- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/28/24 12:04:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for those who listened in yesterday or are tuning in today, let there be no doubt that this is nothing more than a Conservative Reform Party tactic. That is all it is.
The issue that is before us is being used to try to say something that is not true. Instead of having a debate on issues that Canadians are having to face day in and day out, the Conservatives choose to play a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. We will continue to be focused on the needs of Canadians, as the Conservatives continue to play this destructive force.
When will the Conservatives get away from playing their destructive games and start focusing on what is in the best interest of Canadians and supporting the initiatives that are coming through in legislation and in budgetary measures?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to start the debate on Bill C-69.
Governments have an opportunity every year to set down in legislation initiatives that could have a wonderful impact. I look at Bill C-69 as a budget implementation bill that would really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I would like to think that all members of the House would get behind the legislation and the budget for the many positive initiatives the budget would put in place for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter what region of the country they are in.
I personally think there is a theme to be taken from the budget, which I hear many of my colleagues talk about, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of caucus, and that is a sense of fairness. We need to think about generation X and the millennials, and how the government can ensure there is a higher sense of fairness. We saw a good example of that in 2015-16 when we brought in our first budget. Taxation policy is important. Through the legislation and the budget, we will see there is a higher sense of fairness as we are look to the wealthiest in the country to pay a fairer share.
This is not the first time. In fact in 2015-16, we put a special increase on the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Today it is even a smaller percentage. We recognize there is a need for us to provide the good-quality programming the government has had over the last number of years, much of it being enhanced in the budget and legislation. Some of the programs we are seeing for the first time, and others are a continuation. What it really means at the end of day is that we have a government that very much cares about the well-being of Canadians and wants to support them in a fair fashion.
If we look at overall government policies over the last eight-plus years, we will see that, in comparison to other countries in the world, Canada is doing relatively well. I will highlight a few of them. However, before I do that, I want to talk about the last few times the Prime Minister came to Manitoba. In my opinion, they highlight three areas Canadians understand and the fact that they very much appreciate the government's making them a high priority.
Last year, the Prime Minister visited Stanley Knowles School in Manitoba, which is pretty close to the heart of Winnipeg North, to highlight child care. He visited a child care facility at Stanley Knowles School, and the reception was exceptionally positive as people understood what the Government of Canada was doing. For the first time, we have a national child care program that ensures $10-a-day day care. It has had a profoundly positive impact in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in all of Canada.
The Province of Quebec instituted it many years ago. We took the idea and turned it into a national program. As a direct result, not only are we making child care more affordable for Canadians but we are also enabling more women than ever, on a percentage basis, to get engaged in the workforce. It is no real surprise, as we anticipated that would happen. There are many benefits, as we have seen, of the $10-a-day child care program, the first ever by the national government. Every province and territory has now signed on, recognizing the true value.
For the second visit from the Prime Minister, I was able to participate in a press conference. The single greatest issue I have seen over the last 30-plus years as a parliamentarian, in my constituency and, I would argue, across Canada, is the issue of health care. We love our health care system. We are passionate about it. In fact, when I talk to many people and ask them what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, our health care system is often what comes up as the thing that helps us identify as and feel good about being Canadian.
As members know, working with all the different provinces, the federal government came up with a generational commitment of $198 billion, not million, over 10 years. That would enable long-term financial planning in an area that Canadians are genuinely concerned about. At that particular press conference, we had not only the Prime Minister but also the national Minister of Health, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister of health and the most important people, the health care workers there to witness the announcement for the Province of Manitoba.
What took place in Manitoba is taking place across the country because, for the first time in over a generation, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system that deals with the issues we are hearing about at the doors from people. There are concerns about family doctors; concerns about health care workers; concerns about how we are going to be able to get things, such as credentials, recognized; concerns about how we can ensure that health care workers are being valued; and concerns about how we can bring additional health care workers and support staff into the system so that we are able to meet the expectations Canadians have.
We are looking at ways in which we can expand into mental health like we have never done in the past. This is a government that cares about health care and is looking at the Canada Health Act and the benefits it provides every Canadian in every region.
I made reference to child care and gave credit to the province of Quebec. For health care, a great deal of credit goes to the province of Saskatchewan, where it originated. More recently, we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg, and this time we were involved in a press conference that included not only the national Minister of Housing but also the premier of the province, provincial ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg. At that particular press conference, we dealt with the issue of housing.
We are very much aware of the needs for housing. I have stood in this chamber on numerous occasions to talk about the importance of the issue of housing. It is somewhat hypocritical of the official opposition to stand in its place and criticize the federal government for not doing enough on housing. I compare what the Conservatives did when they were in government, and in particular the current leader of the Conservative Party, who I think built six non-profit housing units in total. He spent hundreds of millions and was able to get six built, but I did not necessarily want to get to that. It is a bit off track.
The point is that we had a wonderful press conference with different stakeholders out in Transcona, where we had great participation from a wonderful housing complex, and we had the opportunity to talk about some of the things the federal government is doing. Working with the different levels of government, we are going to have an optimum impact on dealing with an issue that is so critically important to all Canadians.
What is providing a great deal of comfort is the fact that it is something we have been talking about for months now, even longer. I would not be surprised if we went back a couple of years, when members might have heard me talking about the issue of housing and how the best way to deal with housing issues in Canada is to have all three levels of government, and other stakeholders, engaged. That is the only way. It is not one level of government that cures all. It is going to take all levels of government working together, as well as the non-profit organizations.
I often talk about Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is a wonderful organization. It has likely done more in building affordable housing than any other non-profit organization, at least that I am personally aware of. In the province of Manitoba, we are talking about hundreds of homes over the years. I believe we are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 homes built, all of which are affordable. These homes were provided to individuals who never would have had the opportunity to have housing.
We had the stakeholders, the premier, the mayor and the Prime Minister in Winnipeg talking about things such as accelerating funding, providing supports to the City of Winnipeg so it can speed up its process, working with the province to ensure there is going to be more non-profit housing units built and that the province would be at the table, both in a financial fashion and with other forms of resources. This is to complement other budgetary measures, which dealt with, for example, the GST removal on purpose-built rentals for the country. These are initiatives for which Ottawa is not only taking upon itself and demonstrating leadership on but also working with the different levels of government. We are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood, through this budget, of just over four million new homes as a target in the coming years. That cannot be done by the federal government alone, and we have demonstrated our willingness to work with the different stakeholders, including our partners.
