SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:08:43 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members to wait until I respond. When it is time for questions and comments, it will be time for members to decide to stand up if they have anything to say. On the hon. member's point of order, he knows very well that there is some latitude to the discussion when debates are before the House. I want to remind members, though, that they are to make sure that they are referencing the motion and to keep that in mind during debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

91 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:09:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member is not. He is standing up on a point of order to say it is not relevant to a concurrence motion that is dealing with the budget, when Bill C-8 is all about the budget. It is all about the fall budget. I just cannot quite understand why the Conservatives, for whatever reason, have chosen to vote against that bill. When we think about a report from the finance committee on budget ideas, we can take a look at Bill C-8. In listening to the consultations, I can assure the member opposite that Canadians are very much concerned about the pandemic. The very bill the Conservatives do not want to debate today, for whatever weird reason, deals with the priorities Canadians have today. I concur, they are priorities. The issue is why the Conservative Party does not recognize that providing things such as rapid tests is important. All one has to do is look at what provinces and territories have been saying. They want to have rapid tests. This provides literally hundreds of millions of dollars for the acquisition of rapid tests for Canadians, which are in high demand. It provides supports today. The concurrence motion is referencing the importance of consultation, and if the members opposite consulted, they would understand that we need to support small businesses. That is in fact what Bill C-8 does. If they continued to look at consultations, they would see that many people are concerned about the air they breathe and ventilation in our schools, in particular. They would find that, if they were in fact consulting with Canadians. Once again, that is what is in Bill C-8. If the Conservative Party of Canada really understood the importance of consultation and actually reflected what they were hearing from their constituents back inside this chamber, Bill C-8 would have passed long ago. Now, it is as if the Conservatives have turned a leaf and know how to consult. They are saying that they want to concur in this report because of all the things that they heard in regard to this particular report. However, let us listen to some of the speeches they have given. There were only two Conservative speakers, so far. I sure hope it gets better. What did the members talk about? I made notes of some of the things they were talking about. They talked about cutting back on borrowing and stopping any form of tax increases. That is the message from the Conservative Party. Some members opposite might applaud while others are saying that it is a good start. However, there are expenditures. This is the question I put earlier. The expenditures the government makes do cost money. “Expenditure” means that it costs money, but just because the government is spending money does not necessarily mean that it is not bringing in money. The example I would give is the Canada child care program. For the first time in the history of Canada, we now have a government that has instituted a national child care program. Let us talk about that program. I am sure that if the Conservatives did their homework, and they did not, they would find that there is a broad spectrum of support for a national child care program. There are even some Conservatives, albeit somewhat shy Conservatives, who actually support child care programs and what the national government is doing. Some hon. members: Name them. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would not want to embarrass them by naming them. Here is the reason I like to use it as an example. Let us take a look at the province of Quebec. The nice thing about being in a federal system is that we can see what is happening in different regions of our country. The province of Quebec has been highly successful with a day care or child care program that has enabled more people to have access to child care. The national government recognized the strengths and benefits implemented in the province of Quebec, and we turned it into a national program. As a direct result of that, we will see that day care across Canada is now going to become a whole lot more affordable. There is no doubt about it. We will see more day care spots. For the first time, we will see more people getting engaged in different aspects of our society. That could be more people volunteering for wonderful organizations, but more often than not it will enable individuals who would not have been able to work to enter the work force. When they enter the work force, they are going to be paying income tax. It will generate revenue. Yes, there is a government expenditure. It is going to cost money to ensure that we have that national child care program, but it is also going to allow people to engage in work and generate additional revenues for the Government of Canada. It is a fair policy. It is a good decision for the government to move in that direction. The Conservative member who spoke before me talked about the government being too concerned about income equality, or that was the essence of one of the points he was trying to make. I can appreciate why the member would say that. I do not know how many times in the past I have talked about some of the actions we have taken in government. I can tell the member that, in the consultations I have had, there is a good deal of support for the initiatives we have taken to deal with income inequality. For example, when we came into government one of the very first things we did was put a tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives voted against that, and today we are being criticized because it did not generate as much income as we wanted to see it generate as a government. It is unbelievable. At the end of the day, it was a smart thing to do. All the members have to do is consult with their constituents. Had they consulted with their constituents, I would suggest that a vast majority of Canadians supported us having an increase in the tax rate on Canada's wealthiest 1%. I can assure members that is the case in Winnipeg North, and I would suggest it is the case in 337 other ridings. Another issue that we dealt with in addressing income inequality was lowering tax points for Canada's middle class. Again, the Conservative Party voted against that measure. The party that likes to say it wants tax breaks actually voted against a tax break. It was one of the more significant tax breaks in the last 20 years and it voted against it. It just does not make any sense. We are talking about consultations. I am wondering this. If my friends across the way were to consult with their constituents on this one, what do members think their constituents would have said about having a tax break for Canada's middle class? I am not a gambling man, with one exception in regard to the member for Kingston and the Islands, to whom I lost a McDonald's meal, but I can tell members that, at the end of the day, a vast majority of my constituents supported that measure. They recognized the value of it. We can continue talking about consultations and commitments that have been given by the government. One of the earlier actions taken by the government was to listen to what seniors had to say. After a decade of Stephen Harper, there was a huge need to give attention to Canada's seniors. We have seen that virtually from day one, when we came into government, to today. We have had the Minister of Finance, the department and 150-plus Liberal members of Parliament actually working with and consulting their constituents. We are participating wherever we can in things such as roundtables and are listening to the different stakeholders, whether they are labour unions or business representatives, big or small. We are trying to get a better understanding of what other things we can do. One of the common things we hear is with regard to the issue of seniors. We have a very proactive Minister of Seniors, who ensures that the issues surrounding seniors are a top priority for the government. We even have a caucus group of members of Parliament who talk about the importance of seniors and what else we can do. I am happy to report to members that, from day one, we have consistently been there to support our seniors. I would like to give a few examples of that. We will recall that one of the first actions we took was to reduce the age of OAS eligibility from 67 to 65. I recall that I was in the third party in the corner back here, and Stephen Harper was overseas when the Conservatives made the announcement that they were going to increase the age to qualify for OAS from 65 to 67. I can tell members that the reaction in Canada was not very favourable. I suspect that was why Mr. Harper was in Europe during that particular decision. It did not go over well. We listened to Canadians, much as is expected when we consult, i.e., the consultation on the budget report that we are talking about today. I know—

