SoVote

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:35:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would reflect on the riding of Winnipeg North and say that literally hundreds of seniors have been lifted out of poverty, along with hundreds of young children. Readjusting the Canada child benefit program was quite significant. We no longer give millionaires money through that program, and there were substantial increases given. As I pointed out, there were increases to the GIS, which is for the poorest of seniors. There was the special tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest, while a tax break was given to Canada's middle class. We distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to support organizations, in particular organizations that support youth, and there was enhancement to the summer youth program, which more than doubled, from what I understand, the total number of jobs. As a member of the government, I would challenge the member to tell me of another government, either provincial or federal, that has done a better job on income redistribution than this government has in the last six years.

169 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Apr/4/22 4:36:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to ask what we are doing here. Honest to God, what are we doing here? Yes, today we are debating a concurrence motion on a report from the finance committee. In three days, we are going to table a budget, and there will be a whole host of debates on the different elements in it.. Every time I have come into the House in the last two weeks and tried to figure out what is going on, it is a repeat of Bill C-8 continuously. We have debated this bill, and then the Conservatives bring this forward. They then stand and talk about measures that matter to their constituents, measures that the member rightly points out are in the legislation that they keep delaying. I love hearing from the member for Winnipeg North, but I do not need to hear him again talking about the government's good work. I do not. I want to hear something else. Can the member opposite at least talk about the delay? We need to get on with the legislative agenda of the government and this Parliament, and Conservatives need to stop delaying it.

195 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:37:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to change focus a little, I would recognize that we are here today because the Conservatives continue to want to play a destructive force in the processing of legislation through the House of Commons. They do that by bringing forward, as they have done today, a concurrence report on something that is, quite frankly, just not warranted. We again started the debate on Bill C-8 earlier today, and the Conservatives are using this concurrence motion as a tool to frustrate the legislative process. We have seen that. One of the answers that was provided earlier today said a great deal. A Conservative member said Conservatives were expecting the government to bring in time allocation on Bill C-8, with the full expectation that if we did not bring in time allocation, they had no intention to pass the legislation, and if we do bring in time allocation, they will criticize us for bringing in time allocation. Go figure. It is Conservative logic, I guess.

167 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Apr/4/22 4:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after listening to the commentary and speech from my colleague across the way, I have to say that with respect to our responsibilities as members of Parliament, there are two things. One is to talk about all the things we would advocate with respect to spending, and the member went through a litany of what that would be. What was completely absent from all of that discussion was how we are going to pay for it. In these conversations we are having this week in the lead-up to the budget and in the report we have here from the committee and in numerous other factors, the government does not tell us how it is going to pay for that spending because it is not going to. It is adding to our federal debt and our annual federal deficit. We were already projected to have that before the recent NDP-Liberal deal or coalition agreement, whatever the budget may be this week. If the government is saying it is going to spend on A, B, C or D, I think it is important for Canadians to know how it is going to pay for it. The member has been quiet on that because there is no way to do it. It is adding to the country's credit card and letting somebody else have to deal with it down the road.

233 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/4/22 4:40:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not true. Earlier I commented that a growing economy generates additional revenues. The example I used fairly extensively was the child care program. By bringing in that program, we are going to enable greater participation in the workforce. By having a larger participation in the workforce, we are going to generate additional revenues, so that side is addressed by the bill. We have invested heavily in Canadians and the economy. Members of the Conservative Party need to realize that the healthier Canadians are, in particular our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the healthier our economy will be, thereby generating additional revenues in different ways also.

115 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:41:01 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, The Economy; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Climate Change. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mirabel.

