act") and sanction those that are responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uyghur people.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anthony Rota Profile
2021-04-20 10:09 [p.5825]
Expand
I would like to remind members to be concise and specific and make sure they do not take too much time.
Collapse
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-04-20 10:09 [p.5826]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting several petitions this morning.
The first petition is from Canadians across the country, and these petitioners are calling the attention of this place to the prime importance especially relating to human death and Bill C-7 and the current amendments that would protect those suffering from mental illness.
Petitioners are calling on the government to support measures to protect human life, as all human life should be regarded with great respect from conception to natural death. Petitioners say that we should support Canadians who are most vulnerable and defenceless and not facilitate their death.
Collapse
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-04-20 10:13 [p.5826]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across the country who are concerned we are the only G7 nation in which the use of sound moderators is not allowed. They say this is a violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sound moderators, for the firearms community, dramatically increase the safety of their use in preventing folks from losing their hearing. They are calling on the government to allow for a legal acquisition possession in the use of sound moderators on firearms by all licensed firearm owners in Canada and call upon the provinces and territories to amend provincial and territorial prohibitions and allow the use of sound moderators while engaging in all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.
Collapse
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-04-20 10:13 [p.5826]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-6 and the definition of conversion therapy.
Petitioners are calling on the government to fix the definition. They are also calling on the government to ban conversion therapy, a degrading practice designed to change a person's sexual orientation; ensure there are no laws discriminating against Canadians that would limit the services they could receive based on their sexual orientation; allow parents to speak to their own children about sexuality and gender, to set house rules about sex and relationships and to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested by consenting Canadians.
Collapse
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-04-20 10:13 [p.5826]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from petitioners across Canada who are calling on the government to recognize sexual explicit material online is many times depicting sexual violence and could be easily accessed by young people. The consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a wide range of harms, including pornography addiction, the reinforcing of gender stereotypes, and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence particularly against women.
Petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the harmful impacts of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons. They are calling on the quick passage of Bill S-203 in the other place and for the government to recognize it. They are calling for the government to rapidly pass this bill.
Collapse
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-04-20 10:13 [p.5826]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the final petition I have this morning draws attention to the plight of the Uighur people. When we in this country say “never again”, we do mean never again. I am not sure if members have had a chance to see the pictures of the Uighurs lined up on the train station platform being loaded on to trains, but the plight of the Uighurs is an incredible thing that we are called in this place to recognize.
Petitioners are calling for the government to formally recognize the Uighur situation in China, the plight of the Uighurs in the face of the communist government there, to recognize that as a genocide and to use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Magnitsky act, to sanction those responsible for these heinous crimes so when we say never again we mean never again.
Collapse
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-04-20 10:13 [p.5826]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition brings to the attention of the House that conversion therapy has historically referred to coercive, degrading actions that seek to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity which are wrong and should be banned. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person's gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression”. This broad definition, the petitioners indicate, wrongly applies the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counsel from parents, teachers and counsellors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour.
Bill C-6 expressly allows counselling, medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender, but prohibits support for a child seeking to de-transition to his or her birth gender. Bill C-6 could restrict the choices of LGBTQ2 Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or de-transition.
Petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to take the following actions: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no laws discriminate limiting the services that individuals can receive; allow parents to speak with their own children and to set their own house rules; allow free and open conversations about sexuality and behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.
Collapse
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-04-20 10:16 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, my second petition is in regard to the ongoing campaign against the Uighur people by the Chinese Communist Party. It involves such things as forced sterilizations and abortions for birth suppression, subjecting them to political and anti-religious indoctrination, arbitrary detention, separation of children from families, invasive surveillance, destruction of cultural sites, forced labour and even forced organ harvesting.
It is estimated that up to approximately three million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in what have been described as concentration camps. Evidence now clearly indicates that the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighurs meets most if not all of the criteria of genocide as outlined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
These individuals, like so many, are calling on our government to formally recognize that the Uighurs in China have been subjected and are being subject to genocide and to use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Magnitsky act, and sanction those who are responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uighur people.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-04-20 10:17 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Speaker just prior had indicated to members about the length of speaking on petitions and I just want to reinforce this. I did not want to interrupt the member, but when presenting a petition, members should be sticking specifically to the petition and it does not necessarily mean that one reads the petition. It is supposed to encapsulate the essence of it briefly and hold back on the commentaries. I just wanted to reinforce what the Speaker had said earlier.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:17 [p.5827]
Expand
That is noted.
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Collapse
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
2021-04-20 10:17 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my greatest fan interrupted me before I even got started.
I, too, am presenting a petition to have the Uighurs recognized in such a way that the people who are pushing it forward are prevented from benefiting further by invoking the Magnitsky act. We know the government finally agreed to declare this horrible act a genocide, but we need to go further.
