- 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 7:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut.
My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 4:16:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us.
Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities.
We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there.
Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example.
In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.
An hon. member: Yes, we are.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element.
Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years.
We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country?
How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election.
Fast forward it again to today, where we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program.
What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished.
What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? Under the Canada Health Act, it clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will often talk about health care.
The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks that the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that.
Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there.
For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than what the Conservative Party is talking about.
I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the finance critic says “yes” in agreement. There is no change there. That is their intent. They want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and it is because they do not understand—
1535 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 11:05:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of merit to the argument that the member has just put forward.
I would add to it by reflecting on the voter identification card, which members would remember. The Conservative Harper government, when the current Conservative leader was a part of that government, advocated that that particular voting card should not be used as proof of identification that would enable a person to vote. We even had one Conservative who grossly exaggerated abuse of the card and literally made up a story about how cards were being thrown to the side and then gathered and how people were going to vote, or something of that nature. That member had to formally apologize for being intentionally misleading.
There is a valid argument that the Conservative-Reform party today does not want to see an enhanced electoral system that sees more people vote. That could be a major aspect of the problem.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is one weird call for relevance. I suspect the member is maybe reflecting on some of the words that I am using and trying to point out the contrast, how that contrast is amplified in this budget and how the Conservative Party continues to vote against and indicate very clearly that its members do not support the measures. The types of measures that we are talking about are very progressive in their nature.
That is why I think it is valid to repeat Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, when he said that the party has left him. I hear Kim Campbell and the comments that she is making about this new Reform-Conservative party and how far to the right it has gone. We talk about the late Brian Mulroney, and he indicated that they have amputated the progressive nature of the Conservative Party.
In fact, if we take a look at some of the actions that they talk about, we will find that the current leadership has taken the party even more far right than Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper was not that popular. What is going to happen? As we get closer to the election, more and more Canadians are going to look at what the Conservatives have to offer and contrast that with the types of things we have put in place over the last eight and a half, coming up to nine, years.
We could talk about the economy and the two million jobs, which is virtually double what the former government did in the same time span. We could talk about the pandemic around the world or interest rates around the world going through the roof. Inflation numbers were astronomical around the world, compared to Canada's numbers, yet we were able to keep control over them. We brought forward budgets and legislation to support Canadians while continuing to build a strong and healthy economy. That is one of the reasons Canada was in a great position out of the pandemic to be able to continue to grow the economy.
In fact, in the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in direct foreign investment out of the G7. If we contrast that with the world, we will see that we were number three. We have people and companies around the world looking at Canada as the place to invest. This did not happen by accident. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government in Canada's history. This government has invested, in real dollars, in more capital infrastructure than any government in Canada's history.
In order to develop and encourage a healthy middle class, we need to have a healthy economy, and we have not lost sight of that. At the same time, we recognize the importance of fairness, and we have been consistent on that. Our very first budget, and one of the first pieces of legislation that we brought forward, was to put a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. The Conservative Party actually voted against that. Is there any surprise that they now vote against the capital tax increase, which would affect 0.2%? It is less than half a per cent. We are talking about some of the wealthiest Canadians and asking them to pay a fairer share. The hypocrisy that flows from the Conservative Party and the misinformation that it spreads through social media are virtually endless.
As we get closer to the election, people will take a look at some of the things that we have been able to accomplish in this budget and others, such as investing in generational support for health care, almost $200 billion over 10 years; the first-ever national child care program that is seeing people pay $10 a day for child care; the first-ever pharmacare program that is at least going to be there for individuals with diabetes or women in need of contraceptives; the dental program to support our seniors and our children and others as we continue to expand upon it; a national school program to ensure that children are getting nutrition in the classroom, because we know that one cannot learn on an empty stomach; and the first-ever disability benefit. It would have been great to see a higher amount, but it is the first ever. It is the single greatest, I believe, expense in terms of new money on this budget line.
These are the types of things that we are bringing forward. What we are hearing from the Conservatives is that they are going to chop, chop, chop. There is the contrast: a caring, competent government and party versus a Conservative-Reform party that is more focused on the wealthiest Canadians and wanting to cut the programs that Canadians need and will support.
815 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 7:23:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just to start, it is interesting how the member continued with the character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. When he is talking about the special rapporteur, he is really talking about is the former governor general.
When the member labelled him as a Liberal appointing all these other Liberals, what people should realize is that the Right Hon. David Johnston was actually appointed as Governor General by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The last time I checked, Stephen Harper was not a Liberal; he was a Conservative and a man who was held in fairly high esteem. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives with their ramped-up rhetoric felt it was necessary to throw him under the bus in the fashion they did. Personally, I thought it was somewhat disgraceful.
