44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, what the member does not tell Canadians is that in the last federal election, every Conservative member supported the Conservative election platform that clearly indicated to Canadians that a Conservative government would support a price on pollution. That means a carbon tax. On the one hand, during an election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to Canada, saying they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have reversed their position. Now they say they do not support a price on pollution.
I wonder if the member would be transparent and apologize to Canadians for making a promise then and now saying the Conservatives no longer support what they told Canadians.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a significant difference between the government and the official opposition when it comes to budgetary and legislative measures. We have a government that understands the importance of having the backs of Canadians, whether it is during a pandemic or at a time when Canadians are concerned about inflation.
The member made reference to a couple of issues, and I want to pick up on that because it amplifies the contrast. We, on this side of the House, believe in an economy that works for all Canadians. We do not believe in the trickle down theory of the Conservatives, which is to cut, or as the minister of revenue would say, “chop, chop.”
That is the approach of the Conservatives. They do not necessarily tell us where they are going to cut; they are just going to cut. It is because they do not want to be honest with Canadians and tell them what they want to cut. I often refer to this as the Conservative hidden agenda. Will we find out that hidden agenda if, heaven forbid, they form a government?
We get a sense of the contrast. If we look at the last federal election, when we think of policy, what does the Conservative Party really stand for? In the last federal election, 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast accepted the Conservative election platform, meaning they campaigned on it. Within that document, it says that the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution, which in essence is the carbon tax.
The Conservatives have been raising this issue day after day, coming up with the stupid thing of “triple, triple, triple”. It does not make any sense and the Conservatives do not make any sense on this issue. First, they supported it during the last election and now they have reversed their position. Then one of their members says that Canadians are a lot worse off because of the price on pollution and quotes the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has said that 80% of Canadians who are part of the backstop for the price on pollution are receiving more than they are actually spending. There is a net gain. That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are benefiting from the price on pollution. When Conservatives say that it is going up, so is the rebate. My constituents are benefiting from that.
Are the Conservatives being honest on this issue? They are not, and they are spreading misinformation. We know that. We knew that shortly after the last national election, when they said that they would support it. Now saying they are not going to support it and are spreading misinformation about it.
Policy matters and leadership on major issues matter. That is why we wait with bated breath for the Conservative leader to stand and apologize to Canadians on his position on cryptocurrency. I and others have raised this issue in the past, when the leader of the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, was being provided the opportunity to apologize to Canadians for encouraging them to invest in cryptocurrency to fight inflation. Those who would have followed that advice would have incurred a loss of more than 60% of their revenue. Imagine being a senior on a fixed income and following the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party.
When it comes to the issue of inflation, the Conservative Party would have us believe that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, is responsible for inflation in Canada and, in fact, beyond. Yes, we play a role, and we recognize the pain and hurt in our communities as a result of inflation, but let us put it in proper perspective.
Let us compare Canada's inflation rate to the U.S.A., Great Britain, most of the European countries and the G20 countries. When we look at the averages, Canada's inflation rate is below theirs. It fluctuates depending on provinces, but, generally speaking, our inflation rate is under control in comparison to other countries.
However, that is not good enough for us. We on the government benches recognize that Canadians are hurting when they buy groceries, require services or are putting fuel in their cars. We understand and appreciate that, which is why we have the fall economic statement. It is why we have brought forward legislation to provide relief to Canadians, measures that will put money in the pockets of Canadians and, in many ways, help Canadians get through this time of higher inflation.
For example, there is the doubling of the GST credit for six months. Remember, the Conservatives originally opposed that. They had to be shamed into supporting it. After all, it put money in the pockets of Canadians. After a little shaming, they came on side and supported that legislation. However, we did a lot more than that, and some high-profile things.
Just last week, Canadians, depending on eligibility and income, were provided dental care services for children under the age of 12. Many of those children, if they do not get that dental service, end up in our emergency hospitals. The Conservative Party, still today, is saying no to that. When it came time for the Conservatives to vote on it, they voted no for children under the age of 12 receiving dental care benefits.
