So what do we see? There is nothing at all for social housing. If there is one sector that has just been forgotten in this budget, that is it. As I say, it is enough to make you cry. Families are having difficulty finding adequate housing. Meanwhile, this government has the nerve to bring down a budget with nothing for social housing. Once again, there are no provisions for the Canadian francophonie, which is most unfortunate.
Yet the government had the means to do far more. The federal Liberals had enough financial leeway to do far more. The federal government therefore had all the leeway necessary, but not the political will. It is as simple as that. That is the general situation. Now I will touch upon some of the more specific aspects of this bill which are of particular significance to me. Adoption of part V of Bill C just as it stands would mean that the money in trust available to Quebec and the provinces would suddenly be tied to the application of four national standards in an area over which Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction.
While all Liberal ministers involved promised that all this would respect everyone's areas of jurisdiction, in reality this budget includes an obligation to meet national standards. Such legislation means Quebec would have to meet national standards set by the federal government in an area outside federal jurisdiction.
This also means Quebec would have to be accountable to the federal government for the proper application of these national standards. Quebec is being heavily penalized by this bill.
- international gay chat Beauharnois Canada.
- dating Leduc Canada free sites gay.
- free gay dating sites for serious relationships Keswick Canada;
- Hallmark Store Locator | Find Hallmark Store Locations and Directions.
Quebec parents are still waiting for additional funding, while the Government of Quebec is ready to receive this funding and use it for improving its own system. The federal government's interference in Quebec's jurisdictions and its foot-dragging in signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec so as not to penalize it for having one of the best child care systems in the world, are not the best ways to achieve this.
- Springfield, Massachusetts - Wikipedia.
- #Feature: Films on Irish TV over Christmas 2016.
- Open letter calls for Nordic approach to prostitution in Canada;
- 18 Comments;
I am talking about early childhood, but this government's handling of the Old Age Security Act is hardly any better. The government is quick to remind everyone that it injected money into old age security, but the governing party forgets—I am being polite—to dig a little deeper to look at what this money represents. First, the increase in funding will not begin before January The situation for seniors will not improve immediately.
WATCH LIVE
This will not begin until January , or almost a year after the budget was tabled. As if eighteen dollars a month really improves the life of seniors. I should rush out and dance in the street to show my delight.
Eighteen dollars a month is a scandal. The federal government had the means to do a lot more for seniors. In addition, this bill makes no reference to the money seniors have been deprived of over the past 11 years, because of the government's failure to provide the information they needed to receive the guaranteed income supplement.
This is really scandalous, in my opinion. The bill makes no provision for this aspect of an extremely serious situation. I have spoken of young people and seniors. Let us talk about workers now, people in the labour force, who, often for distressing reasons or sometimes for economic reasons, need financial support from the government, in the form of employment insurance, for example. Previous Liberal governments have turned the employment insurance fund into an employment tax, which has enabled them to pay down the debt and eliminate the deficit.
This bill contains no provision on access to the plan.
Pictures and Illustrations.
This is what is happening with employment insurance. The few amendments in the bill have nothing to do with access to the plan. They have nothing to do either with extending EI benefits. Only slightly, through pilot projects, do they have anything to do with extending benefits for seasonal workers.
This bill, overall, responds to none of Quebeckers' needs. In conclusion, I point out that this budget, tabled on February 23, is totally unacceptable. It completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. The federal Liberals have behaved exactly like a government looking for a quick election. We voted against the budget. We have a duty on behalf of Quebeckers to vote against Bill C One of the notable omissions from the hon.
One of the reasons that Newfoundland and Labrador finds itself in such great difficulty is that the Churchill Falls accord is so disadvantageous that the province is in effect selling its hydroelectricity to Quebec at a scandalously low rate, which effectively creates a great deal of difficulty for Newfoundland and Labrador in raising revenues. I would ask the hon. First, would he would support a renegotiation of that agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec so that the rates generated can actually reflect market rates? Second, would he support the passage of this accord which in effect in part makes up for the difficulties that disadvantageous agreement has created for Newfoundland and Labrador?
Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. I have two or three quick answers for the parliamentary secretary. The report was unanimous. That is the first thing. We are on the federal level. This was a contract between two parties. If the parties want to renegotiate it, they should do so. However that may be, these are matters for Quebec and the provinces and we will not interfere in that. Let us turn to the special agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Bray Family History PDF
As the parliamentary secretary knows very well, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance, namely the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, is currently on a cross-Canada tour that will end soon. Allow me to draw a somewhat hasty conclusion in light of the various witnesses who have appeared: the equalization system has been completely perverted by this government , among other ways through special agreements.
Equalization is supposed to be a matter of equity to ensure that the provinces can provide comparable services. So as they get richer, their equalization goes down. That is only natural. These equity principles are called into question, though, by the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
These are agreements that completely upset the equalization system, which was already in difficulty as a result of the policies of this government. Furthermore, we are now witnessing attempts to reach more special agreements, in particular with Saskatchewan and Ontario. Rather than trying to solve the problem piecemeal by signing agreements that only accentuate the inequities, why does the federal government not undertake an in-depth reform of the equalization system and solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance?
Did you know?
That is the question. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. I want to ask him a question, along the same lines as the parliamentary secretary, regarding the fiscal imbalance and equalization. Yesterday, the hon. It was incredible. I have the following question for my colleague. What solutions did the witnesses offer yesterday in order to guarantee a future for the equalization program? The situation is Quebec is extremely clear, and numerous witnesses presented the same political analysis.
What we have seen, particularly since , is the government's withdrawal in terms of transfer payments to the provinces. This has had a ripple effect. The federal government has cut transfer payments to the provinces. As a result, they have had no choice but to make cuts in other areas.