Having said that, when we think about what we are talking about this evening, nothing could be further from the truth in terms of the manner in which the government has actually dealt with foreign interference. In fact the Government of Canada not only consulted but worked openly with all recognized parties of the House to collaboratively develop the terms of reference for the commission.
All parties agreed to the terms of reference as well as to the appointment of the commissioner herself. One of the key aspects of the terms of reference is that the commission essentially has unlimited access to classified information related to its mandate. The terms of reference are very clear: The commission is to have access to certain cabinet documents that are relevant to its work.
The government agreed to this approach, although it is exceedingly rare for something of that nature to occur. Cabinet confidence is a bedrock principle of the Westminster system of government. The notion that such a principle can be thrown out in a sweeping approach to government records undercuts the very same democracy we are actually trying to protect.
All of the cabinet documents that were committed to in terms of the reference have already been provided to the commission. I would contrast the manner in which we as a government have approached the issue to the manner in which the leader of the Conservative-Reform party has approached it to date. The leader of the Conservative-Reform party has not even acknowledged, or desired in any way to actually get, the security clearance necessary in order to get the information that will answer the types of questions the member is looking to answer. He does not want to get it. He intentionally chooses to be ignorant of the facts.
Contrast that to the leader of the New Democratic Party. In fact, the leader of the Green Party had a very interesting public press conference earlier today after getting the debriefing and was very clear with Canadians as to what she thought. At least she took the interest and the time not only to get the clearance but also then to look at the unredacted report. We know what her comments are.
However, that does not solve the appetite of the Conservatives to go on a vengeful character assassination hunt, in terms of what it is and who it is they can go after. I am surprised and disappointed in the leader of the Conservative Party, but I should not be because even when he was the minister responsible for Elections Canada, in that important role he did absolutely nothing on foreign interference. He knew then that it was an issue but chose, intentionally, to do nothing.
589 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 7:08:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government actually does do that. I will often cite Stephen Harper because members opposite like to give a false impression of many of the wonderful initiatives that the government has actually taken. For example, the Conservatives will criticize the government in terms of the economy, trying to say that our economy is broken, yet as a government, in well under nine years, we were able, by working with Canadians, to create over two million jobs. That contrasts to Stephen Harper's million jobs. There are so many comparisons that one can draw, and we draw the comparisons because the Conservative Party goes around the country giving all sorts of misinformation. Among those things is that the country is broken, when in fact it is not, and we continue to move forward.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 7:03:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was quite a bit to listen to. The member started off by talking about the bumper-sticker issues, the themes of the Conservative Party going into the next election. Maybe I could spend a bit of time just talking about that also. At the end of the day, I love the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals going into the next federal election, about 18 months from now, I anticipate.
Thinking in terms of the difference, one of the ways I can put it on the table is to say that we have Conservatives who believe in “chop, chop, chop”, as one of the ministers has often made reference to, and then we have the government that understands the needs of Canadians and continues to provide all sorts of programs of great value to Canadians.
On the issue of procurement, this is something that has been happening for generations, and at the end of the day, one of the greatest procurement scandals that we have witnessed was during Stephen Harper's government, when we had a $400-million procurement scandal for CSC.
It is important to recognize here that just because the Conservatives across the way tack on the word “scandal”, that does not necessarily make it a government scandal. In fact, if we take a look at the government's actions on ArriveCAN, I believe that, at the end of the day, Canadians would understand and appreciate that as a government, when the issue was brought to the attention of the department, the department took immediate action. In terms of looking into the matter, it was ultimately referred to the RCMP. There is a process that is in place in order to protect the integrity of the procurement process, and the government has assigned out responsibilities to make sure there is going to be a consequence where there has been found to be abuse.
The member then went on to talk about indigenous procurement. I would advise the member to take a look at the Shoal Lake water treatment facility, the procurement process that went on there and the many different benefits. Indigenous people and indigenous community leaders talk about how long it took for them to actually get that water treatment put into place, because the former government, Stephen Harper's, completely ignored it. If we take a look at how it was actually constructed, we will find that through the federal government working in co-operation with and supporting the incredible leadership coming from Shoal Lake 40, we were able to build a wonderful water treatment that was led by Shoal Lake, and the procurement process was indigenous-driven. At the end of the day, it has received many different awards.
The bottom line is that in regard to ArriveCAN, we continue to move forward. The government is very much aware of the serious nature of the issues, and we will continue to look into the matter. Had the government not taken action, then the member might be able to have some credibility on the issue, but virtually from day one, the government has been on top of the issue and will continue to ensure that the taxpayer is protected.