There is the rental support, which, again, is direct money to support Canadians who are having a difficult time meeting rental payments. The Conservatives will say that it could have been more money, but the bottom line is that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to assist Canadians with their rent. Again, the Conservative Party voted against that.
What about students? Interest on federal student loans is being forgiven. Again, the Conservative Party is voting against it.
I am a big fan of the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. It is a fantastic program. It will make a difference for many Canadians, for moms, dads and adults with disabilities, by providing a credit to add a secondary unit for those individuals. It is a significant credit, but the Conservatives are voting against that too.
There is a litany of things that the government is doing to provide Canadians the support they need during this difficult time, and time and again, the Conservatives have voted against them. As we continue to build an economy that works for all Canadians, we will do what we can to ensure that happens.
1097 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to seniors. We brought in increases to the GIS that brought tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty and made a 10% increase for our seniors who are 75 and over. If the member wants to accuse me of upsetting a lot of Conservatives because of the words I say, I can assure the member that every word I say is, in fact, accurate. I think it is important that Canadians have a right to know what the Conservatives are saying. When the Minister of National Revenue says the words “chop, chop, chop”, she is right. The Conservative Party does have that mentality and the member opposite just demonstrated that in part. Canadians have a right to know.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a number of things I could say. One would be the fact that the Liberal Party made a campaign commitment to seniors who were 75 and over in the 2019 election that if we were elected into government, we would increase, by 10%, payments for seniors over 75. We are fulfilling an election campaign commitment.
If I were to have leave of the chamber to expand on that, I would be happy to explain why it is so critically important. I am disappointed that opposition members do not seem to want to recognize that seniors 75 and over often incur additional expenses. There are factors that need to be taken into consideration. That is why a caring government would do what we have done to support seniors in general.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, within the budget, we now have the elimination of interest for students. That is a significant step forward for federal student loans where the interest is permanently being eliminated. That is putting money in the pockets of students. This will, I believe, enable students to do that much more in the future, whether that means continuing with their education or using that money elsewhere.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would argue differently from what the member has said with regard to the issue of health care. This is a government that makes health care for all Canadians a high priority. It does that by reaching accords with the provinces and territories. It does that through historic amounts of federal dollars going toward provinces and territories for the financing of health care. It does that by recognizing our important health care issues, whether they are long-term care issues, mental health issues or issues related to dental care. These are all important issues that Canadians have, and I know, from my own constituents' perspectives, that constituents want the federal government to continue to play a role in health care.
I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts and beliefs about the Canada Health Act and the expectation that Canadians have in general that the federal government—
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the one hand, Conservatives will stand and talk about the idea of cutting back and chopping money from the budget. Then we get Conservatives who will stand and say that we should be spending more.
The member is talking about billions of dollars of additional expenditures. She is critical of the government for expanding Internet connections in rural Canada. We have increased rural connectivity significantly compared to the former prime minister. It cost billions of dollars to do that, and we have been criticized for spending those billions of dollars.
Does the member not recognize that some might detect a little hypocrisy in the statements that are flowing from the Conservative Party today?
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc is somewhat predictable in the issue of health care, as is, to a certain degree, the official opposition. They tend to think the Government of Canada's only role in health care is to be like an ATM and hand out money. They tend to not want to recognize that there is the Canada Health Act and that there is a huge expectation from Canadians in general that the federal government be there on issues such as long-term care, mental health and pharmaceuticals, let alone many other aspects of health care.
