SoVote

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/7/22 6:25:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a refreshing speech today. It is so nice to hear in the House some innovative thinking. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a system that is antiquated and both the government and the official opposition do not have the same kind of thinking, which is why we end up with the type of motion we are dealing with today. The motion is quick to cut taxes for large corporations while offering nothing in terms of consumer protection from the big corporations that will just go ahead and raise prices above and beyond inflation. Can the member comment on whether he thinks cutting taxes at the pump will stop big oil and gas from simply raising prices, and if this motion is innovative thinking?

125 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Jun/7/22 6:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer to that question is no. However, since it is not like me to provide a simple answer to a simple question, I am going to take the time to point out that there are innovative solutions. I myself came to work today in an electric car. I can say that I am not affected by the higher gas prices right now. Sure, I am making some sacrifices: I had to stop a little more often along the way. I am looking forward to seeing new charging stations installed. That is definitely part of the solution, because pollution comes at a cost. We pay for it through our health care system. The Conservatives do not talk about it, but there is a cost to polluting.

132 words

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

Jun/7/22 6:27:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the Bloc has recognized the motion is not worthy of voting for and for a number of different reasons. I want to highlight the need for us to recognize that the price on pollution is something that, in my home province for example, if we look at the 2021 tax year, provided a net benefit to virtually 80% of my constituents. Where the federal government is providing the price on pollution credit, our citizens are actually benefiting from it. It is having an impact. We are encouraging people to think electric, and so forth. Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the whole idea of that transition?

116 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Jun/7/22 6:28:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I will answer his question the same way I answered his colleague's. I believe we need to review the taxation of big banks in Quebec. We need to ensure that we stop investing in the oil and gas sector. The consequences are huge. Why not review equalization and make it greener? The pollution we generate in the system needs to be offset by higher equalization payments. I think it is a win-win. The greenest provinces would get more. Now that is a solution.

94 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:28:51 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate for a very short two minutes, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

18 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/7/22 6:28:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my two minutes of what was hopefully going to be a 10-minute speech to reiterate something I have been hearing from farmers and businesses in my riding pertaining to fertilizer. I want to go on the record in the House and thank Duncan Ferguson, the president of the Glengarry Federation of Agriculture; Doug MacPherson, the general manager and president of Munro Agromart; and Jackie Kelly-Pemberton of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for raising awareness of the unfairness happening to our Canadian farmers when it comes to the 35% tariff imposed on fertilizer. Our House and our country are united and pushing back against the evil and illegal acts of Russia, but the actions taken by the government of imposing a 35% tariff on fertilizer pre-March 2 only hurts Canadian farmers and consumers. The opposition day motion we are voting on tonight is very clear. It calls for an exemption of those tariffs pre-March 2. Our farmers and local businesses ordered fertilizer last fall, before we knew these actions were going to take place. We are putting on the record that we are standing up for farmers and those local voices to say this is a tangible way can provide relief to help with the high cost of living facing our country and the global community today.

227 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:30 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending June 23, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

90 words

Division

Mr. Michael Kram

Jun/7/22 6:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:31:15 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the division stands deferred until later this day.

14 words

Hon. Mona Fortier (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 6:32:00 p.m.
Watch

moved: That Vote 1, in the amount of $274,137,786, under Department of Justice — Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in.

33 words

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

Jun/7/22 6:32:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak about where the government has come from, where we are today and where we are moving forward to. I would like to try to amplify a couple of points that I think are really important. Over the last number of years, what we have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party in particular is a different type of tactic. I reflect on the speech that the interim leader gave in the House this morning. When she talked about the issue of focus and how the Conservative Party wants to see all of these actions taken and she talked about ideas, what struck me as rather odd was that with regard to what she was talking about, I would not have thought she was the interim leader of the Conservative Party, in terms of wanting to be perceived as being more productive in opposition. What she was talking about was not reflective of what I have been witnessing in the House over the last number of months, in particular, but even well before that. For the Conservative opposition, their focus has been more about playing a destructive role inside the House of Commons to the degree that they do not want to pass anything. As they put up all sorts of dilatory motions and different types of actions, one gets the opinion that they do not want to see anything pass out of the House. I have often referred to it as a destructive force inside the chamber, where, on the one hand, they do not want anything to get through and then, on the other hand, they will be critical of the government for not being able to get anything through. That seems to be one of their areas of focus. The other area has been that of attacking the personalities within the government. They have spent a great deal of time and resources, whether it is, no doubt, financial resources or just resources inside the House, being critical of personalities, particularly those within the cabinet—

347 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 6:35:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to clarify that we are actually speaking about the main estimates today and that we are going to be talking about what is coming out of some committees. I just want to be sure we are on the right topic.