90 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Apr/4/22 4:41:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne. I want to begin by stressing the importance of pre-budget consultations and their particular significance this year. We are emerging from two years of a pandemic. It has been extremely difficult. Our businesses, taxpayers, workers and families have been through trying times, something quite out of the ordinary. Given those circumstances, it is more important than ever to consult our constituents, our organizations, the business community, so that we are drawing ideas from the grassroots level. I am an optimist, and I cannot wait to see the budget this Thursday. However, we are already starting to get the feeling today that things are not going well and that there is a chance we will be disappointed. Let us start with health. We know that the pandemic was very hard on the health sector. There has been a lot of focus on COVID-19 patients, COVID-19-related deaths, and long-haulers. We are there for them. It is still very hard for many people, but we cannot forget the triaging, the surgeries that had to be delayed and the families who have had to go through extremely difficult times. We have seen this in other countries. Switzerland comes to mind, for example. Certain other countries have more resilient health care systems. They were more resilient because they have been reformed. They have been reformed because funding was available and more hospital beds were available. This enabled them to do better in the pandemic and to reduce the economic costs associated with all the lockdown measures. What we need now in order to deal with future crises, to clear the backlog of surgeries, to clear all the backlogs, are health transfers with no strings attached, transfers that cover 35% of system costs. Indeed, our health care systems need to be reformed. The Quebec health minister has already presented a major reform plan, but it needs to be funded. As we know, the money is here in Ottawa. We had a long list of health care stakeholders in Quebec today. Everyone was there, including general practitioners, specialists, unions. These people are calling for health transfers with no strings attached in order to ensure predictable funding so that we can plan reforms. These are the people who work on the ground, in hospitals. These are the people who take care of others. I imagine that the budget is pretty much ready to go, that copies are being printed and bound in pretty plastic covers. When we asked the Minister of Health the question, he said that, yes, the government would be giving small amounts. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will talk about that later. The government is handing out money, but these are ad hoc microtransfers, bits of money here and there. Then the Minister of Health expects us to thank him for that. In the meantime, he is refusing to meet with people in Quebec who take care of the sick day after day. This is one of our demands, something we need to support the budget. We are proud of that because it is what Quebeckers and others want. The federal government is the one with the money and it has to recommit. We are also asking for the Canada social transfer to be brought back to its 1993‑94 levels. The Conservatives are on their soapbox again. Last time it was about their love for Paul Martin. Today it is Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien and John Manley. They like all the Liberals who made cuts. As I have said before, starting in 1995, they merged the health and social transfers and then made repeated cuts to them. We are still not back to the same level of funding as we had before. The Canada social transfer is used for post‑secondary education, social assistance, early childhood education, and educational services. It is astounding to hear the Liberals brag about interfering in provincial jurisdictions when it comes to child care when, for years, they have not made up for any lost ground with the Canada social transfer. That should be done. It is necessary. The provincial governments are the ones providing the services. When the federal government tries, it rarely goes well. We are seeing that right now with Citizenship and Immigration. I attended and participated in the budget consultations at the Standing Committee on Finance. Before the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals was even consummated, people were already asking questions. The recommendations were presented, and we told them that they fell under provincial jurisdiction. However, they do not understand what these jurisdictions are. Last week, the member for Fredericton told me that she understands why the Bloc wants the government to stay out of provincial jurisdictions but that mental health is such an important issue that the government should intervene. I have no doubt that they are sincere, but sincerity and incompetence do not get us anywhere. What matters is money, and it needs to be given to those on the ground. Let us talk about the cost of living. As an economist, I know that the supply chain and the issues we have had are partly to blame for the inflationary pressures we are experiencing. The Conservatives are living in their own little world, where the Earth is flat and there is nothing outside our borders. I know that all these supply problems are a big source of the inflationary pressure, but there is another factor at play. Inflation has been at 2%, or between 1% and 3%, for decades, so families, businesses, governments and anyone who needs to procure goods have planned their finances around a predictable inflation rate of 2%. Everyone was taken by surprise. The most vulnerable members of society are among those who were taken by surprise. Some families are struggling to make ends meet. They are being told that this is temporary, that it will not last long. They are being told that they only have to go hungry for two years, then inflation will go back to 2%. The Bloc Québécois believes that these people need to be supported. This must be done through an increase in the GST credit when inflation is above 3%. Indeed, there is a monetary policy commitment that inflation would not exceed 3%. The frequency of cheques could also be increased. It is important to help these people, because they are struggling financially right now. Let us talk green finance. We want to see that in the budget. During question period today, the environment minister once again boasted about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. To hear him tell it, one would think the Liberals had been in power for six months, but they have been in power since 2015. The subsidies are still there, and the government is still dumping taxpayer dollars into fossil fuels. That kind of short-term thinking is what gets the world in trouble. That kind of short-term thinking means that, when gas is $2 a litre, we will be even more dependent on it. That is what we need to work on. Our financial institutions must disclose climate risk. That is under federal jurisdiction, but the one time they do have jurisdiction over something, they do not use it. We also need to change the the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's mandate. It is clear from what the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is doing and from all the financial innovations at Desjardins that people want green investments. We have to put money toward the transition. The CPP Investment Board has come up with its own strategy. It wants to invest in carbon capture. Carbon capture does not exist, though. It is a last-ditch strategy that may one day enable us to knock out the last few units, the last few metric tonnes of emissions, but they are up to their eyeballs in oil. Let us talk about access to water. Are the Liberals proud of their legacy? The Chrétien government promised our first nations access to drinking water, Paul Martin made a commitment to that effect, and the current government keeps talking about it, but it has not happened yet, even though drinking water is essential. I will talk about farming because it is very important to my riding, Mirabel. Earlier during question period, the Minister of Agriculture told us that our farmers know how much they will be getting in compensation. Their market was stolen from them with CUSMA, but they will not be getting their money until next year. I feel like going up to every government MP and telling them that their salary is x amount, but I will not pay it until next year, so good luck with the mortgage. Those payments need to be moved up. Farmers are important. They are the ones who feed us. Farmers, especially those who are supply managed, are having a very tough time right now because of input costs. I will close by saying that expectations are high and I am very worried about the signs I am seeing.

