House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, we have an aggressive agenda as government. There is the cut to the middle-class tax bracket, the Canada child benefit program, and the substantial increase in the GIS for our seniors. We are lifting seniors out of poverty. We are lifting children out of poverty. We can talk about the investment in Canada's infrastructure. There are so many things in the budget and the government's mandate. We are disappointed that the member saw fit to attempt to adjourn the House.

The very bill that we hoped to debate today, Bill C-26, is a historic agreement that would see millions of Canadians benefit. My question for the member is very specific. Why does the Conservative Party attempt to adjourn debate when there is so much that Canadians want us to do?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer is that the best thing for Canadians would be if this agenda never saw the light of day. It is unbelievable what has happened since the government has taken over. It has not created one full-time job yet. The Bank of Canada says the government's new housing rules will cost the economy $6 billion by the end of 2018. Our bank economists around the country are publicly calling out the government, telling it to quit adding additional spending. We see that GDP growth is going to be 10% lower than had been projected, down from 1.4% to 1.2% in 2016, and from 2.2% to 2% in 2017. What more do Canadians need to hear than that this government's agenda has been a complete and total failure to this point?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech with regard to Canadians not being heard and that conditions are being made worse for Canadians. Then I heard our hon. colleague over the way taking offence to an adjournment motion because he is concerned that there are so many things that we need to do for Canadians.

I would like to ask the member this. Does he understand and is he concerned that we are debating a motion about CPP enhancements that are ignoring vulnerable people? They are persons living with disabilities and women who have opted out of the workforce because of child rearing. These issues could be fixed with very simple amendments. It is almost disingenuous to hear the rhetoric today, if there really is a genuine desire for us to be addressing and doing the real hard work that the House of Commons needs to do. I would like the member talk about how he understands the hypocrisy of this.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right. The frustration that Canadians are feeling with having to deal with the government is reaching limits that we have not seen in decades, probably since the time the Prime Minister's father was prime minister of the country.

The reality is that we are spending our time talking about CPP premium hikes that are going to impact every employer and employee across the country. These hikes will not come into effect for another 20, 30, and 40 years before people will be directly impacted by them. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it will slow down the economy.

During the worse economic downturn since the recession, our government had the best record of job creation and economic growth among all of the G7. We reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, with a family of four saving almost $7,000 a year as a result. After running a targeted stimulus program that created and maintained approximately 200,000 jobs, we kept our promise. We balanced the budget. We left the Liberals with a surplus, and now we have this disaster that they have brought in after only one year.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to put forward, in a very clear way, what I believe is somewhat of a tragic story by the Conservative opposition. I believe we are seeing a Conservative Party that has really lost touch with what Canadians want to see and what their expectations are of government.

Let me go further and say that it is more than just an expectation of government, but that Canadians as a whole have an expectation of the official opposition, too. What we are seeing today is disappointment in the official opposition.

One of the things that Canadians truly believe in is the Canada pension plan. They believe in its importance. We have witnessed the provinces, territories, and every region of our country recognize the importance of the CPP. Only the Conservative Party, the party that has lost touch with Canadians, does not recognize what Canadians want. That is really what Bill C-26 is all about.

It is about delivering to Canadians what Canadians have been asking for, and not just for one year but for many years. It is the type of thing that Stephen Harper—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure my friend across the way is well familiar with the rules of the House. He should know Standing Order 18, which says:

No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

Now, he has reflected on the vote of the House, in terms of the adjournment proceedings, and he has done so repeatedly. I would ask that the member be brought to order in terms of his question and subsequent comments.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

After much discussion, I do want to indicate, first of all, the seriousness of the issue. I would tend to think that the point of order was leaning more to the debate side. There is some flexibility at this point.

I also want to remind members that when someone has the floor, we should give them that respect to have the floor as opposed to yelling across the way. That was happening.

The information is very well taken. I am sure the member is going to get directly to the issue we are now debating.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the document the finance committee brought forward is all about the budget and the consultations that took place for the 2016-17 budget. It is the first time we saw the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the government as whole, and even members of the entire caucus reaching out to constituents.

We took it seriously when the Prime Minister said that he wanted us to connect with Canadians and listen to what Canadians had to say. We took that seriously did just that. That is the subject matter of the report that the Conservative Party chose to talk about today.

It is with pleasure that I rise and tell my Conservative colleagues that they should really rethink the way they have voted in regard to our budget. They made a mistake. They need to be reminded of just exactly how they voted on this budget.

Let us think about it. What did the Conservatives vote against? They voted against a substantial decrease in personal income taxes on Canada's middle class. Who are they? They are our firefighters, factory workers, teachers, health care professionals, and so many other individuals, nine million plus from every region of our country. They are the ones who are getting the tax break. The Conservative Party voted against that. The Conservative Party also voted against a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest. Even Canada's wealthiest recognize that they want to participate and pay their fair share.

