- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this bill in a couple of ways.
First, to deal specifically with Bill C-323 and the issue of mental health, and to pick up on the point I put forward to the member in the form of a question. Over the years, we have seen a substantial change in attitude towards the issue of mental health.
Back in late 1980s, I can recall a wonderful doctor. He was my favourite doctor. Every so often I talk to him, and I still call him my favourite doctor. Dr. Gulzar Cheema was a health care critic back in the day, in the late 1980s. I would like to think that he was one of the pioneers in trying to raise the importance of mental health. He worked very closely with Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, where there was a great deal of emphasis on this.
One thing that he had advocated for was the need to recognize mental health to the degree that the province should actually establish a mental health department. That was to amplify just how important mental health is to our health care system. He went on to run as an MLA in British Columbia and was elected. That is where the first mental health department was actually established, from what I understand. I could be corrected on that, but I believe it was one of them, if not the first one at the provincial level.
Fast forward to today, and we have a government that has recognized the importance of mental health, from a department perspective. The member made reference to a substantial commitment of literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that, as a government, we have not only talked about but also put into place. We are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 billion over a set period of time to encourage provinces to look at ways in which we could ultimately see better mental health care services.
In fact, the creation of the youth mental health fund can be found in the most recent federal budget. It is substantial fund of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately $500 million. Again, it is there to support young people and organizations and to assist in dealing with the important issue of mental health.
The budgetary measure, a way in which we can contribute to mental health, is something we have been very aggressive on. I have often made reference to the $200-billion investment in health care that we have announced for the next 10 years. When we break down the investment, a considerable percentage of that is going to go towards the issue of mental health, either directly or indirectly. I believe that speaks volumes in terms of the way the national government can ensure that we have some form of standards and can encourage all the different provinces and territories, in our own way, to see more delivery of mental health care services.
It is one thing that I think distinguishes us from the Bloc and the Conservative Party. They do not see the benefits of the national party playing a stronger role in health care, in terms of the Canada Health Act and the type of programming we can put in place. It would ensure that, no matter where Canadians live, whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or anywhere in between, or up north in the Yukon, there would be programs throughout our different communities. That is really important.
It is one of the differences between the political parties here today.
When we think of Bill C-323, we think of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and the fine work these people perform day in and day out in addressing such an important issue. We need to provide direct support to them and one of the ways we can do that is by exempting them from having to pay GST and HST.
I am grateful that the member recognized that and brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill, even though, as the member made reference to, it was incorporated into the fall economic statement. I am not going to get into what came first, the chicken versus the egg, in regard to this issue. However, I can say both sides agree that it is the right thing to do.
To that end, I am grateful because we do know that one of two things will happen. Either Bill C-59 will pass, and the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption for the GST and HST will take place, or the member across the way and I will be knocking on doors, because Bill C-59 is a confidence vote. That means it will be passing.
In that sense, it is a good thing. It is only a question of time. We might differ a bit in terms of the timing because there are a number of initiatives within Bill C-59, and if we dig a bit deeper than just the number of the bill, it is the fall economic statement. That is a piece of legislation that we were hoping to pass long ago.
One of the problems with having a substantive legislative agenda, as we do as a government in trying to support Canadians, is that time is a scarce commodity on the floor of the House. As a result, we are not necessarily able to pass as much legislation as we would like in the limited amount of time we have. It does not take too much to throw things off, unfortunately. Hopefully, Bill C-59 will pass relatively shortly through the Senate. When that happens, the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption will take effect. I think members on all sides of the House would recognize that as a good thing. No one owns a good idea. Let us just appreciate it for what it is worth.
There was another area I wanted to make reference to, and I wanted to talk about it in the spirit of what has been proposed. The government, along with the opposition, have been also talking about the 988 suicide crisis line. It has been an initiative that both the official opposition and the government have been very supportive of. As a result, we now have that suicide crisis line in place. I think by having that 988 number today, it does make a very positive impact, both directly and indirectly. The primary purpose for having the line is for those who will be using it, and that is stating the obvious. There is also a great deal of benefit because it raises the importance of mental health issues.
That is where I will do the full circle in terms of my comments today on the legislation that we are talking about. Mental health is a part of good health. It is not just being in a hospital with a broken arm. Mental and physical health are equally important.
1181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when we came to Parliament this morning, we had anticipated that we would be able to talk about some of the needs that Canadians have, and what we see day after day coming from the official opposition are ways in which it can prevent the government from passing important legislation.
