hazylavender/hi huggingface dataset:
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Garnett Genuis: let us answer the question in terms of freedoms. If we look at the many projects that have been proposed for this country, various kinds of development projects in various regions, in various sectors, I think of many examples, in particular in my part of the country, of projects that have been entirely viable based on private sector funding, would have created massive numbers of jobs and the government, in some cases, piled regulatory barriers on those; in some cases shut them down directly at a late stage. We have certain kinds of projects where the government is shutting them down even though they are viable in terms of private sector investments and other areas where the government is pouring massive public subsidies in order to get some kinds of developments to take place. I want Canada to be a country where any business can invest in any sector and grow without the kinds of barriers the government has been putting in, but where the government is not presuming to say this sector is one we like and this sector is one we do not, but where in fact the opportunities and the benefits are available for all sectors.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ms. Lori Idlout: Uqaqtittij, I guess another aspect of freedom is what we do and how we ensure that we ourselves practise in our country our own freedoms and how we ensure countries are safe. For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not allowing a lot of Ukrainians to be safe, to be free. The budget implementation act talks about amending the customs tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the list of countries entitled to most favoured nation tariff treatments. I think that this is going to be an important measure to make sure that we are doing better, to ensure that countries like Ukraine are getting the support that they need to achieve the peace that they need. I wonder if the member can comment on voting against this type of provision in the budget implementation act.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Garnett Genuis: obviously this omnibus budget implementation act contains many different kinds of measures. We are going to find pieces here and there where we say, yes, we agree with that, but we have to vote overall on the direction of the budget. I think there has been a great deal of unity in this House on many issues to do with Ukraine. In fact, where we have been critical of the government with Ukraine is where it granted exemptions to sanctions, where it failed to be tough in moving sanctions forward early enough or implementing them fully. For one example, we spent a long time trying to push the government to rescind a waiver it gave to Gazprom, effectively allowing the export of turbines that would have facilitated the export of energy from Russia to Germany. We think it would have been better to be promoting the export of Canadian gas to Europe to relieve their dependence on Russia, rather than the government's decision to grant a temporary waiver that could have helped Russia export its gas to Europe and, at the same time, not acting to allow Canadian gas exports to Europe. There has been a substantial measure of unity. If anything, certainly, we have been pushing the government to go further in its response to these events and, in particular, recognizing the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean, secure, stable energy.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Chad Collins: some of the narrative tonight is a bit stranger than fiction. I have been keeping a mental note in terms of some of the criticisms that have been levelled against the budget and the investments that we are making. We heard, this evening, the reference to transit and that we should be doing more. We have heard housing has been a consistent theme. We have heard about infrastructure. We have even heard about support for private investment. We have had lots of discussions tonight about our investments in Volkswagen, which is incentivizing the private sector to create jobs and assessment for municipalities. We have talked extensively about our national housing strategy and all the programs that we have and so we are making those investments. For whatever reason, there is an ignorance on the other side of the House as it relates to recognizing that all the things the members are complaining about are in the budget and there is support there for all the sectors they have complained about.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Dean Allison: Hamilton East--Stoney Creek is right in my neighbourhood. Fundamentally, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals like to take the money from people who actually earn it and work for it and then like to give it back out in the ways they control. Conservatives believe moms and dads, people who work hard for their money, actually know how to spend their money best. That is the basic difference in philosophy. Liberals are talking about all this grandiose spending they are doing. In reality, what they are doing is bribing people with their own money.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Peter Julian: the member for Niagara West and I have been long-time friends, but gosh darn, when he throws out these figures, he is neglecting some of the most important figures of how the Liberals have followed bad Conservative management. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that over $30 billion a year goes to overseas tax havens. These are largely tax treaties that were signed by the Harper regime and that the Liberals have continued. If we take the numbers over the last 15 or 16 years, we are talking about half a trillion dollars that went to overseas tax havens. Here is another number: Between the two of them, the Liberals and Conservatives together have provided well over $866 billion in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks to increase their profits; that is nearly a trillion dollars. We put those numbers together, and we realize Liberals have basically followed bad Conservative habits. Will the member admit Liberals are much closer to Conservatives than is the NDP, which is providing good fiscal management?
