- 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/4/24 3:23:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister and the Liberal government that modernized the Competition Act, which ensured things such as the Competition Bureau would have not only more resources but also better capabilities in ensuring there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency dealing with competition in all areas or industries, including groceries. I would argue it is one of the reasons we are starting to now see more stability in some of the prices on groceries.
I would suggest to the member that there are tangible actions the government has taken to support what we are talking about, and that is recognizing the cost of food. As a governing body, we have to do what we can to support Canadians and to keep grocery prices down. One thing I referred to earlier was the food data bank on pricing, in which we can individualize a province and get a sense of whether the actual costs have changed over the last number of months.
Our policy, whether it is budgetary or legislative, is having a positive impact on prices of food. It does not mean we cannot do more. There is always room for improvement.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 3:19:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the food supply chain and, in particular, our farmers, whether they be the cattle producers in the Interlake region of Manitoba, the pork producers in the pork industry or the chicken and grain producers all over southern Manitoba.
I must say that it is a beautiful sight, come fall time, to see the endless fields of yellow and gold. We get a very enhanced perception as to what degree Manitoba, the Prairies or even Canada as a whole, are there to ensure that we are providing food not only for people in Canada, but also for those around the world. Personally, I want to ensure, as much as possible, that they are getting the dollars they deserve for the work they are doing.
When it comes to Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Costco and Walmart, we are watching.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:59:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition member just said, the State of California does have a price on pollution. However, that is not the question I have for the member.
At the end of the day, we take a look at the cost factors, inflation rates and the impact that these things have on society. We want to see food prices stabilized. Ultimately, people need to have comfort in knowing that the government is acting on their behalf.
We brought in the Competition Act, which the member made reference to; this is one way in which we can ensure that we are having more stabilization of food prices. Could he just expand on why it was important to make changes to the Competition Act?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 4:29:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, and the Conservative Party's approach in general, in terms of dealing with the issue of pharmacare. The member seems to be saying that we have all these medications that are out there and asking why we are limiting pharmacare to two. The short answer is that this is a very significant first step, and there is a substantial cost to it. The bill would ensure that we do not get a varying patchwork wherein the province in which one happens to live determines what kind of a fee one would actually be paying. We have literally 100-plus different types of plans out there, including public and private; I would suggest there might even be some non-profit stuff out there.
Does the member not recognize the true value of moving forward on such an important issue as pharmacare and that one way he can do so is by supporting the legislation?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:41:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit much, listening to the member. He was the mayor of Huntsville, and he is talking about the costs and the percentage increases in terms of government costs. When he was the mayor, development charges went up 20%.
Mr. Scott Aitchison: That is a lie. That is not true. We cut them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see. The member says it is not true, but that is the number I have been provided with. We will find out what is the truth. It might upset him, and justifiably so.
Let us take a look at the bill itself. Imagine the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the false impression that he actually cares about housing in Canada. What did he do when he was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, when we lost literally hundreds of thousands of housing units that went from low-income affordable to much more expensive? It was hundreds of thousands of rental units. When he was the minister of housing, and I need two hands on which to count this, he actually built six low-income housing units, and it cost him millions and millions of dollars to do that.
Now he comes in today as if he is going to be the one who fixes the housing issues in the Canada. He has to be kidding. How is that possible? Let us take a look at the record of the Conservative Party. Not only was the leader of Conservative Party a disaster when he was the minister of housing, but the Conservative Party also abandoned housing.
Contrasting that to today, there is a Prime Minister and a government that are working with municipalities and provinces, recognizing the importance of housing and investing not only time but also hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars into housing. We understand it is an issue of fairness. We must think about the millennials and generation X, and ensure that the housing dreams of Canadians will be there and alive into the future.