There is also our commitment to indigenous housing and working within indigenous communities. In Winnipeg, indigenous communities stepped up and worked with the Hudson's Bay Company to develop housing in downtown Winnipeg. There is also what is taking place in rural communities across the country.
The budget shows how important it is that we not only have a higher sense of fairness but also that we move forward with a healthy, stronger economy, which is in the best interest of all.
One of the things I took away from the budget, which the Deputy Prime Minister made reference to, is something I want to highlight because, to me, it really does matter. It puts things into perspective. No matter how much the Conservatives want to spread misinformation, the reality is that, in comparison to other countries around the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well.
I will give an example from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech and the stats on foreign direct investment. People and companies around the world looking at where to invest their hundreds of millions and billions of dollars will often look at Canada. Not only will they look at Canada, but they will also invest here. With direct foreign investment, on a per capita basis, Canada is number one out of the G7 countries. That is number one in direct foreign investment.
Throughout the world, per capita, Canada is number three. I would suggest that people, businesses and corporations around the world that are taking a look at where to invest are looking at Canada, and that is not an accident.
Let me elaborate on that. No government in Canada's history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government, under this Prime Minister, has. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. All of us benefit from it. That is one of the reasons why, I would argue, people around the world are not only looking at Canada but also investing in Canada. They are doing that because they see the stability that is here, along with a myriad of other positive attributes.
Members can take a look at the investments. The Conservatives have been critical. They do not like the fact that we are helping Volkswagen, for example—
1984 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 12:23:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the budgetary measures of the government. It is one of the ways the government can clearly demonstrate the types of things that we are doing, taking into consideration legislation and budget measures.
Maybe one of the best ways to start off would be by acknowledging that, at the end of the day, to be there in a real and tangible way to support Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of it, we need to think about how government can ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness, whether that is through taxation or through providing for future generations. There needs to be opportunities to succeed. This is something that the government has taken very seriously, virtually from day one.
I have made reference previously to the types of actions we have taken, such as a reduction of middle-class taxes, an increase for the wealthiest one per cent to make a larger contribution towards taxes, an enhancement of programs for seniors through the guaranteed income supplement and an enhancement of the Canada child benefit program. This has been all the way through, and going into the pandemic, we were there to support our seniors, people with disabilities, employers and small businesses, as well as individual Canadians, through programs such as CERB.
Continuing to fast-forward, we can see very clearly in the initiatives we have taken over the years as a government, and would continue to take through the budget, that we have a government that is very much progressive, caring and fair while dealing with the economy. We realize that a healthy middle class and a healthy economy is good for all. We recognize that there are serious issues that Canadians are facing, such as affordability and housing in many different communities. These are issues that we continue to work on, and this budget amplifies that work. People who are following the budget debate know that the government is very aware of those issues, as Liberal members of Parliament from all regions of the country have expressed their thoughts.
This budget is really and truly a reflection of what Canadians have been telling us as a government and as individual parliamentarians. It is, for all intents and purposes, a budget for Canadians. I think of the types of things that one sees in the budget. On the progressive side, one can talk about one of my personal favourites, which is pharmacare, and its significant step forward on pharmacare. It is a continuation of what I believe Canadians are so passionate about, our health care, the Canada Health Act, and the way in which we, as a government in the previous budget, brought forward close to $200 billion over a 10-year period to ensure that future generations of Canadians will have health care that is accessible, and that has the health care workers necessary. For me, that is a very important issue because it is an important issue for my constituents.
I could talk about other issues being addressed by this particular budget, such as the $10-a-day child care or the disability benefit. There are many different aspects, but I want to highlight one of the things that I think is really important. That is the issue of the economy itself and how the rest of the world looks at Canada. In the first three quarters, on a per-capita basis in foreign direct investment, Canada was number one out of the G7. Throughout the world, on a per-capita basis, we were number three. People and businesses around the world are looking at Canada. That is no surprise because no government in our history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has.
We are starting to see the results in many different ways. By supporting industry, industries that were virtually non-existent before have come to life. There was the recent announcement, for example, of Honda, which is piggybacking off of Volkswagen. In terms of future green jobs, the government is very proactive at building a healthy economy. We see that in the generation of over two million jobs over the last number of years through the actions of the government, working with Canadians.
I connect our record of being there to having a healthier economy and building a stronger economy for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, for future generations. That is something we, as a government, take very seriously, as we continue to take the measures necessary to support Canadians in addressing the issues we know they are concerned about.
784 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 5:12:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, $1 billion is a considerable amount of money, believe it or not, for the member across the way.
At the end of the day, I find it a little confusing. I am trying to understand the Conservatives' policy on the Canada disability benefit. That should not surprise anyone, because we do not know what their policy is on the pharmacare plan or the dental plan. We assume, based on their voting patterns, that they are against those initiatives.
Does the member support the allocations in the budget for programs such as the dental program, the pharmacare program and the disability program?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:32:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, I disagree with her conclusions.
At the end of the day, when this legislation passes and is ultimately put into place, it would assist the government, whatever political stripe it might be, to be in a better position to not only transition but to generate and create opportunities in a coordinated fashion for future renewable energy jobs. There is absolutely no denying that.
When the consultations are done and there is an effective advisory committee that would bring the evidence to the minister, the minister would be better able to make the decisions that would ultimately provide the types of policy necessary to have a positive impact. When we think of the environment, we need to take a look at it with a 30,000-foot, holistic approach, incorporating legislation such as this, the net-zero legislation, budgetary measures and other policy statements regarding single-use plastics or trees. There are all sorts of initiatives.
If we look at what we have been able to put together, it speaks volumes in terms of future jobs, a future healthier environment and a stronger leadership role for Canada to play in the world in dealing with the climate crisis that we have.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:58:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government very much supports the initiatives and thoughts coming through the AG's office. I would be very surprised if there were not already some actions taking place to protect the taxpayer by looking at the ArriveCAN issue and how we can learn from it and looking at ways we can ensure there is a sense of justice for our taxpayers.