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Dean Allison: it would appear to me, based on the relationship in the House, that the NDP is actually closer to the Liberals than the Conservatives are. It has been propping them up through all these times. The member talks about offshore money that needs to be collected. We agree with these things. As Conservatives, what we tried to do when we were in government was to create an environment where companies wanted to come and invest. We were moving towards this. At the end of the day, companies wanted to invest their money in this country, not taxpayers' money. There was still a lot of work that needed to be done on that, but we lowered corporate taxes, we spent money on infrastructure and we looked at dealing with immigration, where we helped to bring people in for jobs that were here. At the end of the day, the difference in philosophy is that we want to create the environment for people to want to invest in this country versus needing to pay people to come here.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Dean Allison: at this point, the reason we have not given a full approval or not had much of a comment is that we do not understand what the actual deals were. If one thinks about the whole process of what we have gone through over the last couple of weeks, it was very hard to get any kind of information on what dollars were spent. Now we are trying to figure out what they are for and what will be created; we need more details before we can offer any kind of judgment.
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. John Aldag: this budget and budget implementation act are so fantastic, I could go all evening on them, well into the night. As I have sat here listening to our colleagues across the floor, I think we have read separate documents, because all I see are really positive things, both for constituents in Cloverdale--Langley City and for all Canadians. This budget really builds on the positive measures and budgets we have had previously. We have done some really big things in Canada as a Liberal government. We have introduced child care, and I heard just today from Trevor, in my riding, about how our child care initiatives are saving his family over $1,000 a month right now. This is putting money right into his pocket. This budget is going to continue to be transformative for Canadians. It would invest almost $200 billion in improving health care funding to the provinces. This would allow us to make all sorts of improvements. It is a top issue I hear about when I am door knocking and talking to constituents in Cloverdale--Langley City, and we would be making the investments that would actually make a difference in the lives of Canadians. However, there are other big things. The budget would continue work on the implementation of the dental care program. Figures show that over 240,000 children are already benefiting from this program, and as we get into the implementation of this budget, more families and individuals would benefit. Children under 18 would benefit, seniors would benefit and persons with disabilities would benefit. The budget would also have families earning under $90,000 benefiting from this program, and this is because the Liberal government saw the need. We are implementing this to make it real and meaningful for Canadians right now, and that is fantastic news. I would say that there are also some other big initiatives. Addressing climate change is so important, and we recognize that. We are investing in building a sustainable economy, fighting climate change and creating new opportunities for businesses and workers. I would like to say that there are also a lot of small actions that build on these huge and transformative actions. Some of the small ones that would put money into the pockets of Canadians again and be really meaningful as we continue to fight inflation and deal with higher costs of living are the grocery rebate we have heard about tonight, and as I said--
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I always find it somewhat interesting to do a late show with the member opposite given the twist he puts on things. He is like a hound out here sniffing for scandals of any sort. Whether he finds something genuine or not, he is quick to jump to his feet, try to make connections here in there and try to make something look as bad as possible. When the member was talking about McKinsey, he was saying how bad it is and that the Government of Canada should not be supporting McKinsey after having contracted with it. However, in the same four minutes, he said that not only is Canada doing this, but the United States has contracts with it. He changes the issue: In one situation McKinsey is emphasizing a certain direction, and in Canada it is emphasizing another direction. The point is that McKinsey has contracts with many countries in the world. When we think of the reason