541 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I actually do not mind addressing the House on this particular issue, but I thought I would start off in the same manner in which the former leader of the Conservative Party, today's opposition House leader, did. I can understand why he wanted to talk about the economy, interest rates, inflation rates and concerns that he had with the government on those issues. Before he actually got to the motion itself, he spent probably about 50% of his time talking about that issue.
I like to think that the member has some valid points in some of the things that he was saying in terms of concerns that Canadians have in regard to some of those key indicators, and that is why I thought that maybe, given that the former leader of the Conservative Party started the debate talking about the economy, I would participate by sharing some thoughts, some actual facts, on that issue.
Yesterday was actually a very good day in Canada. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada actually reduced interest rates. We are the first country in the G7 to actually see a reduction in the interest rate. That is good news, and I want to reinforce that to members opposite. This will be the first reduction in four years, and we have to put it into the context of what is happening around the world.
When we take a look at interest rates and inflation rates around the world, Canada is doing relatively well, especially if we compare our economy, interest rates and inflation rates to other G7 and G20 countries. Canada is doing quite well, and yesterday, with the announcement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we actually saw a decrease. Canada is the first country in the G7 to do so.
I address that point to my friend, the Conservative House leader, who started off by talking about concerns regarding interest rates. I thought that was some good news, and I wanted to share that with the member opposite.
Now let us talk about the motion that we have today. If we take a look at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, better known as SDTC, which has been referred to throughout the day, I believe it is important that we highlight the fact that SDTC has been around for over 20 years. That is a very important fact. Next to that, we need to recognize that it is actually an arm's-length foundation, meaning that it has a very independent nature.
When we think of the board that members continuously make reference to, the Government of Canada does not appoint all the board members. We are not solely appointing the entirety of the board members to SDTC, and I think that is another very important thing to realize.
When we think in terms of what SDTC has done over the last 20 years, it is important that we reflect on the hundreds of projects that have been initiated, and as a direct result of that initiation, Canada has done relatively well on a number of fronts. When I think of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over the years, I think of quality air, clean water, enriched soil and the type of technology that needs to be developed in order to provide that quality, as well as to look at environmental initiatives that will have an impact not only here in Canada, but around the world.
As an arm's-length foundation, many of the investments have allowed Canadian companies not only to create jobs in Canada, not only to ensure that we have a healthier environment, but also to lead the world in many areas, and so we are contributing to technological advancements around the world through SDTC.
When we think of how the government provides funds to support Canadian companies that have the potential to be world leaders in technology, as a political entity, the Liberal Party has valued and recognized the importance of the government being involved indirectly, which is why it is in support of the foundation. The foundation, as I pointed out, was created 20 years ago. Obviously, it has survived a good number of years, even under Stephen Harper. We recognize the fact that the foundation continued to receive support. I suspect, with the millions of dollars that it has received over the years, that many of those Canadian-based companies, and the fine work they have done in terms of the advancement of technology, have contributed in many different ways, not only here, but abroad.
If we look at some of the companies that have benefited by it, three things come to my mind. I think of water, whether it is water treatment or whatever it might be. I think of energy with Manitoba and Quebec, two provinces that have so much development in hydro. There is so much potential in that industry and Canada, on many fronts, leads the way, because, in good part, of agencies such as SDTC, along with other levels of government and their investments or the national government's investments. When I think of water, energy and agriculture, all one really needs to do is take a look at the last few years to see how those three items come to the top of mind for me personally and why I believe it was important that the government take action on the issue.
Let us put it in perspective in terms of what has actually taken place. There were concerns raised a couple years back in regards to how SDTC was being governed, and employees and others had legitimate concerns. That was brought to the attention of the government. The government intentionally chose to look into the matter with not one, but two internal-type reviews, one being an external third party from within the department. An assessment was done and that report came out last fall. The government was concerned about the report and ultimately froze the new funding going to SDTC. The report, at least in part, caused the Auditor General of Canada to take note and to look into the matter. As a direct result of that, what we saw was the report that was just released earlier this week.
When the report was released, the government, as it has in the past, consistently acknowledged that we have independent offices of the House of Commons to support members and to ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and accountability. Through that report, we get a much clearer sense of the serious issues that had to be addressed. We are taking actions based on many of the report's recommendations. The government respects the recommendations and continues to follow them and the thoughts flowing out of that report.
Some tangible actions have already been taken. There is no longer a board and we have put into place a transitionary board with retired deputy ministers; I believe there are three retired deputy ministers. We are looking at how ensure that there is ongoing governance that will reinstate public confidence in a program that, generally speaking, has delivered for Canadians. We recognize that there have been some issues. We are not denying that. That is why we are dealing with the governance issue today and it is now being transferred over into the jurisdiction of the NRC.
