44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 4, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/4/22 10:20:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to major legislation that would provide substantial support to Canadians in every region of our country. It is a good day.
We are ensuring there will be more disposable income for Canadians to assist them in dealing with issues such as inflation by providing additional financial support so they will have a bit more to spend. It is quite encouraging to see the support for passing the legislation.
Let us think about it. For many years, the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, with guidance of the cabinet and members of the Liberal caucus, has talked a great deal about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We are providing the necessary supports to show we can build a healthier, stronger middle class.
Appreciating the importance of Canada's middle class gives us a better sense of our economy. A healthy middle class gives us a healthier economy. There is good reason for that to be taking place. We live in a consumer society where the consumption of products improves the quality of life. It increases the demand for local manufactured products and services, and it creates jobs.
In fact, if we look at the first number of years since we became government, we saw a relatively healthy growing economy. We invested in infrastructure, in tangible ways, for the first time in many years. All of this was in support of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.
We invested in individuals who had financial needs that were far greater than other Canadians at the lower end of household income. We did that by enhancing the Canada child care program. We did that by looking at some of the poorest seniors in the country, seniors who were on fixed incomes, and came up with ways we could ensure they would have more money in their pockets, such as substantial increases to GIS. This was for the poorest of our seniors.
Ensuring we have an economy that works for all Canadians is a priority for the government and the Liberal caucus. We take this very seriously. Seven days a week we are focused on ensuring we are there, in a tangible way, for Canadians no matter where they live in our great nation.
We saw that during the pandemic. When the pandemic hit the world, Canada responded. Our response was second to no other. We saw that with tangible results. At the beginning, we had a high sense of co-operation from all political entities, and we see that today with Bill C-30. We see universal support from members in the chamber. That is why the bill will pass.
It is much like what we saw for the first few months of the pandemic, when the government recognized that there would be a cost to the pandemic. We made the decision that it was better for the government to do the borrowing as opposed to seeing the consequences of the government not supporting its citizens and the small businesses.
That is why we invested billions of dollars in supporting Canadians, like what Bill C-30 would do by putting money in the pockets of Canadians.
We invested in programs such as CERB. Over nine million Canadians benefited from that program. With this legislation, we would see over 11 million Canadians and families benefit. We were there to support Canadians.
We supported small businesses. I ask members to imagine if we had not provided the billions of dollars to support small businesses, whether through loans, rent subsidies, or wage subsidy programs, or the billions for average Canadians. It cost a great deal of money, and it meant that we had to borrow.
The Conservatives in recent days have been very critical of the government, talking about the deficit and trying to position themselves as if though they had not supported the government's expenditures during the pandemic. They say that we have the highest deficit of any other government in Canadian history, knowing full well that they voted in favour of the billions of dollars we had to borrow in order to support Canadians during a worldwide pandemic.
Now, postpandemic, even though it is not completely over, they are starting to change their attitude toward the money we had to borrow in order to support small businesses and Canadians during a world pandemic. It speaks to the Conservative policy mentality. We have seen that. We have seen policies from the Conservative Party that I would ultimately argue are to the detriment of Canadians. We see the Conservative Party flip-flopping, which should cause Canadians to be really concerned.
These are not just words I am putting on the record, but facts. Talking about policy, we can remember today's leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, gave economic advice to anyone who would listen and said that cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was the way to fight inflation. That is what he was telling Canadians less than a year ago, as he was criticizing the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
The member for Abbotsford knows this full well. After all, he gave that leadership candidate some sound advice, which was well received, not only by the Liberal caucus, but also on Bay Street and, generally speaking, by anyone who understands the importance and significance of the Bank of Canada and its governor.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
922 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not mind heckling at all. They can go ahead all they want. At the end of the day, the member for Abbotsford was right, and he knows he was right. Unfortunately there was a cost, but I will leave that for another day. I do respect that, on that particular occasion, he was right.
However, we have to remember that the Conservative leader was telling people that the governor of the Bank of Canada was bad and that he would fire him. He was advising Canadians to buy cryptocurrency. I wonder if any Conservative members of Parliament bought cryptocurrency. Could all those who bought cryptocurrency please put up a hand? After all, no doubt they would want to impress their leader. I wonder how many of them actually followed the advice of the member for Carleton, today's leader of the Conservative Party.
