Kevin Lamoureux

[Judges Act, October 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the first thing that comes across my mind is the Canadian Judicial Council had a semi-annual fall meeting. It was held in the province of Alberta, and what came out from part of that discussion was a sense of disappointment. There was a sense of disappointment that the legislation the member is talking about is still going through the parliamentary process. While always wanting to respect the independence of our courts and Parliament and keeping them separate, as it was hoping to see it speed through maybe a bit faster.

The government agenda is fairly full. There is a lot of stuff out there, so it is not like we are in a position where we can call Bill C-9 every day. It has been a while since it was brought forward, and there is a need to see it pass. Given the member's comments on the bill itself, and all we want to see it go to committee, does the member also agree with me that it is important we see this bill go to committee, and the sooner the better?

[Citizenship Act, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak. Some issues I really enjoy having the opportunity to talk about because I can relate them to my constituency. In this case, I can relate it not only to my constituency, but to having been a former critic of citizenship and immigration for the Liberal Party when it was in opposition as the third party and being very familiar with Minister Kenney, even though I was not around when he made that specific change.

I want to share a few thoughts. One is directly on the issue before us and another on citizenship in general.

The member across the way gave a personal experience, and that is great. We can really learn a lot when members share personal stories of how something affected them. I appreciated what my colleague from York Centre had to say. It really makes the issue relatively simple to understand.

Let us say the member for York Centre, a Canadian, has a child in Israel. Two years later, that child lives in Canada with the member. The member then has a second daughter, who is born in Canada. The only difference between her two daughters is that one spent the first two years of her life in Israel. Imagine that her two daughters are growing up and, for whatever reason, maybe one of them decides to leave Canada and spend some time in Paris, a wonderful city no doubt. If it happens to be the member's first daughter and that daughter has a child in Paris, that child would not be a Canadian citizen, whereas if her second child were to move to Paris and have a child, that child would be a Canadian citizen.

That is not necessarily an anomaly. A number of those situations have arisen because of legislation, which has already been referred to, Bill C-37, that the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper brought in and passed. Many people are in that position and, sadly, as the former speaker just highlighted, would not even know it. They would be going along in their own way thinking they are Canadian citizens until a day when maybe they need to communicate with the federal government, perhaps about a passport or some other issue that would require citizenship, and then it might come to the surface that they are a second generation and, therefore, should not have Canadian citizenship. The Canadian citizenship would then be taken away.

I do not think anyone among us would deny the opportunity for the member for York Centre's first-born daughter to move to Paris and spend a few years or however long there. Not having her child classified as a Canadian citizen would be unfair.

In looking at the legislation today, it is interesting, but we need to recognize that ministerial discretionary authority is already in place. I could not say with 100% certainty how all-encompassing it is, but from what I understand, there are dozens of cases of lost Canadians that the minister is able to deal with. I am very encouraged by that because I was not aware of that happening when I was the critic for immigration and citizenship for the Liberal Party when it had third party status. I know for a fact that over the last couple of years, citizenships have been granted to lost citizens.

Is there a way this can be improved upon? That is why we are having this debate today and there will be another hour of debate. Suffice to say that I generally believe that individuals inside this chamber understand and appreciate the importance of Canadian citizenship. As the member quoted, he has his own citizenship card. Many, possibly all of us, in terms of the pandemic, have had the opportunity to see that sense of pride that immigrants often display during citizenship courts.

Canada is a country that is very dependent on immigration. In my own home province of Manitoba, the population would have decreased if it were not for immigration to our province in the last 15 years. Immigrants have built our country. We need to have well thought-out policies and a system of fairness, a system that ensures that permanent residents become citizens.

I enjoy it when I have an opportunity to participate in citizenship courts. I remember, very vividly, a young lady being sworn in of Filipino heritage with a Canadian flag wrapped around her as they sang the national anthem for the very first time as a Canadian citizen. It brings tears to the eyes of many when we witness that. Citizenship is the greatest thing that we can provide. People will wear the Canadian flag with pride when they travel to Europe or other countries around the world as Canada is seen as the greatest country in the world to live. We might all be somewhat biased.