It is interesting. Right now, we are dealing with Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. I would like the members of the Conservative Party to start looking in a few mirrors, and they would see that they are not reflecting something that Canadians truly want to see take place. As opposed to the Conservative Party's wanting to have a proactive chamber that helps, assists and supports Canadians, they want to prevent virtually any and all legislation from passing. The only way in which the government can get the Conservatives onside with legislation, where they will actually look at any form of seeing it go through without great opposition to it, is if they are shamed into doing it. If the Conservatives are not shamed into doing the responsible thing, more often than not what we will see is a Conservative Party that will do whatever it takes in order to prevent legislation from passing, and we see that in many different forms. We saw some of that even earlier today, when the Conservatives' focus was more on the issue of character assassination than on dealing with the important issues.
What would Bill C-59 do, as an example? One would think that the Conservatives would be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of rural Canadians. Within this legislation, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rebate. That is within the legislation. This legislation should have passed late last year. It is interesting that the Conservatives will stand up and say that we cannot pass legislation and, at the end of the day, it is the Conservative Party that has not realized what Canadians expect of an opposition party in a minority situation.
At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We recognize the importance of generation X and the millennials and the needs that they actually have. Whether it is the budget or the fall economic statement, which we are debating today, the Conservatives, day after day, continue to do what they can to prevent the legislation from passing, as opposed to a government that understands and brings forward legislation that is truly reflective of the values and the needs of Canadians.
I have had the opportunity here and there to add some thoughts in regard to that issue and how we bring forward a budget or the budget implementation bill in the manner in which it is brought forward. We have a Liberal caucus with members of Parliament who consistently are in the communities we represent, often bringing ministers into the constituencies, not only where we represent but even beyond that, so we can funnel back into Ottawa the ideas and the thoughts that we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when people look at the important legislation, like budget implementation acts or budget bills in general, people will see that they are a reflection of what we have been told when talking to Canadians and the different stakeholders throughout the country.
That is one of the reasons why we find, more often than not, that Conservatives will actually avoid talking about the substance of the legislation in many ways. They try to cheapen the policy debates and discussions that we have inside the chamber in favour of talking about things like, let us say, bumper stickers and the ideas that they have going forward into the next election. How often do we hear the Conservatives saying they are going to axe the tax? That is it. That is their number one bumper sticker.
We had a party annual general meeting in downtown Winnipeg this past weekend, and I was on one of the MP panels. I was asked a question about how I, as a member of Parliament, would respond to the Conservative Party's simple message of axing the tax. In responding, I said that people need to realize that as a Liberal government, we talk about how we care about Canadians. We talk about things like the dental plan and the pharmacare plan. We talk about the first-ever disability program. We talk about how we are investing in housing. Liberals talk about caring for people. We talk about caring; the Conservatives talk about cutting. If I was to try to amplify that to my constituents, I would be emphasizing the contrast: Conservatives cut; Liberals care. That, to me, is the contrast that we need to say to Canadians is very real and very tangible. I do not say that lightly.
We negotiated with the different provinces about the issue of child care. As an example, going into a federal election, we had a number of signed agreements, and the Conservative Party said it was going to rip up those agreements. Conservatives did not support the child care program. Shortly after the election, we continued to push the issue of child care. At the end of the day, every province and territory came on board. As a direct result, we have a national child care program, as a result of this government. It is reflective of what we were hearing, not only at the doors during the election, but also in between elections. That is a message, as I said, that we brought here to Ottawa. That is how we formulate budgets and fall economic statements. The Conservatives do not support the child care program that we have put forward. They do not support $10-a-day child care. We saw that in terms of going in and going out of the last federal election, because they said they would rip it up. When I spoke to Liberals in the province of Manitoba, that was the type of thing that I talked about. We need to talk about that contrast.
When the Conservative Party says it is going to axe the tax, what it wants to do is misrepresent the facts. There is a rebate. There is a doubling of the top-up rebate for rural Manitobans and rural Canadians. That is there. They are not receiving that because the Conservatives refuse to pass Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Take a look at the amendment the Conservatives proposed. I think this is the bill where they proposed to delete the short title or some silly thing like that. Why? It is not only because they want to be able to hear me speak more on the issue. It is because they do not want the bill to pass.
There are other aspects within the legislation and within budgetary measures. Let us do the contrast. Let us talk about the misinformation and that whole doubling of the top-up for the rebates. It is a major issue. It is about the environment. It is about getting more money in the pockets of 80% of Canadians, but that is not the messaging that the Conservatives talk about. Even though it is the truth, it is not the messaging. Instead, they say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution or the carbon tax; they are going to kill the carbon tax. Not all provinces have the carbon tax. There is British Columbia, as well as the Province of Quebec; that is a fairly significant percentage of the population in Canada. For those that do, like my home province of Manitoba, 80% of the constituents in Winnipeg North will receive more money as a direct result of the price on pollution. What does that really mean? Sure, there is a carbon tax component to it, but there is also the carbon rebate, and 80%-plus of my constituents are going to receive more money back through the rebate than they are actually paying out in the tax. Why have the program? It is time that polluters paid.