I am wondering if my friend would not, at the very least, agree there are variations in different provinces, yet Canadians want to have a health care system they know will be there in the future and be supported relatively closely in services provided, no matter where they happen to live, whether it is Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Halifax.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is wrong in what he says about funding for health care. Never in the history of Canada have we had a national government provide as much cash in transfers over to provinces for health care. It has not happened before. In fact, if the member was to take a look at history, and I was first elected back in 1988 in the Manitoba legislature, he would see that Ottawa has always been the place to go to try to get more money, even though during the seventies there was an agreement among the provinces that they would rather have tax point transfers as opposed to cash. The only government that has been consistent in supporting national health care and ensuring Canadians would have the health care they want is the national government.
I would ask the member if he would not at least acknowledge that never before has the Province of Quebec or any province received as much cash for health.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:17:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:31:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline, which consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has gotten about 1.5 million petition signatures over 50 different countries and presented them to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China. It is also calling for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong.
This is a petition that is signed by a number of Canadians, and it is a pleasure for me to table it today. It is looking for members of Parliament from all political parties to do what they can.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:32:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 885, 886, 888, 892, 893, 896 and 898.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 882 to 884, 887, 889 to 891, 894, 895, 897 and 899 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:33:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would then ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always fascinating hearing my colleague and friend across the way present herself in the form of a speech to the chamber.
One of the biggest issues I have with the Conservative Party is that there are many members within it that will say, on the one hand, that we need to spend some money. We heard a lot today about spending on different areas from some of her colleagues. Then on the other hand, we hear from other colleagues who say that we need to stop spending money.
There seems to be an inconsistency at times. The overall theme of the Conservative Party seems to be to chop and cut programs and to cut back on government expenditures. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on what areas, and which departments in particular, she believes we should be looking at cutting programs or funding dollars.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what are the member's thoughts in regard to the Conservative election platform where they said that they actually supported a price on pollution?
That was in the last election and not that long ago. Her party said that it supported a price on pollution. Now it seems to have changed its mind. Can the member explain why the Conservatives have changed their minds?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the bill is not designed to make a better world per se, but to be a benefit to Canadians.
We recognize that Canadians are having a difficult time. It is a time when there is inflation, even though inflation rates around the world are much higher, on average, than they are here in Canada. Whether one looks at the U.S., England, other European countries or the G20, Canada is doing relatively well, but we are still hurting. That is why there are a number of initiatives within the legislation to provide support for Canadians.
I want to very quickly make reference to the multi-generational home renovation program, because I agree with the member on that. We both agree that it is a wonderful program. It will enable people to keep a parent in their home with the construction of a suite. It will also help our communities by keeping seniors in our communities, as opposed to going to care facilities.
I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to how this is a win-win situation for seniors, the community and, in fact, the taxpayer.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is a fall economic statement. When we get to the full budget, no doubt many of the issues that the member raises will be addressed.
I also look at infrastructure as so important to all of our communities. Whether it is a world-class tennis court, an outdoor basketball court, a walking path or splash pad, they are all important community activities that the federal government supported last summer with municipal leadership on those files.
However, this legislation is meant to try to, at least in good part, be there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. The member could reference the dental supports for children under the age of 12. We could talk about the rental support. We could talk about the elimination of interest for students on federal student loans, which would, in my opinion, make post-secondary education that much more affordable.
There are many things within the legislation that are there to support Canadians during this time. Could the member provide some specific thoughts in regard to that aspect of the legislation?
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 5:13:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the climate crisis. In no way would I want to give an impression that I would not support a price on pollution. I was just trying to help the member—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's opening comments regarding the four murdered indigenous women in Winnipeg. It is indeed a very sad thing to hear.
When I was in opposition, I raised the need for the public inquiry. Ultimately we did get the public inquiry. There are 200-plus calls for justice within that and we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls for action. I believe we have to go the extra mile whenever we can in order to ensure that there is a higher sense of commitment to get to the truth of the matter and to assist where we can, because that reconciliation is of critical importance.
I want to compliment the member for starting off her comments with this because this is very important. I know she is not from Winnipeg. Her heart is in the right place in terms of indigenous people as we all try to strive to do better. The question I have is related—
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
