44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/21/23 2:27:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have one of the strongest recoveries after the pandemic of all our peer countries, including seeing the creation of 900,000 new jobs across the country since before the pandemic.
Our investments in supporting Canadians have made a real difference and have created growth in the economy. At the same time, we have continued to step up to support families in the construction of new homes by working collaboratively with municipalities to improve densification, to accelerate zoning changes and permitting, and to work to build more housing.
As the Conservative leader chooses to pick fights with municipalities, we are going to work collaboratively to get housing—
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:33:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since we are running out of time, I will ask the Prime Minister to be more specific.
Businesses and, obviously, many workers are faced with a short-term challenge that might force them to hide the key under the mat. They need measures, and they need them soon. To facilitate the process, we took inspiration from some of the pan-Canadian measures used for small and medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. The model and the structure already exist. We can apply it quickly because the summer is not over and the threat is very serious.
Can we work together to take immediate action?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:33:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few years ago, the pandemic happened and the economy shut down. The House was unanimous in stating that we needed to implement protective measures and safeguards. That came at the cost of significant debt. There was a consensus in the House about that.
Since then, the spending has continued, however, and that is concerning. What concerns the Bloc Québécois in particular is the interference in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That really is not warranted.
I, too, want to salute my hon. colleague. It is a pleasure to work constructively with him at the finance committee.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:09:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was an important question about relations between the provinces and the federal government. Our government has made a lot of progress with the provinces on health agreements that add up to nearly $200 billion. We worked hard during the pandemic to help all the provinces with their expenses and their health care systems. It is very important that we continue to do so. Collaborating with all of the provinces in our beautiful country is very important.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:12:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about a motion that is very clear and simple, but that has many negative consequences for my community of London and our country.
To begin with, what was our government's approach during the pandemic? It was a compassionate and fair approach.
It is compassionate and fair. So much so, that former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, just two days ago, entirely endorsed the approach taken by the Liberal government during the pandemic, and the leadership of the Prime Minister in particular. That speaks volumes about the current state of the Conservative Party. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, obviously, as it is something that has existed officially for many years now after dropping the progressive part from the official name, but something, also more importantly, that its former leader now sees very clearly. Not once did former prime minister Mulroney mention the Leader of the Opposition's name in his comments, which I thought was quite interesting and quite telling, based on what is happening on the other side.
I mention all of this, and my intent here tonight is not to be overly partisan, but since the motion itself is partisan from start to finish, I think it is quite fair to point out where current Conservatives stand in relation to giants of the Canadian Conservative political tradition. I mentioned Brian Mulroney. I could have also mentioned Joe Clark.
What we ultimately have at stake here, if we look at the motion and think about it in broad terms, is a debate about the view of government. What is the place of government, particularly during trying times, during a time of inflation, which does exist? Not a single member on this side, not a single member in the House, regardless of their party affiliation, would deny that. It remains a hard time out there. I hear it from constituents. I make a point of regularly engaging the community. I do hear about the challenges they are facing paying for gas, rent and groceries.
It begs the question of what approach should be taken during this time to address the challenges that Canadians are facing. On the one hand, we have an approach offered by the Conservatives, which very clearly states, and it is not even subtle as it is quite direct, that regardless of the context, regardless of the circumstances, people should fend for themselves. Every individual is responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if one takes that seriously, as my Conservative colleagues do, then individuals need to find their own way. While government should exist, it should provide the very basics in the form of a military, a police force and basic infrastructure, but apart from those things, it is up to the state to get out of the way to allow individuals to succeed or to fail.
It entirely ignores, within that context, within that frame, the economic plight and position that one might be in to get to that outcome, whether it is success or failure. It is something devoid of context altogether.
My friends on the other side and their leader are known to quote philosophers from time to time, including people such as Adam Smith, who they will use as justification for their policies. If one were to look at the work of Adam Smith, they would immediately recognize someone who had a very responsible point of view. He placed incredible priority not only on the rights of the individual but also on the community and the need of the community to support the individual. That is the context. That is the missing link from what Conservatives offer when they try to justify their policies. I just referenced a philosopher. There are other examples that one could give, where this approach is taken, unfortunately.