There is a certain element there that we need to amplify, in terms of how we care about the environment and the Conservatives do not. They do not have an idea. They used to. In fact, 95% of the Conservative Party that is sitting over there today, in the last federal election, knocked on doors with a Conservative platform. Inside that platform, if people read it, they will see that the Conservatives actually supported a carbon tax. It was the Conservative Party and its former leader, not the leader before this leader, but the leader before this leader's leader, Erin O'Toole. When Erin O'Toole was the leader, it was a part of his election platform. In his election platform, he went around telling Canadians he was going to have a price on pollution or he was going to put in a carbon tax, but that has changed.
Let us take a look at other things where we can contrast the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party with what the opposition is actually saying. We have a dental care program, which started off with children. Legislation was brought in to support that, whether it was the economic statements or the budget statements, and we appreciate the support that comes from the New Democrats on this, as they have been very strong advocates.
At the end of the day, the dental program is a program that is helping a lot of children. When I spoke on the legislation dealing with this, I can recall talking about how this program would help prevent children from having to go into emergency because of dental-related issues and not getting those issues dealt with. This is going to enable so many more children to get the type of dental services they need, at least in part. The Conservatives opposed that.
We expanded the dental program. The dental program is now also for those 65 and over. I believe that is what it is at right now, and for individuals with disabilities. It is all being rolled out. We are talking about thousands of people who have already benefited from this particular program, and the Conservatives are going to take it all away.
These are the types of examples that I use when I talk about how Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the reality.
I cited a couple of examples. I could have talked about housing-related issues and the initiatives the Liberal government has taken. I would challenge any member opposite to tell me another national government that has done more in terms of supporting Canada's housing industry. I can save them the research and tell them, quite frankly, that it has not happened. The government has led the way in working with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profit groups and indigenous people in ensuring that we have a better future with respect to housing and the crisis that we are having to face. Contrast that to the cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing. These are the types of things that really matter to Canadians.
We are aware of the concerns in regards to affordability. When the world was facing inflation, throughout, Canada did reasonably, actually some would argue exceptionally, well in comparison to the G7 countries or even the G20 countries. We did exceptionally well, but we still hit, I believe in June 2022, just over 8%, and it caused a great deal of pain and concern across the country. We reinforced the importance of the Bank of Canada. At the time, the Conservatives were critical of the Bank of Canada. They do not see what is happening around the world and the impact, yet they jump up so easy like jelly beans, and they yell and blame and say how Canada is broken. In reality, they should do a comparison to other countries around the world. From the point of being over 8% back in the summer of 2022 to today, we have now had four consecutive months of reasonable inflation, and it is going down. I think it is down to 2.7%, which is going to help Canadians. It will hopefully lead the way to getting some sort of interest relief in the coming months. However, they try to give a false impression, which is what Conservatives do all the time, but Canada is not broken. Compared to other countries around the world, we are doing well, but we need to continue to improve where we can.
Putting this budget implementation to the side, we can look, from my perspective, at one of the most powerful statements from the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, which was when she talked about foreign investment coming into Canada. Canada, on a per capita basis, is number one in the G7, and of all the countries in the world, we were number three on foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2023. There is a reason for that.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I was just heckled, and it was not parliamentary.
However, I would tell members that we are creating opportunities that would not be there if the government was not prepared to get involved. I am thinking about the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, green jobs, dealing with things such as Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, and that is just here in Ontario, in eastern Canada. This industry is being highly motivated to expand because of, in part, the Douglas Ford provincial government, which is a Progressive Conservative government, and I underline the word “progressive” as opposed to the Conservative reform we have here in Ottawa. Working with the government, we are creating those types of opportunities because we are committed to working for Canadians and to having their backs, building a stronger, healthier economy. We have a government that genuinely cares and that is not focused, like the Conservatives are, on cuts.
2374 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about the passage of Bill C-59 and blames the government. What the member does not tell people who are listening is that the Conservative Party focused a great deal of attention on filibustering and preventing legislation from passing. This is one of those pieces of legislation, and their tactics were just demonstrated by yet another amendment to it. However, the member believes, or tries to give the false impression, that the government is not able to pass the bill, when it is allowing for opposition to continue in this fashion to prevent legislation from passing. Interestingly enough, this particular legislation would allow for the top-up of the rebate to be doubled for rural areas.