An hon. member: The member for Abbotsford did not.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, the member for Abbotsford would not have done that. I agree. Having said that, we can imagine those individuals who did. It is somewhat sad, because many people we represent have confidence in what they are hearing. With a leadership candidate going around saying, “Invest in cryptocurrency”, I suspect many Canadians did just that.
Unfortunately those who followed that advice lost a great deal of money. I think a conservative estimate would be at least 20%, some might even say it is considerably higher than that. My colleague suggests it might be much higher.
The bottom line is that that is the type of economic advice that was being provided, but it does not stop there. Let us remember that the initial response from the Conservative Party to Bill C-30, the bill we are actually debating today, was to not support it. I like to think that the response received by the Conservative Party over a few days ultimately caused them to change their mind, and I am glad they did because it is good legislation.
However, initially they were not going to support it. In part, it was because the Conservative Party feels that everything involving a collection of money from Canadians is called a tax, as a member across the way suggests. It is such a sad statement, and I will give two examples of that shortly. I do believe the Conservatives were shamed into supporting Bill C-30. I would like to see them do the same thing for Bill C-31.
If Conservatives support the children they represent in their constituencies who are under the age of 12 and who do not have dental plans being able to access dental services, they should be supporting Bill C-31, not filibustering. That is how children would receive the dental services they need. Many of those children who do not receive dental services often end up in a hospital situation, getting surgery for things that could have been prevented. That is what Bill C-31 would do, not to mention also supporting renters by giving them payments.
However, the Conservatives do not want to support that. They say it is about taxes, and I said there is a couple of issues I want to raise on that particular front. A number of years ago, when I was in opposition, I used to be fairly disappointed in Stephen Harper not recognizing the importance of CPP. CPP is an investment, not a tax. The Conservatives would argue today, as they did from their seats, that CPP is a tax.
Stephen Harper refused to negotiate with and talk to premiers about increasing CPP contributions. When we took government, we worked with all political parties, and provinces and territories, to get an agreement to increase CPP contributions, what the Conservative Party today calls a “tax”. It really is for individuals who are working today to invest in their retirement, so when they do retire, they will have more disposable income.
Only the Conservative Party of Canada, not Conservatives at the provincial level, just the national Conservative Party, does not believe in the importance of CPP and the importance of ensuring that people have more disposable income when it comes time for retirement.
When it comes to taxes, in the Conservative Party we see a party that is in complete disarray. Do members remember when I spoke about flip-flopping? I have referenced the analogy of pulling in a fish and it ending up on the dock, and we see it flip-flop around. That is what I think about when I think about the price on pollution and the Conservative Party of Canada. Again, it really does stand alone.
Back in 2015 and 2016, governments around the world, with the Paris Accord, came together and said that we need to deal with the environment, and one of the best ways to deal with the environment was to deal with the price on pollution as a policy tool that would have a real impact. At the time when the accord was reached, and the Prime Minister, along with a delegation from different provinces, came back from Paris, there was a great deal of enthusiasm about it. It was only the Conservative Party here in the chamber that was negative toward it.
The Conservatives had had a change in leadership, if members will recall. Shortly after the second change of leadership, the Conservative Party changed its mind, and it was applauded. I believe the record will show I stood up inside the House and complimented the Conservatives for changing their minds on the issue. They, or at least a good number of them, finally recognized that climate change was in fact real and that having a price on pollution was a good thing.
Let us pause to stop and think about that. When we think about that, let us reflect back to a year ago when we were all knocking on doors. It was not that long ago that we were knocking on doors. What was the Conservative Party saying as its members were knocking on doors? The Conservatives were saying that they believed in a price on pollution. The leader at the time insisted that candidates and the Conservative platform would dictate a price on pollution. That has changed once again. There is new leadership and new direction. The climate change deniers are prevailing, and we now have the leader of the official opposition saying, “No, we are going to get rid of the price on pollution”, or the carbon tax, as he refers to it.
Let us remember that the federal carbon tax is only applied Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the federal Conservative Party now going to go into the provinces and say to the other provinces that do not have the national program and that they are going to get rid of any price on pollution? I would be interested in seeing the negotiations that would take place about that. Is the Conservative Party saying only some parts of Canada should have a price on pollution?