I would emphasize that, when we look at the overall contracting that was done, we have to put it in the perspective of time. There was a great deal of money being spent. A vast majority of it was supported by the Bloc party because we wanted to have the backs of Canadians in every region of the country. Unfortunately, there were things that went wrong, and ArriveCan is an excellent example of that.
We need to learn from that and fix the problem. It is not the first time that we have had something of this nature take place. I made reference to the ETS scandal of $400 million. At that time, the leader of the Conservative Party, who was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, chose to do nothing. We are taking action and we will see more justice on the issue.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:17:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always find the leader of the Green Party to be a fountain of knowledge on the environment. She has a great history on it. My friend across the way paid a wonderful tribute to Brian Mulroney and highlighted how he was one of Canada's first powerful, well-spoken environmentalists.
She raises a point that does need to be emphasized. There is so much more we can do on the environment, whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures. I would like to think that over the last number of years, as a government, we have taken lead roles in both of those areas and have had a significant movement toward a healthier environment in Canada. We are demonstrating leadership around the world by some of the actions we have taken.
It would be nice to talk more about initiatives, some that we have done and maybe some that we could do.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:52:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time, by the way, with the member for Davenport.
I can tell members that the Conservative Party, in a very real and tangible way, had the opportunity, not once or twice but on several occasions, to clearly demonstrate that it is still on side with the Government of Canada and members of the Bloc and the NDP, by doing several actions. One of those actions was to support budget initiatives. The Conservative Party actually voted against issues like training Ukrainian soldiers through the Operation Unifier program. They voted against that. They also voted against Ukrainian immigrant settlement packages.
My biggest concern, as I started to talk about, was the issue of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is a significant thing. All one needs to do is take a look at history. What was happening in 2014 and 2015, when the people of Ukraine were wanting to see expanded trade with the European Union? Trade matters, and the President of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war, signed an agreement and asked members of the House on both sides to get behind the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, and the Conservatives chose not to.
They first started to say that it was because of the carbon tax, but then they found out that Ukraine already had a price on pollution. They knew that, or at least they found that out. The real truth of the matter is that, as we have seen in budget votes and in their actual vote on the trade agreement, the MAGA right is creeping into the Conservative Party with its hesitation in terms of fully supporting Ukraine. That had more to do with it than their red herring of the carbon tax, because Ukraine already has a price on pollution. They wanted to be a part of what was taking place in the European Union, where there is a price on pollution.
At the end of this evening, it would be wonderful to see some of the Conservatives stand in their places, actually be straightforward with Canadians and clearly indicate that voting against the trade agreement was a mistake and that they are actually behind and will stand as one chamber and continue to support Ukraine, as we have been doing in a wide variety of areas. Those billions of dollars in investments have ultimately led to military support and support for those who are being displaced. This is getting behind the 1.3 million people and more of Ukrainian heritage who call Canada home and those who are well beyond that heritage.
It is the right thing to do, and that is why I would appeal to Conservatives. It is never too late to say they made a mistake and get behind the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.
470 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:51:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by emphasizing that every dollar the government spends is important, and the government, in all ways and in every way possible, tries to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency for it. That is something we have seen virtually from day one when this issue was first brought to light, and I want to amplify that and make it very clear.
The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have been clear on this. We will ensure that there is a sense of true accountability on this issue, because every tax dollar spent is important. We have taken this very seriously, virtually from day one, in terms of the things the government needs to do in order to be able to support Canadians.
We have to put this issue in its proper context. This was at a time in which we had a worldwide pandemic going on; government expenditures started to increase dramatically. This was because the Prime Minister and the government decided to have the backs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in every region of this country. This meant that we had to create programs from virtually nowhere, such as the CERB program, which literally put thousands of dollars in the pockets of millions of Canadians at a time when we needed to be there for Canadians.
The government developed programs to support small businesses. Whether it was by providing the wage subsidy and loan initiative programs, coming up with the financial resources to be able to protect Canadians, providing indirect support through ideas such as ArriveCAN or ultimately providing supports for mental health, other long-term health care and so forth in a wide area of departments with different responsibilities, we took those initiatives seriously. We will continue to push for accountability for those monies that were, in fact, being spent.
However, today's debate is really nothing more than a Conservative stunt. I would challenge the Conservatives, in terms of asking why they are taking this whole cut, paste and post mentality on social media to mislead Canadians on important issues.
There is no doubt that procurement has always been an issue, even when I was an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. There is no surprise there. We have to ensure that there is more accountability in the ways in which the government acquires the things it requires.
If we want examples, we can go back to other federal governments, whether Liberal or Conservative. If we go to the provincial levels, we will find the same thing.
When something such as ArriveCAN comes up, what is important is how the government reacts. We have seen not one, but several ministers engage, in one form or another, with addressing the issue of the tax dollar and how it might have been abused. We believe that it has been abused.
That is the reason we are seeing the types of statements coming from the government: We want to protect the tax dollars and the integrity of the system. However, that is not the agenda of the Conservative Party. All one needed to do was listen to what the Conservative leader had to say when he opened the debate on the issue. He even admitted it when I posed the question about the importance of bumper stickers, because he went with his top four bumper stickers. He then went into ArriveCAN and bragged about how he is going to make sure his bumper stickers are all over the place.
Every bumper sticker that the leader of the Conservative Party puts out is an attempt to mislead Canadians, because Conservatives tend to think Canadians are stupid. It is really quite unfortunate. That is what today is about. It is a stunt being brought forward in order to generate some scenario so they can somehow tag the government with the word “corrupt” with respect to this issue; in fact, the government has been on top of it virtually from day one.
When I raised the issue in the form of questions and when I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the company, one thing that came to mind is that there are really two issues here.
There is the issue of procurement and how it works. We have a professional civil service that, I would argue, is second to no other in the world. At times, mistakes happen, but it is about how the government responds when they take place. At the end of the day, that is one of the issues that I think is important for us to talk about.
The other issue is related to the two-person company itself. If we listen to what the members opposite say at committee, and here on the floor of the House, we often hear the comment “Liberal insiders” or “government insiders”. We hear that these two people were made wealthy because they were insiders. That is a bunch of hogwash. These individuals are the very same ones who received contracts when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The company had a different name; it was called Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., but two people from that company are the same two people as in GC Strategies Inc. They are one and the same.