I am wondering why the Conservative Party chooses to filibuster all legislation and then tries to blame the government for not passing legislation, yet its members cry when we bring in time allocation.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Maybe on another day, Madam Speaker.
I am pleased to talk about the motion we have before us, which one would think every member of the House of Commons would support. People who are following the debate should have an appreciation of what the motion would do, which is fairly straightforward.
On the one hand, we are seeing a lot of legislation. The government has a very healthy and progressive legislative agenda, and there is a limited amount of time during normal work hours, because the hours are set. The motion would give the opportunity, where there is a great level of interest, to have more debate on specific legislation or an agenda item from the government by allowing an extended sitting. This means we would have the evenings to continue debate.
Why would anyone believe having more debate is not a good thing here on the floor of the House of Commons? When we factor in all the whining and complaining we hear from the Conservatives at times about wanting more debate time on legislation, we would be giving them what they want. However, I suspect the Conservatives are likely going to be voting against that. When they take their time to stand or register their vote on the hybrid system, they will likely be voting against having more time for debate.
This is one important thing that the legislation would do.
The other thing it would do is provide the opportunity for us to prevent 24-hour voting sessions. The last time this happened, back in December, I can recall coming into the House early in the morning, starting debates and so forth and then the Conservatives saying that they wanted a standing vote and were going to force everybody to vote for the next 20 hours or so. I am going to go into this in a bit and talk about some of the things we voted on.
At a workplace where one is literally dealing with billions and billions of tax dollars and is expected to be aware of the content being voted on, or at least I would like to think members are aware of what they are voting on, it would be reasonable to expect one would not have to vote around the clock.
I had seen a nice graph provided by the member for Kingston and the Islands. If one looks at the graph, one sees there is fairly good participation until it became bedtime for the Conservatives. All of a sudden, instead of having 90% participation, it starts to drop. Once 11 o'clock hit, or getting close to midnight, it really plummets on the Conservatives' side. The good news is I think they stayed just above the 50%. I am not 100% sure of that, but I think it was just above. It might have dipped below, but I do not know for sure.
The point is the Conservatives saw the light back then, because at least half of them did not have a problem taking a health break so they could be more awake for the remaining votes. What we are proposing is to put in place a rule that would enable not only the Conservative Party members to have their sleep time but all members of the House to have a health break. I see that as a good thing. At least half of the Conservatives should be voting in favour of that one; otherwise, they may have a tough time looking in the mirror because that is exactly what they did the last time we had a voting marathon.
The other thing it provides for is for third reading to take place on the same day for which report stage is approved. That is an important aspect. Let me make it relevant to something that happened today where we had a sense of co-operation. There was, for example, a Conservative private member's bill that came up for report stage. All it would have taken was for any group to stand up when report stage was called, and say they would like a recorded vote. In fact, that happens. As a direct result, debate ends, or technically, does not even start, and then it is dropped until the next time it appears for third reading.
Instead of doing that, because we understood that the member wanted to have the private member's bill, Bill C-318, debated, we agreed, and then debate started at third reading. If we as a government recognize the value of that, and if private Conservative members recognize the value of it, then one would think there has to be a good percentage of Conservatives who would agree that the government should be able to have the same sort of treatment. It is a common courtesy. It was in the best interest of all concerned to have that take place.
From my perspective, those are the three big things taking place in the motion. It begs the question why any member of the House of Commons would vote against the measures being proposed. The short answer is that there is, I will not say a hidden agenda, because it is actually quite obvious, but a tactic that the Conservative Party has been using for years. I often refer to it as a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are some people, especially from the far right, and we can call them the MAGA element or whatever we want, who at times have a disdain for institutions like the House of Commons. They want to show as much as possible that it is dysfunctional, believing they benefit by that.
I want people to think about this: There is an opposition party that criticizes the government for not getting its legislation through, but the reason we cannot get it through is that the Conservative Party, the opposition party, is playing games and preventing it from going through. It does not take much to prevent legislation from going through in the normal process. We could allow 12 students from Sisler High School, Maples Collegiate, R.B. Russell, Children of the Earth or St. John's High School, any school in my riding, to sit in the chamber, and that could prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much at all.
I remind my Conservative friends to realize what a majority of members in the chamber have realized, and that was that in the last election, a minority government was elected. That means that the government has to, as there is no choice, work on consensus and build with at least one willing partner in order to get things through. Otherwise it is not going to happen. That is one of the things the government should take away from the last election.