50 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:35:16 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind everyone that we are speaking to certain specifics here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

20 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:35:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are, as the member's interim leader talked about, focused on what we are spending and where we are getting our revenues. It is one thing for the interim leader to be saying that, but it is another thing to just watch the behaviour of the Conservative Party in opposition. It is very different. If we take a look at the types of behaviours we have witnessed virtually from the beginning back in late 2015 and going into 2016, we see that the Prime Minister in particular has been very much concentrating on the real issues of the day that Canadians have to face. We have been doing that from the very beginning. When the interim leader talked about how the government needs to be focused and talked about the motion they were moving earlier in regard to the finances of the government, I believe there has only been one party, the party fortunately that is in government, that has been focused in its attention. If someone listened to some of the speeches delivered today, were they a true reflection of the important issues that Canadians are facing? In good part, yes, for a lot of the debate. We concur with a number of the issues being debated that are in fact important to Canadians. It was kind of encouraging in that sense, that the Conservatives have chosen their last opposition day to raise a number of issues, some of which should be discussed and debated. However, that is something that is not a part of the normal routine. I suggest that the Prime Minister, caucus and cabinet have been consistently focused on the issues that are important. We have seen real, tangible results. As an example, over the last number of months, we have seen the Conservatives stand up, I do not know how many times inside the House. As we talked about a budget presentation, what were the Conservative Party talking about? It was mandates and criticizing the Government of Canada for not lifting mandates. When people were outside protesting, the Conservatives were criticizing our having mandates. I can recall seeing one picture on social media of the interim leader out at a dinner where she was talking with some of the organizers of the “freedom convoy”.

384 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 6:39:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will make this quick. This is the business of supply on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and the member is talking about other things. I am just wondering if we can maybe talk about the estimates and the spending of the government, instead of the stuff that he was talking about for the last five minutes. Let us talk about money and the spending of money, as we are supposed to be doing today.