Therefore, I would say to Conservatives that, as the second part, maybe we should look at how a company gets into a position where it can ultimately do what GC Strategies has done. To me, that is an important issue that I would like to provide answers for to my constituents. When I said that earlier, it upset a few Conservatives; it does not fit within their stunts. At the end of the day, they do not want real accountability. Why? It is because the two individuals in question are not Liberal or government insiders any more than they were when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
When we look at it, we really begin to understand why the Conservatives do not want me to table the document. The parliamentary secretary to the minister attempted to table it earlier. I am going to attempt to table it now. If we look at the origins of the company, Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., and some of the contracts, I know why they do not want us to table it. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. He was a parliamentary secretary. Members would not believe the number of grants that were issued when he was in charge of the department. Is it any wonder that Conservatives do not want us to table the document or want Canadians to know? We would not know that by their behaviour, but the reality is that we are talking about a number of contracts.
Let me cite a couple of them. There is a contract dated May 26, 2013. We all know the important role the leader of the Conservative Party played back then. In fact, he was the parliamentary secretary for transport. Guess what? This contract was issued by the parliamentary secretary for Transport Canada, and Transport Canada issued a contract to Coredal Systems.
Coredal Systems is the very same thing as GC Strategies. That one was worth well over $1 million.
They then received another one here for $287,000, again, Transport Canada. I do not know if I should emphasize that the leader of the Conservative Party was also the one responsible in that case too. There are several of them, so let us make the assumption that the ones I am going to be referencing are all contracts for which the leader of the Conservative Party was responsible. We had another one from October 29, 2012. That one was just under a million, $968,000.
Then, if we continue on, I am just going to list off the ones in which the leader of the Conservative Party had a role to play, such as March 29, 2012, well over $200,000, again, Transport Canada. Here is one for well over half a million dollars, March 1, 2012, again, Transport Canada. There is another one on August 9, 2011, going to Transport Canada. Here is another one, July 29, 2011, again, all going to Coredal Systems.
An hon. member: How much?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the Conservative member is asking how much they were. That member does not quite get it. It is the principle of this.
At the end of the day, we are talking about the very same company. I am sure that if the member opposite consulted with his constituents, he would find a high level of interest as to how it is that a company can create itself and then receive substantial government contracts through the years, into a worldwide pandemic where there was a great deal of money being spent to protect the interests of Canadians. It would appear that there was substantial abuse.
When I say substantial, I cannot underestimate the potential of how the taxpayer was being taken advantage of. That is why it does not matter what side of the House one sits on. I am concerned about it, as are my colleagues, as is the Prime Minister, as are the ministers responsible.
That is why, when we found out about the initiative, we did not just sit back and try to hide it; far from it. We initiated a number of studies into what had taken place. As I say, this is an example of the government needing to take action to ensure the integrity of the system. I am concerned about the system.
I like to think that, whether it is the national procurement process or provincial, territorial, or any other form of tax dollars that are used during procurement processes, there is integrity in the system. That is why we have had not one but several standing committees looking into this issue and not one but several independent offices of Parliament looking into this issue. That is why we have more than one department looking into this issue. There are literally tens of thousands of pages scattered all over the place on this issue.
To try to give the impression, the false impression, that the government does not take this seriously is absolute balderdash. This government understands the true value of every dollar we receive, because we understand that by using tax dollars in an appropriate fashion, we are able to provide the programming that Canadians want and expect of the government.
We have seen ample demonstrations of that over the years. During the pandemic we created the CERB program and the small business programs. Postpandemic we introduced the grocery rebate and investments in housing, infrastructure and non-profit groups. We hear about the pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for since 2012 through petitions and other means. There is also the dental program.
We understand the true value of social programs and that is why we put a high value on accountability on tax dollars because we want to support Canadians through these social programs. I commented at the beginning that the Conservatives are more concerned about bumper stickers. We saw that today.
The leader of the Conservative Party has virtually mandated every Conservative who stands up to recite something. I wrote it down. I guess I should know it by memory by now because all of them like to say it. It is the bumper sticker sale going on, on the other side. They have to say, “cut taxes”. That is a must. That is their big bumper sticker. This is what the leader of the Conservative Party was saying when introducing the motion today. In case some people may be wondering about the relevance, I am actually quoting what the leader of the Conservative Party said today in his speech.
He said he would cut taxes, but what he does not tell Canadians is that he would cut rebates. When he cuts rebates, he is literally taking money out of the pockets of the residents of Winnipeg North, over 80% of them. I can say the residents of Winnipeg North are very much the working class of Canada. It is very reflective of ridings across Canada. He is taking more money out of their pockets, but would that stop him from using that bumper sticker? No.
The other talking point or bumper sticker that he made reference to earlier was that he would build more houses. Canadians need to know he was the minister of housing and he was a total disaster when it came to housing. He did not do anything on housing. For the first time in 50 years, we have a national government that is investing in housing. No government in the last 50 years has invested more money in housing than this government, nor worked with other jurisdictions. We are building tens of thousands of new homes over the next number of years. I will compare housing any day.
He talks about the issue of fixing the budget. Fixing the budget is code for a hidden Conservative, Tory agenda. It is the far right, the MAGA Conservatives, coming out. That is what that is all about. Someone made reference to the Phoenix disaster. When we first came into government, what did we experience? The Conservative Party had just cut hundreds of civil servant jobs. It said it was going to save millions of dollars and create this Phoenix project. That Phoenix project ended up costing taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars; an absolute waste.
Of course, the Conservatives talk about their final point, which is to stop crime. We came up with a bail reform bill with consensus across Canada from all different political parties. What do the Conservatives across the way do? They filibuster. That is how they are going to stop crime. Initially, they are not. The Conservatives are the ones who actually held it up. The Conservative Party is all about stunts. Today is a giant stunt. Everything they do and say is ultimately for one goal and that is for the vote, and that is it.
On the other hand, we will continue to work day in, day out to support Canadians prepandemic, postpandemic and during the pandemic. There are many things I could talk about. Thanks for the opportunity.
2416 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I would suggest that 2015 was a wonderful year.
