SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

Jun/17/24 7:03:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. In a region or a riding like mine, there are a lot of small artisanal producers of alcohol and other products. They all complain about the mountain of red tape they have to deal with, because it takes up a lot of their time. They do not have a lot of employees. Often, they are family businesses that do not have a lot of staff to meet these requirements. The first thing my colleagues need to understand is that Quebec is proud to be home to many distilleries, microbreweries, cideries and wineries. Quebec produces many excellent artisanal products. We cannot understand why these businesses are not getting better support. The first measure the government should take is to put apple cider and mead producers on an equal footing with berry winemakers. The first step in doing this is to exempt these producers from excise duty. As I said, this will not make a huge hole in the government's budget, but it will make a huge difference for small-scale producers.

177 words

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

Jun/17/24 7:04:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to the budget implementation bill. Bill C-69 is a very important piece of legislation. Ultimately, it shows very clearly to Canadians in all regions of the country what they can expect from a Liberal government versus a Conservative opposition, or the Conservative-Reform party compared to the Liberal Party. Let us be very clear on that. A few weeks back, I was at the party's annual general meeting, where some of the members were asking me a very simple question. They asked how I would best describe the difference between the Conservative Party today and the Liberal Party. The best thing I could come up with at the time was to say to think of it in the sense that the Liberal Party cares while the Conservative Party cuts. There is so much truth to that. All one needs to do is take a look at what the Conservative-Reform party stands for today and listen to the many announcements being brought forward by the government to get a better appreciation of the contrast between the two parties. As a government and as a political party, we have advocated for very strong progressive policies. At the same time, we have taken budgetary and legislative action to support a strong, healthy economy. The big difference is that our plan is about building a Canada that ensures fairness for every generation. We do not see that coming from the Conservative Party. I would suggest some members need to look at Hobbes and his theories on economic development and people to get a better sense of maybe where the Conservative-Reform party is. I would argue the Conservative Party today has really shifted far to the right. The more people understand the degree to which it has shifted, the more they are going to turn their backs on the Conservative Party. Former prime minister Joe Clark is distancing himself by saying things like he never left the Progressive Conservative Party but that the party left him. Individuals like Kim Campbell are talking in a not a very positive way about the current leadership of the Conservative Party and the type of misinformation the party—

376 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/17/24 7:07:57 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Provencher.

12 words

Provencher

Mr. Ted Falk

Jun/17/24 7:08:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little good to talk about in this Bill C-69, this budget implementation act, but it would be nice if the member could use some of his time at least to talk about the actual issue we are debating.

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/17/24 7:08:16 p.m.
Watch

I guess that is a call for relevance, so I will ask the hon. member to maybe stick to what we are prescribed today, which is Bill C-69. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

36 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 7:08:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is one weird call for relevance. I suspect the member is maybe reflecting on some of the words that I am using and trying to point out the contrast, how that contrast is amplified in this budget and how the Conservative Party continues to vote against and indicate very clearly that its members do not support the measures. The types of measures that we are talking about are very progressive in their nature. That is why I think it is valid to repeat Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, when he said that the party has left him. I hear Kim Campbell and the comments that she is making about this new Reform-Conservative party and how far to the right it has gone. We talk about the late Brian Mulroney, and he indicated that they have amputated the progressive nature of the Conservative Party. In fact, if we take a look at some of the actions that they talk about, we will find that the current leadership has taken the party even more far right than Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper was not that popular. What is going to happen? As we get closer to the election, more and more Canadians are going to look at what the Conservatives have to offer and contrast that with the types of things we have put in place over the last eight and a half, coming up to nine, years. We could talk about the economy and the two million jobs, which is virtually double what the former government did in the same time span. We could talk about the pandemic around the world or interest rates around the world going through the roof. Inflation numbers were astronomical around the world, compared to Canada's numbers, yet we were able to keep control over them. We brought forward budgets and legislation to support Canadians while continuing to build a strong and healthy economy. That is one of the reasons Canada was in a great position out of the pandemic to be able to continue to grow the economy. In fact, in the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in direct foreign investment out of the G7. If we contrast that with the world, we will see that we were number three. We have people and companies around the world looking at Canada as the place to invest. This did not happen by accident. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government in Canada's history. This government has invested, in real dollars, in more capital infrastructure than any government in Canada's history. In order to develop and encourage a healthy middle class, we need to have a healthy economy, and we have not lost sight of that. At the same time, we recognize the importance of fairness, and we have been consistent on that. Our very first budget, and one of the first pieces of legislation that we brought forward, was to put a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. The Conservative Party actually voted against that. Is there any surprise that they now vote against the capital tax increase, which would affect 0.2%? It is less than half a per cent. We are talking about some of the wealthiest Canadians and asking them to pay a fairer share. The hypocrisy that flows from the Conservative Party and the misinformation that it spreads through social media are virtually endless. As we get closer to the election, people will take a look at some of the things that we have been able to accomplish in this budget and others, such as investing in generational support for health care, almost $200 billion over 10 years; the first-ever national child care program that is seeing people pay $10 a day for child care; the first-ever pharmacare program that is at least going to be there for individuals with diabetes or women in need of contraceptives; the dental program to support our seniors and our children and others as we continue to expand upon it; a national school program to ensure that children are getting nutrition in the classroom, because we know that one cannot learn on an empty stomach; and the first-ever disability benefit. It would have been great to see a higher amount, but it is the first ever. It is the single greatest, I believe, expense in terms of new money on this budget line. These are the types of things that we are bringing forward. What we are hearing from the Conservatives is that they are going to chop, chop, chop. There is the contrast: a caring, competent government and party versus a Conservative-Reform party that is more focused on the wealthiest Canadians and wanting to cut the programs that Canadians need and will support.

