SoVote

Dec/10/21 10:12:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very important question. Even in my riding, which is not entirely within a downtown urban core, we face the same challenges. There is a huge wait-list for people to get access to child care, and it is a big challenge when we get into smaller communities. The agreement we signed with B.C. is going to create 40,000 new spaces, and it is important that those spaces are available where they are most needed. It is also important that there are flexibilities. Child care is of course delivered by the provinces and territories, so much of the discretion is up to the provinces. We can now see the details of the agreement. It was just released online yesterday or the day before. It goes through different items regarding how B.C. is going to deliver on this, and the action plan it has for each subsequent year.

154 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Dec/10/21 10:13:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about the environment and helping families. However, over the past few days, we have realized that seniors have once again been left out. They have not been mentioned. They are being ignored. Yesterday, during the supply day on housing, the government mostly talked about people purchasing their first home, but what seniors need is better access to more social, community and very affordable housing. What seniors need is to be given help as of the age of 65. The government is not talking about that. It is completely ignoring seniors. Some seniors are getting poorer because their guaranteed income supplement has been cut for administrative reasons. The government is not talking about that. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about seniors who need help. They have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, but there is nothing for them.

154 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Dec/10/21 10:14:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question. As I said in my speech, as we look to the future, we need to think about everyone, particularly seniors. We have implemented a number of programs, including the rapid housing initiative, which seeks to create affordable housing for the people who need it most, like seniors. My colleague said that our government has not been there for seniors. I disagree. Over the past two years, we have given money to the most vulnerable seniors, and we will continue to be there for them, for example, by increasing old age security.

101 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/10/21 10:15:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about climate change and I know he is concerned about that. The government, in the Speech from the Throne last year, promised legislation on the just transition for workers. However, there was not a single mention of that. Nothing was done last year, and there was no mention of it at all in this Speech from the Throne. Why is there a lack of ambition there?

71 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Dec/10/21 10:15:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we launched consultations on the just transition a few months ago. This is very much a priority. It is in our campaign platform as well and I think it is important. I mentioned that we cannot leave anybody behind as we are going through these transitions. We absolutely need to be there for workers who are now very concerned about what their future is going to hold. That remains a priority of this government, and I look forward to seeing the results of this consultation and the legislation that will be forthcoming after that.