We are taking it away from a foundation-type of board model, which is arm's-length from the government, and we are putting it into a Crown corporation, where there is the opportunity to ensure more direct accountability. I see that as a very strong, tangible action. When we first heard about the issue, the minister took action to ensure that we could find out more information as to what was taking place. For the Conservatives opposite to try to give an impression that the government has not been taking action, I think, is somewhat misleading.
At the end of the day, when a government spends a great deal of money, sometimes money is spent in an inappropriate fashion. When that takes place, I would suggest that it is important to watch the actions of the government to ensure public confidence, transparency and integrity of the system, a higher sense of oversight and a better sense of accountability. Changing that governance, ultimately, is going to ensure all of that.
The NRC has done some wonderful things in Canada. It has an infrastructure that is already in place. I suspect that many individuals from SDTC will have the opportunity to continue, to ensure that those jobs are in fact being taken into consideration. Think about the programs that are out there. I do not know all of the Canadian-based companies that have received support, but there are quite a few of them and many of them are ongoing. We are talking about hundreds over the years, so it is important that we continue with the program itself. This is where it will be interesting to hear from members of the Conservative Party in terms of where they see the program or the initiative.
Stephen Harper supported it, but we know that there has been a hard right turn within the Conservative Party. Just like Erin O'Toole supported a price on pollution, today's Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. Do they support having greener grants and support programs? Is that part of the motivation? They have not been clear on that issue.
Instead of having a substantive debate in regard to the benefits that have been realized, whether it is the jobs, the economics or the environment and the world-leading technology that is being developed, the Conservatives' sole focus is to try to shift the blame and say that the government has not been responding to the issues as they have been coming up, and then they try to label our government as corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth on this issue.
It is interesting, when we do a comparison. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we had the ETS scandal, and I made reference to it earlier. A number of people across the way had that shell shock-type of look, or one of a deer caught in the headlights. Maybe they should look it up. That was a technology service contract and, indirectly, the Conservative leader himself would have been somewhat associated with it, at least for a portion of his time with the Stephen Harper government. That was a $400-million contract.
If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should take a look at the allegations that were being made back then. Now contrast how the Conservative Party approached that mega-scandal with what they are saying today. We can see that it is quite different. Today's Conservative Party looks at things in a very different light. What we see is a Conservative Party that really has one or two issues that they want to focus on, and if we try to change that focus, the Conservatives get upset.
Conservatives want to focus on personalizing politics. They want to divide Canadians. They want to try to give the impression that Canada is broken, and that the institution of Parliament is not working. On the one hand, that is the type of messaging that we see time and time again. Character assassination is on the top of that list. The Conservatives are trying to feed the far right, and get them upset, angry and motivated to do the things that we are seeing today, which is somewhat disappointing in many ways.
On the other hand, the Conservatives go around, spreading misinformation on issues, such as the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would suggest that the issue we have before us today is an issue the Liberal government is taking seriously. It has demonstrated that by the actions that we have taken to date.
We are going to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency on the issue. We are going to ensure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers are protected, so the program will lead to ongoing clean energy and worldwide recognition of the advancements that Canada is making on technology.
2056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 12:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no other member in the Conservative-Reform party who continuously harps on this one issue more than the member. Whatever the issue is, he will just add the word “scandal” to it. Whether it is real or not, that is his job. Members can take a look at this and try to look at what actually transpired, contrary to what the member tries to give a false impression of.
When it was discovered, the government did take actions. Those actions ultimately led to the national Auditor General taking a look at it and issuing a report. When the report came out, there was a consequence. That board no longer exists, and now it is going through the NRC.
I wonder if the member would like to reflect, as maybe he overuses the word “corruption”, because he uses it all the time. I would not mind doing a contrast between Stephen Harper and corruption versus our—
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 10:55:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the member's point, the government has consistently acknowledged the work that our independent officers do for the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians. Where there is a need, the government has taken to action address the concerns. We continue to wait, and we will ultimately see what takes place.
Having said that, I would contrast some of the actions of the current government with those of previous administrations. There was the ETS scandal, which was in excess of $400 million, under the Harper regime, which completely ignored the issue and denied any sort of accountability and transparency. The member can feel free to provide comment on that if he would like.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:00:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member concludes with a remark about all of us coming together at committee, and I really and truly hope that does take place.