On the other hand, we have the approach taken by the government. It is an approach that I support, and an approach that I think colleagues in other opposition parties, by and large, take seriously as well. It is the idea, the notion, that one needs to be there for individuals during very difficult times, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
We can look at what the government has done, particularly in recent years and during this session of Parliament. Since it is our last day here, I think it is important to reflect on what has been achieved during the latest session of Parliament. Dental care, child care and things like this, which social champions for years have advocated for, have been put into place by this government and other parliamentarians. Yes, I look to colleagues in the NDP and thank them for their support.
The government acted on these things and we see thousands of Canadians benefiting. Child care fees have been brought down already, cut in half at least, or even more in many provinces. I am quite confident that we will get to the level of $10 per day, certainly by 2026 if not sooner, across the country.
Dental care is for children to start with, but it will be expanded. All Canadians who fall within the eligibility criteria will get access to a dentist, which they did not have before. There should never be a time when a Canadian lacks access to that very important part of health care. Dental care is health care. Oral health care is as important as the rest of health care.
Those are some examples. I have limited time, but I could give many other examples of how the government is there for people. It needs to be there during trying times, particularly for the most vulnerable among us.
The motion, as we see, calls for the budget to be balanced. On the face of it, how could one stand up against that? One has to think in terms of the consequences. For every action there is a reaction. It is a timeless truth. It is true of the sciences; it is true of public policy.
I have asked this of my Conservative friends. Never once have they had an answer for what they would cut to get to a balanced budget. Would they cut pensions? They would have to. Would they cut unemployment insurance? They would have to. What about the historic health care deal that was finalized by this government in support of provinces and territories? They would cut that as well. The Conservatives voted for child care the other night at third reading. I was quite surprised, but I think it is a political ploy, because I know that if they were ever to form government, they would cut child care as well.
What about the most important crisis of our time? Inflation is certainly the challenge if not the crisis of the moment. However, if we were to look more broadly and think in those terms, we would recognize immediately that climate change is our most important challenge. We have an obligation as parliamentarians to put that front and centre. Members can disagree with the actions taken with respect to carbon pricing, among other things, but this government has made it a priority.
It has been said before that this government has followed the example of Brian Mulroney. It has been the government that, compared to others, has done the most in Canadian history to advance a climate change agenda. That would end should a Conservative government form, in particular under the opposition leader. I take it from his comments that he does believe in climate change, but I wonder if he really does, because if the solutions he has offered say anything, he in fact only believes in it as a slogan. He says this to get the attention of centrist voters and nothing more.
These are the issues at stake. What would the Conservatives cut to get to a balance? They would cut all of it and leave behind a country that would be entirely changed. Stephen Harper made that commitment. He almost made it a reality. He said that if he became Prime Minister, we would not recognize Canada. Thankfully we recognize Canada still. However, we know the opposition leader would take that approach and multiply it tenfold.
That is why I as a member of Parliament, joining with fellow colleagues on this side of the House, want to make clear that we stand against that every step of the way. We also stand against it for another reason. That side is completely irresponsible in offering anything concrete, apart from things like cryptocurrency as some sort of hedge against inflation. That is deeply irresponsible. It makes no sense in the current context. I wonder what colleagues on the other side are trying to do when they advocate for it.
I will end my comments there. I look forward to questions on this important issue.
1485 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:24:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that we are still paying the debt from the Great Depression, and it is important for us to understand what the biggest priority is right now to serve Canadians in need.
We understand that prices have been inflated after the pandemic for many reasons, and we are here to debate how we can deliver more supports and resources to those in need across our country. It is always top of mind with our government to understand the needs of Canadians. That is why we implemented the CCB, the dental care plan and other supports to help Canadians get through this hard time.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been corrected. The member is correct that there were larger deficits during the pandemic than there were after the pandemic. Every year, we look at the deficit the Liberals put on the table for the next year, and it always rises. This is the point I was trying to make, and if I misspoke in that respect, I owe her an apology.
There were three questions, but the member talked about economists, Conservative theories and all this stuff. These are not Conservative theories; these are economic theories. I know that, sooner or later, the Liberals will have to start paying attention to economics and finance. The numbers will actually matter at the end of the day.
I apologize to the member because I have forgotten her second question out of the three. If she could ask me again later, I would appreciate it.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
