SoVote

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

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Dec/10/21 10:46:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis says that she takes exception to some things. We take action. On the one hand, she says that we did nothing, and on the other hand she complains that we spent too much. In my riding, people were very pleased, especially with the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which helped save and maintain many jobs. I would like to know where she would have made cuts.

78 words

All Topics

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Dec/10/21 10:46:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this government is not addressing Canadians' needs, is not addressing the labour shortage, is not addressing inflation and has no plan to balance the budget. This affects Canadians' wallets. That is what we will be debating here in the House.

49 words

All Topics

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

Dec/10/21 10:47:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-6 Bill C-4 Bill C-3 Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, it has become more and more apparent that this is a Liberal government that has run out of steam and run out of ideas. We are now nearly three months away from what was supposed to be, in the Prime Minister's words, “the most...[consequential] election since 1945”, yet Canadians still have little clue about what direction the Liberal government is taking our country. Canadians can be forgiven, I think, for a profound sense of déjà vu as they read the latest throne speech delivered by the Governor General. In many ways, it reads exactly like the throne speech from 2020, so much so that Canadians are wondering just why we needed to have an unnecessary, reckless and expensive $600-million pandemic election. To be sure, there are some important points in the throne speech, such as fighting the pandemic and getting Canada back to normal. There are promises to address reconciliation with first nations, to take action on climate change, to strengthen the middle class and to grow the economy. These are all important promises, but when we look at the record of the Liberal government, particularly over the last three years, we see a lot of talk, but little action. Conservatives believe that the purpose of winning elections is so we can legislate to fix problems and seize opportunities for our country. For the Liberals, it is the other way around. They legislate and make promises so that they can win elections and seize opportunities for themselves. This abdication of leadership has led to a country that is dealing with more than one crisis, where the government can say the right thing, but action is rarely forthcoming. One columnist recently wrote that the Prime Minister is the return of the infamous Mr. Dithers character. Someone who has “hit the ground running at a sloth-in-slow-motion speed.” This is no longer the government of idealists elected in 2015. It is a government that desperately wants to hold onto power, divide and conquer Canadians, and take the bare minimum of action required to safely remain in government. This has resulted in a terrible situation in our country, where very real problems are not being addressed with the seriousness they deserve. In the throne speech, I was disappointed to see little or no mention of the significant issues Canadians care about right now. For example, in Canada, we are undergoing the most significant period of inflation since I have been alive. For decades, Canadians could rely upon fiscal and monetary policy that maintained an inflation rate close to 2%. This meant that Canada’s economy could grow at a solid rate, while ensuring that prices for goods did not drastically increase. Now we are seeing very significant increases across all sectors, with food, fuel, housing and vehicles all seeing steep jumps in prices. One recent report also indicated that almost every investment asset class, when calculating for inflation, is returning a net negative real return. The consequences of letting inflation run at these levels will impact families for generations to come. It will mean less money saved for retirement, more resources dedicated to just the essentials and less resources for achieving Canadians’ dreams. It will mean eroded standards of living for retirees on fixed incomes, who will look at the value of their nest eggs shrink as the money supply expands exponentially. The government promises that it will find a way to make Canadians whole, but we saw the consequences in the past of government trying to control wage and price inflation. It only exacerbated the problems further. The most significant actions that have worked historically to address runaway inflation have been for the government to get its fiscal house in order and for the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates. These are bitter pills to swallow for Canadians who have grown used to massive government largesse and artificially lowered interest rates. The Liberals, I fear, will try and win politically by forestalling this inevitability by increasing spending and allowing the Bank of Canada to let inflation run even higher, thus forestalling the need for increased interest rates. The consequences of this will mean exponentially more pain for Canadians in the future as the government loses its ability to finance deficit spending and the Bank of Canada loses its ability to control inflation. Canadians deserve a government that will make the tough choices to ensure future generations can have a better life than the one we have. I know from hitting the doors in my community that the cost of living was top of mind for many families. Canadians need to see leadership from the government and they are not seeing it right now from the Liberals. There is also nothing in the throne speech to comfort the anxiety of my constituents in Alberta. In my region, we rely on the agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, and service sectors to put food on the table. On the agriculture front, there was only one mention in the Speech from the Throne, and that was about creating a Canada water agency. What about a plan to ensure that Canadian farmers can continue to access world markets? What about a plan to address the rising cost of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and fuel, which are threatening global food security? These are serious issues, but there was no mention of them by this government. Where is the plan to fight the Americans on the unjust doubling of softwood lumber tariffs? Where is the plan to ensure that our oil and gas sector can continue to sustain our economy for generations to come while reducing and eliminating greenhouse emissions? I see company after company from Alberta pledging billions of dollars in combined resources to implement revolutionary and effective carbon capture technology. Where is their willing partner in the federal government? Where is the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery, which will sustain new, low-carbon jobs and investments for decades to come? It is not to be found in the throne speech. Instead, we just see ideological talking points and promises to shut down our jobs and our industries. The words “just transition” have become a nightmare for Albertans. Many people in my riding lost their jobs when coal-powered plants were phased out a few years ago. Communities and workers were promised by this Liberal government that they would have compensation and a just transition. The last promise in the 2019 budget said $100 million for coal communities. Well, we have not seen any funding from this Liberal government, and it has been two years. Folks in my area know exactly what a “just transition” means. It means fewer jobs, less prosperity and more “just inflation”. It is time for the Liberal government to take co-operative action with the oil and gas sector to ensure the prosperity of all Canadians, not just those who are represented by Liberal MPs. The Speech from the Throne also failed to address the elephant in the room in Canada right now. One of our most important institutions has been on the news on an almost daily basis, and not a lot of it has been good news. I am talking, of course, about the Canadian military and the numerous scandals that we have seen. As someone who represents a large military community and CFB Edmonton, I know that my constituents are extremely proud of our Canadian Forces members, but every day they lose confidence when they see the Liberal government fail to act and fix problems. An institution as important as the Canadian military deserves far more attention from this government than it received in the throne speech, where it was not even mentioned once. Sadly, this is just another case of the Liberal government failing to tackle the important issues that Canadians want to see solved. The Liberals' rhetoric has, yet again, failed to match the reality of action. When the Prime Minister said this was “the important election since 1945”, he clearly was not talking about its importance to Canadians. Instead, he was talking about its importance to his own ambitions for a majority government. We are seeing bills being passed today that would have been, and could have been, passed if we had not had an election, such as Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-6. We see legislation that was passed with unanimous support, like Bill C-3 last night, which fulfilled the promise from all the way back to May 2020 to implement paid sick leave. This is legislation the Prime Minister said would be implemented without delay, but it took a year and a half to produce a mere page of legislation. In fact, it was not even important enough to merit its own legislation. It had to be merged together with a Criminal Code amendment. We are seeing a recycled throne speech. I praise the government for its commitment to recycling, but the throne speech largely repeats the promises and agenda of the government from last year in 2020. It is clear, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that this Liberal government has run out of steam and out of ideas. Canadians are growing more disappointed each and every day as they see the priorities they talk about around their kitchen tables with their families every night not being reflected in the policies and action of this government. I hope for the sake of all Canadians that this government can get its act together.