1594 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:22:49 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

17 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Apr/4/22 4:22:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for actually mentioning the pre-budget consultation report, which is the actual thing we are supposed to be talking about here in the motion. Actually, the title is, “Considering the Path Forward”. I would hope—

46 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:23:10 p.m.
Watch

This is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.

35 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/4/22 4:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, there are 221 recommendations in this report that address just about every fiscal—

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:23:28 p.m.
Watch

What the hon. member is trying to do is make a point of clarification and not a point of order. Again, I have already indicated that the other one was not a point of order. It is a point of debate, as is this other member's point. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has just a little over five minutes left, and then there will be 10 minutes for questions and comments. I would ask people to be patient. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

93 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:23:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really believe I should get a bonus two minutes because I had to entertain points of order. Having said that, with respect to consultation, which is so very important, from the very beginning we have been working with Canadians in a very real and tangible way. An excellent example is what we have done with respect to seniors. In the first few months, there was a substantial commitment for the GIS increase. It was somewhere around $800 or $900 to max out. It literally lifted hundreds of people out of poverty in Winnipeg North. Seniors from Winnipeg North were lifted out of poverty because of that one particular initiative. I know members want to talk about something more recent. In the pandemic, we had one-time payments for both OAS and GIS. We also supported people by listening to the many different organizations that are out there to support seniors. We literally gave tens of millions of dollars to those organizations to enhance services for seniors during the pandemic. We have now brought forward a budget that is actually seeing a 10% increase in OAS for seniors over 75. We take the issue of consultation very seriously. We have a Minister of Finance and the finance department. As I have referenced before, the Prime Minister, over the years, has been very consistent in terms of his expectations of members of the Liberal caucus. That was to get the sense of, and be advocates for, the ridings that we represent and to bring the voices of our constituents to Ottawa. I believe that, in good part, we do that. We factor that in, along with the many different types of round tables, meetings and discussions that have been happening through a multitude of different ministers all focusing in with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. In a couple of days, we are going to see a budget that will reflect what Canadians really want to see. It is, first and foremost, going to be a team Canada-reflected budget on Thursday. I know to a certain degree that the far-right element within the Conservative Party, which has really raised its head in the last number of weeks, will likely be a little disappointed.

378 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Apr/4/22 4:27:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member is insinuating that there are members of the far right in the Conservative Party. That is completely false and inappropriate.