We have a government that cares about housing, in contrast to a government under Harper and the former minister of housing who is today's leader of the Conservative Party that did not care about the housing in our country. The facts are there. That is the history. Let us contrast that to the billions of dollars when the Prime Minister came up with the first-ever national housing strategy years ago, and the types of financial assistance we are providing to non-profit housing, whether the habitats or the infill homes, as well as supporting housing co-ops and non-profits. These are the type of investments we are putting into housing. That is not to mention working with provinces and municipalities.
There was a time when all political parties did not support housing, whether they were New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, in the early 1990s. We would have to go back generations before we found a prime minister and a government that have invested so much energy in ensuring that the federal government plays an important role in housing. We are demonstrating that and have been doing so ever since we tabled the national housing strategy years ago. The housing strategy is more than just paper; we have invested hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.
We are working with governments at all levels, and non-profits, to ensure that affordable housing will continue to be a reality for Canadians. That is something we are doing in a tangible way. That is why I am totally amazed that today's leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the impression he is.
The leader of the Conservative Party goes around Canada talking about how Canada is broken. He amplifies the fears and anxieties of people in regard to housing. Yes, it is a serious issue. While the leader of the Conservative Party goes around speaking to the extreme right, the Prime Minister has been working with the federal minister, along with the provinces and municipalities. A good example of that happened not long ago, maybe two months or eight weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was in the city of Winnipeg.
In Winnipeg, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister, the federal minister, the Prime Minister and the Mayor of Winnipeg talked about how Manitoba is moving forward in dealing with the issue of affordable housing. The Mayor of Winnipeg, along with me and others, last December, talked about how the federal government is investing and encouraging municipalities to build more homes, not only encouraging but also providing financial support. We have seen cooperation in the province of Manitoba.
It is not just governments but also organizations. I often make reference to Habitat for Humanity, which across Canada does phenomenal work in ensuring that homes are affordable. Individuals who would otherwise never get the opportunity to have a home are getting a home. Over the years in Manitoba alone, we are talking about 600 homes. The contributions it has made to Winnipeg North, I would suggest, are very significant. From a non-profit point of view, they are probably second to no other.
The current government has not just opened its eyes, as the Conservative leader has said, on the issue of housing. We have been dealing with housing for years now, recognizing that it is not just Ottawa's responsibility. Ottawa has a responsibility to lead and be there, to assist where we can and provide resources where we can. We have been doing just that.
Contrast that to the attitudes that come from the leader of the Conservative Party or from the Conservative Party in general and the extreme right. What do they talk about? Conservatives criticize the municipalities. They argue in terms of having money and being prepared to give money, but such-and-such things must be done, and if they are not done, then there will not be any money given. There is no sense of cooperation coming from the Conservative Party, none whatsoever. It is either the Conservative way or the highway when it comes to the development of housing.
It is only in the last two years that I have actually started to hear Conservatives talk about housing, unlike the government, which has been talking about housing in terms of the housing accelerator fund for purpose-built apartments. Conservatives oppose that fund. Talking about the GST, the Conservatives would like to get rid of it. Some provinces like the federal policy so much that they are doing the same thing with the provincial sales tax. The Conservatives do not believe that the GST is a good policy either. Conservatives talk about the federal lands, but we have been talking about the federal lands for years. We have actually taken actions on that.
Think of Kapyong Barracks as an example, in the city of Winnipeg. With respect to development charges, we are funding literally billions of dollars to support provinces and cities while ensuring that the price of housing remains lower than it would be without that sort of fund. Again, we are looking for cooperation. There is $250 million in the budget towards fighting homelessness; of course, the Conservatives are voting against that also.
The Conservatives seem to believe they have a nice shiny plan tied up in the bill before us. Welcome to the game. However, the Conservative Party has no credibility on the issue of housing, and that is the bottom line. As the Liberal government continues to demonstrate that it genuinely cares, the Conservative Party focuses on cuts. That is the difference: Liberals care; Conservatives cut.
1291 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:51:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by emphasizing that every dollar the government spends is important, and the government, in all ways and in every way possible, tries to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency for it. That is something we have seen virtually from day one when this issue was first brought to light, and I want to amplify that and make it very clear.