The member raises a valid point. If we go back to the last federal election, I can recall the Conservatives saying that they were going to rip up the child care agreements that were being talked about. Today, we have $10 child care. Out of fear, we also had to bring in legislation to ensure that we will have that ongoing funding. However, let there be no doubt, that is on the table with the Conservative Party.
I was sitting in the third party over in the corner of the chamber when Stephen Harper, while he was overseas, made an announcement that he was going to raise the age of the OAS from 65 to 67. One of the very first initiatives we took, back in 2015, was to lower it from age 67 back to age 65.
We have to beware of the Conservatives and their hidden agenda.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I am looking at some numbers. This goes right to the member's own constituency. I know she does not support the government's policies dealing with housing but there is the 651 Cambridge Avenue project. From what I understand there are going to be 75 units, not to mention the commitment for the housing accelerator fund to provide millions of dollars in Kelowna—Lake Country toward the construction of 950 homes.
The member is exceptionally critical of the government and the government's policies of developing homes. Would she be prepared to be straightforward and honest with her constituents in her comments by saying whether that means she does not support these government-supported initiatives?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and talk about substantive legislation that would have a profound impact, not only for today but also for future generations.
I think we would have to go back quite a way to find a government that has been so progressive in providing advancements in a wide spectrum of areas to support Canadians. I often hear, whether from the Prime Minister or one my colleagues, that the issue for us is that we want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, and how we could develop policies and initiatives, and take the budgetary measures to advance that. That is what Canadians expect.
Through the last number of years, we have heard the Conservatives focusing on other things, outside of what is important to Canadians. Today is a good example. We see a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying and delivering on that in a very tangible way. For example, an hour or so ago, we were talking about Bill C-22. It is historic legislation. For the very first time, we are saying that Canadians with disabilities need to have support that would ensure that there would be fewer people with disabilities living in poverty. This would be as a direct result of Bill C-22, a wonderful, progressive piece of legislation.
Now, we are talking about Bill C-35. In many ways, Bill C-35 would have such a positive impact, no matter where, what region, in Canada one looks at. Getting these agreements is not necessarily an easy task. The current minister has reached out and contacted provincial and territorial stakeholders, not to mention, as she made reference to in response to a question, numerous advocates. In a very humble but accurate way, the minister acknowledged the input of those advocates who have been working, trying for years to put in place what Bill C-35 would do.
In some of those years, we have experienced a great deal of frustration. I have talked about the Conservative hidden agenda. Let me tell the House why there is a Conservative hidden agenda and why Bill C-35 is so critically important. Members across the way might recall the Stephen Harper days.
I would not say “hear, hear” to that.
With respect to child care, the first action former prime minister Harper took was to get rid of child care agreements, 15 years or so ago.
I want members to imagine, if they will, what would have happened had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government at the time recognized the real value of what Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and the Liberal government had put into place. It was a substantial, extensive program. I know that Ken Dryden, in particular, put so much effort into it in terms of working with some of the advocates the current minister has no doubt had to deal with. That plan was put into place, approved and signed off, and provinces were onside. Then the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, cancelled it outright, on day one. What was the cost of that policy decision?
A couple of years ago, after we made many other initiatives that have been really important to Canadians, we took the bold step to bring this thing back in a very real and tangible way. Once again, we have a national minister recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to ensure that we have child care from coast to coast to coast.
All one really needs to do is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. Quebec has had this model for many years, and we see the benefits to Quebec society as a direct result in terms of things that have been achieved, whether it is women engaging in the workforce far more than in any other jurisdiction, from what I understand, in North America, to providing an improved, quality standard of child care to ensuring that there are more equal opportunities, not to mention how the economy benefited by it.
We understood this many years ago, and now we are forwarding it. However, it is because of the goodwill and support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we were able to work it out with the many different stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories. I believe Ontario was the last one to sign on board back in March 2022. By Doug Ford's signature, we had a true, national, coast to coast, child care program, and that is something we should all be very proud of.
As a Liberal caucus and as a team, we understood the benefits of the program, and it is an issue we promoted. In fact, as my colleagues will recall, we only need to take a look at the last federal election. We had 337, 338 candidates going door to door talking about the importance of child care, and that if we were re-elected into government, we would materialize a child care program.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, said that they would tear it up, that they did not believe in what we were doing. So, when a Conservative member stands up and says “Well, we're voting for the legislation”, I encourage members to read some of the speeches that were given by Conservatives. Look at what they did on the first run. This is why we need the legislation. We do not want a potential Conservative cabinet 15 years from now making the decision to get rid of the program. We want this program to be there for future generations, because by making that sort of commitment, we know that society here in Canada will benefit greatly.
We cannot trust the Conservative Party, quite frankly. It has demonstrated that time and time again when its members talk about progressive policies for the betterment of Canadians, and I do not say that lightly. I actually sat in the chamber and listened to many of the Conservative MPs speak on this legislation, and I could not tell how they were going to vote. I think someone put their finger up in the air and felt the political wind and thought, “Oh, jeez, it might be tough for us to vote against this, so let's support it.”
Some might use the word “delusional”, but I would suggest, after 30 years of being in Parliament and watching the Conservatives at play, that it is more of a reality issue. I would suggest to members that the Conservatives actually recognize the true value of this program. They should be bold and go against their own leadership if need be and make some of the statements that are really important in recognizing the value of this program. They will say that, yes, they want to give more child care dollars to a certain degree, but they are not talking about the same sort of child care program that we are talking about.
What does this program do? It provides $10-a-day day care, which is life-changing. It is going to enable so many people the opportunity to afford, for the first time, child care services and the educational program that goes along with it.
I was really encouraged, and I think it was back in September, when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg North and we went to Stanley Knowles School and visited the child care facility. We could see relief in the faces of the individuals who are recipients of what we are talking about today. It was relief, joy or just appreciation that there is finally a government trying to do the things that are important to citizens.
Winnipeg North is not the only riding the Prime Minister has visited. As he has gone through the country, he has attended town halls in other constituencies and has spoken to parents and been there with the children. I always enjoy the playful attitude the Prime Minister has toward the children of Canada because it is so genuine.
We have a Prime Minister who is committed not only to providing $10-a-day day care but who understands the needs of our young people. He is there to talk, answer questions and listen. As a result, whether it is him, the Minister of Families or my caucus colleagues, they take a look at the issues that come up in our constituencies and bring those issues to Ottawa so we can develop the budgets and the legislation necessary and that is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.
