- 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/17/24 9:25:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with its targets, the government is well on its way to ending fossil fuel subsidies. There are a couple of exceptions that I am aware of. For example, thinking of the environment, something needs to be done with orphan wells. There is government support to deal with them. Also, in certain situations in the north, we will see some subsidies.
Can the member give an indication as to what other specific subsidies he is talking about? I ask because I am not necessarily aware of them.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:54:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing we have recognized since 2015 is that we need to, as an economy, look at ways to build greener jobs and to make those types of investments. The Government of Canada has done astronomical work in being successful at doing that, in terms of investing money. In working with different levels of government and with different stakeholders, there are so many examples I could give to demonstrate that.
Having said that, there are things today that we need to at least respect, to continue to develop and to work on going forward. When we look at the oil and natural gas industry, I believe we are in fact on the right track. We provided a lot of subsidies, for example, for orphaned wells, cleaning up the environment. Do Bloc members consider cleaning up the environment and dealing with orphaned wells a subsidy? If so, would they then say that we should not be cleaning up orphaned wells? I think it is healthy for the environment to do that and to invest in that sort of thing.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 12:54:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am still hurting a bit about that loss, but I am glad it was Montreal. It was a great game.
We are talking about food security, and Purolator is a big supporter of the CFL and donates tons of food. I think that is a wonderful thing for it to be doing. I will compliment the CFL organization for making it a hugely successful Grey Cup game. Both teams played exceptionally well.
Having said that, the government has taken a number of measures to support our farming community, along with consumers, through direct subsidies in the form of rebates or grants to see expansion and diversification in our communities.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some of the oil subsidies the member referred to deal with orphan wells. There are a lot of subsidies, and I understand that if they are not completely gone today from the federal government, they are going to be. We are phasing them out. However, I believe they are gone.
With regard to military spending, ironically, even though the member talks about spending billions and billions of dollars, it was Stephen Harper who had the lowest number. I believe it was just under 1% of GDP around 2013. I might off be off by a year or two, but it is interesting that this government brought it closer to 2% and the Stephen Harper government brought it to just under the 1% margin.
We do not need to be given lessons from a Conservative Party that depleted it and did nothing to build a stronger, healthier Canadian Forces while the Conservatives were in government.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 11:43:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we announced a bit of an extension just recently.
We are very aware of the pains that small businesses are experiencing, in good part, because of the pandemic. As I said, as a government, whether it has been reducing taxes for small business or being there to support them in regard to what I made reference to in terms of rent subsidies, wage losses and CEBA loans, the Government of Canada is there for small business. We recognize just how important it is to our economy in all regions of our country.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc wants to see all fossil fuel subsidies come to an end. Are there any exceptions in her mind, for example, orphan wells? The government is assisting in getting rid of those wells. Orphan wells are bad for our environment. There is a cost for the government to deal with them. The Bloc considers that a fossil fuel subsidy.
Is that a bad thing for the government to be doing? What about fossil fuel subsidies for people who live up north? From the Bloc's perspective, is that a bad fossil fuel subsidy?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 10:46:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point was that the Conservatives could have talked about what the member just heckled about, which is jobs. We could have talked about jobs yesterday.
Does the member not realize the number of jobs that have been added to Canada's economy since before the pandemic got under way? We have seen an increase of over 830,000 jobs, closer to a million. Can members imagine that? It took Stephen Harper 10 years to achieve a million jobs.
We went through a pandemic, and because we had the right priorities, unlike the Conservatives, we protected Canadians. We were there to support small businesses. Never before have we seen the type of programs that supported small businesses, whether it was with loans or wage subsidies. Millions of jobs were saved as a direct result of that. Companies were prevented from going bankrupt in many situations because of that. We were able to support Canadians through the CERB program. Imagine the eight million-plus Canadians who genuinely needed the program, which allowed them to put food on the table, pay their mortgage and so forth. By providing those types of supports, we were in a good position to rebound and build stronger after the crux of the pandemic.
As a result, there are more than 830,000 more jobs today than there were at the beginning of the pandemic. This is far better than, let us say, the United States or some other countries in the world. Why is that? It is because the federal government chose to work with Canadians, chose to work with different levels of government, and implemented policies that really made the difference. If I were to cite some of those policies today, we hear Conservatives talk about their Conservative ideas. There are a few that come to mind, some that we put in place and some that the Conservatives wished they could have put into place.