The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have been clear on this. We will ensure that there is a sense of true accountability on this issue, because every tax dollar spent is important. We have taken this very seriously, virtually from day one, in terms of the things the government needs to do in order to be able to support Canadians.
We have to put this issue in its proper context. This was at a time in which we had a worldwide pandemic going on; government expenditures started to increase dramatically. This was because the Prime Minister and the government decided to have the backs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in every region of this country. This meant that we had to create programs from virtually nowhere, such as the CERB program, which literally put thousands of dollars in the pockets of millions of Canadians at a time when we needed to be there for Canadians.
The government developed programs to support small businesses. Whether it was by providing the wage subsidy and loan initiative programs, coming up with the financial resources to be able to protect Canadians, providing indirect support through ideas such as ArriveCAN or ultimately providing supports for mental health, other long-term health care and so forth in a wide area of departments with different responsibilities, we took those initiatives seriously. We will continue to push for accountability for those monies that were, in fact, being spent.
However, today's debate is really nothing more than a Conservative stunt. I would challenge the Conservatives, in terms of asking why they are taking this whole cut, paste and post mentality on social media to mislead Canadians on important issues.
There is no doubt that procurement has always been an issue, even when I was an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. There is no surprise there. We have to ensure that there is more accountability in the ways in which the government acquires the things it requires.
If we want examples, we can go back to other federal governments, whether Liberal or Conservative. If we go to the provincial levels, we will find the same thing.
When something such as ArriveCAN comes up, what is important is how the government reacts. We have seen not one, but several ministers engage, in one form or another, with addressing the issue of the tax dollar and how it might have been abused. We believe that it has been abused.
That is the reason we are seeing the types of statements coming from the government: We want to protect the tax dollars and the integrity of the system. However, that is not the agenda of the Conservative Party. All one needed to do was listen to what the Conservative leader had to say when he opened the debate on the issue. He even admitted it when I posed the question about the importance of bumper stickers, because he went with his top four bumper stickers. He then went into ArriveCAN and bragged about how he is going to make sure his bumper stickers are all over the place.
Every bumper sticker that the leader of the Conservative Party puts out is an attempt to mislead Canadians, because Conservatives tend to think Canadians are stupid. It is really quite unfortunate. That is what today is about. It is a stunt being brought forward in order to generate some scenario so they can somehow tag the government with the word “corrupt” with respect to this issue; in fact, the government has been on top of it virtually from day one.
When I raised the issue in the form of questions and when I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the company, one thing that came to mind is that there are really two issues here.
There is the issue of procurement and how it works. We have a professional civil service that, I would argue, is second to no other in the world. At times, mistakes happen, but it is about how the government responds when they take place. At the end of the day, that is one of the issues that I think is important for us to talk about.
The other issue is related to the two-person company itself. If we listen to what the members opposite say at committee, and here on the floor of the House, we often hear the comment “Liberal insiders” or “government insiders”. We hear that these two people were made wealthy because they were insiders. That is a bunch of hogwash. These individuals are the very same ones who received contracts when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The company had a different name; it was called Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., but two people from that company are the same two people as in GC Strategies Inc. They are one and the same.
Therefore, I would say to Conservatives that, as the second part, maybe we should look at how a company gets into a position where it can ultimately do what GC Strategies has done. To me, that is an important issue that I would like to provide answers for to my constituents. When I said that earlier, it upset a few Conservatives; it does not fit within their stunts. At the end of the day, they do not want real accountability. Why? It is because the two individuals in question are not Liberal or government insiders any more than they were when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
When we look at it, we really begin to understand why the Conservatives do not want me to table the document. The parliamentary secretary to the minister attempted to table it earlier. I am going to attempt to table it now. If we look at the origins of the company, Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., and some of the contracts, I know why they do not want us to table it. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. He was a parliamentary secretary. Members would not believe the number of grants that were issued when he was in charge of the department. Is it any wonder that Conservatives do not want us to table the document or want Canadians to know? We would not know that by their behaviour, but the reality is that we are talking about a number of contracts.