815 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/17/24 7:15:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been very perplexed. I am hoping my colleague will be able to clear something up for me. We have in place a number of programs that actually help people, the Canadian dental program, thanks to the NPD, which has helped two million seniors who have signed up already, and we have millions of others expressing interest. We have pharmacare, which is going to help six million Canadians with diabetes and nine million Canadians who take contraception. Affordable housing and school lunches help hundreds of thousands of kids around the country and hundreds of thousands of families to recover from the national housing program that was gutted by the former Liberal government under Paul Martin. All of these things benefit constituents of all of us. Perhaps the member could explain to me why the Conservatives have been fighting tooth and nail to block all of those programs, even though these programs are literally helping thousands of their constituents. I know seniors who live in Conservative-held ridings who say that their Conservative MP told them nothing about dental care but that, thanks to the NDP, they know it is there and they are actually getting these dental services. Why are Conservatives, elected to represent their constituents, fighting their constituents' interests tooth and nail?

216 words

Constituents

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 7:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when one takes a look at the types of programs in a minority situation, the government needs to find a party inside the House in order to pass things. There is no doubt that the New Democrats have played a very strong role in that. I value that support and I truly appreciate it. What is confusing is that, quite often, we will see the Conservative Party talk in great opposition to many of these benefits, yet in each and every Conservative riding, one will find that there are literally thousands of their constituents who will benefit by them. In the dental program in particular, they even have some Conservative spin discouraging the development of that program. I believe that the Conservative Party has moved so far to the right, and that is one of the reasons I suggest that it is not the traditional Conservative Party. It is more of a Reform-extreme party today.

158 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/17/24 7:18:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if Canada is in a sound financial position here and around the world, as our dear colleague from Winnipeg North, who I really like to listen to, says, why was the government unable to include a single one of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois? They included giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, increasing old age security for those aged 65 and over, ending subsidies for fossil fuels, supporting a clean energy transition and transferring the amounts dedicated to housing to Quebec. None of these are in the budget implementation bill. Why is that? For Canada, everything is going well financially. Is it different in Quebec? Are we not entitled to such measures?

124 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 7:19:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a number of points, and I would love to be able to address them all. However, let me address one that the Bloc members constantly bring up, and that is in regard to seniors and the age 65 issue. We, as a political party, made an election platform commitment to increase the OAS by 10% for seniors who were 75 and over. That was intentionally done because, as people get older, often, medical requirements increase. There are other issues, like the ability to get a part-time job if they need or desire one. By looking at a number of factors, it was determined that the best way we can assist seniors is to look at those who are 75 and up and to give them a healthy increase of 10%. Through the years, we continue to see the COLA increases to OAS, and we have also seen substantial increases to the GIS, which date back to 2015-16. We dramatically increased it and took hundreds of seniors, in Winnipeg North alone, out of poverty.