96 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/10/21 10:16:39 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the throne speech, and to a lesser degree to the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, because if we read the amendment from the Conservative Party its members have really missed the boat. I want to start by responding to some of the questions from the opposition party. If we listen to what the government has said over the last number of months and within the throne speech, and the issues the Conservatives have raised, the government is in fact beyond concerned and is taking action. For example, the Conservative member made reference to child care. For the very first time in Canada, the government is moving forward to create tens of thousands of spaces in every region of our country. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister and a government that have recognized the importance of affordable child care. We are now entering into agreements with the provinces and territories to ensure $10-a-day child care. That is going to have a profoundly positive impact on our communities, both urban and rural, whether direct or indirect. All we need to do is look at what happened in the Province of Quebec when it instituted $10-a-day child care. Taking a good idea from one region of the country, and expanding it and implementing it nationally, is going to create opportunities for thousands of people who would have had to defer getting a job in the future or deal with the rising costs of child care. More people will be engaged in employment as a direct result, and children will have quality care. That is the bottom line. That is the answer to the Conservative question. Then we have our friends in the Bloc, who talked about seniors. I would challenge the members opposite to reflect on this. We came into government in 2015. Prior to that, what did the Conservative Party do for seniors while it was in government? Let us look at what we have done. From day one, we dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement that lifted tens of thousands of seniors across Canada out of poverty, hundreds of whom are in Winnipeg North. We were there for them leading up to the pandemic, and when the pandemic hit we gave direct payments to not only our poorest seniors but to all seniors. We also made the commitment to increase old age security for seniors age 75 or older. Those benefits are direct cash in their pockets. I would also mention the indirect things we have done for seniors, such as the new horizons program and increased program funds to support seniors, as well as supporting non-profit organizations throughout the pandemic that were there for seniors all across our land. The opposition trying to give the impression that this government does not care about seniors, or is not doing enough for seniors, is misleading at best. At the end of the day, I do not have any problems comparing what we have done for our seniors. That is not to say that we are done. We have a minister responsible for seniors who is very much in the community consulting with seniors and stakeholders to figure out what else we can do to continue to support seniors going forward. The NDP ask about workers and the whole idea of transition and support programs. I would remind my NDP colleagues of the degree to which this government has stepped up to the plate. When the worldwide pandemic hit Canada, we had a government and a Prime Minister that were there every day, seven days a week and 24 hours a day, to ensure that we were developing the programs that were going to be there to support Canadians and businesses. We can talk about the CERB program that supported millions of Canadians in all regions of our country, or the wage subsidy program that supported tens of thousands of businesses, thereby also saving tens of thousands of jobs, or the rent subsidy program. These programs really mattered. They put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. They provided a lifeline to businesses, whether in the arts, the private sector or the non-profit sector. The government was there in a very real way. As a government, we recognize that the impact has not ended. COVID-19 is still there today, and we recognize that. The battle is not over. That is why we continue to promote and encourage the idea of getting fully vaccinated. Over 86% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. We all have a role to play in the promotion of that. A week or so ago, the new premier of the province of Manitoba, Heather Stefanson, made it very clear in her caucus that if members were going to continue to sit in the house they had to be fully vaccinated. Former leader Brian Mulroney gave his opinion on the issue. If people want to be part of the Conservative caucus, they had better be fully vaccinated. For Canada to be able to continue to do well, especially in comparison to other countries, we need to recognize the millions of Canadians who stepped up and recognized how important it was to become fully vaccinated. It is making a very real difference today. More jobs have been put back in place today than we had pre-pandemic. We are doing exceptionally well on the job front. There are many jobs out there. We continue to work at expanding the economy the best that we can. We continue to work with provinces to ensure a sense of co-operation in identifying industries and jobs and using retraining programs. Literally hundreds of millions have been invested by this government to ensure that we can train people for the jobs that are going to be there for Canadians. We have a very proactive Minister of Immigration working with provinces to get ahead of industries where we can. We have to put it in the perspective of keeping Canadians safe, and we do that by having people who travel to Canada either be fully vaccinated or quarantined. These initiatives and policy decisions are based on the fact that we have to continue to be diligent. COVID-19 has not disappeared yet. The throne speech highlights the fact that the battle is not over yet. We should not let our guard down. That is why we passed Bill C-3. I was really encouraged to see all members of the House supporting Bill C-3 going to committee. That is what Canadians want. They want us to be working together. The mandate that was given was very clear: The Liberal plan was the best plan, and there is an obligation for all of us to work together. That is why there is a minority situation. I see that my time has expired, but hopefully I will get a question or two.

1165 words

All Topics

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Dec/10/21 10:26:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North's frivolous speeches are always so fun to listen to. He said that Quebec made a good decision in 1997 when it set up its own child care network. That was 24 years ago. If this file is so important to the Liberal Party, why did it not take action sooner? The Liberals held the reins for 13 of those years, including as a majority government, but somehow, they did not think of setting up a child care program or even proposing one. If it was that important, why are they just getting around to it now? Today I would like to mark an unhappy anniversary. A year ago, the Prime Minister called a meeting with all the Canadian premiers, including Quebec's, to talk about health transfers. A total of 81% of Quebeckers want the government to increase health transfers, so the Prime Minister committed to increasing them, but a year has gone by and nothing has happened. How many surveys will it take? How many more times will the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have to push for this? When will this government actually increase health transfers?

197 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/10/21 10:27:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would love to fully answer that question, but it would take me a good 20 minutes to do. The government under Paul Martin had a child care agreement, and a coalition of the Bloc and the NDP defeated that minority government and stopped that in its tracks. However, this Prime Minister, this government and the Liberal members of this caucus pushed and ultimately made it an election platform, and now we have materialized on that commitment. Today, we have a majority of provinces on board and signed up, and we are moving forward on a national child care program. Canadians also care about mental health and the importance of the national government having a leadership role in the area of health care. We are also prepared to deal with that leadership role.

