Kevin Lamoureux

[Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2., October 27th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member made reference to Bill C-30. It kind of goes hand in hand with Bill C-31. Both of them deal with the issue of inflation. The member said the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. Yes, the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. The member then went on to say that they were encouraging it and tried to take credit for it.

I need to remind the member that the Conservative Party of Canada, which he is a member of, initially did not support Bill C-30. It was not until days later, after being shamed into it, that it changed its position and supported Bill C-30. Recognizing that Bill C-30 is the one that he just said was a good bill, Bill C-31 is also a good bill.

Does he believe that the Conservative Party could be shamed into supporting Bill C-31, as was done with Bill C-30?

[Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2., October 27th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about trinkets. I can assure the member that not every province is alike. For a 10-year-old child or an 11-year-old or a four-year-old child, depending on the province, there are different types of dental programs that are available. However, what we do know for a fact is that there are tens of thousands of children in every region of the country who will benefit by this dental benefits program.

We know that for a fact, yet the Conservatives seem to want to deny those tens of thousands of children having a dental benefit. We also know for a fact that many of those children will end up in hospital situations as a direct result of not having the types of benefits that are being proposed within this legislation. Will the member at least acknowledge that fact?

[Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2., October 27th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member has amplified how these programs are going to have a direct impact on so many Canadians in all regions of our country.

I would highlight the fact that when we take a look at inflation rates, even though Canada, in comparison to the world, is doing relatively well, we still need to take direct action to support Canadians. That is really what Bill C-31 would be doing, while at the same time establishing a national dental program for our children. I am wondering if the member can expand on its true value and how it is helping in a time of need but also providing future hope for a more permanent dental program for Canadians.

[Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2., October 27th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the separatists in the House of Commons do not want a national program that provides dental care for all Canadian children under the age of 12, which does not surprise me. They are the same members who would argue that the federal government has no role in this, even though the Canada Health Act deals with health care in the provinces. Canadians expect a national government to provide the type of care that is needed.

If the member is so convinced that the province of Quebec would not benefit from this program, would he then agree that the money allocated to Quebec under this program will be covered by the salaries of members from the Bloc? It is silly for them to say that children in Quebec will not benefit from this program, because the member knows better. Would he not agree that children in Quebec will benefit from this program?

[Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2., October 27th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, talk about being out of touch with what Canadians expect of the government.

Here we have supports at a time when Canadians are looking for leadership in Ottawa, and the Conservative Party continues to want to frustrate Canadians through these tactics and the policy flip-flopping that takes place.

Why does the member not support children under the age 12 having support in getting dental care? This would prevent children from having to go to the hospital. This would allow children to get the dental work they need. Why is the Conservative Party opposed to these children under the age of 12? Shame on them.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 27th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we often get caught up in what is taking place inside the chamber. Outside the chamber, we could talk about the Canadian Judicial Council. There is an expectation outside the House of Commons. This legislation is something that the council is quite anxious to see pass.

We talked about stakeholders. All we are really looking at is trying to get it out of the second reading stage. There is still going to be a lot more dialogue on this. There is no doubt a lot of the stakeholders are wondering why, when it looks like there is a fairly wide spectrum of support for the legislation, we do not get it to committee stage, at the very least, as quickly as possible.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the issue of the need for time allocation. Earlier today, for example, I tried to get unanimous consent to have an additional 30 minutes. We have seen the government approach the opposition to be able to have literally hours and hours and hours of debate, and it has been rejected.

Where we have found ourselves is that unless we are prepared to bring in time allocation, if the opposition does not want to pass legislation, it just has to put up speakers indefinitely and, in other words, give no indication that it will actually pass the legislation.

Unfortunately, at times, without using the tool of time allocation, legislation would not pass. That is what we have been seeing over the last number of years. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in that respect.

[Motions for Papers, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.