83 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:39:40 p.m.
Watch

I will remind all members of the House that we do try to stick to the topic at hand. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:39:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is having a difficult time following the logic here, I would suggest that she leave the chamber or not listen, as opposed to interrupting. This is in fact very relevant. We have the opposition focusing their attention on an issue, but the government of the day is focused on the issues that are facing Canadians. Whether it is today or during the budget debate or debate on Bill C-19, we are have been consistent on these types of issues. It is the official opposition that has not been consistent. The opposition has not been focused on these important budgetary measures because it has been focused on other issues to try to stir the pot. I am using the issue of the mandates as a tangible example. The wannabe leader of the Conservative Party was out saying, “Let us end the mandates”, and the minions within the chamber who are supporting that leader are espousing the same policy. To say that this issue is not relevant is ridiculous, because those are the types of issues they were talking about during the budget debate. Even when the Province of Quebec still had a curfew in place, the Conservatives were focused on ending mandates. The member for Carleton made reference to the Bank of Canada and its governor. It was very discouraging. When we talk about issues of inflation and what is happening in our economy today and the person who is likely the new leader of the Conservative Party is going around diminishing the value and the importance of the Bank of Canada and its governor, we should all be concerned. That person has not won yet, and maybe he will not win, but he is definitely supported by a majority of the members opposite in the Conservative Party, and these are important budgetary-type issues, because the Bank of Canada does play an important role. It is supposed to be arm's length. The Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than in dealing with the issues. We have indicated very clearly that we are going to deal with the real issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. When Conservatives talk about inflation, they try to give the impression that the sky is falling and that Canada is going straight downhill. They put their collective heads in the sand, not recognizing what is happening in the world. Conservatives talk about inflation. The Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus are all concerned about inflation, and we all understand the reality of what is happening in our environment that goes beyond our borders. It is affecting our inflation rate. If we could stop the war in Europe, we would do that. We do not have that kind of influence. We do have a great deal of influence in working with our allied countries. However, to deny the impact of what is taking place in Europe in the illegal Russian war that is happening to Ukraine is highly irresponsible. That war is having an impact on inflation. To try to click our heels and think that mandates and the coronavirus would be gone and we would have nothing more to worry about would again be irresponsible. We just have to take a look at what is happening internationally. Even today some members will say that someone can be on a boat for 24 hours but that cannot be done on a plane. Have members ever been a boat, compared to a plane? There is a big difference between being in a fuselage, where there are 220 people or whatever number of people, and being on a ferry between, let us say, Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver. We within the government benches continue to review and look at the situation, listen to what science is telling us and work with health experts. That is what is dictating our policies. Remember, the Conservatives have been saying to end mandates for months now. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: One member is saying “Hear, hear!” Even when the Province of Quebec had a curfew, Conservatives were still advocating getting rid of mandates or mandatory masks. The Province of Quebec just got rid of mandatory masks. Are those health experts also wrong? This is the type of focus we see from the Conservatives. Maybe it is because of the leadership convention that there seems to be a vacuum within the Conservative caucus today. There is no consistency. When we take a look at the policies being brought forward from this government, whether they are legislative initiatives or budgetary initiatives, we see that they are having an impact for Canada from coast to coast to coast. Look at some of the numbers. Conservatives will criticize us. It is truly amazing. The Conservatives will say that we are spending too much money, but in the last federal election they committed to spending more money than what we committed. They criticize us on the deficit, yet the Conservatives were projecting more, and that was only a number of months ago. What is the actual reality? When looking at the reality, one needs to do a comparison and take a look at it. As we continue to receive and spend tax dollars, how is Canada actually managing? Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the G7 includes some pretty important countries, including the U.S.A. We have actually recovered 115% of the jobs that were lost as a direct result of the pandemic. Again we are doing much better than the U.S.A. We have been able to do this because we worked with Canadians and stakeholders when going through the pandemic and in planning the budgetary expenditures that formulated our estimates so that we would be there to support them in real and tangible ways. I have given many speeches in the House giving examples of that support. Is there any wonder that we have been able to recover 115% of the jobs lost when we actually supported small businesses? We did this by providing rent subsidies, wage loss subsidies and better access to loans. I would ultimately argue that because of the actions of the government in working with the different stakeholders, we prevented many companies from going bankrupt. We allowed for small businesses, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy, to be in a better position to hire back when the opportunity came. A lot of the expenditures for which the Conservatives will criticize us were there to support people in having disposable income, whether it was supporting the poorest seniors in the country through the GIS or individual seniors 65 and older through the OAS, not to mention the literally tens if not hundreds of millions that were allocated to non-profit organizations that support our seniors. We can also take a look at students and the doubling of summer jobs for young people and a continuation of that program within this budget. I remember the Conservative days when they cut back on that expenditure. These are the types of initiatives that the government worked on, from the Prime Minister to the cabinet to the individual members of the Liberal caucus. We did that because we believe it is important to take the ideas and thoughts from our constituencies and bring them to Ottawa to ensure that the budget reflects what Canadians want to see in a national budget. We have been successful by listening. We are concerned about inflation, as my constituents and all Canadians are. Canada's inflation rate is at 6.8% and yes, we are concerned about it. Whether it is the GIS, the OAS or the Canada child benefit, the benefits programs are all indexed to inflation. If people are 75 and older, they are getting a 10% increase in the OAS. We are concerned about the 6.8%, even though it is actually less than the United States' inflation rate, which is 8.3%, or the U.K. inflation rate, which is 9%, or Germany's, which is 8.7%, or the OECD's, which has an average of 8.8%. Just because our rate is lower than all of those countries does not mean we are giving it any less attention. We understand that it is hurting pocketbooks, and that is why we see a number of budgetary measures that are going to help provide some relief. We constantly see Conservative members vote against all of those measures. On the one hand, they talk about cutting taxes, and cutting more taxes, and looking at ways to cut tax. As a side point, when we provided them with a chance to do that by cutting taxes for Canada's middle class, they voted against it, but they sure like to talk about it. At the end of the day, they can be all over the map on a wide variety of things and have their focus on two issues in particular that I mentioned, but we will continue day in and day out to focus on the issues that Canadians are facing.

1540 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Jun/7/22 6:54:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech carefully, and one of the things he said is that the CPP and the OAS were increased based on inflation. Is that an accurate statement? I know the OAS had a 10% increase for individuals who were 75 years of age and older, but does he really believe that seniors between the age of 60 and 75 did not have the same increase in costs as someone over the age of 75?

81 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member would know and as I would hope that all members would know, from my understanding of it there is a formula that is put into place that enables the cost of living increases for the GIS, the OAS and the Canada child benefit. That is my understanding, and if that is not the case, I would be more than happy to apologize. I am sure there will be some people who will be very quick to find out and ask me to apologize if in fact that is not the case.

96 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/7/22 6:55:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Biden made a bold move and announced that he will be using the U.S. Defense Production Act to accelerate the manufacturing of solar panels, grid infrastructure, heat pumps and building insulation. I am curious as to whether this government is also looking at Canada's Defence Production Act to ensure that we are accelerating these clean energy industries as well.

65 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83