for the contracts, I am not too sure if the member is not in favour of the government contracting out to consultants in order to provide the independent input that is often needed to establish good government policy. Throughout the pandemic, a great deal of money was spent, and we had already increased the size of the public service. There were great demands on the public service at the time. There is a need for governments there. That should not surprise anybody, because at the end of the day, governments of all different levels and of all political stripes do participate in the contracting out of contracts. That is done for a multitude of different reasons. We can look at the other issue the member tries to say is bad, and that is the so-called relationship. He constantly wants to bring up Mr. Barton and give the false impression that the Prime Minister and Mr. Barton are the best of buddies and good friends. We know that is not the case. We do know that. Whether it is Mr. Barton or others who are affiliated with McKinsey, we are very much aware of it, so trying to make some of these connections just does not fly. At the end of the day, I think the member needs to move on to some other subject matter and maybe give this one a bit of a rest. Yes, we have concerns with McKinsey and the Province of B.C. The member has made reference to that. Ottawa is always doing its due diligence in making sure that the best interests of Canadians are, in fact, being served, and we will continue to do so. However, let us not fool anyone here. At the end of the day, as Stephen Harper did and as other governments have done in the past, going to and using outside consultants is done on a regular basis, as I indicated, whether it is by different levels of government or different political parties. I think the member needs to take the fishing rod out of this particular hole and look for another hole to dip it into.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Garnett Genuis: I do not think my friend across the way really understood the question. Aside from dipping fishing rods in different holes, the question was about McKinsey getting over $100 million in contracts from the government. The member says that I try to make things look as bad as possible. Respectfully, it is not very difficult in this case. This is a company that literally advised on how to turbocharge opioid sales. It paid over half a billion dollars in compensation for its involvement in the opioid crisis. The question is quite simple: Why did the government give over $100 million in contracts to this Liberal-connected firm with such an obviously shady track record? Why?
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: first and foremost, the member is wrong to try to give the false impression that it is a Liberal-friendly firm. The company the member is referencing has had dealings with Conservative-minded governments. This is about the idea that governments of all political stripes, at different levels, recognize the value of using consultants. It has been very effective in many different ways. With regard to the specifics of the negatives the member has highlighted, I can assure the member that the government takes them very seriously and will ensure that due diligence is done when contracting out. There is a process in place.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo: I am here late into the night because when I asked the government why it has not followed through with its promise to convert the Canada caregiver tax credit to a refundable benefit, it responded with answers that were not even related to the tax credit. Its members talked about health care transfers and paid workers. This worried me, because it appeared the government did not know about its promise to support unpaid caregivers, so let me remind it. The mandate letter the Prime Minister gave the finance minister back in 2021 tasked her with converting the Canada caregiver credit to a refundable tax-free benefit that would put money back in the pockets of unpaid caregivers. The current health care crisis puts growing pressure on families to care for their loved ones, and those caregivers are incurring extra costs, yet those costs cannot be recouped with the current non-refundable benefit if one is not earning enough income or does not owe taxes. This is gender discrimination. The important job of caring for aging parents, grandparents and children is most often done by women, and that work is unpaid. The government can support caregivers by immediately making the Canada caregiver credit a refundable tax benefit to put money back into people's pockets. In addition to that, the House of Commons finance committee included this measure in its list of recommendations to the government ahead of the current budget, yet still no action has been taken. I ask again: Why is the government delaying this benefit for those who care for our loved ones?