180 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/17/24 7:20:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise on behalf of the great people of southwestern Saskatchewan. There is no shortage of issues to talk about today, especially as we are debating the budget implementation act, yet again. I first want to talk about the livestock tax deferral. This was in the budget. It was one of only two or three items that dealt with agriculture when the Liberals tabled the budget. Agriculture is obviously one of the largest economic drivers not just in southwestern Saskatchewan but also across the Prairies, and indeed, it contributes greatly to the national economy across the country. I noticed today that there was an early designation of tax deferral zones under the livestock tax deferral program. I noticed that the majority of it, this go-round, was not so much in Saskatchewan, but in Alberta. Weather being weather, that is just the way it is, but what I want to talk about in particular are producers and producer groups who have been asking for a three-year window when it comes to the livestock tax deferral. When I spoke to the budget the first time, I brought this up, and I see no changes have been made when it comes to that window or time frame. I want to talk again about why that is important. Over the last couple of months, I have been driving across my riding. I have been to Grasslands National Park in the south. I was at Leader on the weekend, with the Great Sand Hills near the Alberta border, and I was down Highway 1 in both directions. I am happy that there has been more rain than usual, definitely more than in the last five or 10 years. Right now, the pastures and the grass look really good, but the problem is that there has been probably five to seven years of persistent drought-like conditions in my neck of the woods. If we look at a map, my riding is right in the heart of the Palliser Triangle. When this country was being settled, people were told that it was not suitable for humans to live there, but we have been doing our best. We have done remarkably well in the time that we have lived in the prairie region. Why is the three-year window important? Like I said, coming off about five years of persistent drought-like conditions, the native prairie grass and even the tame grass are under a lot of stress. With the current system the way it is, the livestock tax deferral lets farmers defer the taxes they would pay on any cattle that they sell this year until next year. They could defer that tax payment so that when they sell, they have a bit more money in their pockets. It is a good concept. The problem is that it incentivizes ranchers to buy back in when their pastures have not recovered and to do further damage if they do not have access to more grass. Right now, the pastures have grown back quite well, but just because the grass is growing again this year does not necessarily mean this is the right time to graze it. It might be better and might be in the best interests of the land, the rancher and even the animal to leave a lot of this pasture alone, to let it rejuvenate for a whole season, and then, next year, go back to it. That would be a two-year window, but to have a three-year window available to our producers would be of greater benefit. That needs to be considered going forward, particularly by a party that says it cares so much about the environment. If it cared about the environment, this is a common-sense policy that it would look to adopt, but it has not done it. The next thing I want to talk about is the Impact Assessment Act. The budget had some minor tweaks, particularly in the budget implementation act. So far, the commentary on it is that this is most likely going to be unconstitutional. I noticed when I read over some of the wording, and I heard comments from others, that there are a couple of issues, one being to keep the ministerial designation framework in place. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is that it could allow the Liberals to again wiggle their way into the province's jurisdiction, which was a problem with the original Impact Assessment Act, and it is currently an issue in other ways the Liberal government treats the provinces. It ventures into provincial jurisdiction on a regular basis, and the changes in the Impact Assessment Act would further enable it to do that. Keeping this ministerial designation framework is going to continue to lead to that infringement, but it also creates uncertainty for the investor, the proponent, looking for a quick, rapid timeline to get their projects built. This matters because, even with the current government's approach, whereby it wants to stop pipelines and wants to stop oil and gas development, which I get, there is a lot of green energy that wants to be built and developed all the way across the country, and allowing uncertainty like this continues to be problematic. We heard about this issue in the natural resources committee, when we were talking about the Atlantic Accord bill that came through, and this was not addressed. Trying to make sure that there is certainty for all the resource sector is of utmost importance because all across this country, Canada is blessed with all kinds of rare earth minerals. We are blessed with an abundance of oil and natural gas, and other things like helium and lithium. We have cobalt. We have all the things that are going to be needed to build, say, a battery supply chain, and traditional oil and gas obviously is a big part of that because the world needs Canadian gas. Officials came and asked, multiple times, and the Liberal government has turned them down numerous times, for Canadian LNG. Another report I read today shows that last month, Russia passed the United States as the biggest supplier for natural gas to Europe. Knowing what is going on in Europe right now with the war in Ukraine and what is going on with Russia, the current government is further enabling the Putin war machine to continue to get the resources it needs because the Russians are still selling their gas into Europe. Canada has the resources to be able to be that provider, but because the government has killed off around 15 to 16 LNG projects, since the time the Liberals have been in power, to make sure they were not built, they have put us at a disadvantage and have put our allies in Europe at an extreme disadvantage because we do not have the ability to supply them with the product that they want and need. The government said that it would give them green hydrogen, but we are years away from that being a reality. We have a proven commodity that we could be using and could be exporting, and the Liberals have said no to that. The other thing I want to touch on was in the budget, and the Liberals removed it from the budget. We can suspect and wonder why, but it is in regard to the capital gains increase. I was talking to a rancher this morning again. He looks at this is as a tax on inflation. The reason I say he said that is that, sure, he bought the land maybe 25 years ago that he would be looking to sell, and the value of that land has increased. However, what else has increased is the cost for him to buy a tractor, to buy machinery, to buy product, to buy cattle and to buy feed. All the costs on his ranch have gone up as much, if not more, than the cost of the land that he might be looking to sell. Therefore, in all reality, there is not much of a gain that has been recognized there. Because the value of one little thing that the government wants to focus on has gone up, the government does not take into consideration the value of everything else that has gone up over that same period of time. Let us imagine that over that 20-year span, the government's target with the Bank of Canada is a 2% inflation rate, if we multiply that, it is a substantive increase to all the products he has on his ranch. When the rancher sees this increase coming in, he says that all the government is doing is taxing inflation because his purchasing power has not gone up one bit. Last, I just want to talk about the other piece of the government's supposed agriculture policy. The government only had really two or three things in there, as I mentioned at the start. Regarding the second one, the concept is a great idea, but it would be good for the Liberals if they would just get out of the way, and let it be done. With respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-294, for the second budget in a row, the Liberals said they are going to do consultations on interoperability. The government has three-quarters of a page in the budget and has done absolutely nothing with it. I already accepted a friendly government amendment to my bill at committee. It passed through the chamber, and we are still waiting for it to receive royal assent. It would be good if we could just get that bill passed. That is a good, Conservative common-sense bill that would do wonders not only for the manufacturing sector, but also for our farmers and our ranchers across the country. Let us just get that passed.