The official opposition also has a role to recognize. The official opposition, in particular its current leader, has not recognized the responsibility given by the people of Canada back in 2021. That member has a responsibility that I have not witnessed. I have seen the games by members of the Conservative Party. They do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing and then criticize the government for not getting legislation passed. There are so many examples of that. We just finished an hour of debate on Bill C-318. In fact, I was the last to speak to it. There is no doubt that Bill C-318 is a very important piece of legislation. Listen to what people actually say about Bill C-318. Is there anyone in the chamber who does not support the principles being proposed? I would argue no.
We understand the value of Bill C-318. That is why, as a political party, with the Prime Minister, we made an election promise to follow through with the principles of Bill C-318. Let us look at the last budget. There was some preliminary work a year ago on this same issue about adoptive parents and how we could ensure they would get EI benefits. If we look at the mandate letters the Prime Minister gives to ministers, we can see that those principles are incorporated in them. Everyone knows that the government is moving forward on the issue.
The kicker is that it is actually in legislation today, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. It is a very important piece of legislation that would support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Where is that legislation today? It is still in second reading. The Conservatives refuse to pass it. When we call it forward, they come up with games. They do not want that legislation to pass.
Let us look at what happened during the previous fall economic statement. We were debating the budget of 2023-24 while we were still on the 2022 fall economic statement. That is bizarre. The Conservative Party members refused to pass the legislation. They would rather filibuster, knowing full well that there is a limited amount of time. Any group of grade 12 students would be able to do what they are doing, so it is no great achievement, unless, of course, they are trying to prove something. They are trying to say that the government is ineffective because the institution is broken.
The problem with this institution is that we do not have an opposition party that recognizes its true responsibilities. Conservative members' major objective is to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. What is the impact of that? Let us go back to the private member's bill, Bill C-318. If they had passed the fall economic statement when it should have been passed, then Bill C-318 would be virtually redundant and not be a necessary piece of legislation. In fact, it would have provided even more for adoptive parents in a family unit than Bill C-318.
However, it is not the first time, if we think of the types of legislation we have brought through. Sometimes, Conservatives will even filibuster legislation they agree with, as well as legislation they oppose. I remember my first speech on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I was very generous with my comments. I honestly thought everyone was going to support it. It is a trade agreement that even the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party supported. For the first time ever, Conservatives voted against a trade agreement and slowed down the debate on that legislation. Here we have a country at war, whose president came to Canada in September to sign the first trade agreement for Ukraine, sending a powerful message during a time of war, and the Conservative Party turned their backs on Ukraine and ultimately prevented the bill from passing as soon as it can—
1812 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.
Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.
The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.
What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.
When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.
Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.
The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.
Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—
696 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that the member from Atlantic Canada has always been a very consistent, strong advocate for that region of the country.
Could he provide, from his personal perspective through consultations and in working with his constituents, his thoughts with respect to the overall budgetary measures of the government?
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when the leader of the Conservative Party went to PROC to try to justify electoral reform. There were a lot of manipulations of the Elections Act there. If I only had more time, if I had another couple of minutes, I would be more than happy to expand on my answer.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I would suggest that 2015 was a wonderful year.
The member raises a valid point. If we go back to the last federal election, I can recall the Conservatives saying that they were going to rip up the child care agreements that were being talked about. Today, we have $10 child care. Out of fear, we also had to bring in legislation to ensure that we will have that ongoing funding. However, let there be no doubt, that is on the table with the Conservative Party.
I was sitting in the third party over in the corner of the chamber when Stephen Harper, while he was overseas, made an announcement that he was going to raise the age of the OAS from 65 to 67. One of the very first initiatives we took, back in 2015, was to lower it from age 67 back to age 65.
We have to beware of the Conservatives and their hidden agenda.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. The federal government provides tens of millions of dollars, likely going into the hundreds of millions, to subsidize non-profit housing units on an annual basis. This government has increased that funding. We are talking about tens of thousands of units across the country. In the province of Manitoba, my best guesstimate is probably somewhere around 20,000 units. Many of those units are for seniors, so to try to give a false impression does a disservice.
The bottom line is that, since 2015, we have had a national government and a Prime Minister who are very much committed to the housing file. I would suggest that he is second to no other prime minister in the last 60 years here in Canada.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not find it embarrassing at all. Since 2015, we have had a national government that has recognized it has a tangible role to play in housing. That role has continued to grow under this administration to the degree in which we are seeing historic funding and programming to support housing.
