- 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
- 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
Madam Speaker, I have an unbelievable fact. Here is what the Conservative Party said:
Canada’s Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.
They even make reference to Australia and France. This is what the legislation is doing. I heard the critic say, “Do not answer it.” I hope she does answer.
At the end of the day, how does the member justify going to her constituents, campaigning on doing what Bill C-18 is doing and, then, voting against it? It sounds as though the member is either being intimidated by giant tech or just selling out with the rest of her party.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Conservatives losing an election. What I think is important, for anyone who is following the debate today, and we have heard it in questions and comments, and during question period, is the fact that 338 candidates in the last federal election, who were all Conservative candidates, had a platform, a platform that my friend and colleague tried to table earlier today, which made it very clear that they were campaigning in favour of a price on pollution. I am wondering if he could just discuss that a little more, the details and his perception of that particular promise.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, having had the choice to continue to listen to Conservatives or to myself, I have chosen myself. I hope members do not mind.
I want to defend the member for Provencher. There is a valid argument to be made that the centre of Canada is in fact in the riding of Provencher, just east of the city of Winnipeg. If members do not believe me or the member for Provencher, take a drive. It is beautiful country and they will see a lot of sweet things. It is the promised land of sorts, and I am sure the member for Provencher would concur with that, and there is a marker that clearly identifies that it is the centre of Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to stand up and appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend has brought forward this legislation. As members will attempt to bring up other issues, I would suggest that names really do matter. There is no absolute guarantee that the next election will have new names or, in fact, a guarantee of boundaries. This is something we suspect because of agreements that are in place, but there is no absolute guarantee. I know, through the campaigning that I have done over many different elections, that people often ask about the name of a riding because it does matter. If something is included or excluded, it is often an issue that is raised with local members, whether at a provincial level or a national level.
Therefore, the member who has agreed to bring forward this legislation, not as part of the draw that MPs are talking about but rather as a Senate bill that has been brought forward by the member, still continues to have her draw at some point in time, but recognizes that here is an opportunity to get a name change. I would hope that members opposite would recognize that what we are talking about is private members' hour. It is not an opposition day motion or a government piece of legislation. It is someone who has identified an issue as a member and has seen an effective way of seeking a change in the name. It is not taking away from the member's own personal draw, if I can put it that way, but rather it is something that has come through the Senate.
I listened to a member from the Bloc, who indicated, as did the member from the New Democratic Party, the importance of the name for that particular region. I might not necessarily be overly familiar with that region of the country, but I do know that people take it very seriously in regard to, as I pointed out earlier, what is in and what is out and why it has a specific name. I thought it was quite nice to hear the member make reference to a local mayor, who has passed, as someone who has raised the issue, and there are others, no doubt.
I want to take the opportunity to applaud the member in recognizing something that is important to her and her constituents. I do not believe it takes away from other issues that could be debated. I have seen many debates, in particular opposition motions, that I would suggest are questionable at the best of times. In fact, in listening to the debate, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ample other issues raised during this debate of a wide variety, whether it is an economic or a social matter. In the most recent debate a member was able to reflect on his own constituency and talked about using the terms the “promised land” and “milk and honey” and I thought he presented a pretty sound argument.
Many of my colleagues, in particular those from the province of British Columbia, are very proud of the mountains. When we start to look at our rural communities, we see a great deal of beauty.
I represent Winnipeg North, an area that I am very proud to represent. It is a working-class community, an area that is very reflective of Canadian society and how we have ultimately evolved. I look at the many contributions of our Ukrainian heritage community and our Jewish community. About 100 years ago, they came in and built the CP track, or the great divide, if I can put it that way, between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg Centre.
Our nation is built not only by nature but by people, and there are many aspects to Winnipeg North. There is natural beauty. We have the Red River, which flows through it. At times, it can pose a challenge because of flood-related issues, but let there be no doubt that our rivers draw people to the riverbanks. The impact, whether at Kildonan Park or The Forks, is quite significant.
We can take a look at our industrial zones in Winnipeg North that contribute immensely to the development not only of Winnipeg North but of our country. We can take a look at our long-haul truck drivers, or the backbone of our health care system, our health care workers, like our nurses. There is no shortage of labour coming out of Winnipeg North to support our country. There is also the production of widgets and consumption of honey and milk.
No matter where members of Parliament represent, whether it is urban, rural, in the mountains, in the flatlands of the Prairies, at the Great Lakes, on the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean or up north, we all have a sense of pride in the communities we represent. We all want our riding names to reflect what we believe our constituents want as a name. It does matter. It is taken into consideration in communities, both large and small.
The people who live in Garden Grove are very proud of the fact that they have a wonderful, beautiful and unique community. I can talk about the Point Douglas area or we can go to the far north end of Winnipeg North where we have the newer community of Amber Trails, which is growing rapidly. Whether it is the traditional old end of the north end, Point Douglas, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Tyndall Park, Amber Trails, The Maples or those I have not listed, they are all a very important part of the riding of Winnipeg North.
Winnipeg North seems to be a name that is widely accepted, as it has been since the sixties. I am not 100% sure on that, but it has been around for a long time. I will not be requesting a name change. I am quite happy with the name of Winnipeg North. However, I do believe that in situations where there is a need for change and a member is afforded the opportunity to bring in that change, then why not? That is what I would ultimately say.
At one point, I think we were anticipating that the debate was going to collapse. As I pointed out at the beginning, we had a number of Conservatives wanting to speak to the bill, so I figured I too would share in the glory of Winnipeg North and recognize the value and hard work that members put in and the sense of pride they have in the constituencies they represent.
With those few words, I hope that all members at least recognize what the member is trying to do in a straightforward way in reflecting the will of her constituents, and support the legislation.
1265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