What are the issues today we often hear about? Inflation has to be one of them. I feel a great deal of empathy and sympathy for what Canadians need to overcome as a direct result of inflation, even though Canada is doing quite well on inflation compared to the U.S. and many of the European countries, our allied countries, and so many others. This is not to mention other economic indicators. It does not take away from the fact that as a government we still need to do what we can to help Canadians at a time of need.
With this program, we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year that are going to be left in the pockets and purses of Canadians from coast to coast to coast as a direct result. That is action. That is going to make a difference in a very real and tangible way.
On other actions to support our children, remember the dental program. The Conservatives actually voted against this particular program. As we implemented the dental program, the first thing on the agenda was children under the age of 12. We do not want to recognize, by their smile, a child who is not able to get the dental work they require. Far too often children are going to hospitals to get dental work because their mom, dad or guardian do not have the financial resources, for some reason or another, to bring that child to a dentist.
Again, through this program, we are seeing literally dollars going into the pockets of families to assist children in being able to get the type of dental services that are necessary.
I started off by talking about national programs. I talked about the historic program of disabilities. Then I talked about children. Now I am making reference to dental work. I would challenge any member of this House to demonstrate any government before this government that has developed and put into place programs to support Canadians. It has been a wide spectrum of programs and I want to spend just a bit of time to emphasize that. It clearly shows why Bill C-35 is a part of a larger plan that is very comprehensive and shows Canadians that, whether it is a legislative measure or a budgetary measure, this is a government that has the backs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have a government that has now negotiated, for example, an incredible $200-billion plan to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a health care system that is based on the Canada Health Act.
We have a government that, within the first couple of years, understood the importance of retirement and worked with all the provinces, as it has done with the three programs I have just mentioned, and had CPP addressed, which is something that Stephen Harper completely ignored and said that he would not do. Before he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he advocated getting rid of the CPP. We as a government worked with the different provinces and stakeholders, including small business and labour groups and were able to get the agreement on CPP.
I say this because, like Bill C-35, these are initiatives that really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am encouraging members opposite to change their attitudes toward the way in which government spends its money. Let me give a specific example by using Bill C-35.
The Conservatives have this mindset: If they spend a dollar, it is a bad thing if it is government dollars. It is cut, cut, cut. One day, I even had one of the members suggest that we could always cut money from military defence. I can say that when the government invests in programs, more often than not we get a pretty decent return. For example, yes, the child care program is going to cost a lot of money; there is no doubt about it. However, if we recognize the value of that investment and start acknowledging some of the benefits, we quickly find out that it is not costing as much as one might think.
For example, specifically as a direct result of Bill C-35 and the budgetary measures by this government, there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the workforce. We are going to see more, in particular, women participating in the economy. As a direct result of that, when more women are participating in the economy, more taxes are generated. When members say that there is a cost for child care, there is a cost benefit that also needs to be factored in. That is not to mention the other benefits that I have already cited: to the community, to the family unit and to the child receiving that quality child care.
In conclusion, I would encourage members to realize the benefits of not only saying they are voting for this particular legislation, but I am going to be looking to see the Facebook and social media commentaries coming from the Conservative Party, saying how wonderful this program is, and be—
2342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member can say whatever he wants when he stands to speak, but the reality is quite the opposite in terms of what the member is saying about the government.
I listed a number of initiatives the Government of Canada has taken over the years that are making a positive difference. In working with provincial jurisdictions, we have been able to accomplish some great things, and we will continue to work with the provincial, territorial and indigenous governments to ensure that our environment is protected, while advancing our economy, building on good-quality, middle-class jobs and providing an economy that works for all Canadians.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize the degree to which the government has been listening to seniors. Not only have we been listening to seniors, but we have been supporting seniors. Whether it is the huge increase to the GIS in 2016, the one-time payments during the pandemic, the budgetary measures that are meeting an election platform commitment of a 10% increase for those 75 and over, the grocery rebate or dental support for seniors, these are all supports that the government is providing to seniors. We can contrast those to the previous 10 years of the Harper regime. It is incredibly different, yet the Bloc members do not recognize the benefits and continue to vote against initiatives that are supporting seniors.
Why do you not respect the seniors? You say you do, but your actions say otherwise.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-42 today. I think it is very important for us to recognize that, as time goes by, we have had, very much, a heightened sense of awareness on such an important issue. If I reflect back to a number of years ago, very rarely would we hear about the types of situations that are being debated today inside the chamber.
We are very much aware of things, such as the Paradise papers and issues surrounding corporations, the issues surrounding money laundering and so many other issues. Canada and other countries around the world are looking at ways we can deal with the issue of beneficial ownership and the impact it is having. We are looking at a registry and trying to improve the system.
Listening to the many comments today from members across the way, and members within the Liberal caucus, we find that there seems to be fairly widespread support. Yes, I respect that opposition members and others do have questions about the legislation. I suspect that will be the opportunity, once we get into the committee stage, to look at what possibilities there might be to strengthen the legislation.
I have actually been encouraged by the debate thus far on the legislation. I have had the opportunity to ask a few questions, and I would like to be able to highlight a few concerns, in a broad way, that I have.
If I were to respond to the debate today, there are a couple of things that come up. In particular, the NDP made reference to the whole issue of tax fairness and lost revenues. I think that, if we were to canvass Canadians as a whole, we would find that Canadians do not mind paying their taxes, as long as there is a sense of fairness to it.
People want to pay or are prepared to pay their fair share. That is the reason why, if we take a look at it, over the last number of years, virtually since we have been in government, the government has taken a number of actions to build on the fact that Canadians' expectations are that we improve and make the system better for all. I do not know how many times I have had the opportunity to talk about some of the initial initiatives we have taken as a government.
I would like to start off from the particular point that, shortly after being elected, in recognizing Canada's middle class and supporting Canada's middle class, there were a number of tax initiatives taken, as well as actions by the government.
I would like to amplify a couple of those initiatives. The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the tax reduction legislation we brought forward at the beginning of the mandate for the middle class. It was a piece of legislation, very clear, to ensure there is a higher sense of tax fairness by enabling a break for the middle class.