His critique of the current government is interesting. In 2015, there were actually 105 boil water advisories, and as a government, we have actually ended 144 long-term boil water advisories. Think about that and then think about the legislation the Conservatives under Stephen Harper brought in. I was provided an interesting quote about Stephen Harper's legislation: “This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.” This is from Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Confederacy of Treaty 6. It was recorded in Hansard in 2013.
Yes, there is room for improvement, but trying to give a false impression does a disservice when there is a government that is actually taking action that is moving us forward on this very important file.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:16:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, I was actually here during the four-year majority government of Stephen Harper. During that period of time, in standing committees, I cannot recall Stephen Harper's Conservative Party ever supporting an opposition amendment. I could be wrong on that. The Conservatives might have accepted one or two amendments, but I cannot recall any. We can contrast that to this government.
When we think of the number of times the Conservatives brought in time allocation, it must have been 125 times. Do we want to talk about a majority government and dominant rule? Do we want to do a comparison with the Liberals and the four years of a minority situation in terms of how much legislation we have been able to get through and how much legislation we have been able to build consensus on? Our legislative agenda and our performance far surpass whatever Stephen Harper did. I can assure members of that.
I can sense a little remorse on that side. The Conservatives are feeling a little guilty because of the stupid amendment they brought forward.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I retract the word “stupid”, so the members can calm down.
Having said that, surely the Conservatives realize that this is something that could have passed. They support the legislation. Why the ongoing filibuster?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 3:43:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would not want to offend anyone on the other side, so let me withdraw that.
The point is that the collective Conservative reformers across the way have no problem at all in misleading Canadians. When they say that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, that also includes the rebate, which means 80% of Canadians will be worse off financially. They will have less disposable income. That is fairly significant, not to mention the environmental aspect that I just finished amplifying, but it does not end there. It does not matter where the leader of the Conservative Party goes; this is what he talks about.
Some provinces do not have the carbon tax, because this is a federal backstop program. In other words, any province can come up with a plan of its own and opt out of the federal program. The province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia are not in that program. Why is it that the Conservative leadership does not even want to recognize that? That is why I say there is misinformation or misleading information that consistently comes out of the Conservative Party.
Let us take a look at the motion today. It was interesting, as I kind of enjoyed question period. I kind of wish it had been extended today, in one sense, because of the questions that were being asked. I thought we saw a little bit of shame, possibly, that was starting to creep into the Conservative benches. Think about what they are proposing. They are saying they want to get rid of the carbon tax and the gas tax for the next few months. That way, the average family would get $670 in savings. In order to achieve that $670 in savings, people would actually have to drive. The more they drive, the more they get back, and gas is not free. Conservatives are encouraging people to go out there and consume as much gas as they can to actually get that $670 break from the Conservative Party.
There are a few things that I would like to suggest my colleagues across the way should focus a little bit of time on. As they focus on that, they should think about the word “hypocrisy”. Here is one of the things they should think about. Let us look at the carbon tax increase that occurred on April 1. How many seats are there for the province of Alberta? I think there are 34 seats. I might be wrong. I might have the number wrong. Out of the 34 seats, I think the Conservatives have 30-plus of those seats. Then there is the Conservative Premier of Alberta. In Alberta, on April 1, the Conservative premier brought in a gas tax hike that was larger than the carbon tax that was increased on April 1. Members will recall that not one, but numerous Conservatives were hanging from the ceiling here yelling and screaming about the tax increase on gas that was taking effect in April. They were jumping all over the place, condemning the government. On the other hand, how many of those Conservatives, in particular those reformers from Alberta, stood in their place here in Ottawa, or on their social media accounts, to criticize the Conservative policy guru from Alberta? I did not hear one of them.
I say to them across the way right now, is there any Conservative member of Parliament who was critical of the gas tax hike in Alberta and the impact that it was going to have on Albertans? Is there one Conservative member, of the hundred members of their caucus, who actually stood up for those Albertans the same way they were critical of the Government of Canada for the increase that was less than the Alberta increase? The short answer is no. Not one of them stood up to criticize it in any fashion. They would say that it is provincial. I have been here long enough to recognize that when it comes to jurisdiction, on issues of this nature, Conservatives have no problems standing up. All one needs to do is take a little bit of a history or a look at some of the things that were said in Hansard.
I can tell members that, at the end of the day, the policy that is being proposed really does not make sense. When one stops and thinks about what the Conservatives are talking about, they go around saying, and again, it feeds into this misinformation, that they are going to give a $670 break to average Canadians this summer, between now and September 1 or the long weekend in September. That is a conditional amount of money that they are actually giving, as I have pointed out.