1613 words

All Topics

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Deputy House Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/10/21 10:56:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my colleague across the way, and one thing that jumped out at me was when he mentioned that we were here to legislate to fix problems. I agree. However, I think we have demonstrated that over the last six years, whether it was with medical assistance in dying or finally banning conversion therapy. I would like to know if the member opposite will be supporting us with respect to Bill C-2 to make sure we are fixing the problem of the gaps currently being experienced because of COVID-19.

99 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd

Dec/10/21 10:57:36 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, we, as the opposition, have a sacred duty to hold the government to account. We have seen so many times during the past two years in this pandemic the government push forward with legislation that we found had serious flaws. We are not going to abdicate our responsibility. Our duty to Canadians is to hold the government to account to ensure the best possible legislation. If Liberals were so concerned about getting this legislation passed in a timely way, then why did they waste Canadians' time and taxpayers' money on a reckless, unnecessary, $600-million election, which did not change a single thing in the House?

108 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/10/21 10:58:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in previous speeches from the throne, I remember seeing the Liberals talk a lot about putting in national pharmacare and making a reference to dental care. In this throne speech, theses topics are no where to be found. It is like they never even existed. The member is right, and the cost of living is also a huge subject of concern among my constituents in my riding. Unexpected medical costs, the cost of pharmaceuticals and the cost of dental care are huge issues for working families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. What does the member think about the fact that the Liberals used to talk so eloquently about these programs, and they are no where to be found in this 2021 version?

125 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd

Dec/10/21 10:59:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his commitment to his constituents. There is an old adage that says, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The NDP have been fooled not once, but twice, by the Liberal government. First when it promised paid sick leave in May 2020 in order to get NDP support for a hybrid Parliament, and second with pharmaceutical and dental care. The member has seen again that the Liberals have tricked the NDP. When are the NDP going to wake up, stop getting tricked by the Liberals and stand up to them for a change?

109 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 15