1556 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Apr/4/22 4:51:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member, as I would like to congratulate everybody at that end of the House and everybody at this end of the House who have been talking about people, because what we have heard from that portion of the other side is all about money. There is a an old saying that is quite often misused. It is, “Money is the root of all evil”, and that is not correct. The correct expression is, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” I would like to ask my hon. friend, who has done the right thing and talked about people, whether or not it is reasonable for the average Canadian to believe that the Conservatives love money more than people.

132 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/4/22 4:52:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did talk about people, but I will say which people I started talking about—

18 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/4/22 4:52:29 p.m.
Watch

Hon. members on the opposition side will likely have a question in a few minutes. I would ask them to hold on to their thoughts until it is time and allow the hon. member for Mirabel to respond. The hon. member for Mirabel.

43 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/4/22 4:52:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, people are important to me, and that is why I started by talking about all the stakeholders in the health networks who today asked for an unconditional increase in health transfers. I also spoke about the Minister of Health, who turned a deaf ear. I do not know why I would turn to the Conservatives today when it is the Liberal government that is preparing the budget. I would like my colleague to tell me why the federal government's desire for control takes over when the Minister of Health talks to us about his refusal to give us the transfers.

103 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/4/22 4:53:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. I sense that he did not have enough time at the end when he was talking about agriculture, and I would like to give him the opportunity to speak more about the promises for compensation. This Liberal government likes to repeat its promises one, two, three and even four times, which obliges the people on the other end of the conversation to remain polite. When someone promises something, the other person must keep calm and not get upset. I find that to be very unhealthy. Producers want to settle these current issues, including this one, and they need their money now.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/4/22 4:54:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the tragedy here is that farmers feel like they are begging for their own money. CUSMA has been signed, and that free trade agreement is being enforced. International goods have already started coming in. When the agreement was being negotiated, the government was in a rush and wanted it all to be resolved immediately. However, when it comes time to compensate farmers, it is always next year, it is always later. Our farmers would have rather kept their supply-managed market. Now, farmers are not asking how much the cheque will be for; they are asking when the cheque will be in the mail.

106 words

All Topics

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

Apr/4/22 4:54:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of what my colleague for Mirabel said I agree with, and there are a lot of questions I could ask. However, the question I will ask him is the question I asked the parliamentary secretary at the end of the last speech we heard, because it seemed like he deftly avoided giving a straight answer to the question. The question was around income inequality and whether it has gotten worse or better in the seven years that the Liberal government has been in power. I know that my hon. colleague has a background in economics, so I am sure he will find this an easy question to answer for the edification of the parliamentary secretary.

119 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/4/22 4:55:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of things in life are unequal. It is true that income and wealth inequalities are growing. There is also inequality in health outcomes. Hospitals are still having to triage and surgeries are still being delayed. However, the Minister of Health still refuses to send health transfers with no strings attached and is spitting in the face of Quebec's entire health care sector. These are the inequalities we should be talking about today. The NDP's approach consists in telling the provinces and Quebec what to do, but the governments of Quebec and the provinces are the ones that have the capacity to make reforms. This approach conflicts with the NDP's world view of achieving equality.

121 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Apr/4/22 4:56:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Mirabel for sharing his time with me.

20 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 52