What does it actually mean? A couple of my colleagues did some math on that issue. If we think about it, the carbon tax is 17.6¢ a litre. The gas tax is 10¢ a litre. If we add the GST to it, that gives us just under 29¢ a litre. If we look at $670 and do the math, that means an individual would have to use 3,293 litres. When we average things out, in terms of what the average person drives, in terms of a gas vehicle or a gas engine, it works out to approximately 37,000 kilometres.
As has been pointed out, whether by the deputy House leader or the Minister of Environment earlier today, who I thought did a fantastic job in explaining it to the official opposition, one could literally, if there were a highway between the North Pole and the South Pole, visit the polar bears at the North Pole, and then drive all the way down and visit the penguins at the South Pole, and still have thousands of kilometres to be able to drive. If one did all of that driving, then one would benefit from that $670.
I do not know how much of a benefit that is, because people are going to pay a whole lot more on the gas in order to achieve that $670 amount, yet Conservatives seem to think that this is a sound policy. That does not say anything about the policy that the Conservatives do not have in regard to our environment. On the one hand, their understanding of basic arithmetic seems to be really off, I would suggest. As was suggested by the Minister of Environment and others, the Conservatives need to get that calculator fixed or go back to some AI or maybe do a bit of a Google search on it. At the end of the day, their math just does not add up. If one takes a look at those who would actually benefit from it, I would suggest that it is a very small percentage of people.
If we factor in those individuals who do not drive, which is a fairly significant percentage of our population, there is absolutely zero benefit for them, yet the Conservatives go around saying that they are going to give a $670 break to people this summer. Just do not ask them to explain it because the moment they have to explain it, I suspect they would be lucky if 10% of Canadians would actually benefit from it in any way, and that is being somewhat generous with the numbers.
What about the impact in terms of the environment itself? I would suggest that it reinforces something that Canadians already know, and it is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not have a climate policy. There are still members of the Conservative/Reform caucus who are climate deniers. I still remember a resolution, not that long ago, that passed within the Conservative annual meeting that denied the existence of climate change.
There are genuine concerns, and we wait with bated breath until we can actually hear something of substance. The last time we actually heard something was two or three leaders ago, when Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party. He made it very clear to Canadians that Canada needs to have a price on pollution, and he came up with a plan, but he was not alone.
Stephen Harper actually had a plan for a price on pollution, too. He did not do a good job in implementing it, but he did have a plan. The thing that Stephen Harper and Erin O'Toole had in common was that they both believed in a price on pollution. In fact, for the Conservative candidates in the last election, all they need to do is open up their platform book, and they will see that they supported a price on pollution, but unlike Erin O'Toole or Stephen Harper, the far-right Conservative Party today, which I see as more of a Reform party, to be honest, are so far to the right that they do not believe in things such as climate change.
The environment is not something that they have truly demonstrated any interest in dealing with when it comes to public policy. They are more interested in the flashy bumper sticker, even though that bumper sticker is misleading Canadians. That is truly unfortunate because young and old alike understand the importance of our environment. Constituents, not only mine but also 80% plus of all Canadians, are getting a net benefit with the carbon rebate.
1583 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 5:24:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to contrast the member's speech with that of the previous speaker, in terms of the content and substance within.
To the member across the way, I would say that international foreign interference is something that has been around for quite a while. It was around even when Stephen Harper was prime minister; I think that particular member worked for PMO or maybe one of those Conservative backbenches then. I am not 100% sure who it was, but he was affiliated. That particular prime minister did absolutely nothing. He just completely ignored the issue of foreign interference.
We take foreign interference seriously. In fact, if I were allowed more time, I would be able to expand on many of the things that we have done in addressing this particular issue. We have a minister who has put in a great deal of effort working with professional civil servants and others to ensure that we have the legislation that we have here today. By the way, I believe the member across the way supports the principles of it and will see it go to committee. Does the member have any ideas in terms of potential amendments to the legislation?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one has to always be somewhat careful when talking about statistics. Let me give an example. Stephen Harper was prime minister for 10 years of government, and just under a million or maybe a million jobs were created. We have created over 2.1 million jobs in the same amount of time that Stephen Harper did. That is more than double in the same amount of time as Stephen Harper had in government. That is a pretty important stat, I would suggest.
It is also important to ask why. If we are number one on a per-capita basis in the first three months last year, there has to be a reason. I would suggest that, at least in part, it is because Canada is recognized as a real leader when it comes to trade. No other government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements with countries than this government. We see the value and the benefits of trade. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were the only ones who voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, interestingly enough.
187 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
- May/23/24 11:37:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper inherited a health care accord that saw incremental increases in health care expenditures. A lot of Canadians are very much concerned with that, because when it came time to renew the health care accord, the Harper government did absolutely nothing. In fact, it cut back the 6% to 3%. I am not 100% sure of that figure, but I believe that to be factual.