We go out and consult. What does the leader of the Conservative Party do? He says that consultation is not necessary. After all, we have YouTube. Remember cryptocurrency, which was economics 101 and his first major policy statement recommendation for Canadians? The Conservative Party of Canada was saying that the way we avoid inflation and really reap the profits was to invest in cryptocurrency. This is something he advised Canadians to do.
I will conclude with those who took the advice of the Conservative leader. They had their savings wiped out, with 60% to 70% gone. It was incredible the amount of money that was lost on cryptocurrency, going into the millions of dollars. Individuals on a fixed income who believed what the Conservative leader was saying paid a very heavy price.
Now the Conservatives are talking about interest rates. Do members remember what the leader of the Conservative Party said about the Bank of Canada? He said that we would fire or get rid of the head of the Bank of Canada.
An hon. member: Why would he do that?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Why would he do that? This is also what the member for Abbotsford posed, and look what happened to that member. I will reference the member and the riding he is from who questioned the Conservative leader's judgment on that issue because the member for Abbotsford now sits way in the back and has been kind of ditched to the side. We very rarely hear from him. However, we have an initiative or suggestion from the leader of the Conservative Party that even progressive Conservatives disagree with.
We need to look at some of the other issues. Let us stop with some of the Conservative ideas because they can be painful to listen to. We can think of the child care program. What is the Conservative Party's position on child care? We know that during the election they said they would rip it up. They did not want anything to do with the Liberal plan. Now, because the government had the support of at least one opposition party, we were able to implement a national child care program, $10-a-day day care, throughout the country. Every province, even Doug Ford's Ontario, has signed onto the program.
The economic impact of that program will see more people participating in the workforce. There will be more recognition of quality child care. Universally, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, it has been well received. I am hoping that sometime between now and the next federal election we will see a major flip-flop by the Conservative Party on this issue. I hope it will not rip up the agreements and will continue the commitment, because we have seen the success of that particular program. All one needs to do is look at the province of Quebec and the positive impact it has had on that province, particularly women becoming engaged in the workforce as a direct result. That is an idea that really makes a difference.
Speaking of flip-flops, my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston referred to the price on pollution. We really have to follow the bouncing ball on that one. Representatives from around the world went to Paris where there was a great deal of discussion about what we can do about the environment. They recognized that climate change is real. Climate change is a reality of life on earth today. There are some in the Conservative Party who do not quite understand that, or choose to not believe it is a reality, but it is a reality.
From that Paris conference came the idea that we needed to implement a national price on pollution. Some provinces, indirectly or in some other way, had it, so we said we were going to put in a policy to protect the environment, via a backstop to make sure that all of the provinces and territories have it. The price on pollution is quickly becoming the go-to tool for ensuring that Canadians are participating in diminishing greenhouse gases. Other provinces have now opted into the price on pollution because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear, there is a net benefit for the majority of Canadians with the federal backstop program on the price on pollution. That is a really positive thing.
The Conservatives, prior to the last election, were opposed to it. They fought it tooth and nail. Then they had a new leader, about two or three leaders ago, and the new leader said that a price on pollution is a good thing. They came up with a different type of design so they could stamp it blue to put it in their campaign. There were 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast saying they supported a price on pollution, and they got a lot of votes based on that, a lot of votes. A lot of people thought that maybe the Conservatives could be sensitive to the environment.
After the election, a new, shiny leader took over and that idea was gone. It was history. It was toast. Now the Conservative Party says not to worry about climate change because, after all, we do not need a price on pollution. It wanted to get rid of it. Getting rid of the price on pollution will be a platform issue, no doubt, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.
They will spread all sorts of misinformation. They will attempt to give the false impression that most people are not going to receive, or have not been receiving, a net benefit. They have been talking a lot about doctors and health care workers. The government of Canada has been working with different levels of government to ensure that we can get more credentials recognized. We have been providing incentives for that to take place and looking at ways in which immigration itself could assist. We know and we realize that we want to see an enhancement of health care workers.
The Conservatives came up with this next idea about having a common national test. Members can imagine what they are telling Canadians. They are saying to Canadians that they are going to get them more doctors. The way they are going to do it is to have an exam so that someone coming into Canada, or any doctor, I would assume, could write this exam and then go to any province or territory to be a doctor. That is balderdash. A federal Conservative government in the future, heaven forbid, could not do what it is that they are talking about doing.
