- 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
- 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
- May/22/24 11:04:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the “Reform Party” across the way talking about investing in jobs and their opposition to it. We can talk about Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda, directly and indirectly creating tens of thousands of jobs. There is government subsidy that is going there, and it is not only federal government subsidy but also a provincial subsidy coming from Doug Ford, who is a Progressive Conservative.
Does the member believe that Doug Ford should also be criticized? If he is criticizing the federal government, and the “Reform Party” across the way does not support this investment, would the member then be consistent and say that Doug Ford was wrong also?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, the member is wrong when he says that we did nothing with regard to jobs during the pandemic. We could talk about the wage subsidy program, the loans to small businesses and the rental supports, not to mention CERB—
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:02:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is just it. The Conservatives are more concerned about increasing the anxiety levels of Canadians, causing them to be upset, than they are in the reality of the everyday life we have to face.
We understand that inflation and interest rates are challenging issues. We do what we can to support people, such as providing the first-time Canada housing benefit, a direct subsidy for rentals. The Conservative Party voted against that.
What the member does not say is that we should take a look at inflation rates and interest rates outside of Canada. Comparably, Canada is doing exceptionally well, whether we are compared to our neighbouring countries or to some of our allies. However, that does not mean we cannot do things, and we are doing things. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party does not support many of those initiatives.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:51:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I do not believe what the member is saying.
Let me emphasize the next point. The member would argue that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. Yes, we are subsidizing them and we have a tangible commitment to get out of that subsidy. However, we should keep in mind that a high percentage of that subsidy is going to deal with orphan wells. Orphan wells are a bad thing for our environment and it is not good for the government to just ignore that problem. We have to deal with it, and that means spending money.
If we are spending money, the NDP says that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. I would suggest that we are protecting the environment, because orphan wells are bad for it. We need to deal with them. It would be irresponsible of government to ignore orphan wells.
146 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
Madam Speaker, there are times when the government does need to be able to borrow. The best example of that was during the worldwide pandemic, when the government made the decision to be there to save jobs by providing things such as the wage subsidy program and loans for small businesses. It was there for Canadians in terms of CERB payments. When Canadians were not able to work because of the pandemic, the government stepped up and provided literally billions and billions of dollars of support. Yes, there was a cost to that, but the cost would have been far greater had the government chosen to do nothing.
With regard to the opening comments, I always appreciate the opportunity to showcase a turban because, for me, it is all about the equality of people. It is all about strength of faith. In many ways, since 1988, I have had the opportunity to get a better understanding of the importance of Sikhism.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 6:45:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what the member just said is completely inaccurate. It is just not true.
Within a couple of years, we had a federal government that, unlike Stephen Harper's government, negotiated health care accords with the different provinces, providing secured funding. We just had a major announcement in regard to health care. Historic amounts of money are currently going to health care, with an additional $198 billion.
When the member says that we are not spending money where we should be spending money or implies that we are wasting money, he can tell that to the hundreds of thousands, going into the millions, of Canadians who received CERB payments during the pandemic. He can tell that to the business owners who received literally billions of dollars through the wage subsidy so that we could keep Canadians working during the pandemic. Canada was in a great position to be able to rebound out of the pandemic because the Government of Canada supported the economy and supported Canadians. That is why, in comparison to the rest of the world, we are doing relatively well.
183 words
- 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, I genuinely believe that the member and the opposition really and truly just do not get it. At the end of the day, this is about inflation. Canadians are hurting, and the Conservatives consistently vote against policies that are there to help Canadians.
That goes to my question for the member. There is the doubling of the goods and services tax credit for six months. We can talk about eliminating the interest on student loans. We can talk about dental services for children under the age of 12. We can talk about the rental subsidy of some $500. There are many measures there to help Canadians deal with inflation. That, in good part, is what the fall economic statement is about.
Can the member tell us specifically why the Conservative Party today is not supporting Canadians by allowing measures of this nature to pass quickly?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. For the member, in absolutely no way would this take away anything from the constituents whom she represents. The legislation would complement what is taking place in the province of Quebec. That is important to recognize. The second component of the legislation is the rental subsidy. I am sure the member is going to share with her constituents how this legislation overall would make a positive difference.
I appreciate the hard advocacy of the member for her constituents.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, again, here we are debating Bill C-31, and I believe that there is a great deal of interest in what is taking place this evening. There is an expectation now, because of the motion we just passed in the House, that Bill C-31 will in fact be advancing and go to committee, where it will be heard.
We hear a lot about the dental care program, and I am going to talk about that, but first I would like to draw some focus to the other issue within the legislation, which is the issue of housing.
We often hear the Conservative Party in particular talk about the issue of affordability in housing, asking and challenging the Government of Canada to do more on the issue of housing. I find it somewhat interesting that the opportunity is there in a very real and tangible way for the Conservative Party to support positive action in regard to housing affordability in Canada, and in this case the Canada rent subsidy. The Conservatives have an opportunity to support that, and they can vote yes on this legislation.
Earlier, I made reference to the dental program, and I asked members on the Conservative side if they did not recognize the true value of this program and the number of Canadians who will benefit by it, and we are talking about kids. When we think of the housing program, we are talking about hundreds of millions, just over $1.2 billion, that would go to support almost two million Canadians in every region of our country to give them some assistance when there is a need for that help.