However, it is not just the federal government. The provinces also play a critical role, and the Bloc needs to recognize that even the Province of Quebec has non-profit housing supported by federal dollars, but there are also many other things that it and other jurisdictions, whether municipalities, provinces, territories or indigenous communities, can do. It takes a team approach, not just the federal government throwing a whole lot of money at it. That means there has to be a strategy and ongoing discussions, and homes are getting done. A great example of that is getting rid of the GST for purpose-built rentals. We have seen some provinces adopt that very same policy at the provincial level to ensure more purpose-built rentals will be built.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had provided an answer to many of the questions that others would have of him in regard to the price on pollution. That member actually campaigned in the last election based on, in part, an election platform document that said very clearly that the Conservative Party supported a price on pollution. It is only in the last two years that that member and the Conservative Party have made a flip-flop saying now that they do not support a price on pollution. Who knows? I suspect they might even have some bumper stickers already printed saying they want to axe the tax. Even if that ends up taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians, they are not prepared to abandon that priority. I will give them that much.
I look forward to having that particular debate whenever it comes.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservative Party of today is so extreme that it has even now taken a position that is not in the best interests of the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It is not just the Liberal Party that is saying this. It is usually the New Democrats who vote against trade agreements, but not this trade agreement, because they too recognize the value of it. It is only the Conservative Party that has voted against it.
I have had a couple of meetings. I was hosting a lunch, and a couple of hundred people showed up. They were more than happy to sign a petition on the issue. The issue is that they, much like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada, want to see the Conservative Party flip-flop and support the Canada-Ukraine deal.
I would encourage the member who spoke and provided that answer to take what she put in the answer, talk among any Conservatives with rational minds and see whether they can meet with the leader of the Conservative Party and get him to come onside and support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.
That was not what I was going to talk about today. I was going to talk about the Canadian economy and the types of things we are hearing.
I love the idea of contrasting the Liberal Party and the government's policy with what the Conservative Party is saying. Let us do the contrast. The Conservatives came in yesterday, and they were all gleeful and happy, saying they have four priorities and were going to hit a home run on them. What were the four priorities? There were at least a half-dozen members who talked about them yesterday.
I will give an example. Their shiny one is the bumper sticker that is going to read, “Axe the tax.” I will stay away from the idea that the Conservatives are climate deniers and do not have any policy on the issue of climate change and the impact it is having on Canadians. Rather, they have a wonderful little slogan they want to use, and it does not matter.
Yesterday I said that the Conservatives' policy would actually be taking money out of the pockets of a majority of the people who live in Winnipeg North, because we have a carbon rebate that goes to the people of Canada. When the leader of the Conservative Party says they are going to axe the carbon tax, that means they are going to axe the carbon rebate too. More than 80% of the constituents I represent get more money from the rebate than they actually pay in the tax.
That would mean less money in their pockets, as a direct result of the Conservatives' ignoring the climate issue and choosing to change their opinion from what they told Canadians in the last federal election, when the Conservative Party, all of it, in its election platform, made very clear that its members supported a price on pollution. It is only under the new leader and with the bumper sticker idea that they have actually done a flip-flop on that particular issue, and now they are prepared to take money out of the pockets of Canadians and completely disregard the importance of sound environmental policy.
That is one of the Conservatives' priorities. What a dud that one is. I will talk about the second dud: their talk about housing. They want Ottawa to play a role in housing. There has not been a government in the last 50 or 60 years that has invested more in housing than the current government has. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
We are talking about working with provinces, municipalities and non-profit organizations, many different stakeholders, to ensure that Canadians will have the ability to get homes, rent and own, into the future. The federal government has stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way.
When the leader of the Conservative Party was housing minister in the Stephen Harper government, he was an absolute disaster. He had no concept of what a housing strategy was, let alone have the ability to construct houses. He now wants to take it on. Really? It just does not make sense.
The federal government, unlike any other government in the last 50 or 60 years, has stepped up to the plate and demonstrated strong national leadership, and we are working with the municipalities, the provinces and other stakeholders on the file. That is something the Conservative Party would not do.
What about the Conservatives' third priority? Their third priority is the budget. People need to be very concerned when Conservatives talk about the budget. This is where the whole hidden agenda comes in. Every so often, we get to see some of that hidden agenda ooze out.
An example I will use is the issue of the Infrastructure Bank. All the members across the way support getting rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Their finance critic made that statement earlier today and we have heard it before, if people want to talk about a dumb idea. It does not matter as facts and reality are completely irrelevant to the Conservative Party.
The reality is the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been exceptionally effective, yet the Conservative Party will say it has not done anything. It says that knowing full well that is just not true. The reality is we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $10 billion.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at $10 billion coming from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, that money is being tripled. In total, that is another $20 billion through different sources because of the investments being made by the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Members opposite are saying to tell them how many projects there are. At last count, we are talking 48 projects. How many did the Conservative Party say? Zero. We are not talking about the intellectual capabilities of the Conservative Party when I say zero. I am saying that is what it says the number of projects are.
