44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-65. Before I do that, if members would indulge me, I want to send congratulations to a member of my staff, Ali Shahsamand, who is receiving his master's degree today. Based on his excellent work in my office, he could be teaching many of the classes, but he is nonetheless learning a lot through his master's degree. I am going to do my best to pop over there if there are not too many shenanigans from the other side that keep me here throughout the day. Members are pointing out that I might be the cause of some shenanigans later as well. We will see. I think that is tough, but fair.
We are debating Bill C-65 and, in particular, an amendment put forward at second reading by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. I do not know that there has been much discussion of the amendment in particular, so I do want to review. The amendment proposes that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Elections Canada Act, as the bill would delay the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament could collect taxpayer-funded pensions, which is a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal government's inflation, carbon tax and housing costs. It is a wise and thoughtful amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, which I am pleased to support, and I am looking forward to discussing it.
By way of context about the state of the country right now, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, two of my children, Gianna and Phineas, are in Ottawa as well, and it is great to have them here. I was reflecting on some conversations I sometimes have with my children when I ask them to do a task. My children are very responsible 99% of the time, but sometimes, it comes to pass that a part of the house needs to be cleaned, and I tell them to put the toys away and to clean up an area of the house. Maybe I have a phone call from someone or have some work I have to do, and when I come back an hour later, nothing has changed; all the toys are exactly where they were, or maybe it is even worse. Then, I ask them what is going on and explain that they have to clean it up. They say that they have been working at it for an hour, but nothing has changed.
As parents, we want to look at not just the amount of time spent on an activity, but also the results of the activity and whether things have changed as a result of the efforts that have been put in. It is a good lesson for children that their activities will be judged not just by the effort they put in, but also by the results they achieve. If people do not learn that they will be judged by the results they produce and not by the efforts they put in, they might grow up to become Liberals.
The Liberals would like us to judge their activities over the last nine years not by the results but by the amount of money they have spent and the amount of energy they have purportedly exerted on behalf of certain outcomes. However, Canadians are judging them on the results. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is undeniable that the results are much worse.
I think back to 2015 when I was first elected as a member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It was the same year that we had a change in government. We had the Conservative government of Stephen Harper prior to 2015, and the current Prime Minister came in 2015, promising real change. That was the slogan. In 2015, the Liberals' slogan was “real change”, and in 2024, their slogan is “boo hoo, get over it”. It is quite a real change that this country has experienced in nine years.
In 2015, the Prime Minister said that real change was coming and, indeed, real change is here. Rents have doubled. The violent crime rate, which was going down, has now gone back up and is continuing to be on the way back up. The national debt has more than doubled. I recall debates previously where people had concerns about the size of our national debt. The national debt has more than doubled since 2015. We are now spending more on servicing the national debt than is transferred to the provinces in health care. As this debt was escalating, the message we heard from the government was not to worry because interest rates were low. However, interest rates have not remained low, and as a result, we are paying more and more in debt servicing costs.
Debt is up. Costs are up. Inflation is up. Crime is up. Canadians are now looking at these results, and they are judging the government, not by its flashy slogans, by its professions of concern or by its promises to spend even more. Canadians are judging the government based on the results that are being achieved. It is amazing to hear the Liberals talk as if they just have to talk in a different way and explain what they are doing in a different way.
After nine years, Canadians have seen what the Liberals have done and have seen the results. What are they doing in response to that? After nine years of failures, costs and crime being up, what are Liberals interested in talking about in the House? What are they trying to focus our attention on? They have this new bill, Bill C-65, and in response to all these challenges and the public anger at the failures of the government, they are proposing to delay the election even further. It is unbelievable.
If the public is upset and it is demanding change and new direction, the Liberals had better delay the election a little longer so that they can stay in power for as long as they can and collect their pensions. That is the approach we are seeing from the Liberal government. I look around the world, and there are a number of cases where governments that are struggling for various reasons have at least the willingness to put their programs to the people and to make their cases to the voters.
We have challenged the government. Rather than a delay to the election, most people I talk to in all parts of this country actually want an election sooner, not later. They want an opportunity to pronounce on the government's failures and to replace it as soon as possible. In the context of the level of fierce criticism and of the challenges the country is facing, the responsible thing to do would be for the government members to say that they were ready to make their case, to put their case before the Canadian people and to let the Canadian people decide on that trajectory in a carbon tax election.
However, the Liberals are trying to move in the other direction. They want to delay the election further. They want to stay in power for as long as they possibly can and avoid the inevitable judgment of the Canadian people on their nine years of terrible failures and the results that it has produced for this country.
Naturally, Conservatives are opposed to the proposed bill. We believe that instead of having a later election, it is time for an earlier election. Canadians want to have a chance to rule on the many failures of the government, and we will, of course, be opposing the bill.
In addition to its evident desire to delay the election and to cling to power as long as it possibly can, the Liberal government has coincidentally put forward a date change to the election that just so happens to allow many additional members of Parliament across the way to be eligible for a pension, and that is certainly suspicious. The members across the way are putting their own pensions ahead of the desire of Canadians for an election that would allow us to replace this costly, corrupt coalition NDP-Liberal government.
