44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/18/24 4:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member. Her comments will be taken under advisement, and the Chair will come back to the hon. member as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:14:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given the importance of the subject that my colleague just raised, I would like to reassure the House. Conservative members are ready to meet this summer at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study this issue, to advance the study already under way on foreign interference and to consider today's question of privilege more specifically.
I advise the House that we prefer to reserve comment for the time being. We will return to this later.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois understands the importance of the situation and the importance of the study that needs to be done on this matter. We choose to exercise the right to reserve comment for the time being.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:15:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also like to review the comments that the member has put on the record. We will report back at some point in the future.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:15:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I also want to add a few comments and thank our colleague from Vancouver East.
The matters raised, as we all know, are of critical importance. I have listened carefully to the member for Vancouver East. I want to read her question of privilege. It is clearly pressing and urgent that Parliament come together. At this point, I would like to reserve further comments, as other representatives of parties in this place have done. I hope to pursue conversations, as I have indicated in a letter to all party leaders and to all members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
However, I think the member for Vancouver East has raised a critical issue. Once I have read her question of privilege carefully and considered whether it is consistent with respecting the top secret nature of the full, unredacted report, I would like to add my thoughts.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
2 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.
28 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 4:30:54 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:31:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am hearing impaired and have incredible difficulty listening to the member for Winnipeg North. I would ask that you show some compassion and ask the member to defer the rest of his speech to this time next week.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:31:13 p.m.
- Watch
That is definitely not a point of order, but I would ask the hon. member to perhaps lower the tone of his voice.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:31:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member always has the option to leave the room if he is feeling uncomfortable.
The truth does hurt, and I can appreciate that. At the end of the day, if I had any sense of a progressive nature, I would feel very uncomfortable within the Conservative Party today. Remember Joe Clark? Joe Clark, like the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, was a Progressive Conservative. The former prime minister said that he never left the Progressive Conservative Party; the progressive left the Conservative Party.
Brian Mulroney said that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. Members do not want to know what Kim Campbell says; a lot of it is unparliamentary. With that attitude and the Reform-Conservative party, the far right MAGA movement that has moved into the Conservative Party, I welcome the 2025 election.
Canadians will understand the type of issues the Conservative-Reform party opposes. Let me get back to the two examples I was giving prior to the interruption. The Conservative-Reformers oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank represents about 10 billion dollars' worth of investments.
An hon. member: It has built zero products.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Conservative critic is heckling from across the way, there are a lot of projects. There are over 40 projects, and many of them are in the province of Alberta, where rumour has it there are some Conservative members of Parliament.
Why would Conservatives want to kill a program that is delivering jobs in tangible ways, green jobs, and contributing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, with much of it going to agriculture. In the province of Alberta, there is a project to enhance irrigation so there will be more diversification in the province, yet Alberta MPs and the Conservative-Reform party are constantly saying no and that they are going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
There is also broadband.
I am going to let the government House leader stand for his point of order.
348 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:34:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the excellent speech of my colleague did not warrant interruption, but I do want to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:34:51 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:35:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way flip-flopped on the price on pollution. We know that. Do members remember the flip-flop? All the Conservative members campaigned on and said they support a price on pollution. They did a flip-flop.
I am imploring and begging them to please reverse the decision on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is a good thing; it really and truly is. Not only is there $10 billion coming in from the national government, but we will also see twice that amount coming in from other entities. The Internet will be expanded to over 250,000 Canadians. All forms of capital infrastructure will be built in all regions of the nation.
The Alberta MPs should do some homework. They should take a look at what the Infrastructure Bank is doing in Alberta. They really need to stop with the political spin that they are getting from their leader's office. They should wake up, smell the coffee and recognize a good idea when they see it. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing wonders across the country in many different ways.
I was going to say it was the bad decision of the Conservative reformers from last year, but it was actually Trump, when they made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That was totally amazing. It was the first time ever that the Conservatives voted against a trade agreement. Why do I say that? It is because no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. In the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming in. If we compare it to the entire rest of the world, we were number three.