The administration of health care is done through provinces. There are professional organizations and all sorts of stakeholders out there. It is not as simple as saying that we are going to have a national exam and if someone passes that national exam then they are going to be able to practice medicine. When do they think they would be able to implement something of that nature? I think that they are looking at this and thinking they will hoodwink Canadians on this, much like they have tried to trick them on other issues.
In the last 20-plus years of its history, the Conservative Party has never demonstrated an interest in health care. What we negotiated back in the 2004 health care accord, was expired by the Conservatives. They are the ones who reduced it from 6% to 3%. They had no interest in meeting federal and provincial first ministerial meetings to deal with the health care issue.
One of the first things did, whether in previous administrations or this administration, has been to invest in health care. We achieved health care accord agreements with individual provinces shortly after. We have just invested $198 billion in health care. Health care is a part of our core identity as Canadians, and we have made the investment, recognizing that those are the types of priorities Canadians have. That is what this Liberal caucus is reflecting on: the priorities of Canadians. The good news is that next week we are going to have a federal budget that will amplify what it is that Canadians expect of the government.
I look forward to seeing that budget and being able to participate in that debate.
1728 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:41:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process we have with our rules in the House. Opposition members are afforded the opportunity to bring opposition day motions. I have talked about this in the past in terms of how opposition parties will establish different types of priorities.
I will give credit to the Conservatives. They are definitely focused. They are focused on the price on pollution. They are on a little island of their own, not only here in Canada but around the world, where they are now convinced that a price on pollution is bad.
I believe this is the seventh time the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has decided to bring this issue to the floor. I do not know if it is because it likes to feel really important, being the only party in the House that supports getting rid of a price on pollution.
After all, the Bloc supports a price on pollution. The New Democrats support a price on pollution. Members of the Green Party support a price on pollution. We all know the Government of Canada supports a price on pollution. It should be no surprise.
Back in 2015, the world came together in Paris. In the dialogue that occurred there, Canada was well represented by all sorts of stakeholders, including provincial entities. What came out of that, and was one of the ideas that really resonated, was the need to have a price on pollution.
Shortly after forming the government, we made the decision to listen to what Canadians were saying, appreciate the importance of our environment and implement a national policy ensuring a price on pollution.
In Canada, we were not alone. There were provincial jurisdictions that already had a price on pollution. Members might be surprised to know this, but in potentially the first jurisdiction in North America to take the principle of a price on pollution and put it into a budgetary measure, the Conservative Party did this in the province of Alberta many years ago.
The Province of Quebec, under Jean Charest, brought in a price on pollution. There have been a few leadership contests within the Conservative Party, but in the most recent one, interestingly enough, Jean Charest was one of the candidates. He received substantial support, and he too was an advocate.
His Liberal government, in the province of Quebec, brought in a price on pollution. The Province of British Columbia has a price on pollution.
People around the world are looking for ideas. We came back from the Paris conference saying we needed to get onside and recognize that a price on pollution is one of the most effective ways of being able to deal with the climate crisis of the century.
I can appreciate there are climate deniers within the Conservative Party. There are actual members of Parliament on the Conservative side who do not recognize that climate change is a reality.
When we first brought in a price on pollution, the Conservative Party actually opposed it. In the lead-up to the last election, not the last Conservative leadership race but the one before that, the Conservatives actually changed their position from their original one of opposing the price on pollution.
Just last year, during the election, the then leader of the Conservative Party actually put it forward in the Conservatives' platform. All Conservative candidates, in 338 ridings in Canada coast to coast to coast, had a platform document that said the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution.
Another leadership contest took place and the Conservatives now are not really too sure what they are saying. They just skip answering the questions when asked about the price on pollution, as I just finished demonstrating by my question for the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. They made the decision that it is just bad, that Canadians should believe them and that we should just be getting rid of the price on pollution. So says the new leader of the Conservative Party.
Do members remember the other idea the leader of the Conservative Party had, about cryptocurrency? The leader of the Conservative Party told Canadians that, if they want to fight inflation, they should invest in cryptocurrency. How did that idea pan out for the Conservative Party? Much like the most recent position of the Conservative Party on the price on pollution, that idea did not fly.
At the end of the day, those individuals who followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada have lost a great deal of money, well over 60% of their investments. In fact when I say “over 60%”, I am probably being a little conservative in that estimate, as many people have lost a lot more. Let us think of the seniors the Conservatives often talk about, as if they were advocates for seniors. We still have not even heard any regret or apology coming from the leader of the Conservative Party or from any Conservative candidate in regard to that idea.