Let me cite a couple of them. There is a contract dated May 26, 2013. We all know the important role the leader of the Conservative Party played back then. In fact, he was the parliamentary secretary for transport. Guess what? This contract was issued by the parliamentary secretary for Transport Canada, and Transport Canada issued a contract to Coredal Systems.
Coredal Systems is the very same thing as GC Strategies. That one was worth well over $1 million.
They then received another one here for $287,000, again, Transport Canada. I do not know if I should emphasize that the leader of the Conservative Party was also the one responsible in that case too. There are several of them, so let us make the assumption that the ones I am going to be referencing are all contracts for which the leader of the Conservative Party was responsible. We had another one from October 29, 2012. That one was just under a million, $968,000.
Then, if we continue on, I am just going to list off the ones in which the leader of the Conservative Party had a role to play, such as March 29, 2012, well over $200,000, again, Transport Canada. Here is one for well over half a million dollars, March 1, 2012, again, Transport Canada. There is another one on August 9, 2011, going to Transport Canada. Here is another one, July 29, 2011, again, all going to Coredal Systems.
An hon. member: How much?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the Conservative member is asking how much they were. That member does not quite get it. It is the principle of this.
At the end of the day, we are talking about the very same company. I am sure that if the member opposite consulted with his constituents, he would find a high level of interest as to how it is that a company can create itself and then receive substantial government contracts through the years, into a worldwide pandemic where there was a great deal of money being spent to protect the interests of Canadians. It would appear that there was substantial abuse.
When I say substantial, I cannot underestimate the potential of how the taxpayer was being taken advantage of. That is why it does not matter what side of the House one sits on. I am concerned about it, as are my colleagues, as is the Prime Minister, as are the ministers responsible.
That is why, when we found out about the initiative, we did not just sit back and try to hide it; far from it. We initiated a number of studies into what had taken place. As I say, this is an example of the government needing to take action to ensure the integrity of the system. I am concerned about the system.
I like to think that, whether it is the national procurement process or provincial, territorial, or any other form of tax dollars that are used during procurement processes, there is integrity in the system. That is why we have had not one but several standing committees looking into this issue and not one but several independent offices of Parliament looking into this issue. That is why we have more than one department looking into this issue. There are literally tens of thousands of pages scattered all over the place on this issue.
To try to give the impression, the false impression, that the government does not take this seriously is absolute balderdash. This government understands the true value of every dollar we receive, because we understand that by using tax dollars in an appropriate fashion, we are able to provide the programming that Canadians want and expect of the government.
We have seen ample demonstrations of that over the years. During the pandemic we created the CERB program and the small business programs. Postpandemic we introduced the grocery rebate and investments in housing, infrastructure and non-profit groups. We hear about the pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for since 2012 through petitions and other means. There is also the dental program.
We understand the true value of social programs and that is why we put a high value on accountability on tax dollars because we want to support Canadians through these social programs. I commented at the beginning that the Conservatives are more concerned about bumper stickers. We saw that today.
The leader of the Conservative Party has virtually mandated every Conservative who stands up to recite something. I wrote it down. I guess I should know it by memory by now because all of them like to say it. It is the bumper sticker sale going on, on the other side. They have to say, “cut taxes”. That is a must. That is their big bumper sticker. This is what the leader of the Conservative Party was saying when introducing the motion today. In case some people may be wondering about the relevance, I am actually quoting what the leader of the Conservative Party said today in his speech.
He said he would cut taxes, but what he does not tell Canadians is that he would cut rebates. When he cuts rebates, he is literally taking money out of the pockets of the residents of Winnipeg North, over 80% of them. I can say the residents of Winnipeg North are very much the working class of Canada. It is very reflective of ridings across Canada. He is taking more money out of their pockets, but would that stop him from using that bumper sticker? No.