135 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Dec/10/21 10:29:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question in regard to the universal child care program being suggested. Cardus did a major study on this, and I would like the member's comments. The government is choosing to spend money on day care spaces in a national system instead of strengthening the full ecosystem of care that Canadian families currently use and that many prefer because it better meets their needs and exists throughout the country, regardless of population density. Further, it treats all families the same, regardless of financial need. This concerns me, as it is our low-income and single parents who need this support, yet so often this funding is going directly to individuals who do not need it and they are not provided with the care space that they need. Why is the government choosing to go this route, rather than focusing on those who truly need the support? If the payments were allocated by a means test vehicle, such as the Canada child benefit, those with the lowest incomes—

176 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/10/21 10:30:00 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/10/21 10:30:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member reinforces the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada just does not get it. A vast majority of Canadians understand and want affordable child care, and that is what Canadians are getting because, as a government, we recognize the direct and indirect value for every rural and urban region. Canada will benefit because of this national child care program. We will have affordable child care and we will have more people in our workforce. The benefits far outweigh any sorts of negatives that the Conservatives continue to espouse. I wish they would get onside and support it. Fortunately for Canadians, we do not need the Conservative party's support on the child care plan because most progressive politicians recognize the—

125 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/10/21 10:30:56 a.m.
Watch

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

16 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/10/21 10:31:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have had an unnecessary election. We have an almost identical Parliament, yet the government is moving with absolutely glacial speed at getting things going again. Could the member explain what is going on over on the other side of the aisle?

44 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/10/21 10:31:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would disagree. I was here last spring and June, virtually or in person, and that election was absolutely necessary. Canadians ultimately renewed this government's mandate. In fact, we picked up a couple of seats and, I believe, the New Democrats picked up one seat. At the end of the day, there is a new mandate. We are prepared to work with Canadians and others at fulfilling that mandate.

72 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC)

Dec/10/21 10:32:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered over two weeks ago. As one might expect, I would like to take a moment to thank a number of people and to recognize the work, commitment and dedication of the huge team I had behind me during the last election. First of all, I must highlight the invaluable contribution made by volunteers who gave their time and kept showing up, day after day, during the election campaign. I would like to name a few. I feel a bit ungrateful doing this, because there are so many people who take care of us and our schedules and who see to our every little need. In short, we have a lot of people supporting us. I will have a chance to talk more about it later, but in my case, this was my seventh election campaign. Every time a campaign starts, I have what feels like an army of about 300 people who suddenly show up and lend a hand. It seems ungracious to name only a few, so I would like to extend my thanks to all the others as well. I want to say a big thank-you to Denise, Jean-Pierre, Marie-Ève, Sarah, Claude, Rock, Bruno, from our association, and Yvon. I also want to sincerely thank all the others, and they know who they are, of course. I would like to thank my father, Claude, who is 86 and still very sharp. He loves politics maybe even more than I do. He is a man who is always there for me, always ready to listen. When I need to vent, I still turn to him today at age 54. I thank him, and I want him to know that I love him very much. I thank him for being there for me. My mother is no longer on this earth, but I know she is with me. There is also my son, François‑Xavier, my big six-foot-four boy, who is becoming an accomplished young man and who has been by my side for a long time. I got into politics in 2003. He was seven at the time and missing his two front teeth. I have wonderful photos with him. He is probably the one who has paid the highest price for my political involvement. Everyone here knows what it means to have a life in politics, especially as a parent. It is very demanding. One day, when I was reflecting on my political involvement, I asked my son, who was then 11 or 12, what he thought about it. He said I should do what I love in life. He gave me his stamp of approval and that may be why I have lasted in politics so long. I owe him everything. I thank him, I love him and I am proud of him. I am very proud to be his mother. I want to thank my partner, Dany, who is patient, open-minded, positive and cheerful. I am not sure if he likes politics, but he certainly likes his girlfriend. I thank him from the bottom of my heart. I love him and thank him for being there for me. Nothing would be the same without him. I would like to thank my party, who welcomed me with such kindness and openness. There are some francophones in the caucus. Everyone makes an effort to stop by and see me. We speak in French. I would like to say that I noticed and that I appreciate it. Thank you. I especially want to thank them for their warm welcome. They are incredible. Finally, I would like to thank our leader for the heartfelt discussions we have had. He loves Quebec. I will say it once more today: He is a remarkable man. I am pleased to be supporting him. I would like to talk about political commitment. We are all moved by a desire for dedication and change. It is a rather crazy thing to be getting into politics these days, because it is not always very popular. However, at the end of the day, just as we lay down to sleep, we tell ourselves that perhaps we helped someone that day or changed someone's life. That is how we give meaning to our commitment. I have been involved in politics for over 15 years. I started out at the provincial level, spending 15 years as an MNA and 10 years as a minister. I know what political commitment means and what it represents. I know what it means to assume the responsibility we are given when we come to Parliament and represent our constituents. We have a responsibility. There are 338 members who represent 38 million people, and that is really quite something. We essentially have three roles as members of Parliament. First, of course, we have our role as legislators. We want to pass the best laws possible and improve people's lives. We want to be visionaries. Our second role is to help people, our constituents and the businesses in our riding. Politicians are the ones who do this, because otherwise the work would have to be done by deputy ministers, and that is not what we want. What we want are politicians who care and who are able to get things done for people, to help them through the sometimes opaque and complicated bureaucracy, to help them with situations that might not otherwise get addressed. Our third role is to be auditors, to review expenditures and assess how and why they are being made and whether they are appropriate. That is part of our job. I may have digressed a little to talk about who I am and to thank people, but my speech today is in response to the throne speech, and I want to talk about the economy. The throne speech is particularly disappointing. The government's vision is lackluster and narrow and there was no effective plan forward. That may be because the throne speech contains nothing, or nearly nothing, on the economy. Quebec and Canada are in a full-blown labour shortage crisis. We have tried to get that point across every way we can think of. We keep asking questions about this issue, but the government refuses to answer, and the throne speech is silent on the subject. What about balancing the budget? Not a word. How is that possible in a throne speech? When the government that has been in power since 2015 runs higher deficits every year, that inevitably runs up the debt. My colleagues are right: that is shameful. Plus, there is only one sentence about inflation. A throne speech is supposed to present a unifying vision of the government's priorities, so how is it possible to deliver a throne speech without mentioning the three issues I just raised, if only very superficially? In 2014, the Prime Minister said the budget would balance itself. That is a fantasy, a fallacy. That is not how it works. I do not understand how the Prime Minister could have said such a thing or how the throne speech could reflect what he thinks or what he did and failed to do. The government was far more concerned about its image and holding an absolutely pointless $600-million election, rather than dealing with the economic issues facing Canadians and Quebeckers. I want to talk about the deficit and debt. I mentioned it earlier, but it is frightening to watch the government navigate with such huge sails, but no rudder. I looked at the debt numbers, but I am going to refer to an article written by columnist Michel Girard that is both fascinating and frightening. His article details some numbers that are troubling, to us and to Canadians. The deficit has grown from $2.9 billion in 2016 to $354 billion in 2021. That is a lot of money. The debt, meanwhile, went from $634 billion to $1.234 trillion. That number is so huge, I cannot even count it or figure out how many zeros it has. I see that the Chair is telling me that my time is up. That is too bad, because I still had a lot to say. I will certainly have the opportunity to do so during questions and comments.