What are the Conservatives waiting for now with the price on pollution? They like to say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, as they call it. In Winnipeg North, eight out of 10 people actually get a net benefit with the price on pollution. There is the climate incentive cheque, which is given out four times a year. The Conservatives should be saying that, if they are going to get rid of the price on pollution, they are also going to be getting rid of those rebate cheques. Winnipeg North is not alone. Eight out of every 10 homes in the country receive them.
When the Conservatives say there is going to be a tripling of the price on pollution, and of course they are not talking about this year but about an increase over the next eight years, what they do not tell Canadians is that the rebate will also increase. We have the price on pollution and we have the rebate. All the Conservatives want to talk about is the price on pollution. They are more concerned about the bumper sticker, going into the next election, saying, “Axe the carbon tax.” That is what their priority is. It is not about the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment for the Conservatives. They do not even have a plan, as has been illustrated time and again. The last time they actually had a plan was for the price on pollution, and they abandoned that plan.
The Conservative Party is not reflecting the desire of Canadians to see some sort of plan dealing with the environment. To make matters even worse, they are spreading misinformation intentionally.
If the Conservatives were to come into Winnipeg North and we were to do a bit of door knocking, the Conservative candidate would stand beside me and say they were going to get rid of the price on pollution. However, I would say that if they get rid of the price on pollution, it would mean they would also get rid of the rebate. A person would get more money because of the rebate than they would pay on the pollution, generally speaking, for 80% of my constituents. Then, not only that, but at least as a government we are recognizing that the environment does matter and is an important issue, unlike the Conservative Party.
I suspect that if the sole debate were on that issue in the constituency of Winnipeg North, I would get more votes than I received in the last federal election. I am very grateful for the over 50% I got in the last election, but I believe I would even get more support if that were the only ballot issue being decided, because the rebate puts more money in the pockets of my constituents, and it deals with the price on pollution for climate change.
When we talk about farmers, the department of agriculture spends far more today than it did when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. In fact we are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, well past a billion dollars, supporting farmers, supporting our prairie farmers. We had one Conservative member say that this year was the third best on record in Canada for our farmers, and in particular our prairie farmers. My focus in Manitoba is canola, wheat and flax, all of these wonderful bumper crops, not to mention the other commodities, whether in the pork industry, the cattle industry or our chicken industry. All of these industries, we value.
That is why we have a very proactive Minister of Agriculture. Not only is she proactive, but we are providing cash support. We are ensuring we can move toward a greener economy, just like other countries around the world. There is an expectation that Canada has to demonstrate leadership, and I believe it is important we do just that. By recognizing the importance of moving forward in a positive way with the environment, we will be in a much better position in the months and years ahead to ensure opportunities well into the future. We need to do this so Canada can continue to play that important role it does in the world, whether by providing food or through the many other industries Canada leads in.
The Conservative Party likes to say this is all about the issue of inflation. Inflation is a very serious issue. I like to think it does not matter what side of the House we are sitting on. We all recognize how important inflation is to address as an issue. The Conservatives bring forward a motion that really would not deal with the issue they are talking about in a tangible way that would assist the majority of Canadians. We have put into place, over the last number of months in particular, a series of policy announcements that do deal with and support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
When the Conservative Party says that it is concerned about inflation and the government needs to do more to support Canadians, unlike the Conservative Party, we are not going to sit back and just watch things take place. There is a role for government.
Before the Conservatives make the suggestion, as they are now, that government should not play a role, let me talk about the larger picture of inflation outside of Canadian boundaries. We know Canada is doing better with its inflation rate than the United States of America. We are doing better than England and many different European countries. We are well below the average of the G7 countries overall. From a world perspective, our inflation rate is doing well.
I find this interesting. I looked up the inflation rates of the United States and Canada over the last two years of Stephen Harper. I think this is appropriate, because the Conservatives are trying to tell us what we need to do, as if they have wonderful experience in dealing with inflation. In the last two years of Stephen Harper, the United States of America's inflation rate was lower than Canada's. In other words, Canada had a higher inflation rate in the last two years of Stephen Harper. Today, if we look at our administration, in the last two years our inflation rate has been lower than that of the United States.