The other talking point or bumper sticker that he made reference to earlier was that he would build more houses. Canadians need to know he was the minister of housing and he was a total disaster when it came to housing. He did not do anything on housing. For the first time in 50 years, we have a national government that is investing in housing. No government in the last 50 years has invested more money in housing than this government, nor worked with other jurisdictions. We are building tens of thousands of new homes over the next number of years. I will compare housing any day.
He talks about the issue of fixing the budget. Fixing the budget is code for a hidden Conservative, Tory agenda. It is the far right, the MAGA Conservatives, coming out. That is what that is all about. Someone made reference to the Phoenix disaster. When we first came into government, what did we experience? The Conservative Party had just cut hundreds of civil servant jobs. It said it was going to save millions of dollars and create this Phoenix project. That Phoenix project ended up costing taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars; an absolute waste.
Of course, the Conservatives talk about their final point, which is to stop crime. We came up with a bail reform bill with consensus across Canada from all different political parties. What do the Conservatives across the way do? They filibuster. That is how they are going to stop crime. Initially, they are not. The Conservatives are the ones who actually held it up. The Conservative Party is all about stunts. Today is a giant stunt. Everything they do and say is ultimately for one goal and that is for the vote, and that is it.
On the other hand, we will continue to work day in, day out to support Canadians prepandemic, postpandemic and during the pandemic. There are many things I could talk about. Thanks for the opportunity.
2416 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:15:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member heard that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the price on pollution, or the carbon tax which is what the Conservatives like to put on bumper stickers, actually is going to cost 0.15%. That is 0.15 of 1%. That is a far cry from what the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to spread throughout the country, which is exceptionally misleading.
Canadians want a government that actually has a climate plan. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, most Canadians recognize that climate change is real. There is an expectation of leadership. They are seeing it with this government in terms of a number of policy points that we have annunciated in order to be able to ensure a higher sense of affordability.
If we want to talk about inflation rates overall, I will get to that point in my next question.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 4:32:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Foothills indicate that the price on pollution is going to increase the cost of groceries by 34% over the next two years. Can he explain how he can substantiate that?
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 11:26:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that rising costs hurt Canadians, and that is why we look across the way. We would like to see the Conservative Party stop playing games. This destructive force is constantly playing them inside the House, with the holding up of legislation. Whether it is by providing rebates of one form or another, building the Atlantic accord for Atlantic Canada or talking about green jobs for the future, we are trying to address the needs of Canadians, and the Conservative Party continues to play games inside the chamber. Shame on them.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 12:23:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member can be as critical as she likes, and she has been very critical in regard to the price on pollution. Many countries around the world have incorporated that as a policy in order to protect the environment. Here in Canada, what they will find is that 80% of the people who are paying into the price on pollution, as we all do, are receiving more money than they actually pay. That is something that was highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that they would get rid of the price on pollution, what they do not tell us is that they would also get rid of the rebate portion of the price on pollution. In Winnipeg North, the riding I represent, 80% of my constituents get a net gain from the price on pollution. They would literally be taking money out of their pockets.
Now the Conservatives will say that if we look at this factor, this factor, this factor and that factor, there is a net cost. I would argue that if they take a look at the cost of no action and the impact that the environment is going to have on Canadians, there is going to be this factor, that factor and this factor and that is going to increase the costs. The bottom line is that x number of dollars are going into the collection of the price on pollution and x number of dollars are going out. Eighty per cent of my constituents are receiving more dollars coming in than they are paying out. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said.
In regard to the ongoing character assassination of political figures inside the chamber, it is interesting when the member makes reference to the Prime Minister when he goes overseas. I was around when former prime minister Harper was in India. He paid a million dollars to fly a car over to India so that he would have a car to drive around in. They have cars in India, but he wanted his car from Canada. Imagine paying a million dollars for that.