If members do not want to believe me, they can take a look at the website. There are all forms of projects that are not only on the books, ongoing, but are also completed. It is truly amazing.
They are in all different areas of the country: public transit, 11 projects; clean power, eight projects; green infrastructure, 17 projects; and broadband, eight projects. Some of the broadband ones are in Manitoba for rural Internet connections. We would think that many of the rural Conservative MPs might be a little sensitive and want to support that but no.
Keep in mind that in everything we are talking about here, the billions and billions of dollars, a lot of private dollars, the Conservatives oppose it. They oppose that sort of development. That is building a healthier economy. That is building Canadian infrastructure. We all benefit from that.
There is a reason the foreign investment in Canada is as healthy as it is today. It is because, as a government, we support investing. It has paid off significantly. The finance critic was critical of the government, saying we do not have foreign investment. The reality, the facts, play no role in what the Conservative Party says.
At the end of the day, on foreign investment in Canada, on a per capita basis, from last year, in real dollars, Canada was number one in the world. One would think that the Conservatives would understand that concept, yet the finance critic is saying that we are down on foreign investment.
Conservatives cannot accept the reality of good news. In terms of job numbers, there are well over a million new jobs from pre-pandemic levels. That is good news. One would not know that because we constantly have the Conservative Party going out about the nation saying that Canada is broken and is just not working. How does that actually compare to the reality of the situation?
As I pointed out earlier today in a question, if the Conservatives say Canada is broken, they have to believe that the entire world is broken. We can compare some of the measurements that the Conservative Party uses. They talk about things like the inflation rate. Have they taken a look at Canada's inflation rate compared to other G20 countries? Whether we are taking about France, Germany, the U.K., the United States or any of the other countries in the G20, we find that Canada is ranked at the top, in terms of the lowest inflation rates. It is the same for interest rates.
The government policy that we have put in place, whether through budgetary or legislative measures, has helped bring down inflation rates. Even though we recognize that, relatively speaking, compared to the rest of the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well, we still need to do better. That is the reason we are seeing policies being brought in that have made a difference. We will continue to work with Canadians and other levels of government in order to improve conditions. We want an economy that is going to work for all Canadians.
We want to continue to invest in Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. That should not be a surprise. Virtually since 2015, when we were elected to government, Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it have been the first priority of the Liberal government. We continue in that area. We continue to support programs that would lift people out of poverty.
We can talk about the GIS increases, the Canada child care benefit and the many different programs we have put in place to support Canadians, pre-pandemic, during the pandemic, and going in and out of some very difficult times that people are experiencing today.
When it comes to the economy or the budget, on priority number three, I warn members to be very much aware of that Conservative hidden agenda. It is going to disappoint a great number of people.
Their fourth point was on the issue of crime. Let us stop and think about that one for a moment. We just brought forward the bail reform legislation that had the support of the provinces, law enforcement agencies and a number of stakeholders from all over the country, and every political party inside the chamber except the Conservative Party. We had filibustering taking place on that important piece of legislation, even though, months prior, the Leader of the Conservative Party said we would pass that bill lickety-split. That did not happen. He wanted to filibuster the legislation, putting the government in a position where we had to force the legislation through.
That is why I say very candidly that, whenever the election is, although I suspect it will be in 2015, at the end of the day, I look forward to being able to share who the Leader of the Conservative Party really is and remind him of some things: the cryptocurrency issue; his talking about firing the governor of the Bank of Canada; the flip-flop about the price of pollution, the flip-flop about Facebook and the big Internet companies. There is so much out there that one is going to be able to go to people's doors and share with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in contrast to the Liberal Party with a solid record of working with Canadians, supporting Canadians. Compare that to a Conservative Party that does not even have an idea about the environment nowadays, that does not want to tell Canadians what its real agenda is all about.
I love to make that contrast. I look forward to many more days, months and a couple of years of debate, no doubt.
1998 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the last answer we heard from the Conservative member, because it somewhat defies the reality of what the Conservative Party's actions are versus what some of the members actually say when it comes to Canada and Ukraine and the need for Canada to support Ukraine in a very real and tangible way.
Just last December we had a series of votes. I want to make reference to how the member actually voted when it came to Ukraine. There was a vote for Ukrainian immigrants settling in Canada, with respect to helping them find accommodation and receiving initial financial support. She actually, as all the Conservatives did, voted no to that. They also voted no to training Ukrainian soldiers through Operation Unifier. Not to be outdone, they also voted no to Canada's NATO mission.