What else did the Conservatives vote against? We have the highest historical level of infrastructure spending by the government. That Conservative Party, the official opposition, voted against that. These—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I want to remind the official opposition again that I am hearing a lot of yelling on that side. If members look at Standing Order 16(2), it says:

When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.

Therefore, I would request that members respect the Standing Order and show respect for the member who has the floor.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, again, infrastructure is of such critical importance for all Canadians in every region, from coast to coast to coast. We need to invest in infrastructure. This Prime Minister and this government have recognized the need for infrastructure expenditures and we have put more money into infrastructure in the history of this country. In fact, for many years I sat in opposition and saw Stephen Harper and the Conservative government do nothing in recognition of the importance of infrastructure. That is why I feel that the Conservatives, once again, made a mistake by voting against this budget.

If we want to talk about helping Canadians, let us think back to what I made reference to in my questions. This budget would make substantial increases to Canada's child benefit program. That would assist tens of thousands of children in every region of our great nation. They would be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this budget. What happened? The official opposition voted against the budget, denying that benefit.

However, it does not end there. What about seniors, some of the most vulnerable in our society? Let us talk about single seniors who are finding it difficult and have to decide whether they buy the medications they need or food. Quite often, seniors make the decision to buy medications and go to a food bank. This Prime Minister and this government have recognized the importance of increasing the GIS for the most vulnerable seniors in our society. Once again, the Conservative Party voted against that.

I can go on. If we want to talk about vision, this is a government that demonstrates leadership with a vision and takes actions, something we did not see with the Conservative Party. Let me provide two examples, one of which we were supposed to talk about this afternoon, the Canada pension plan in this budget. If members had listened when Liberals talked about canvassing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, they would have heard that pensions were very important to them.

A historical agreement by this government demonstrates leadership. Provinces of all political stripes came on board. They recognized what Canadians see as very important, which was to increase CPP, because it is not just about today. We should be thinking about future generations also, and that is what having a vision and a plan is all about. That is something that this government and this Prime Minister brought to the table and were able to deliver in a substantial way.

In this entire country, as best I can tell, the Conservative Party is the only political entity that actually opposes investing in pension programs. In fact, if we listened to the speeches that the Conservatives made on Bill C-26, one would question whether they even believe in the CPP.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

I believe this is something that the Conservative Party needs to reflect on in terms of its voting pattern in the House.

It does not stop there. We have the Paris agreement. How many of our constituents talked to us about the importance of the environment?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Many.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Many is right, and I can say that many is not just in Liberal ridings. That many—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I know that this is a very passionate debate, but I am sure that members of the official opposition are able to restrain themselves.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

An hon. member

It's hard.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It may be hard, but, again, I am sure members want the respect that others afforded them when they were speaking and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary would also appreciate that respect, as would the people who are watching this today.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons can continue.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, let us continue. We have the Paris agreement, which is a historical demonstration of strong leadership from the Prime Minister, cabinet, and caucus, a caucus that has recognized what Canadians really want to see, a government that is genuinely concerned about our environment. I have knocked on many doors over the last year. Many constituents have told me, whether at McDonald's, or at their door, wherever it might be, that they are concerned about the environment. They want to see a government take action. Why? It is in good part because the Stephen Harper Conservative government did nothing on the environment. That government stood by and did absolutely nothing.

Now for the first time we have seen historical action by this government in terms of leadership. We managed to get the provinces of many different political stripes come to the table and say they are in favour of having a price on carbon. That is the responsible thing to do. It is not any sort of a revenue grab. That is a false argument, because the federal government will not receive any money from the price on carbon. It will go to the provinces and it will be up to the provinces to determine what is going to happen on their side.

We have an aggressive agenda in regard to health care. We only need to ask Canadians. Members only need to ask their constituents what is important to them. More often than not we will find that health care is one of the issues that comes up all of the time.

For the first time in many years we have a Minister of Health who truly cares about the role that Canada has to play in the future development of health care. For many years the Conservative government did nothing to renew the health care accord. Conservative members talk about having put lots of money into health care. No. The federal Conservatives never put more money into health care. It was—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Are you kidding me?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

No, I am not kidding. Pay attention.

It was Paul Martin who put into the health care accord—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Six per cent a year. Sit down.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. We only have about four minutes left before the debate ends for the rest of the day on this issue. I would hope that you would want to hear what the member has to say and that you could jot down the questions that are coming to your mind instead of having to yell them out.

Before I continue, I want to remind members that Standing Order 16(2) states that “When a member is speaking no member shall...interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order”. Therefore, I remind members not to interject when a colleague has the floor.

On a point of order the member for Brantford—Brant.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservative government put 6% a year more into health care every year—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry that is not a point of order. It is debate.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.