I hope that satisfies my greatest fan.
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2021-04-20 10:18 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Winnipeg North on his campaign for Speaker. I am sure we will be hearing more views from him on the rules in the coming days.
I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would criminalize Canadians going abroad to receive organs that have been taken through forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
I am pleased to share with the House that the bill has just passed the committee stage in the Senate and will be headed very soon for third reading. I congratulate Senator Ataullahjan and all the senators involved in that important work.
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to the ongoing humanitarian situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the human rights abuses involved in the conflict, as well as the ongoing humanitarian challenges. They call on the Canadian government to be strongly engaged with the governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea on working to improve the situation.
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the third and final petition I am tabling this morning is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners are very supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy, but they are very concerned about the drafting of the bill, in particular the definition used for “conversion therapy”. The definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is like no other definition of conversion therapy used in other statutes, at other levels, that address this practice. The definition is erroneous in such a way that it would restrict private conversations—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
Collapse
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, you have clarified the rules regarding petitions. This is not a form of debate; it is just to present petitions. The member is using this as a platform, which is not within the rules.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
I would ask the hon. member to present the petition succinctly so we can address the rest of the orders of the day.
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2021-04-20 10:20 [p.5827]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I was finished presenting the petition, but I will say on the point of order that this is a very long petition. It fills up an entire page with text. I think a few sentences offering a summary is not the same as—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:21 [p.5827]
Expand
Now we are getting into debate. Is the hon. member finished presenting petitions?
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2021-04-20 10:21 [p.5828]
Expand
Madam Speaker, my comments were with respect to the point of order. I am done presenting petitions, and I have completed my intervention on the point of order.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-04-20 10:21 [p.5828]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:21 [p.5828]
Expand
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-04-20 10:22 [p.5828]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House again to continue to respond to the 2021 budget that was tabled by the federal government yesterday.
As so many parliamentarians, members of the media, stakeholders and even some ordinary Canadians have done, I too have spent hours poring over the contents and the backgrounders, the annexes and other finer details of this budget. Since this is the first budget we have seen in over two years, to be true, a dubious record for Canada, and given the unprecedented health and economic circumstances we are in, I was very eager to receive and review the budget to determine what it would mean for Canadians in the short, medium and long term.
Before I get into the details, let me once again congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance for making history yesterday as the first female finance minister to table a budget in this House. As I said yesterday, this consequential achievement is long overdue. My four daughters will undoubtedly take inspiration from her.
That said, they certainly will not take inspiration from the budget that the minister has laid before us. This is by far the biggest-spending budget in the history of our nation. It has delivered an avalanche of spending the likes of which our country has never seen before, and yet for many this budget will be a major letdown.
With well over two years since the last budget, the government has had ample time to get this right. For way too long, Canadians have been left without a comprehensive plan for our economy to guide us through what has now become the stormiest season of our lifetime. One would have expected that, with so much time to prepare, the government would have offered Canadians renewed hope and confidence that a secure future would still be theirs. One would have expected a revised and hopefully more effective plan to get Canadians vaccinated in short order. One would have expected a clear plan to safely reopen our economy and get Canadians back to work again. One would have also expected a bold strategy to help struggling small businesses back on their feet again. Finally, one would have expected a responsible government to come forward with a credible plan to manage the massive financial consequences of this COVID pandemic, consequences that future generations of Canadians will be saddled with and have to pay for.
Those who were hoping to see these things in the budget will surely be disappointed. This not a budget that has been developed to fight the pandemic; this budget was developed to help Liberals fight an election. Of that, there can be no doubt.
To be sure, there are a number of positive measures in this budget, some of which we will undoubtedly support and promote, especially those that continue to help Canadians through this very difficult time and also those investments that secure our long-term prosperity. They should expect our support for those.
For example, we are pleased to see that the government listened to us and to the many business organizations across Canada and extended the Canada emergency wage and rent subsidies. We are supportive of a number of important small business measures, such as the new hiring incentive program, the promise of lower credit card processing fees, and supports to help businesses move online in a digital economy.
Sadly, what is completely missing from this budget is emergency support for new businesses, which have somehow fallen through the cracks because in early 2020 they did not yet have the established revenues to qualify for the government's emergency support measures. They are still falling through the cracks.
We also support the introduction of a policy that would allow companies to expense the full value of qualified capital investments in the same fiscal year in order to encourage companies to reinject their corporate savings back into our economy on an expedited basis. We welcome the extension of the student loan interest waiver and the making of additional investments in broadband to improve connectivity within Canada.