At the same time, if we will recall, there was an additional tax that was put on Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we recognize is an issue in tax fairness. We have also seen other budgetary measures.
I mentioned the issue of tax avoidance and those individuals who go out of their way in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is something that, I would suggest, we can look at through a lens of tax fairness. However, if we are going to be true to our word, we need to properly resource the CRA to go after those individuals, groups or corporations that are trying to avoid paying taxes in questionable ways.
There was a significant amount of money allocated to CRA over a couple of budgets. Prepandemic, we saw an additional investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not quote me on this, but I believe if we were to combine the total investments that the federal government has put in supporting CRA in going after individuals or corporations trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, it is likely just over $1 billion. The expectation for CRA is to look at ways to recover money from lost taxes.
The last time I looked, the number of records being looked at was well over 1,000. Pre-2015, it might have been fewer than 100. So we know that CRA is in fact much more proactive today than it has been in the past. Again, from my perspective, it is about looking at ways to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness.
In the recent budget, we have a sense, in terms of taxes, with respect to banks and insurance companies where inappropriately high profits were taken. We have seen taxes being put onto those sectors in the most recent budgets, again, with the goal of ensuring that there is a higher sense of tax fairness.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona also made reference to the whole issue of corporate tax. I noticed that he tried to group the Liberals and the Conservatives together by saying that whether it was Liberals or Conservatives, we believe in giving corporate tax breaks. Yes, there have been corporate tax breaks. I am not one who believes in the trickle-down theory of corporate tax breaks personally, but I would suggest to the member that when the NDP has had the opportunity to govern, particularly in my home province of Manitoba when I was in opposition during NPD Premier Gary Doer's administration, there were corporate tax reductions. I think we have political parties of all stripes that have implemented corporate tax deductions. However, Canadians are very concerned when they hear of that, especially if they are having to pay their taxes when there are all sorts of inflationary demands.
So, if we take a look at the comments I just put on the record, there is a need for Bill C-42.
Bill C-42 is an attempt by the government to do a number of things. It is not only ensuring that there is tax fairness, but also a higher sense of transparency and accountability.
As has been pointed out, money laundering is a very serious issue in Canada, in some provinces more than others. It has caused a great deal of hardship. The best example is likely the one the member across the way mentioned in regard to housing.
We have speculators and people who want to launder money using housing as a tool. Not everyone who invests in housing in Canada is necessarily money laundering. I am not trying to say that, but we do know that money laundering does take place in our residential communities and in the development of condominiums.
The member made reference to Vancouver and British Columbia. We know it goes far beyond any one province. We can talk about what is taking place in Toronto and find that there is laundering and speculation. That does drive up the cost of housing.
With the budgetary measures that we have taken in the past and the budget implementation bills in the past, we have tried to put in some restrictions in order to prevent that foreign ownership, or even put a tax on individuals who are not living in or a resident of Canada, with the idea of having a fairer share of taxation.
The issue with respect to the transparency and accountability of corporations really does kick in here. At the end of the day, when we look at the Canada Business Corporations Act, it is all about the modernization of that legislation to ensure there is a higher sense of corporate transparency and accountability.
From my perspective, if we take a look at the primary tool, we are going to have a registry that is open and public, and quite searchable for ownership information or beneficial ownership. By doing that, I believe there will be a huge difference.
If we look at what the Canada Business Corporations Act does, it enables certificates of compliance, as an example. If a corporation is not in compliance with the legislation, we would have a tool that would ensure that the corporation might not get that certificate. That can have a profound impact on the corporation itself. Without that certificate of compliance, it would have difficulties with things such as loans and suppliers.
At the end of the day, I believe the passage of this, and the establishment of a public, searchable beneficial ownership registry, would ensure there is a lot less money not taken into account, so less money laundering and less money being used in illegitimate forms. For me, that is something we need to recognize within the legislation.
The government has been committed to a robust and effective regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing to improve the public trust in our corporations. It does not take much for a corporation to fall on the wrong side of the whole issue of money laundering and the impact it has on the corporate community. A vast majority of our corporations are in fact good entities that contribute in many different ways. It is not just jobs. It is all forms of opportunities, community development and so forth. Because of the bad apples that are out there, it does leave a negative stain.
Therefore, when we talk about the legislation trying to minimize issues like money laundering and improving accountability and transparency, a vast majority of corporate stakeholders do not have any problem with this. The consultation that has taken place goes back to 2020, going right into 2022 where there was a great deal of consultation with different stakeholders and interest groups. There were even foreign consultations with other nations.
We want to make sure that we get it right. We appreciate the privacy issues and that has been raised here. With respect to what had taken place in Europe, there was a court decision in regard to the issue of privacy, so we do want to tread carefully on that particular issue. However, it is absolutely critical that we continue to see the legislation move forward because it would make a difference.
There are some provinces that have actually gone further than other provinces. Quebec has passed its legislation and I believe it has been implemented. I am not 100% sure of that. Because in a federal system we have to take into consideration that there are jurisdictional issues, we have to be aware that some provinces still need to do a whole lot more than other provinces. Therefore, taking a pan-Canadian approach to looking at best practices and looking at the legislation that we are bringing forward today would go a long way in ensuring that not only those federally regulated corporations that are registered through the Canada Business Corporations Act but also those in provincial and territorial jurisdictions will have that obligation of ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability.
In looking at the legislation and listening to the comments, I believe I have a fair reflection in terms of many of the comments that were said earlier today. I would encourage members to view the legislation in part in terms of the commitment that has been made to try to get this passed before the end of this year, which is faster than we had initially indicated. However, in order to do that, we look to opposition parties to follow through on some of the words that they have stated today in terms of that tentative principled support that they are providing and allow the legislation to go to committee. I would think that would be a positive thing, given that all parties seem to support the principle of the legislation.
Therefore, I would encourage members to take the issues, as I know they have, of money laundering and of ensuring more accountability and transparency within a very important sector, in the name of making sure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. Again, that, to me, is what it is all rooted in. Canadians do not mind paying their fair share of taxes and it is very upsetting when they hear of the money laundering that takes place, or of individuals or corporations wanting to get off the hook for paying their fair share of taxes.