29 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:27:19 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

10 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:27:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to insinuate it. It is fact. That is the reality.

16 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Apr/4/22 4:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, that is completely inappropriate and it is not a fact. My family came to Canada. I am a member of the Conservative Party. One does not insinuate that I am a member of the far right. It is completely inappropriate and unbecoming of the member for Winnipeg North. I expect more from him.

60 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:27:57 p.m.
Watch

Again, I just want to remind members to be careful. I know that one of the Speakers spoke to this last week and indicated that people should be judicious, and very careful, in some of the words that they are using. Again, I just want to remind the hon. member that it is still a point of debate. I do want to remind the parliamentary secretary to get back to his speech and to try to keep it focused on the debate that is before the House. He has two minutes left before there are 10 minutes of questions and comments.

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:28:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, maybe "Reformers” is a better word. There is a very strong Reformer element to the Conservative Party today. We can just look at some of the words we are hearing in their speeches, whether the words are inside this chamber or in what some of the leadership candidates are saying outside of the chamber. We need to recognize that Canadians as a whole see the true value of good governance and recognize that at times there is a need for government to develop social programs to really made a positive difference. There are Conservatives who will constantly talk about cutting taxes, and that is it: Cut taxes and deal with the deficit. That is their whole preoccupation. When I think of the people I represent there, I see there is more to being a member of Parliament than strictly fixating on cutting back on what the people of Canada need. There is a need, for example, to provide and support national health care, and now national child care. There is a need to support programs that put money directly into the pockets of people, such as OAS. There is a need to look at ways in which we can improve other programs to support people, such as an enhancement of the CPP, and to provide support through infrastructure dollars. Government has a role to play, and I am looking forward to a couple of days from now, when we will see a vision that is going to take us out of the pandemic and continue to put Canada on a road to prosperity.

266 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Apr/4/22 4:30:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am looking for something to vote for. We have been waiting since 2019 in York—Simcoe for the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund. I know the members for Niagara Centre, Kingston and the Islands and Winnipeg North all know how badly that is needed. It was promised in 2019, and we are still waiting. I would also suggest to the member that I represent the Holland Marsh, again the soup and salad bowl of Canada. We are looking for programs for our farmers right now. Half of the farms are on propane; they want to move to natural gas, but there is nothing. Small businesses are on phase 1 hydro. They cannot move to phase 3 hydro. I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg North to comment on those points.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, allow me to help my friend across the way. Bill C-8 takes a number of initiatives that the member is talking about. When he talks about helping small businesses, Bill C-8 does that. In talking about helping his constituents and again in the spirit of consultation, the member should take a look at what Bill C-8 does before he is obligated to vote against it. If he were to consult with his constituents, he would hear that there are a lot of positive measures in there, and I would encourage the member, not only on the concurrence motion but also on Bill C-8, to vote in favour. Better yet, let us pass the fall economic update report. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

128 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:32:34 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to remind the hon. member and his colleagues that they had an opportunity to ask a question and they should be respectful when the answer is coming through, as opposed to talking and yelling across the way. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

57 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/4/22 4:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. However, I am rather tired of hearing the Liberals brag about how they have taken such good care of seniors. In his speech, my colleague once again reminded us that the Liberals increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and up. However, in doing so, they are creating two classes of seniors. When we ask them about that, we either get an interminable yet empty speech about how they are, have always been, and will always be there for seniors, or we are told we are trying to pick a fight. I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary to give me a yes or no answer without giving me an interminable speech or telling me I am trying to pick a fight. Does he agree that OAS should be increased as of age 65 in order to avoid creating two classes of seniors, yes or no?

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:33:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, as I pointed out in my comments, we as a government have stepped up consistently to support our seniors in a multitude of different ways. I was able to touch upon a number of them. The increase in OAS for those 75 and older was an election platform promise that was made, and now it has been fulfilled. That promise was made in 2019. As a direct result, seniors aged 75 and older will get a substantial increase. The older one gets, generally speaking, the higher the need for supports. It was a positive policy move that was supported by Canadians, who gave us the mandate to increase it.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Apr/4/22 4:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's speech. I was particularly interested when he extolled his government's actions to address income inequality. It reminds me a little of the government's approach on climate: It does small, modest things to reduce emissions and then big things to increase emissions, and of course the net result is an overall increase. My question is quite simple. The Liberals have been in power for seven years, and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can tell me if income inequality has become better or worse during that time.

98 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 52