These are the types of issues that come up when we think of citizenship and everything that is acquired. I go back to the residents of Winnipeg North, with many first generation immigrants participating in those citizenship courts. Virtually every weekend I am meeting with permanent residents who I know some day will become Canadian citizens.

It takes 1,095 days to become a Canadian citizen. That means three years. There is a bit of a calculation. Technically, it is a minimum of three years in the last five years from the moment when one puts their application in that one has to reside in Canada. There are some issues even within that. I have brought up the issue, for example, of long-haul truck drivers, ones that drive back and forth between Canada and the United States. I want to ensure that people, and families in particular, are provided that opportunity to get citizenship because I have seen the value of that. I understand and appreciate Canada's diversity. It is second to no other country. I want to make sure that we get it right.

We have to ensure the integrity of the citizenship process. That is, in fact, priority one for me in recognizing how important it is that lost Canadians are, in fact, being provided the opportunity to have that citizenship as quickly as possible. That is why I believe in ministerial discretionary authority. If there are examples that members have, they should not hesitate to bring up those examples with the minister in question, no matter what happens in terms of debate on this particular piece of legislation. We all want to make sure that the people who are entitled to have it should have it. There are examples that I think we really need to work through.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private member's hour.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I have a reflection on a commitment that was provided by the Conservative Party in the last election. It made a platform commitment that it supported the principles of a price on pollution.

Given the very nature of having a price on pollution, we see a general acceptance in Canada, with the Province of Quebec being an excellent example of that, and see what is happening around the world. Take the Paris Agreement back in 2015. Does the member have any concerns with the official opposition changing its policy position and adopting the belief that there should not be a price on pollution, period?

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the degree to which the Conservative Party of today at the national level really does not want anything to do with the price on pollution, even though we have seen a majority of provinces in Canada of all political stripes, whether they are Liberal, New Democrat or Progressive Conservative, and I emphasize “progressive”, have recognized that a price on pollution is, in fact, a good thing. Over 100 countries around the world, through the Paris Agreement, have recognized that a price on pollution is a good thing.

The member talked about her constituents. Over 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are going to receive more money back than they are actually paying into the price on pollution.

When will the Conservative Party get with what Canadians want? That is to see recognition and have a climate policy, something which the Conservative Party does not have today. When will the Conservatives provide that climate policy?

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding children. She makes reference to our ridings, and there are so many children who need that extra attention. That is why I felt so good when we increased and changed the Canada child benefit program. It lifted literally hundreds, if not thousands, of children out of poverty. These are children who are represented by both of us. We need to continue to work hard at making sure—

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, from day one, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he expects everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. That is one of the reasons why one of our very first budgetary measures was to increase the tax bracket for Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we have taken immediate action on.

With respect to what the member just referred to, in the last budget we heard the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance indicate that we are putting a special tax on banks and insurance companies because of the pandemic profits. We are very open to looking at ways that we can, as the Prime Minister has dictated, ensure we move toward a fairer taxation system.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, ironically, members might be somewhat surprised to know that the principle of a price on pollution actually originated in the province of Alberta. Go figure. Other provinces then picked up on that and started to duplicate it or come up with different forms of it. It is only the national Conservative Party of Canada that is moving backward on this issue, and I do not quite understand why when more and more people are looking for leadership on the environment.

The report said that eight out of 10 people would benefit. The member does not have to believe me. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made the statement that eight of 10 people will see a net benefit from the money being paid in and the money being paid out. That is a good thing, and it is why I think the Conservatives—

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, they can babble all they like, but that is what the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer states. That means that eight out of 10 constituents in Winnipeg North are receiving a net benefit, yet the Conservatives are fixated on trying to mislead the residents of Winnipeg North and, in fact, all Canadians.

Today we had a member from the Conservative Party say that Ottawa is collecting hundreds of millions of dollars on our carbon tax in Atlantic Canada, which is absolute garbage. That is, again, the Conservative Party misleading Canadians, because that is not what is happening. In the provinces where there is no federal backstop, the money is going to the provinces. Ottawa is not receiving that money. We are are not receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, as the member opposite tried to put on the record.