Similarly, we welcome additional steps to eliminate the interprovincial trade barriers that measurably undermine our economic growth. We also support the decision to extend sick leave for seriously ill Canadians to 26 weeks. This is precisely the type of spending we are inclined to endorse.
We Conservatives have consistently supported the government in its efforts to help Canadians through the health and economic crisis of our lifetime, and members can be sure we will continue to do so, but there is more to a federal budget than just borrowing and spending. Budgets are about promoting economic growth, including the setting of priorities. They are about exercising fiscal prudence and probity and delivering to future generations a bright and economically sustainable future, and that is what is missing in this budget.
In the lead-up to budget day, we provided both the Prime Minister and his finance minister with a list of must-haves for this budget for the government to win our support. These were measures that we believed were absolutely essential to safely reopen our economy, get Canadians back to work again and provide future generations with the hope and confidence that they can still live out their Canadian dream. As I mentioned, a number of these measures have made their way into the budget. It is amazing what happens when the official opposition does its job by prodding and poking the government from time to time, so I commend the minister for acting upon at least some of our asks.
However, instead of creating a sustainable road map for economic recovery, and I emphasize the word “sustainable”, this budget appears to represent a wasted opportunity to do right by future generations of Canadians. It does not deliver a comprehensive plan to position our economy for long-term success. Spending a loan is not an economic plan. The budget fails to sufficiently address the most important structural weaknesses in our economy, including our declining productivity. Nowhere does it meaningfully address the dramatic flight of foreign capital from our country, nor does it commit to comprehensive regulatory and tax reform.
This budget is notable for its marked pivot away from our natural resource sector, another vote of non-confidence in a sector whose contributions to our national prosperity have been immense over the years. There is no mention of our world-leading and ethical oil and gas sector. There is no critical minerals strategy, just half-hearted measures about consultations, research and a centre of excellence. The government's failure to meaningfully address the skyrocketing cost of housing means that millions of Canadians will see their dream of owning a home slip through their fingers. This is another failure.
Some two billion dollars' worth of trade crosses our common border with the U.S. every day, yet the budget scarcely touches on border security and trade facilitation, and it makes no mention whatsoever of what steps are being taken to plan for an eventual safe reopening of our border. The budget also fails to measurably address the state of Canada's health care and, most importantly, the mental health wall that our country faces. Fortunately, our Conservative leader has identified this significant vulnerability and has committed to addressing this challenge in a future Conservative government.
We had called for the current Liberal government to stop supporting and investing taxpayers' money in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is an institution that delivers no meaningful or measurable benefit to Canadians. With Canada's current bilateral relationship with China in utter disrepair, giving taxpayers' money to this China-led organization is completely futile, indefensible and unacceptable. Did the minister respond to our request? No. For the Liberal government, it is business as usual with the communist regime in Beijing.
We are judging the government's budget not on the quantity but on the quality of its spending. Based on that standard, we have found this budget to be wanting. Notwithstanding the additional benefits that the budget would deliver for Canadians who continue to struggle through this pandemic, measures which we support, it is enormously expensive, as members know, and it would dramatically expand the role of government in the lives of Canadians.
Last year's deficit will be a staggering $354 billion, and the government has no plan whatsoever to eliminate its deficits. Our national debt is expected to reach $1.4 trillion this year, with the government signalling that this debt is likely to hit an eye-popping $1.8 trillion by 2025. That is why the Liberals asked for an increase in the debt ceiling to $1.83 trillion.
Presumably with this in mind, the Prime Minister gave the finance minister a revised mandate letter in which he laid out three clear directives to safeguard our national finances. Those directives were: first, avoid creating new permanent spending; second, review Canada's debt management strategy; and third, present a new fiscal anchor. That is the standard the Prime Minister himself has set, and Canadians should be able to take him at his word. Therefore, we are going to measure this budget against that standard.
How did the Prime Minister and his finance minister do?
Let us look for a moment at permanent spending. Remember that the finance minister was instructed to have no new permanent spending. Instead of complying with the Prime Minister's instructions and mitigating against the immense financial challenge facing our country, the finance minister and her government have triggered a plethora of new permanent spending commitments that will likely hobble the prosperity of generations for years to come and mean massive new taxes under the Liberal government.
Similarly, the minister's half-hearted attempt to present a debt management strategy falls far short of the rigour expected of an accountable and responsive government. Indeed, the budget failed to justify why the minister felt that further economic stimulus in the amount of $100 billion was needed when GDP growth has strongly rebounded. She should be happy about that. Preloaded stimulus is the form of savings is primed for release. American stimulus and infrastructure investments well north of $4 trillion are ready to wash over into our economy.