I do not think we need to follow the advice of the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader, who recommends things like cryptocurrency, to deal with the types of policies that are not only important in having an impact on the overall inflation rate, but that we can use to support Canadians at a time when inflation hurts. Even though I pointed to the U.S.A. and how Canada is doing relatively well, my constituents, like everyone else in Canada, are hurting with respect to inflation. We are very much aware of the grocery prices and how much it hurts their pocketbooks. I too am offended that farmers are putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring we have food production but are not reaping in huge profits or rewards for their efforts to anywhere near the same degree others are. There are things we can do to help, and I could list them off.
We can talk all we want, but the Conservatives continue to vote against measures to support Canadians, whether with respect to issues like the dental program for children under the age of 12 or the Canada housing benefit to provide rental subsidies that would benefit two million Canadians. There are already 35,000 children who have put in applications for the dental program since we brought it in a couple of weeks ago. Also, the doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months will benefit 11 million Canadians. When it comes to the Canada workers benefit, by making quarterly payments, thousands of Canadians will benefit from that. There is the elimination of the federal interest on student loans, which will benefit thousands of students, and that is not to mention child care.
This government, unlike the Conservative Party, recognizes there is something the Government of Canada can do, and I can tell members that every Liberal member of Parliament will continue to fight, day in and day out, to ensure that we can marginalize the negative impacts of inflation, because that is the right thing to do, even though as a nation we are still doing better than the U.S.A. and most G7 and G8 countries.
2277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be added incentive.
It is really important we recognize something that came out of the Auditor General's report that I would like to start my comments off with this afternoon. When we look at it, whether with respect to the Prime Minister, the ministers or the members on this side of the House, we will find a consistent theme. We want to be there in a real and tangible way for all Canadians with an economy that works for all of us. That has been consistent virtually since we have been in government.
We have seen policy decisions from the get-go. Whether it was with respect to cutting the tax rates for the middle class, the complete overhaul of the Canada child benefit program or supporting seniors through the GIS going into the worldwide pandemic, there was virtually a smorgasbord of different programs provided. I know there has been a lot of reflection regarding the Auditor General lately, and I want to use her words with respect to the billions of dollars we have collectively approved to spend through the House.
I would like to quote the Auditor General, who said that she found, overall, that the programs were quite effective in meeting the government's objective of first getting support out to individuals and employers quickly, minimizing the increase in poverty or income inequalities, and then also helping the economy bounce back from the pandemic. That comes from the Auditor General.
I think there are members who, over the last couple of years in particular, saw the benefit of the government creating the CERB or wage subsidy programs and the supports for small businesses. Whether it was putting money into the pockets of Canadians or providing and protecting the jobs of Canadians, the Canadian government and the Prime Minister, working with an effective and active caucus, one that continuously sought feedback from communities from coast to coast to coast, understood their importance. We implemented budgetary and legislative measures so Canadians would be in a better position to bounce back after the pandemic. That is what this legislation, at least in good part, is about.
We, and the Conservatives, talk a lot about inflation. We are concerned about inflation. That is why we have this bill before us. When we talk about the inflation rate, yes, we are lower than the United States. We are lower than many of the European countries, England and others, but it is not good enough. The Conservatives are very critical of our inflation rate. I did a background check and in the last two years of Stephen Harper's government our inflation rate was higher than the U.S.A.'s. Today, our inflation rate is lower than the U.S.A.'s. At the end of the day—
Mr. Greg McLean: Because you're not growing our economy.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs out there today. On virtually every point, this government has exceeded what Stephen Harper ever did. One of my constituents summed up quite well the comparison between the previous government and this government when he said that he hated to think what the pandemic would have been like if the Conservatives had been in government.
I believe Canadians are very much aware we have a national government and a Prime Minister who truly care about providing those important services. That is what allowed us, as the federal Auditor General has said, to bounce back to the degree we have.
However, that is not good enough. We believe we can do even more. If we talk about the social programs, things Canadians are very passionate about, I could cite health care and the additional billions of dollars from this government. In fact no government in the history of Canada has invested more money in health care than this government. We have achieved health care accords. We have recognized the priorities of Canadians by looking at long-term health care and mental health. In fact in this very bill we are debating today, we talk about expanding dental benefits for children under the age of 12. For the first time ever, there would be a national program to ensure there are dental benefits for children.
In the fall economic statement, we talk about supporting Canadians who are having a tough time with rent. We would provide rental subsidies to support, as best we can, those individuals. We can talk about the debt students have. Students are going through a very difficult time. We would eliminate the interest on federal student loans. It would not be a one-time thing, but permanent. We want to encourage our constituents and Canadians to look at alternatives, such as how to support the housing demands in Canada.