Could the member specifically tell Canadians about the role of health care? Does the Conservative Party believe it is nothing more than a transfer of cash payments to provinces? Does it believe there is another role for health care delivery?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 10:17:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that a number of Conservative members might be a little upset with the fact that their leader actually met with that group. He actually went into the trailer and met with members here on Parliament Hill. This is not a disputable issue. At the end of the day, that is fine for the MAGA right Conservatives, that far-right element.
I would suggest that the Conservative Party is more like the former Reform Party than it is conservative. Members do not need to believe me. Listen to what former prime ministers have said. Joe Clark said that he never left the Conservative Party; the Conservative party left him. Kim Campbell has said all sorts of unparliamentary words about today's Conservative Party, especially with respect to the leader. Even Brian Mulroney was very critical of the Conservative Party. He said it is not a progressive party any longer. That aspect was amputated. Do not just listen to me. This is what people within the progressive conservative movement have been saying about the Conservative Party today. It is not a conservative party; it is a far right party like the Reform Party.
I talked about the social programs. There are many different progressive social programs that we have brought forward, but I want to emphasize them from an economic point of view. To have a healthy country, we need a healthy economy. We can take a look at the economy and what we have been able to accomplish by working with Canadians, by working with other entities. I would suggest to members that it goes so much further than what Stephen Harper ever did. We can take a look at the job numbers as an example. In 10 years, almost a million jobs were created under Stephen Harper. When it comes to our government, we are talking about over two million jobs after eight and a half years.
When I think of jobs and opportunities, at the end of the day, one of the most powerful messages that was in the budget document was the fact that Canada, on a per capita basis, has more foreign direct investment than any other country in the G7 or the G20. If we want to look at it from a worldwide perspective, we are number three.
Why do people around the world look at Canada as a place to invest their money? I would suggest that it is due to a number of factors. In Canada, the government has actually signed off on more free trade agreements than any other government has. That is a fact. As a result of such things, by recognizing the value of trade and the value of receiving foreign investment, we have actually hit significant records, unlike the Conservatives, who oppose government involvement in investments.
I would tell my Conservative friends to look at the battery industry. We can talk about Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. The current government, working with Doug Ford in this particular case, has actually had substantial investment in an industry that was virtually non-existent in the past. It will be providing tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs into the future. These will be good, middle-class jobs. They will be green jobs. This is having an impact. From being absolutely nowhere in the world in regard to EV battery production, Canada is now in the top two or three in the world, in terms of that sort of production. This is something that is making a difference.
Even on economic matters, the Conservatives are offside. They do not support the Volkswagen investment. Even though Doug Ford recognizes its value, today's Conservative reformers do not support that. It was the same thing with Stellantis, and now the Conservatives are out there criticizing the Honda investment. I understand that it will be Honda's largest investment in North America. When we talk about the Volkswagen battery plant, in terms of size, it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 football fields. It will be the largest manufacturing plant in Canada, possibly even in North America.
When Stephen Harper was prime minister, we literally lost tens of thousands, going into over 100,000, manufacturing jobs. This is a government that is bringing back manufacturing jobs. These are the types of things that, as a government, we have been proactive in dealing with.
We recognize that there are issues that Canadians are facing. When we look at things such as inflation, inflation is something that is happening around the world. Even though Canada, in comparison to other countries, is doing relatively well, as a government we were focused on inflation. Back in June 2022, the inflation rate was over 8%. Today, it is at 2.7% and it has been at a far better rate over the last few months, to give us reason to believe and have hope that we will actually see the interest rates go down. We understand the affordability issue. We understand why it is so important that we make sure that Canada continues to have that AAA credit rating, unlike what the Conservatives try to say to Canadians.
Consistently, they try to give the false impression that Canada is broken. If they genuinely believe that Canada is broken, by God, that would mean the world is broken, because, at the end of the day, when one contrasts Canada's overall performance over the last nine years, I would challenge them to show what G7 country has done better, what G20 country has done better. It is because we support Canadians in a tangible way, lifting Canadians out of poverty, providing investments in apprenticeship programs, ensuring that there is a healthy economy and building infrastructure.
No government in Canada's history has spent more real dollars in infrastructure builds than this government has. We understand the importance of a healthy infrastructure, a healthy economy, investing in people. That is the way in which we will be able to grow Canada, and Canada has been growing as a direct result. It is a country that we believe in. Not only do we say it, but we also invest in it, in many different ways, not just through social programming, by having the backs of Canadians and supporting them, but also by developing a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time recognizing that, yes, the economy matters but so does the environment. That is why it is so important that we keep having the price on pollution and that we do not buy into the misinformation that the Conservatives put out on the price on pollution.