1418 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Dec/10/21 10:42:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her speech. I agree with her when she says that this government has huge sails, but no rudder. I would add that there is no wind in their sails, either. Just because you have a sail it does not mean that you are getting anywhere. Speaking of wind, this throne speech is rather insubstantial. I am a college teacher by training and what I see is a speech that is actually just a few lines long but has been double-spaced and typed in large font to make it about 15 pages long. I have never seen anything so short on substance. The Liberals were not even able to hide the lack of content. First, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the member for Shefford and me, and whether she is outraged that the member for Winnipeg North is boasting about the fact that the throne speech discriminates against seniors and he is fine with that. Does my colleague agree that there is a huge fiscal imbalance? The whole issue of child care—

195 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/10/21 10:43:38 a.m.
Watch

Order. I must give time to other members, so that they can ask questions. I would ask people to keep their preambles short when asking questions. The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

38 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Dec/10/21 10:43:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, I think that we should have the freedom to take exception to things. That is part of raising awareness of the issues that affect us. If we take exception to something, it means that we are aware of what is happening around us and to us. I think that the throne speech is sterile, uninspired and insipid. It does not have any impact on Canadians and does not give any answers. It says nothing. It does not set out a plan or a strong vision.

88 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Dec/10/21 10:44:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the member for her speech in the House of Commons. I certainly know that she has many ideas to share with the House. Perhaps the member will continue to share the ideas that are important to her.

44 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Dec/10/21 10:45:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this warm welcome and my colleagues' friendliness towards me and the entire caucus is what I was trying to convey earlier, and I thank him. I am someone who bounces back. I like to stand up for my constituents and everyone else for just causes. I want to assure my colleague that I will always defend our people, our constituents and everyone in our riding. I have no shortage of ideas. I will most definitely have the opportunity to share them with my colleagues. That is why we are here.

92 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

SoVote

House Hansard - 15