We have the intergenerational housing credit for people who want to construct suites for parents, seniors or people with disabilities. The Government of Canada is there to support that sort of initiative. We have a government that recognizes that seniors 75 and older incur different types of costs and that there are limitations for those seniors. In fact we made a campaign platform commitment to give a 10% increase on OAS for seniors over 75, and we are doing just that.
892 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the government when it spent billion and billions to support Canadians during the pandemic, whether it was wage subsidies, loans to small businesses or supporting Canadians with CERB. Then, all of a sudden an election goes by, and even during the election the Conservatives had said they supported the price on pollution. Now, all that is gone, and they do not support that. Now they say, “Well, we have to cut, cut, cut”, or “chop, chop, chop”, as the Minister of Revenue would say.
What about the billions that are being spent on programs such as child care, record-high amounts on health care and the 10% increase for seniors over 75? Does the Conservative Party today support initiatives such as supporting seniors, child care and health transfers?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 1:04:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, actions speak louder than words. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has actually applied a special corporate tax for financial and insurance institutions. We have a Minister of Finance and a government that has now made a commitment, by the end of 2023, to end all oil subsidies in Canada.
Understanding the issue of fair taxation is something that the Prime Minister himself highlighted when we brought in our first piece of legislation, which ensured that Canada's wealthiest 1% would pay more of their fair share through an increase in tax rates. By the way, the NDP voted against it, but that is okay. We—
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a part of the solution for assisting people through inflation.
There is no one issue, as the member rightfully said, that causes inflation. We could talk about the war in Europe, the pandemic or supply issues. There is a number of factors to it. Canada is doing relatively well in comparison to other countries. Having said that, there is a need for us to respond.
Bill C-30 is one of three pieces. There is Bill C-30, the next one is Bill C-31, for the dental and rent subsidies, and then we also have the disability legislation. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the other two pieces of legislation, because they complement this particular piece and indirectly, if not directly, deal with some of her other concerns.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talks about supporting small businesses, and I can say that virtually from day one this government has supported small businesses. I could talk about the cut to the middle class tax bracket, which the Conservative Party voted against. That tax break put money in the pockets of consumers, who invested first-hand in small businesses. There were more direct small business tax breaks that were given to small business owners, and that is not to mention the billions and billions of dollars that was spent during the pandemic to support small business owners through loans, rent subsidies and wage subsidies. Now the Conservatives are saying we spend too much money in support of small businesses.
It is great that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-30. However, why do they try to give the false impression that they support small businesses when, in fact, the Conservatives opposed what we did to support small businesses?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to major legislation that would provide substantial support to Canadians in every region of our country. It is a good day.
We are ensuring there will be more disposable income for Canadians to assist them in dealing with issues such as inflation by providing additional financial support so they will have a bit more to spend. It is quite encouraging to see the support for passing the legislation.
Let us think about it. For many years, the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, with guidance of the cabinet and members of the Liberal caucus, has talked a great deal about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We are providing the necessary supports to show we can build a healthier, stronger middle class.
Appreciating the importance of Canada's middle class gives us a better sense of our economy. A healthy middle class gives us a healthier economy. There is good reason for that to be taking place. We live in a consumer society where the consumption of products improves the quality of life. It increases the demand for local manufactured products and services, and it creates jobs.
In fact, if we look at the first number of years since we became government, we saw a relatively healthy growing economy. We invested in infrastructure, in tangible ways, for the first time in many years. All of this was in support of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.
We invested in individuals who had financial needs that were far greater than other Canadians at the lower end of household income. We did that by enhancing the Canada child care program. We did that by looking at some of the poorest seniors in the country, seniors who were on fixed incomes, and came up with ways we could ensure they would have more money in their pockets, such as substantial increases to GIS. This was for the poorest of our seniors.
Ensuring we have an economy that works for all Canadians is a priority for the government and the Liberal caucus. We take this very seriously. Seven days a week we are focused on ensuring we are there, in a tangible way, for Canadians no matter where they live in our great nation.
We saw that during the pandemic. When the pandemic hit the world, Canada responded. Our response was second to no other. We saw that with tangible results. At the beginning, we had a high sense of co-operation from all political entities, and we see that today with Bill C-30. We see universal support from members in the chamber. That is why the bill will pass.