1670 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 7:30:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear the member recognize climate change. It is not often we hear Conservatives speak about stress on prairie grass or heatwaves, wildfires or droughts, which the member opposite mentioned, so he is recognizing the impacts on our climate and on the Prairies, which is great to hear. The member also mentioned numerous other things that our government is doing in the federal budget this year, including the investment tax credits and getting the impact assessment agreement up and running again to give that business certainty he was talking about and to give investors that certainty in the market. We have also added the indigenous loan guarantee and have extended the mineral exploration tax credit. I am sure that the member can agree that these are good things for industries within his riding.

138 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/17/24 7:31:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch really briefly on one thing. One of the biggest threats to our native prairie grass is the government's management, through Parks Canada, of the Grasslands National Park especially. The way it is handling the species at risk there is they've been adding more species than were there before. It has been an adversary for the producers there who are actually doing a great job of maintaining the grasslands. It is trying to introduce a non-native species into that park, which is destroying the natural habitat for the one native species that is there, the sage grouse. It is making it impossible for the sage grouse to survive and thrive, because of its management of the park. It has been a failure.

131 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/17/24 7:32:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the most recent budget is truly an attack on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. It is obvious that the Liberals were influenced by the New Democrats, who are so centralist that they would like to get rid of the provinces entirely. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say many times that he would respect Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, and we know that Quebeckers send $80 billion in taxes to the federal government. Last weekend, I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak during a debate in Quebec City on whether there should be a tramway, a third link or both. The leader of the official opposition said that Quebec should opt for a highway if it wanted money—our money, by the way. He said that if Quebec chose the tramway, it would not get a cent. That means that he is blackmailing us with our own money. Is that not a form of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction? It is up to Quebec to decide whether it wants a tramway or not. When he says that, he is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. Do you not agree?

202 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/17/24 7:33:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member referenced how many tax dollars the Province of Quebec has paid into the federal coffers, but that his party turned around and voted for the government spending all of Quebeckers' hard-earned money on other things. We can agree on one thing, which is that the federal government needs to respect provincial jurisdiction. However, the member's party continues to prop up the government. The member and his party had a chance to send a statement and say that they do not agree with the way the government is spending their money, but they voted with the government instead of against it.

111 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/17/24 7:34:07 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji , I do have a hard time trusting what Conservatives say, especially regarding indigenous peoples' issues. I was an adult when the Conservatives were in power, and although their prime minister made an apology to former residential school students, the very same government cut programs that would have ensured proper healing of intergenerational trauma from residential schools. I wonder whether the member can explain what the Conservatives would do to make sure that indigenous peoples continue to get the supports they need and that their rights are upheld so we would see more indigenous peoples thriving in Canada.

98 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/17/24 7:35:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was really happy to hear the leader of our party talk about his support for the optional first nations resource charge. This would allow first nations to decide whether they want to have a greater share and greater participation in resource development on their lands. I think it is a great opportunity to allow for economic reconciliation, to allow for self-determination and for them to be able to have jobs for their people to create that wealth that they need. That way, they would not have to go to the federal government to ask for the money that they could be getting on their own if they were in charge of their own resource development. I think that the first nations resource charge is a great first step, and I look forward to being in government one day when we can implement it.

147 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 7:36:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to present questions on the Order Paper.

13 words

Leave
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/17/24 7:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Jun/17/24 7:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2619, 2624, 2632, 2633, 2635, 2639, 2641, 2643, 2646 and 2647.

21 words