What we are witnessing is misinformation coming from the Conservative Party of Canada, all in the favour of a catchphrase. We see that, and we will see it in about an hour from now when its members stand up for question period. For them, it is humour. It is a bumper sticker. They are more interested in that than they are in the environment.

What is the Conservative Party of Canada's policy on the environment? It is moving backward. While every other political entity in Canada is moving forward in dealing with environmental concerns, the national Conservative Party is actually moving backward. If Canadians only knew the lack of sincerity, the misleading information and the ideas of the climate deniers in the Conservative Party, they would see the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

We can also talk about inflation, which is the other part the motion attempts to deal with. Conservatives are saying, even though it is not true, they will give a tax break on the price on pollution. Actions speak louder than words. In dealing with inflation, we brought forward legislative measures to assist people during this difficult time. The biggest one was the GST rebate, which is legislation the Conservative Party originally opposed. Eleven million Canadians would benefit from an enhanced GST rebate, and the Conservative Party originally opposed it. After being shamed, they finally saw they were making a mistake and voted for it. I applaud them for that. It is good they voted for it.

Then there is the dental care for children, which would provide assistance for kids under the age of 12 to receive dental care. The Conservative Party is voting against that. Along with that legislation there is legislation to support those who are finding it financially difficult to make their rental payments. Through the legislation, we would see direct payments. We also have legislation dealing with money going directly to people with disabilities.

Conservatives can talk all they want about fighting inflation, but all they are really interested in is what they can put on a bumper sticker. To them, that is what it is all about. As they focus on trying to create havoc, we will continue to focus on being there for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, recognizing we want an economy that works for all Canadians. We want a society that truly cares about social programs, one that values national programs that are going to make a difference.

Liberals will talk about the importance of long-term care and mental health. We will talk about dental care for our children. There are many things we—

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, what a great contrast between what the Conservative Party, the official opposition, is doing and what the government is doing.

We have a fundamental difference. We want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We believe in Canada's middle class. We want to support those striving to become a part of the middle class. We need to be there for those individuals who need that extra bit of help, directly or indirectly.

From what I can tell, this motion deals with two real topics. One is the issue of inflation and one is the issue of our environment. If I were to pick a couple of issues to show the contrast between the official opposition, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, they would probably be two of the top three issues.

When I think of the price on pollution, it is almost comical where the Conservatives were and where they are today. They are definitely not consistent. I do not think they even understand the issue based on some of the comments we have heard today. Their arguments just do not make sense.

I posed a question to the relatively newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, who has once again changed the Conservative Party's policy on the price on pollution. All 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election, including every one of the members across the way, had an election platform that supported the principle of a price on pollution. That leader was dumped and a new leader has come in. Now there is a new policy position, that the Conservatives no longer support the principle of a price on pollution.

In 2015, countries from around the world went to Paris. Canada was one of many countries. Some agreements were achieved. One of the most productive discussions and dialogues that took place was on the principle of a price on pollution. Canada came back with a healthy delegation, and we started to push for a price on pollution. At that point, of course, the Conservative Party did not support it, but there were Conservatives from coast to coast to coast who did support it at one point.

The world has recognized that a price on pollution is in fact the way to go, but the Conservative Party, with its most recent flip-flop, has gone back in time. I would argue that the Conservatives are not listening to their constituents. It makes a whole lot of sense to have a price on pollution, but the Conservatives conveniently try to misrepresent the issue.

We all hear the words triple, triple, triple. Every Conservative member wants to stand in question period and say that the carbon tax will “triple, triple, triple.” They love saying that. What they do not tell us is that where the federal government is applying the price on carbon, in the jurisdictions like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, over 50% of the population of Canada, there is actually a rebate, a credit. That credit is also triple, triple, triple. The Conservatives are trying, intentionally, to mislead more than half the population.

In Ontario, for example, it is a $745 credit. In Saskatchewan, it is well over $1,000 credit. In Alberta, it is over $1,000 credit. In my home province of Manitoba, it is $832 for a household. They will receive, as will other provinces, quarterly cheques. That is money in their pocket, because of the price on pollution. People in Manitoba recently received $208.

These are tangible things. The Conservatives will say that they are paying a tax. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that eight out of 10 are receiving more than they are paying.