This is the reason I look at Bill C-30 as a positive step. It is an encouraging thing to see Conservatives change their minds and support Bill C-30. I applaud that. I would like them to revisit a number of the issues I have pointed out that continue to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. One of the things they can do, and I will conclude my remarks on this, is not only support Bill C-30 but also support Bill C-31. They should do it for the individuals who need that rent subsidy and the children under the age of 12 who need the dental insurance.
1299 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was interesting yesterday, when the Conservative members would stand up during QP and say, “triple, triple, triple”. The thing that came across my mind was Tim Hortons' double-double.
I am wondering if someone was going through the drive-through and said, “I have an idea. Why do we not take Tim Hortons' double-double and say triple, triple, triple?” That is the only thing I can figure out. I have no idea where they get this “triple, triple, triple” thing from. Are they trying to hoodwink Canadians again on some stupid thought? It does not make sense.
The bottom line—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that the climate deniers are prevailing once again in the Conservative Party of Canada. I think those voices that have been silenced need to come back and try to get a bit more common sense applied in the Conservative Party today.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would concur with the member from the Bloc. Inflation is very real; we know that. Whether it is what has taken place with the war in Europe or the pandemic, we recognize that around the world inflation is happening. Even though Canada is doing exceptionally well. When we compare us to the United States, England and Europe, our inflation rate has been lower, but that does not mean that we ignore it. That is why we have a Prime Minister, members of the Liberal caucus and others who are trying to develop and support ideas that would be targeted to ensure we are helping the people who need the help the most.
In terms of people who are on fixed incomes, a 10% increase, to those who are 75 and over, on OAS is significant. I am talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would do exactly what it is—
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have to put things into the perspective of time and how government ultimately evolves its policies. I, for one, have always advocated strongly on pharmacare. That is an area the government could expand in. I often talked about dental care also. I am very glad that we have been able to achieve what we have in Bill C-31 and I appreciate the contributions and support that the NDP has offered.
Canadians elected a minority government and they expect opposition and government members to work together. We have at least two political entities in the House that saw fit to come up with an idea of providing, as a first step, dental services to children under the age of 12. I see that as a positive thing, and I look forward to ongoing discussions on how we can help Canadians during this difficult time.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer.
With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31.
There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I guess the hon. member wants to remain focused on the Conservative spin with respect to what he calls the carbon tax or the price on pollution. I just do not agree with the question at all.
One could do a comparison when he talks about a 10% increase on groceries. Canada is a vast country. Provinces, municipalities, the federal government: all of us have a contribution in terms of what our inflation rate is. Even the member for Abbotsford, I think, would have an appreciation of that fact. That is why we see variations of inflation rates across the different regions. To try to say that inflation is there only because of the price on pollution is just wrong. The member needs to get a more comprehensive understanding of why it is that we have inflation.
I would encourage him to recognize two quick points. The first is that inflation is around the world and Canada is doing relatively well. The second is that the government is doing whatever it can to try to make life affordable for all—
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 11:39:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That:
1. Seven members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology be authorized to travel to Helsinki, Finland, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, to attend the World Summit of Committees of the Future, and that necessary staff accompany the committee.
2. That, in relation to its study of Threat Analysis Affecting Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces' Operational Readiness to meet those threats, seven members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America and Colorado Springs, Colorado, United of States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
3. That, in relation to its study of Use and Impact of Facial Recognition Technology, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be authorized to travel to Denver, Colorado, United States of America, in the fall of 2022, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member has not been fair in her comments. Let me give two examples. She talks about the issue of housing and was critical of the Liberals on housing back in 1993. In the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, the federal New Democrats, along with the Liberals and the Conservatives at the time, actually wanted no role for the federal government in housing. The Prime Minister has invested more money in public housing than any other prime minister before him.
The member made reference to corporate greed. When it comes to corporate greed, the provincial NDP Government of Manitoba cut corporate taxes, not only once, twice or three times, but about five or six times. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government put a special tax on the 1% wealthiest Canadians.
Would the member not agree that over time there is a need for a change in policy, as illustrated in both of those examples?
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing today is universal support for Canadians at a time of need and inflation. Unfortunately, there are people exploiting the situation.