Quite frankly, more constituents of mine actually receive more money through their rebates than they pay in the carbon tax. That is a fact that has been highlighted on many occasions. There is still much more to do, and we will continue to work day in and day out in the different regions of the country to improve and have a fairer and healthier country.
1174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 10:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the issue of budgetary measures, because I like to think there is a lot of contrast, a big difference, between Conservatives and Liberals. Maybe one of the ways I can highlight the difference is to talk about some of the things that a caring government does.
I can say that, virtually from the very beginning, in 2015, the government in essence recognized the valuable role Canada's middle class and those people aspiring to be a part of it play in giving us a healthier and stronger economy. All the way through there were tax breaks to the middle class, enhancements to child care programs and increases to the guaranteed income supplement, programs that literally lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. Carried into a worldwide pandemic, we were developing programs to support Canadians at a time when the government may have needed to step up.
Fast-forward to what we see today. I believe, when we do a comparison, we get a really good contrast in terms of what type of government we have and what type of government we would see if, heaven forbid, Conservatives were to win the next election. I think of the types of programs and investments we have put in that demonstrate very clearly that we want to have an economy that works for all Canadians. We recognize the importance of fairness. Think of generation X and the millennials, and the issues they have to face.
The budget we are talking about today is really and truly a reflection of what the values of Canadians are and what their expectations are of the national government. We know this because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and my colleagues within caucus who work within their constituencies are bringing the feedback that is so critically important here to Ottawa so that the budget reflects the interests of the constituents we represent. I do not say that lightly, because I believe it is a reflection of what we have been told as parliamentarians. That is why what we see in this budget and have seen over the last couple of years is serious investments in people in a very real and tangible way.
It is interesting to look at who it is the leader of the Conservative Party is talking to. Contrast that with who it is the Prime Minister is talking to. I have made reference to some of the events that have taken place in my home province of Manitoba. Just last week, the Prime Minister was in The Maples in Winnipeg. We were talking about the budget and how, in this budget, we would be spending money to support 400,000-plus children in all regions of the country by ensuring there would be a nutritional program for children who need food when they are going into the classroom.
We were at a school with the provincial minister of education, who was a former principal, from what I understand. It was a great opportunity to be in front of children, child care providers, teachers and educators to see first-hand the benefits of providing nutritional foods. The Province of Manitoba also saw the value of the program and is investing, I believe, about $30 million itself.
What our constituents want to see is governments working together, which is what we saw just last week with respect to the national food program for children. It is hard for a child to learn on an empty stomach. It is an issue that has existed for many years. When I was first elected in 1988, as I made reference to in my comments, Sharon Carstairs was talking, as a former teacher herself, about how difficult it was for a child to learn on an empty stomach.
The government is actually delivering on a program that is going to have a real, tangible impact. The Prime Minister is working with the provincial minister, highlighting and amplifying how valuable that program is going to be. We listen to the Conservatives, and they do not support the program. It is unfortunate, but it is not the only thing.
We invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care for future generations. I would tell every member of Parliament to talk to their constituents. We love our health care system. This is a commitment from the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that we have quality health care. We talk about mental health care and long-term health care. We talk about all sorts of needs to be met, with family doctors and so forth, and this is materializing in a substantive way.
It was not that long ago, a number of months ago, that the Prime Minister was at the Grace hospital with the premier of the province, who was saying how Ottawa's financial contributions were going to make a tangible difference in terms of staffing, whether doctors or nurses, as well as wait times and so forth. As a government, not only did we commit the billions of dollars to preserve the health care that Canadians love, but we also made health care agreements with the different provinces and territories. There has to be a higher sense of financial accountability. Canadians have an expectation. Again, the Conservative Party opposes it; Conservatives believe that Ottawa does not need to play a role in health care. We saw that during the Harper years, when the current leader was part of that cabinet.
Last year, the Prime Minister was with me in Tyndall Park, where—
947 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 11:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage those who might be following the debate to read what the Speaker's ruling stated. It is very clear that, over the last number of years, we have seen the Prime Minister deal with the serious issue of international foreign interference, whether it is in legislation surrounding elections in Manitoba years ago, the directive the member just referred to, the legislation with regard to the registry or something more.
Let us contrast that with the previous prime minister. Foreign interference not only happens around the world and by more countries than just China, but it has been happening since 2011-12, when Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing, nada. However, the member has the tenacity to say that the Prime Minister has not done anything. That is a joke.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