The Conservatives will talk about inflation and challenge the government to take action to support Canadians, but when we bring forward legislation such as this, which in part is assisting Canadians in dealing with inflation, not only are they voting against the legislation, but they still feel they should be able to filibuster and prevent the legislation from seeing the light of day.
The government is very much focused on the housing issue in all regions of our country. We understand the importance of housing. For the first time in generations, we have seen an actual housing strategy for Canada brought in by the government, and we are talking about billions of dollars over a number of years.
We have seen the enhancement of housing support programs that will provide opportunities, for example, for first time homebuyers. In recent budgets, we have seen an opportunity to be able to expand into housing co-ops, which is a viable alternative to owning a home. In a housing co-op, one is not a tenant, as in an apartment, but rather a resident in the home in which one lives. Literally hundreds of millions are being invested into non-profit housing, which is based on annual income. Depending on the province, I believe it is around 30% or 32% of a household's annual income. These are the types of actions that the Government of Canada has taken with budgets, to ensure that foreign investors are not successful in driving up the cost of housing.
Every one of those measures that I referenced, the official opposition voted against, yet its members will stand up and say we are not doing enough in regard to the housing file.
On the issue of housing, we need to see the different levels of government working together. The national government, on a number of budgetary policy decisions and legislative provisions, has demonstrated leadership in ensuring that there is a strong, healthy role for the Government of Canada.
Really, this is, again, the first time we have seen this in many years, as Stephen Harper never did anything dealing with national housing.
We recognize that there is a need. I have had discussions about how we can actually make new homes more affordable, and those discussions generate ideas on how Ottawa might be able to continue to make a difference, through the Minister of Housing, who has opened his doors, inviting those ideas. The legislation we are voting on tonight, or whenever it comes to a vote, is something that is going to help people, both in the short term and the long term.
That is something I wanted to highlight before I got into what I believe is the core of the legislation, the reason I would challenge each and every member to reflect on the needs of their constituents.
As has been pointed out, what we are really talking about is a dental benefit program for children under the age of 12. In many of the discussions and debates that I have seen on it to date, the Conservatives have said that, well, these provinces have it, this province has it, that province has it, and so they do not need it, and so forth. We even had one Conservative MP who said that her riding does not need it.
At the end of the day, I believe that every riding, all 338 constituencies, will benefit either directly or indirectly through this dental benefit program that is being put forward.
I think it is noteworthy to recognize that this is the very first time we are getting a national program dealing with health care. This has been a government that has focused a great deal of effort, much like we have done in housing, on the file of health care.
I can talk about the discussions that have taken place that Stephen Harper refused to have, in which we saw a health care accord being achieved and in which every province came on side, signing an agreement with Ottawa on health care funding. The amount of health care equalization payments that are going to our provinces is at historic levels. Never before have we seen as much investment in health care.
Never before have we seen a national government that has recognized the importance of mental health or of long-term care. Through this legislation, for the very first time, the national government is saying that if one is a child under the age of 12 whose guardian or parents are having some financial issues and are not able to afford the dental service that is so badly needed, being provided that service in many ways will prevent that child from having to go into a hospital situation.
Whether it is overnight for surgeries or whether it is occupying an emergency space, these are all things on which we can have a positive impact by voting for this legislation. I believe the Conservative Party is being very short-sighted by not recognizing the true value of both the housing supplement program that is in here and the dental benefit program. I would suggest to them that it will come back to haunt them if they do not support this legislation.
1152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 11:04:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the biggest option that the government has to deal with Bill S-5 is to bring forward the legislation at its earliest opportune time. For example, we are still trying to get the disability legislation through the House. We are also still trying to get through the rental subsidy legislation.
This type of legislation is absolutely critical and will likely continue to require support from other opposition parties for the government to get it through. I suspect that, given the resistance from the Conservative Party today on Bill S-5, we will likely be requiring some opposition parties' support to do so.
104 words
All Topics
- 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
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize many of the things that were done to enhance and protect our tourism industry. It amazes me. It is as if he is not listening to what is happening in the community.
We can talk about the tens of millions of dollars, about $100 million, going to support our wine industry in the last year or more.
An hon. member: Did you listen to the speech?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I did, which is why I am pointing this out. At the end of the day, talk to hoteliers. Ask them about the government support through programs like the wage subsidy program. Those programs supported our tourism industry when it needed the support, unlike the Conservatives, who said that we spent too much to support small businesses.
We have been there to support the tourism industry in the past and we continue to support it today in the 2022-23 budget, because it is an industry that is critical to our economy. We know that. It would be nice to hear the member recognize some of the facts regarding how that is being done.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of quick points.
I am interested in the member's thoughts with regard to the luxury tax. The principle of a luxury tax is something the Bloc supports. I would like clarity on that particular point.
The second issue that I have is with regard to the Province of Quebec. I do not know if this is still in play today, but it provided a subsidy toward the purchase of electric cars, something that we in government have also provided.
I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on that. Again, when the provincial and federal governments work together, we can enhance programs, which is good for the consumer. It would be nice to see other provinces follow Quebec's lead on that issue.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 10:13:37 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, if the member for Carleton does ultimately become leader of the Conservative Party, there is no doubt he has a credible finance critic for the Conservative right. What we all just witnessed is that reform mentality, that extreme right, of just cutting everything. That is the type of opposition that we could be heading towards, so I wish him well in his future endeavours.
Is the position of the Conservative Party now that the expenses that were used to support programs, such as the wage subsidy and the CERB program, was money not well spent? Does he believe that we should not have ventured into that area?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