I will convey a text that I just received. It says, “You can now claim your GST rebate. Reply ‘yes’ to receive your payment.” After conferring with the CRA, it made very clear that it would never send a text like that. Scammers are fast and started sending texts right after the announcement was made about the GST. CRA is aware that there is something circulating and it has increased scam awareness messaging on all channels.
I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts about the types of people who exploit situations such as this. We should be warning constituents that there are scams out there.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 3:19:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent, which was given earlier, for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on motions—
An hon. member: No.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 3:20:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 8 to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Health be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, and at the the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and
(b) the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 11 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, be deemed to have taken place and the motion be deemed agreed to.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose.
I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talks about supporting small businesses, and I can say that virtually from day one this government has supported small businesses. I could talk about the cut to the middle class tax bracket, which the Conservative Party voted against. That tax break put money in the pockets of consumers, who invested first-hand in small businesses. There were more direct small business tax breaks that were given to small business owners, and that is not to mention the billions and billions of dollars that was spent during the pandemic to support small business owners through loans, rent subsidies and wage subsidies. Now the Conservatives are saying we spend too much money in support of small businesses.
It is great that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-30. However, why do they try to give the false impression that they support small businesses when, in fact, the Conservatives opposed what we did to support small businesses?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26 statement respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-285, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, sponsored by the member for Niagara West.
Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I suggest that the provisions in the bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act provide for an exemption for disqualification or disentitlement for employment insurance benefits. This proposed amendment to the Employment Insurance Act would seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund that is not authorized in statute. In instances when there is no existing statute or appropriation to cover a new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is, in fact, required.
The provisions of the bill amending the Employment Insurance Act would provide for an exception for claimants to receive employment insurance benefits if they lost their employment for the sole reason that they made certain decisions in relation to their health. This proposed amendment to section 35.1 of the act is linked to sections 30 to 33, which provide for situations in which claimants are disqualified or disentitled from receiving employment insurance benefits. In other words, the provisions in the bill would entitle a claimant to receive employment insurance benefits in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized by the act.
The royal recommendation fixes not only the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of provisions subject to the royal recommendation.
Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to change the qualifications or alter the conditions for employment insurance benefits need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Let me draw to the attention of members a few germane rulings on this matter.
On April 22, 2009, the Deputy Speaker ruled on Bill C-241, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period). The Deputy Speaker stated:
[T]he chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form....
On June 3, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits). In a ruling, the Deputy Speaker stated:
On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265, on page 7845 of the Debates, the Chair had concluded that:
It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program, notwithstanding the fact that workers and employers contribute to it, would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.
Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.
Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
A royal recommendation may be obtained by a minister of the Crown only on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-285 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation is required and it has not been provided before the third reading vote, the Speaker has refused to put the question at third reading and ordered the bill discharged from the Order Paper.
I submit that this is the case before you with respect to Bill C-285. Precedence clearly suggests that a bill that seeks to incur new and distinct expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund, in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized, requires a royal assent recommendation.
I thank you for your patience and for allowing me to speak in this forum.
792 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government, over the last number of years, has been working in different communities and has done a great deal to support people from all different spectrums. We can talk about the hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty and the hundreds of thousands of seniors lifted out of poverty by this government. We can talk about one-time payments during the pandemic for people with disabilities and, again, for our seniors.
I do not know if the member is being accurate in his portrayal that this government is not sensitive to the individuals who are in need. In our policy, whether that is legislation from the Minister of Disability Inclusion or other financial matters such as budgets, we have been there. I wonder if the member might want to reflect on some of the commitments that have actually materialized.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 7:03:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting is how much the member and the Conservative Party advocate for following the lead of Taiwan. When it comes to the pandemic, this government, from the very beginning, has been following the advice of experts and health professionals here in Canada. There has been very much a made-in-Canada approach to dealing with the pandemic.
The Conservatives were out encouraging the convoy in different ways. They were opposing mandates when we still had provincial mandates in place. They have been all over the map on the issue.
Why do the Conservatives have more confidence and faith in Taiwan and its policies in dealing with the pandemic than they do in Health Canada and the health experts and science we have here in Canada? Why is there so much confidence over there and not in the people of Canada?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