The real twist on this is the Conservative Party's approach to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Imagine the President of Ukraine, at a time of war, coming to Canada and signing a trade agreement with the Prime Minister. The expectation of the community of Ukrainian heritage, which is well over 1.3 million people, not to mention of a vast majority of others, was that the Conservative Party would support that particular Canada-Ukraine deal. In my original comments on the legislation, I suggested that the Conservatives would be supporting it. Boy, was I wrong. It is unbelievable.
That is where there is a whole mix-up as the Conservatives try to throw a red herring as to why they are voting against the trade agreement. What they are saying is that it is because of the carbon tax and that they do not think Canada should be imposing a carbon tax on the people of Ukraine. News for them, as one of them applauds, is that Ukraine already has a price on pollution. It has had a price on pollution since 2011. This means that even when Stephen Harper was prime minister, the people of Ukraine were farther ahead in recognizing the climate reality than the Conservative Party was in 2011.
Why, then, are Conservatives opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement? It is because of what many are suggesting is the far right element, the MAGA Conservative movement, which is kind of creeping up from the United States and seeping into Canada. It is being advocated by no one other than the leader of the Conservative Party and the minions of Conservative MPs who sit behind the leader to talk—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
429 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives talk about government expenditure, what they are talking about is where they are going to be making cuts, but they do not necessarily want to tell Canadians.
Today, the Conservative finance critic said they would cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, as an example of what the Conservative Party would cut. The Infrastructure Bank does many projects in all the different regions of Canada. I am wondering if the member could explain why the Conservative Party has made the decision to cut the Infrastructure Bank.
While he is at it, if he does not want to give the details of that, maybe he could give us a sense of some of the other things that the Conservatives would be cutting in their hidden agenda.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member puts out the bumper sticker of “broken Canada”, and nothing could be further from the truth. If that was anywhere near the truth, one would have to say that we have a broken world.
When we look at how Canada has performed in comparison to others in the G20, such as the United States, England, France or Germany, Canada comes out quite well, whether it is the creation of jobs, interest rates, inflation or on the issue of affordability, and it continues on.
Maybe the member could step away from the Conservative spin and take a dip into reality. Can the member at least acknowledge one fact, that investment from abroad coming into Canada on a per capita, dollar amount is the best in the world? Would the member not acknowledge that that is a good thing?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am growing more and more concerned about the confrontation with Speakers when they are occupying the chair. Even when you were standing up, Madam Speaker, the member did not sit down. Rather, he continued to chirp from his seat toward you. I think there—
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question regarding housing, because the member spent a lot of time speaking to housing. In the last number of years, and I made reference to this earlier, we have seen the federal government really getting into the area of housing. For many years nothing was being done, nothing was being developed.
Today we can talk about the billions, but, more important, we can also talk about the need for the three levels of government to come to the table to address the housing issues that the member references. I am very sympathetic to the people living in bus shelters and so forth in the city of Winnipeg.
Would he not agree that all three levels of government need to step up to deal with the housing crisis today?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member said. I am sure she is not surprised by that particular comment. She referred to purpose-built housing, homes and apartments, where we are getting rid of the GST to encourage more growth. It is projected that there will be literally thousands of new units built as a direct result. Likewise, we now have provincial jurisdictions that are doing this with the PST.
Would the member not agree that, if the provinces are now trying to duplicate what the federal government is doing, in an attempt to increase the supply of purpose-built homes, it is a good thing? Would she not support that?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think of foreign investment, government policy on legislation and budgetary measures. Working with Canadians, on a per-capita basis, when we talk about gross number of dollars being invested in Canada, Canada is actually number one in the world with respect to foreign investment. Much of that investment goes toward renewable energy. Canada is now a leader when it comes to electric batteries. The value of communities are increasing greatly because of the mega-plants going into them, Volkswagen being one of them.
Does the member recognize, whether through things like trade agreements and government policies, that we have seen an enhancement in investment that will ultimately contribute to the world because of many of the green projects that are taking place in Canada today?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party's fixation on the bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax” has caused the Conservative Party and the MAGA right to ultimately say things like they do not support the trade agreement with Ukraine. There are so many bizarre things coming from the far right under the leadership of the Conservative Party.
How does the member justify providing misinformation, or selected information, to the constituents I represent? When he says he wants to axe the tax, he is really telling the majority of the residents in Winnipeg North that he would also get rid of the rebate, which means there is going to be less disposable income because he has a desire for a bumper sticker. How does he justify that?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