Then we found out in the budget and from exceedingly frank finance officials that much of the stimulus was not stimulus at all. It was emergency support funding, much of which we support, and it was programming that bore absolutely no relation whatsoever to stimulating the economy. Imagine our surprise when a departmental official opined “Oh well, all government spending is stimulus.” No, it is not. All the minister had to do was be transparent about her $100 billion, as we would likely support a number of the initiatives that this fund would support. However, we know that there is an election around corner, and it is now very clear that this funding of $100 billion is simply intended to stimulate the re-election of the government.
Then there is the Prime Minister's directive to present a new fiscal anchor. It was very clear to the finance minister that she present a new fiscal anchor.
The minister referenced that anchor on page 53 of her budget. That is another fail. The closest this anchor comes to being a true anchor is its vague commitment to “reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That is it. That is not a new anchor. That was the government's own anchor, the debt-to-GDP ratio, except that this one, the so-called new one, does not even have a target and will tempt the government to run up further debt in the years to come.
As the Prime Minister blithely stumbles into the fiscal unknown, Canadians should take little comfort in the government's promises to manage our debt and get our deficit situation under control.
Based on the Prime Minister's own mandate instructions to his minister, this budget must be considered a fail.
I began my speech by saying that I was very eager to review the budget to determine what it would mean for Canadians in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, yes, there are a number of investments and programs that will help Canadians make it through this economic and health crisis. We are supportive of many of those measures. However, in the medium and especially the long term, there is very little to get excited about, just endless debt and deficits with not even a pretense of the Liberal government ever wanting to return to a balanced state, even in the long term.
As a responsible official opposition, we are still carefully reviewing and analyzing the budget and we will discuss it with our caucus tomorrow before casting final judgment on it. Suffice it to say that, so far, I am not encouraged.
One thing Canadians can be confident of, absolutely confident of, is that a Conservative government, led by the member for Durham, will implement a true Canada recovery plan that secures our future by getting Canadians back to work, by helping small businesses recover, by restoring Canada's reputation and competitive advantage and by prudently managing the massive financial burden with which the pandemic has left us. The Conservatives have done this before; they will do it again.
I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and substituting the following:
“given that the budget:
(a) adds over half a trillion dollars in new debt that can only be paid through higher job-killing taxes;
(b) contains over $100 billion for a re-election fund while doing nothing to secure the long-term prosperity of Canadian; and
(c) fails to rule out the introduction of capital gains taxes on the principal residences of Canadians, currently being studied by Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as a way to pay for the government's spending;
the House demand that the Liberal government's budget be revised in order to focus on accelerating the vaccination plan to end the dangerous third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and policies that will create jobs and stimulate economic growth
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2021-04-20 10:41 [p.5830]
Expand
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Collapse
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-04-20 10:42 [p.5830]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his generous comments toward the finance minister on her remarkable achievement as the first woman in our nation's history to table a budget Canada's House of Commons.
I note that the member has outlined some of the measures he does support, but I find it curious. Over the course of our pandemic response, there are certain rather obvious policies that the Conservatives have come out against. In particular, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has voiced his strong opposition toward CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, on a number of occasions. Similarly, after everything we have been through with our long-term care facilities, he has indicated he does not want the federal government to make investments to improve the quality of life for residents in long-term care facilities and would rather leave that exclusively to the provinces.
My question for the hon. member, specifically, is whether he supports the historic proposed investment to create Canada's first national early learning and child care strategy which would ensure women have a fair shake at participating fully in Canada's economy and would reduce the cost of child care for parents.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-04-20 10:44 [p.5830]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that the member was not listening carefully as I gave my speech, as our opposition has been articulating its views on a child care strategy. In fact, our letter to the Minister of Finance expressly calls for the government to implement policies that support women, helping them to engage in the workforce. This is critical for our long-term productivity.
What we do not support is an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach. We know that many families will be left behind, that do not avail themselves of institutionalized day care. They have family, friends and neighbours who help out with that. On top of that, the member's party has been promising this for 30 years.
Collapse
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-04-20 10:45 [p.5831]
Expand
Madam Speaker, during the 2019 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois sounded the alarm about seniors' inadequate incomes. We think the government should address that insecurity by increasing seniors' benefits.
We know that the pandemic has made things even worse. Health consequences and isolation hit seniors first. In July, the government finally gave in to pressure from the Bloc Québécois and gave seniors an extra $300 plus $200 for the guaranteed income supplement. The Bloc Québécois insisted that there should not be two classes of seniors and demanded that the increase be monthly and systematic.
In this budget, the government is creating two classes of seniors, which is exactly what the Bloc Québécois rejected in the first place. We do not understand why the government would increase benefits for those 75 and over but not those aged 65 to 75. That does not—
Collapse
Results: 1 - 30 of 26190 | Page: 1 of 873

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data