If the member wants to talk about the Conservative Party's current leader, he spends thousands and thousands of dollars on his monthly water bills in the government-paid house when he is not that far from his own house. This is not to mention the thousands of dollars for cooking and the $100,000-plus in order to keep the premises clean. If she wants to throw rocks, I would suggest that the member not throw them in a glass house, because what she will often find is that even in the past leadership and the current leadership of the Conservative Party, there have been a number of things that the public would be somewhat concerned about.
I can assure the member that as the Conservatives want to focus attention on being critical and on character assassination, what they will find is that the Government of Canada and in particular the Prime Minister will continue to focus their attention on Canadians and the needs of Canadians and those issues that are important.
That is why members will see within this budget things like the grocery rebate. They will see things like the dental support program. They will see things that have not even been talked about that much, including things such as doubling of the credit for tradespeople who need to buy the type of equipment that they need and the tools that they need, from $500 to $1,000.
There are so many good things out there and Canadians should be aware that as much as the Conservatives will continue to be critical from a personal point of view, we will continue to deliver for Canadians.
635 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 4:55:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no fear.
The member made reference to an 80-year contract, and that has been made reference to before. This is not a contract; it is a supply arrangement. There is a difference. It does not guarantee any monetary agreement, but rather a preselection of supply from hundreds of suppliers that have this arrangement. It is a long-standing practice that saves time and money. I ask if the member would at least acknowledge that.
People still try to give the false impression that we have this 80-year contract that is going to cost millions of dollars every year. There is a big difference, but that feeds into the Conservative spin. When a member of the Bloc stands up and says that there is an 80-year contract, he is reinforcing something very misleading.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 11:13:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for many families in Canada the tradition is to have multi-generational homes. How wonderful it is to visit a home where one not only sees the child and the parent but also the grandparent. This benefits not only the family, but also our communities. An elderly grandparent with their daughter’s family, or a son with a disability with their parents, are arrangements that can be an important way for them to take care of each other.
Our government supports multi-generational homes, and this year the multi-generational home renovation tax credit will be well under way. It provides up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary suite for a senior or an adult with a disability. This refundable credit would allow families to claim 15% of up to $50,000 in eligible renovation and construction costs incurred to construct a secondary suite. This is a great way to support families here in Canada.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 3:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just so the government House leader can complete his answer in a more fulsome fashion, there is a substantial cost to the delay of legislation. I wonder if he could just expand on those costs.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 12:06:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat humorous at times when the member decides to take the track of character assassination and is talking about the costs and says, “it is a fact” and “let me give the member a fact, a real fact.” Stephen Harper, as prime minister, travelled to India. He spent a million dollars, not for him or for other people, but a million dollars to fly a car from Canada to India so he could have something to drive. Do they not realize there are vehicles in India? Really, it was a million Canadian tax dollars by former prime minister Stephen Harper. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on that stupid expenditure.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill is a very costly bill, but we must realize that the money we are talking about is going into the pockets of Canadians. That is why it is a costly bill.
For the most part, the reason the committee was somewhat limited is that the Conservative Party did not want to give any indication in terms of passing the bill out of committee well before it was ultimately passed. If the Conservatives wanted to have more time for it in committee, then why did they not negotiate or at least allow Bill C-31 to pass second reading at an earlier time so there would have been more time for it to be debated in committee? They cannot have it both ways.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:54:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the member would know and as I would hope that all members would know, from my understanding of it there is a formula that is put into place that enables the cost of living increases for the GIS, the OAS and the Canada child benefit. That is my understanding, and if that is not the case, I would be more than happy to apologize. I am sure there will be some people who will be very quick to find out and ask me to apologize if in fact that is not the case.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, over the years one of the things that I have learned is that the demand for infrastructure dollars far outweighs what the federal government and provincial governments could actually put together in any given fiscal year. I can recall years ago talking about the billions and billions of dollars for the city of Winnipeg alone for street reconstruction, and it was not all of the streets, just those that were in very high demand.
Does the member believe that even the combined public purses of federal, provincial, municipal and indigenous governments have enough in their budgets today to cover the costs of the infrastructure that needs to be built?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