The wise amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton points out that this focus on protecting their own position and protecting their own pensions is particularly galling to Canadians at a time when so many Canadians are indeed struggling. The struggles Canadians are facing, by the way, are things that the Liberal government loves to try to blame on other people. How can we explain that after the government has pursued inflationary policies, things cost more? The government has chosen to pursue policies that make things more expensive, and on this point, the amendment mentions the carbon tax, and I want to spend a couple of minutes on the carbon tax.
The funny thing about the carbon tax is that New Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge the basic logic of how a carbon tax is supposed to work, even as advocated by its proponents. Proponents of the carbon tax—
1570 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 11:23:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague, but the reality is that the Harper government was terrible in taking away voting rights from racialized people, from indigenous people, from poor people and from young people. The Harper government and the member for Carleton stripped away voting rights for a whole variety of Canadians they do not seem to like or appreciate. It seems that the Conservatives are in the same frame here with a bill that would enfranchise more people, that would ensure that more people can vote, and Conservatives are opposed to it.
Why are they opposed to more Canadians voting?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 11:24:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the self-identified worker bee in the corner is making things up about the record of the Harper government, as he regularly does.
The choice Canadians will face in the next election is that they will look at where this country was in 2015 and where it was in 2024, and they will say, “Are we better off in 2024 than we were in 2015? Are we better off with the Conservative government or are we better off with the NDP-Liberal government?” That is the choice, and I think the choice will look much better for us when Canadians finally have a chance to decide than it will for the buzzing bees in the corner of the room.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:18:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague.
If I understand correctly, the Bloc Québécois is going to support the NDP's amendment to set things straight. The election will take place on the originally scheduled date.
We saw this idea of taking voting rights away from a large number of Canadians emerge under the Conservatives, especially the voting rights of low-income and racialized people. We saw how the impact of the Harper government restricted Canadians' right to vote.
Does my colleague agree that what the Harper government did should never happen again? All members should be pushing to ensure that everyone across Canada is able to vote in federal elections.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:19:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Harper government was penalized in 2015, so I think that the member has his answer.
When a government goes beyond the democratic interest, the public is smart enough to penalize that government. I trust the public's intelligence. I trust voters' intelligence.
Indeed, everyone must be allowed to vote. When a society allows an individual to vote, it is the ultimate gesture of integration. The social contract is sealed by this right to vote. In receiving this right, members of the public have the responsibility to prove their eligibility as voters.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:16:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us.
Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities.
We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there.
Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example.
In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.
An hon. member: Yes, we are.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element.
Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years.
We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country?
How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election.
Fast forward it again to today, where we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program.
What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished.
What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? Under the Canada Health Act, it clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will often talk about health care.
The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks that the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that.
Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there.
For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than what the Conservative Party is talking about.
I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the finance critic says “yes” in agreement. There is no change there. That is their intent. They want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and it is because they do not understand—
1535 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 6:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member once again gave us a lot to think about. It is interesting, because we often do not hear about some of the history and what decisions different governments made. What I find interesting is that he brought up the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, because it definitely demonstrates really what a Progressive Conservative government is like versus what the neo-con Reform-Conservative government is like.
What I also found interesting was that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney brought forward the GST and that it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government that lowered it by 2%. How it tried to recoup that was by making seniors work two extra years. The same people, seniors who have built the foundation of our country and have given so much, were told by Conservatives that they were going to have to work harder, for two extra years, so the Conservatives could lower the GST for everyone, which is a consumption tax.
My question really involves what the member believes is the vision of the Conservative Party, which today is against increasing capital gains on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, yet whose history demonstrates it had no problem increasing taxes or having some of the most vulnerable in our communities contribute more, whether they were youth or seniors. I would love to hear the member's comments on that.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:08:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the Harper days, there was a recession in 2008, but $150 billion was put into the economy, and the budget was balanced in seven years. The Liberal government has had nine years.
I wonder if the member could elaborate on the fiscal failure of the doubling of the debt and the tripling of the carbon tax, as well as what the carbon tax has done to initiate the cost of inflation that Canadians are seeing in their rents, mortgages and grocery bills today.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut.
My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:54:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like my colleague, but he said that he has never seen a budget with such a negative response. I remember the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad Harper budget of 2012, and my colleague should too. It gutted veteran services, gutted health care, forced seniors to work years longer in their lives and gave tens of billions of dollars in handouts to banks, billionaires, and oil and gas CEOs. Conservative financial management is an oxymoron.
I like my colleague a lot, but how could he possibly not apologize for that extraordinarily bad budget and the terrible financial management of the Harper years?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:55:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy the member from the NDP raised the subject of choices and what is worthy of support. I spoke to a constituent who could not believe that the NDP supported the budget implementation act last year, because it made big changes to natural health products and their regulations. They cannot understand why the NDP would support the Minister of Health to put in place a regime that is going to see less consumer choice and more expensive natural health products.
I would love for the member to start looking through the budget implementation act as he probably did with Mr. Harper's budget. I would also like to see the NDP start standing up to the Prime Minister and the government's terrible bills.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
