SoVote

Apr/4/22 4:08:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a point of order on relevance, we are discussing the pre-budget consultation and concurrence. Maybe the member could steer his thoughts and start talking about that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

35 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 52 - Apr/4/22

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Apr/4/22 6:16:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is time we shifted from opinion back to fact. As a member of the finance committee, I was part of the pre-budget consultations, although not the whole process, because I was appointed critic about halfway through. However, the member for Kingston and the Islands is not a member of that committee, so much of what he was saying was actually speculation. It is unfortunate, because this chamber should be a chamber in which we discuss facts, evidence and science, and that is what I would like to do. I want to talk about facts. When the finance committee resolved to embark on a pre-budget consultation process for the 2022 budget, it established a timeline that was completely unreasonable. It ran out of time because, as members may remember, back in 2021 the Prime Minister was so desperate to get a majority government that he called an unnecessary and expensive election, which of course set the work of this House behind by many months. When that election did not deliver the majority that the Prime Minister expected, he then delayed bringing back the House of Commons, so the time that was left to do pre-budget consultations was compressed. The way the Liberals and the NDP, the new NDP-Liberal government, dealt with it was by effectively having hundreds and hundreds of submissions made to the committee. In fact, there were 500 submissions that came in to the committee, and then it adopted 222 recommendations that had come from those submissions. Now, members have to understand the process. When families across Canada are establishing their own budgets, they first determine how much income they have as a family or how much revenue comes into their family, and then they determine how much they can spend on rent and mortgage payments; how much they can spend on food; and how much they can spend on gas, transportation, vacations for the kids, hockey and music lessons. They determine those expenditures within the context of the revenue that is coming into the household. None of that happened here at committee. Hundreds of Canadians were coming to committee, and many were simply saying, “Hey, I want you to spend money on this, and that, and that.” Then our NDP friends, our Bloc friends and especially our Liberal friends uncritically accepted these recommendations and incorporated them into the report that is before us today. This report has 222 recommendations, and many of them have big dollars attached to them. In fact, when we added all the dollars up of the recommendations that had dollars attached, it was around the $50-billion mark. Half of the recommendations had no dollars attached, but clearly, had they been costed, they would have resulted in many billions of dollars more in asks. They all found their way into this report, and that is the report we are debating here in the House today. My colleague for Kingston and the Islands was upset that we insisted on debating tens of billions of dollars of recommendations. These are expenditures that the government is being asked to make and that the House is supposed to recommend to the government when we are facing a massive debt crisis in this country with no debt management plan, deficits as far as the eye can see, and no date on which the budget will be balanced, unlike households across Canada who have to balance their books if they are going to survive. This government has decided, over the last seven years, that it does not care about balanced budgets. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that based on the current trajectory of the government, this country will not balance its books until the year 2070. Fifty years from now, we may begin to live within our means. We may begin to live within the revenues that government takes in through taxes. That is no way to manage the finances of this country. Therefore, we have this process of all these asks coming in to the committee. One would expect that, like most households, they would go through a prioritization process of what are the “must haves”, what are the “like to haves” and what are the recommendations that really are not necessary at this time. Families across this country go through that process. Do members think this committee went through that process? Did it triage the various requests that came in and establish a set of priorities? Did it look through the revenues the government takes in, the hundreds of billions of dollars that are required to fund those recommendations, and then place them into that context and decide what is best for Canada? Did it then walk through the recommendations and prioritize them, saying at one point in time that some of the recommendations are just not affordable right now? Did the committee go through that process? It absolutely did not. The process that took place at the finance committee was an absolute farce. In response to the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands, which was why we did not bring forward our own recommendations, it was because the process was a farce. It was not a budgetary review process. It was not a pre-budget consultation process, where we weigh the different requests and then come forward to the government with a set of recommendations that all of us could agree on. The NDP-Liberal government and its Bloc allies came along and said they would uncritically take all of the recommendations and present them to government as recommendations for the next budget, which we will hear about on Thursday of this week. That is farcical. I think you understand that, Madam Speaker. That is not the way the financial affairs of this country should be run because we are facing a massive debt that future generations are going to have to pay. It is irresponsible to take every recommendation that comes into committee and then say to government that they want it to implement those recommendations. That is grossly irresponsible. I have grandchildren. The 13th is on its way. I do not want to saddle them with a debt that they cannot manage to pay. Today, we know that interest rates are on their way up, so we have the problem of inflation and rising interest rates. Those are the twin scourges that are going to really impact future generations of Canadians. How are they supposed to pay for all of this? I lament for the future of our children, grandchildren and the many generations to come. Right now, they are not going to have a balanced budget. We will be running deficits for the next 50 years, based on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has suggested. By the way, that does not take into account all of the promises the Liberal government had to make to its NDP partners. There is pharmacare to be added on. There is dental care to be added on. There is defence spending. By the way, we as Conservatives strongly support beefing up our defence and our Armed Forces, as a country. They have to take all of that into account. They have to prioritize. We as Conservatives would prioritize defence spending, but for the rest of it there was no prioritization that took place. It was grossly irresponsible. I do not want to leave that kind of a country to my children. We have the right to expect better from parliamentarians. We have a right to expect better from the Prime Minister and the finance minister. I know the Prime Minister has said that he does not pay attention to monetary policy. That shows in his performance and the poor performance of our economy, where we are now seeing massive inflation setting in. The inflationary pressures facing our country are immense, and they are going to get worse before they get better. At least, that is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada recently said. Things are going to get worse before they are going to get better when it comes to inflation. Why do we have inflation? Yes, we have supply chain constraints. Yes, we have problems with skyrocketing commodity prices, but one of the reasons we have this problem in Canada, especially in the housing market, where houses have been basically priced out of reach for millions of Canadians, is excess liquidity. In other words, the government has borrowed and spent so much money over the past two years that it has flooded the market with dollars that are chasing a limited number of goods, including a limited number of houses across Canada. That is when inflation sets in. This is the environment that faces coming generations. I do not want my children and grandchildren to have this hanging around their necks, yet the government has had no plan to manage that massive debt load. There is no plan to ever return to balance. There is no plan. We have asked, month after month and day after day, in the House in question period, where the finance minister's plan was to fight inflation. How is she going to address the skyrocketing cost of living, or the cost of groceries, with families going hungry, or the cost of gasoline? Parents want to drop off their kids at school or take them to hockey or music lessons, and they are realizing that a tank of gas costs double what it did just a year ago. That is not the kind of world we want to live in. That is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children. Again, I know this is a sobering thought on the debate we are having today. There are 222 recommendations to spend without a critical eye being placed on each one of those recommendations. There is no critical eye on how future generations are going to pay for all of this. We, as a country, can do better. The government should do better, and some day a Conservative government will do better.

1695 words

All Topics