2080 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 12:12:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to recognize the very important role that caregivers have been providing, especially during the pandemic. There is a great reliance, and we recognize that, at the end of the day, whether it is seniors, individuals on sick leave or children, in many situations the caregivers provide an absolute necessary service for the betterment of the lives of those individuals they are providing care for.
There are different ways in which the government can actually provide support. I appreciate what the member is asking. She referenced a mandate letter. I am not too sure about the election promise, but maybe she could expand on that particular aspect in her follow-up question. However, what I do know is that the government has been spending a great deal of money over the last number of years in the whole area of supports for seniors, supports for health care and looking at ways in which we can enhance wages.
In fact, this is a little off topic, but today, in the province of Manitoba, through national initiatives of supporting child care, there is going to be an increase for child care workers, who are predominantly women. I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6%, which is going to be taking effect, I believe, on July 1.
Recognizing that there are many areas in which government can invest in or should be looking at investing in, I would suggest the member look at how we can support caregivers. The Department of Health, with the money transfers that we have made, has also made it very clear in terms of provincial and territorial governments needing to come to the table and be more supportive of our providers.
The interest is there. We are almost halfway through a mandate where we can likely revisit this issue. The member made reference to the mandate letters, and I suspect it is one of those issues in which we hope to be able to make some progress in.
As I said, how can one not recognize the valuable contributions that caregivers provide to individuals, and through that, to our communities as a whole? In looking at ways in which we can provide that support in a timely fashion, there are all sorts of considerations that have to be taken into account.
I wish I could provide more specific details to the member at this point, but that is the best I can come up with right now.
417 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 11:44:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, back in the 1990s, I had a town hall debate with NDP member Bill Blaikie. At that debate, he argued that the federal government had no role to play in housing. In the 1990s, every political party in the chamber argued that the federal government had no role. I say that because we need to put it in perspective.
Today, we have a Prime Minister and a government that are more committed to national housing. We even brought in a national housing strategy. We have invested billions of dollars in housing. We have vested interests in rapid housing initiatives, housing co-ops and a multitude of housing supports in every region of the country.
Would the member not acknowledge that it is not just the federal government's responsibility? In fact, municipalities and provinces have to play a critical role. The national government's role is that of leadership, and we have demonstrated that hands down over the last number of years.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 11:51:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me start by recognizing that the member for London West has brought forward to the House a very important issue. Over the last number of years, we have seen the government take a very proactive approach in dealing with housing-related matters. Today, the member for London West, through this motion, has highlighted a critically important aspect to housing and the role that government needs to play: Having and improving access to adaptable, affordable housing is absolutely critical.
The manner in which the motion was brought forward heightens the importance of the issue and allows for additional debate. It is a great way to advocate for a community that really needs to get more recognition. It is quite surprising that we do not already have an expert with some understanding of visible and non-visible disabilities sitting on the National Housing Council. I respect the fact that the member for London West is advocating for that. I think it is long overdue, and I hope it takes place. I am not sure about all the individuals who were engaged and involved with the member in the drafting of the motion she brought forward, but I want to recognize that they have indeed brought forward an issue that is very important, no matter what area of the nation we are talking about.
At the very beginning, the motion talks about the importance of working with others. It is only with this government that, over the last number of years, we have seen the development of a national housing strategy, and we have seen the investment of hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars in non-profit housing. We have been a very proactive government in ensuring that the federal government has a role to play in housing. That is why I was somewhat surprised when the Conservative members stood in this place virtually being critical of the federal government, when the Conservative Party has given no support to non-profit housing. There are many Conservatives who believe the federal government has no role to play in regard to national housing.
We have been working diligently with the different governments, levels of government, indigenous governments and many different stakeholders to ensure that Canada is able to meet the types of housing needs that are going to be there. At least the national government is playing a strong leadership role.
We have seen budgetary measures that have incorporated historic amounts of money going into support for the creation of housing, for renovations to housing and for the greening of the housing industry. The government has worked with municipalities, provinces and indigenous nations to try to get the type of housing developed and renovated that is necessary.
In the province of Manitoba alone, there are tens of thousands of non-profit housing units. Non-profit housing takes into consideration many different things, such as housing co-ops. We have a government, in recent years, that has taken a very keen interest in the promotion and development of housing co-ops, something of which I have been a long-time advocate. Every year, millions of dollars are put toward ongoing operational costs to support the thousands of homes and low-income people in the province of Manitoba alone.
When we reflect on the resolution that we have before us today, it heightens the importance of people with non-visible physical and mental disabilities. We do need to put more of an emphasis on that. Ottawa does have a role to play, whether it is through the National Housing Council, the debates we have here in the House or the discussions that take place between the Minister of Housing and the provincial counterparts, to advocate and to ensure that we continue to support those initiatives at the community level.
For those who want to to be critical of this government, I would suggest they look at previous federal governments in Canada and tell me of one that has invested more in housing and has been there in a very real and tangible way, whether it is legislatively or from a budget perspective. They will find that there has not been a government that has been as progressive and as aggressive on the housing file as this in the last 40 or 50 years.
I will conclude on that thought and applaud the member for London West for bringing forward what I think is a motion that all members should be supporting.
749 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt what is important is that the Government of Canada needs to take initiatives. We have seen many of those initiatives in budgetary and legislative measures, and I make reference to the net-zero legislation as an example. However, it also needs to work along with other provinces, as it did with the Province of British Columbia, where it worked with the NDP government and came up with the LNG project.
There is no doubt that, for many environmentalists, it puts a bit more pressure on the government at a different end. In good part, it is working with the different jurisdictions and doing the best it can to try to decrease emissions. At times, there are some developments that do need to advance, but it needs to be done in an environment that is sound and by working with indigenous communities and the different provinces as much as we can.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the government when it spent billion and billions to support Canadians during the pandemic, whether it was wage subsidies, loans to small businesses or supporting Canadians with CERB. Then, all of a sudden an election goes by, and even during the election the Conservatives had said they supported the price on pollution. Now, all that is gone, and they do not support that. Now they say, “Well, we have to cut, cut, cut”, or “chop, chop, chop”, as the Minister of Revenue would say.
What about the billions that are being spent on programs such as child care, record-high amounts on health care and the 10% increase for seniors over 75? Does the Conservative Party today support initiatives such as supporting seniors, child care and health transfers?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