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: first and foremost, I want to recognize the very important role that caregivers have been providing, especially during the pandemic. There is a great reliance, and we recognize that, at the end of the day, whether it is seniors, individuals on sick leave or children, in many situations the caregivers provide an absolute necessary service for the betterment of the lives of those individuals they are providing care for. There are different ways in which the government can actually provide support. I appreciate what the member is asking. She referenced a mandate letter. I am not too sure about the election promise, but maybe she could expand on that particular aspect in her follow-up question. However, what I do know is that the government has been spending a great deal of money over the last number of years in the whole area of supports for seniors, supports for health care and looking at ways in which we can enhance wages. In fact, this is a little off topic, but today, in the province of Manitoba, through national initiatives of supporting child care, there is going to be an increase for child care workers, who are predominantly women. I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6%, which is going to be taking effect, I believe, on July 1. Recognizing that there are many areas in which government can invest in or should be looking at investing in, I would suggest the member look at how we can support caregivers. The Department of Health, with the money transfers that we have made, has also made it very clear in terms of provincial and territorial governments needing to come to the table and be more supportive of our providers. The interest is there. We are almost halfway through a mandate where we can likely revisit this issue. The member made reference to the mandate letters, and I suspect it is one of those issues in which we hope to be able to make some progress in. As I said, how can one not recognize the valuable contributions that caregivers provide to individuals, and through that, to our communities as a whole? In looking at ways in which we can provide that support in a timely fashion, there are all sorts of considerations that have to be taken into account. I wish I could provide more specific details to the member at this point, but that is the best I can come up with right now.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo: I think that the response tonight and even the fact that there was not a representative from the minister's office dealing with it just magnifies the gender discrimination that comes along with anything that has to do with care, the very gendered reality of care in this country that really underpins the entire economy. I would just say back to the member that we know that people died in long-term care homes because their family members and that unpaid work could not bring them water. This is a serious issue that deserves serious attention. Unpaid caregivers are saving this country $25 billion a year.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: the federal government is very much aware of the critical role that unpaid caregivers have provided. I would not want the member to give a false impression that the government is not looking into all different options. At the end of the day, we talked about looking at long-term standard policies and how the federal government is going to be able to improve upon some of the things that we had seen during the pandemic. For those who were providing care, in particular to loved ones, or those who had been volunteering, it is important that we recognize them. I think that we have. I am sure the member would like to see more immediate action taken. Unfortunately, at times, we have to work within what we have been provided. I am hoping that we will be able to move forward on this issue. I assure the member that we are genuinely concerned about ensuring that our loved ones are getting the care they need. We recognize there are many care providers who need to be looked at, in terms of how it is we can support them.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: paltering is used to deflect from food bank usage by promoting a grocery rebate that would not even begin to cover inflationary policy that is raising the cost of food and rebates on the carbon tax that do not cover the cost of the carbon tax. Not content to tax Canadians $40 a tonne, the carbon tax went up to $65 a tonne with the latest April Fool's Day increase. The real cost of rising carbon taxes is the need for more food banks, according to the Liberal minister of food insecurity. Conservatives believe we should protect our environment with technology, not taxes. We do not believe in punishing working people for heating their homes and driving to work. Food banks should not be a government food policy. It is time this out-of-touch Prime Minister and his costly coalition admit that carbon taxes are hurting Canadians.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: the member made reference to the grocery rebate. It is interesting. I do not know exactly where the Conservative Party is on it. We had Bill C-46 , which passed the House, from what I understand, unanimously, implying that the Conservative Party actually supports the grocery rebate, but we hear some members who will be critical of the grocery rebate.
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: the member says that we should not have taken the money in the first place. I would argue that at the end of the day, when we look at the taxation policies from the very beginning where there was the 1% wealthiest in Canada having to pay a little extra in support of Canada's middle class, supporting seniors and supporting children, taking people out of poverty and providing things like the grocery rebate and the dental program have been of great value to Canadians and the people whom both she and I represent.
Marguerite Bourgeois
Date: 2023_04_26
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Alain Rayes: on Monday, I had the privilege and the honour of having a front-row seat when Marguerite Bourgeois, founder of L'Envol, a centre for children with developmental disorders in Victoriaville, received the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec's medal for exceptional merit from Michel Doyon. This prestigious honour recognizes the commitment, determination and selflessness of Quebeckers whose positive influence is making a tangible difference in their communities. Ms. Bourgeois is a very special person in my region. She has always worked to make our community more inclusive, more open and better. Her hard work, determination, perseverance, generosity, leadership and involvement in our community set an example for everyone. Her love for others and commitment to them is truly remarkable and deserves recognition. I would like to close by telling the House what the Lieutenant Governor himself said to her. He told Ms. Bourgeois that she deserves this honour, because she is a model of commitment and has helped sow the seeds of happiness. Congratulations, Marguerite, and most of all, thank you for being the outstanding and inspiring person you are.