It is much like what we saw for the first few months of the pandemic, when the government recognized that there would be a cost to the pandemic. We made the decision that it was better for the government to do the borrowing as opposed to seeing the consequences of the government not supporting its citizens and the small businesses.
That is why we invested billions of dollars in supporting Canadians, like what Bill C-30 would do by putting money in the pockets of Canadians.
We invested in programs such as CERB. Over nine million Canadians benefited from that program. With this legislation, we would see over 11 million Canadians and families benefit. We were there to support Canadians.
We supported small businesses. I ask members to imagine if we had not provided the billions of dollars to support small businesses, whether through loans, rent subsidies, or wage subsidy programs, or the billions for average Canadians. It cost a great deal of money, and it meant that we had to borrow.
The Conservatives in recent days have been very critical of the government, talking about the deficit and trying to position themselves as if though they had not supported the government's expenditures during the pandemic. They say that we have the highest deficit of any other government in Canadian history, knowing full well that they voted in favour of the billions of dollars we had to borrow in order to support Canadians during a worldwide pandemic.
Now, postpandemic, even though it is not completely over, they are starting to change their attitude toward the money we had to borrow in order to support small businesses and Canadians during a world pandemic. It speaks to the Conservative policy mentality. We have seen that. We have seen policies from the Conservative Party that I would ultimately argue are to the detriment of Canadians. We see the Conservative Party flip-flopping, which should cause Canadians to be really concerned.
These are not just words I am putting on the record, but facts. Talking about policy, we can remember today's leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, gave economic advice to anyone who would listen and said that cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was the way to fight inflation. That is what he was telling Canadians less than a year ago, as he was criticizing the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
The member for Abbotsford knows this full well. After all, he gave that leadership candidate some sound advice, which was well received, not only by the Liberal caucus, but also on Bay Street and, generally speaking, by anyone who understands the importance and significance of the Bank of Canada and its governor.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
922 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:49:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about misinformation. To give the impression that the federal government is not supporting housing is just not true. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, in the area of housing co-ops. We have had investments, and for the first time we are actually providing funds to encourage the housing co-op industry to grow as a whole.
My question to the member is more specific in regard to subsidies going to oil companies, and this is something that we have been working on. In fact, there is a commitment to end all oil subsidies by the end of 2023. We know that we cannot just click our heels and make them end, but there is a target to end them by 2023. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to that?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member needs to be a little more straightforward with what reality actually is.
The member made reference to the Prime Minister and the debt. There is a little thing called the worldwide pandemic. That event was something that cost a considerable amount of money. Many of the billions of dollars that were spent were actually supported in part by the Conservative Party. That is the reason why.
If we are going to support Canadians, if we are going to invest in and support nine million Canadians through the CERB program and keep tens of thousands of businesses from going bankrupt by supporting them through rent subsidies and wage subsidies, that costs money. We would argue that those sorts of expenditures are what has enabled Canada to continue.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:52:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two points. One is in regard to the resolution the NDP are making in reference to the price of gas. I guess this would be just acknowledging that what is taking place in Europe today is having a profound impact on the cost of gas, and this is, in good part, because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a world environment and a world price for oil. I am interested in the member's thoughts on the cost of a litre of gas as a direct result.
The second point deals with the end to fossil fuels, which is a commitment the government to has made to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like the member's thoughts on that. It was an item that was listed in the budget.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:37:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the past number of years from this administration is historical amounts of money being put into the green transition. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years alone. This is a government that is committed to the green transition, and I will get an opportunity to expand on that particular point later.
In this most recent budget, budget 2022, there was a commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that commitment.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:45:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that I do not find difficult at all in terms of being a Liberal member of Parliament is being open, honest and transparent. There are a lot of wonderful things we have done as a government, so it is only natural to talk about those policy actions.
With respect to the issue of subsidies of fossil fuels, which often comes up as a matter of debate inside the chamber, one of the things that we need to recognize is that some of those subsidies go toward assistance for remote regions. I would like to think that all members would recognize the true value of that, at the very least for the short term.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, one of the greatest challenges for seniors is housing. That is why the federal government works with provincial governments. It is the provinces that take the lead on social housing.
We invest, on an annual basis, in operating costs in the Province of Manitoba. We are talking about tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in rent subsidies and non-profit housing. We are talking about thousands of non-profit housing units in the province of Manitoba alone, and it is often the federal government that gives the largest percentage. That deals with trying to make housing more affordable.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I would invite my friend to stand and ask a question, as opposed to heckling.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