Corporations and individuals around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Canada has generated more than two million jobs. We can compare our GDP-to-debt ratio, and we are doing exceptionally well, especially if we compare it to the rest of the G7.
Yes, there is room for us to continue to grow. That is why I am excited about 2025, when with a four-year mandate, we will continue to work with willing partners across the way, not only to fulfill the mandate but also to continue to work for Canadians.
400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:38:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to tell where to start, but I would like to start by commenting on the very first part of the member's afternoon maiden speech, where he talked about the Liberal income tax cut to the middle bracket. That was not a cut for the middle class. The median earnings for the middle class in 2016, were about $34,000. The middle income only started at $44,000.
In fact the Liberal Party cut the taxes of every single member of Parliament by hundreds of dollars because anyone earning less than $45,000 per year, in that fiscal year, got nothing less. In fact all they got were more carbon taxes put on them, and nothing has changed in the nine years since then. Even more punishing carbon taxes have been added on top. Would the member now admit that it was not an income tax cut for the middle class, that in fact the median income that year was around $34,000 and that the Liberals have simply pulled the wool over people's eyes?
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:39:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member opposite, like a number of the Conservatives, should be quite embarrassed, but some of them were not here in 2016 when the voting took place.
Let there be no doubt; there were two major initiatives. One of the initiatives was the special increased tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives voted no. The decrease was for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted no on giving Canada's middle class a tax break. For those with lower incomes, there was an enhancement of the Canada child care benefit, which literally took money away from millionaires and put it in the pockets of those who had very low incomes. I could go on, about the GIS and the substantial increase for Canada's poorest seniors, for example. This all took place in the first budget, and the Conservatives voted no.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:40:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was another example of our colleague's eloquence. Unfortunately, it is also another example of the alternating glorification and demonization, depending on which party you belong to.
I would like to remind the House that any money transferred by the federal government does not just appear out of thin air or grow on trees. It comes from taxes paid to Ottawa by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. It is also the debt that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers will have to pay.
I would still like to understand the logic. When a place like Quebec already has all the health, dental and pharmacare infrastructure in place, why is it absolutely necessary to create a second structure that will cost even more, simply because the federal government has decided to meddle in what Quebec is already doing very well?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:41:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me the amount of time I would require in order to give a detailed answer to my friend, but let me make the suggestion to her that all she needs to take a look at is the number of people in the province of Quebec who are actually registered for the dental program, and she will find that there is in fact a need for the program.
I will go further by saying that there is a need in virtually all the different regions of the country. We see that by the number of people who are actually registering, and we have not even completed the full rollout where we will see more and more individuals ultimately being able to register.
It is important we recognize that Canada is a vast country with many different regions. There are some things in which there is a need for the federal government, in working with different jurisdictions, to try to provide the programs that provide some equity and a sense of fairness so that, if someone happens to live in Vancouver, in Halifax or anywhere in between, they can get, for example, their diabetes medication.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:42:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP has been working for years to make sure that every Canadian has access to the dental care they need. We were driving forth motions in the House over the last decade that the Liberals and Conservatives voted against, and the Bloc seemed to not support them either. One of the things we are most proud of in our confidence and supply agreement is that the NDP compelled the government to bring forth a dental care program that will see nine million Canadians go to the dentist and get their teeth fixed.
My question, because we are talking about the budget here, is on the financing. The Liberal government has provided a dental fee guide that provides reimbursement to dentists, denturists and dental hygienists at about 89% of fee guides. This is resulting in dental professionals' not wanting to sign up for the program and is setting the stage for co-payments when our confidence and supply agreement says no co-payments for anybody making under $70,000.
My question to my hon. colleague is this: Will he push his colleagues in the Liberal Party to raise those fees such that the Canada dental care plan pays 100% of the fees that are charged normatively across this country so our oral health professionals get paid appropriately and so people get the care they need without having to go into their pockets?
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
