Debates of March 21st, 2017

Provisions in Draft Supplementary Supply Bill

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. Members are concerned. Apparently they are not aware there was a major point of order raised earlier and this member indicated he would come back to the House to respond to that point of order, which he is is now doing, on a substantive point. I would ask members to either listen carefully or involve themselves in whatever other activities they may have to be involved in.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Remuneration amounts for payment are established in the Salaries Act for ministers with a portfolio, ministers of state who preside over a ministry of state, and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. This statute does not authorize remuneration for either ministers without a portfolio listed in the Salaries Act or ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state. Therefore, the vote lC wording contained in the supply bill for certain organizations provides the authority to make such payments.

Using a supply bill to authorize such payments is a long-standing arrangement going back at least to 1995. At that time, the authority appeared only in the program expenditures vote on the Privy Council Office. Since 2007-08, the authority appears in the program or operating expenditure vote of each department that could potentially support a minister without a portfolio or a minister of state who does not preside over a ministry of state.

With respect to Bill C-24, with the exception of the Minister of La Francophonie, the individuals appointed on November 4, 2015, to positions of Minister of Science, Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, and Minister of Status of Women are remunerated under vote 1C.

When Bill C-24 receives royal assent, it will authorize payment under the Salaries Act and vote 1C will no longer be used for this purpose in future estimates.

The payment under vote 1C not only respects the supplementary estimates process, it is also fully within the legal mandate and authority of the government.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I will be coming back to the House with a decision on this point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to to speak to this today—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I have not recognized anyone yet. As I understand it, the next speaker is the parliamentary secretary to government House leader.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Being only a few feet away from my colleague, I distinctly heard him start speaking first before you recognized any member on the government side. Therefore, since my colleague, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, did speak first, I move:

That the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands be now heard.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #222

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

It is a happy day today. Tomorrow we are going to be witnessing part two for Canada's middle class and how the middle class of Canada is going to be further advanced.

Let us talk about part one. When we think about part one, what comes to my mind is the middle-class tax break that was given to Canada's middle class. That was really important, I believe, and very well received by—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I would ask members to take their conversations out into the lobby. In fact, I am giving them a moment or two as I say this to do so. Perhaps they could quiet down a bit.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the first budget, there are a number of elements in that budget that should be repeated and reinforced. Number one for me, as I have indicated, was the tax break for Canada's middle class. Another really important aspect was the additional special tax created on Canada's wealthiest 1%. It is a redistribution of wealth to ensure that there is a higher degree of equality.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to listen to the member and I am hearing a lot of chatter from the other side. Perhaps the member could ask his colleagues to calm down so we can all listen.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do notice, as is sometimes the case after votes and other things when many members are assembled, that there is a lot of noise in the chamber. I now see that members are making their way to their respective lobbies, so I will invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues across the way suggested that I start over. I would love to start over. I would only ask that they reset that clock, the 10-minute clock.

I want to emphasize, as I did when I started my speech just a minute ago, the importance of the first budget, because tomorrow we will be witnessing part two of the first budget, and I am anticipating that Canadians as a whole will welcome that budget, much as they have expressed so much appreciation for the first budget. This is the reason why I believe that first budget was one that really benefited Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

I have made reference to the tax break for Canada's middle class. I have made reference to the special tax that was created for Canada's wealthiest one per cent, which is a redistribution of wealth, which I believe is really important to the constituents in the riding I represent.

There was so much more in that budget. The Canada child benefit program and the increase that this government has provided that program will literally lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Many of those children are residents and call Winnipeg North their home.

It does not stop there. Think of Canada's most vulnerable seniors. If seniors are receiving a guaranteed income supplement, that means that their annual income is significantly low and they face many hardships. One of the biggest increases was given to the guaranteed income supplement, much like the Canada child benefit. As a direct result, tens of thousands of seniors will be lifted out of poverty. Again, we are talking about many residents whom I represent.

There is so much more to be optimistic about. We now have a government that genuinely understands that, in order to build a great, strong country, we need to invest in infrastructure. We have a government that has made a historical commitment in terms of the billions of dollars we are putting into Canada's infrastructure. It does not matter what region of our great nation. There is a commitment to work with municipalities, provinces, and other stakeholders to make sure we realize, in a very tangible way, infrastructure projects that will create jobs, that will build Canada's infrastructure, which will assist us into the future. That is good news.

We hear about what else is happening even beyond the budget. The opposition members talk about the creation of taxes, and they are somewhat misleading. They should be looking at what the government was able to accomplish, things at which the previous Harper government failed miserably. Let me give two or three examples of that. The first example is the price on pollution that was created. The vast majority are very supportive of that. People are concerned about our environment.

The Prime Minister went to Paris, along with other stakeholders, including provincial representatives. When they came back from Paris, a discussion and dialogue took place. Imagine the premiers working with the Prime Minister, and the different governments came up with an agreement where there will in fact be a price on pollution.

I think Canadians were so pleased when they saw the type of support there. Governments of all political stripes got behind it. Even some of the former Conservative leaders are behind the price on pollution. Only the Conservative Party, the party that has genuinely lost touch with what Canadians want, is in opposition to having a price on pollution.

The Conservatives try to say that Ottawa is getting all this money as a result of it. That is just not true, and they know it is not true.

All of the revenue that will be generated by a price on pollution is going to provincial governments, and it is up to those governments to determine what they will do with that revenue.

This is about a vision for Canada. For the first time in many years, we have a Prime Minister who has a long-term vision for this country, a country that is going to deliver in tangible ways to Canada's middle class and the many others aspiring to be a part of it, and in fact to all Canadians.

The price on pollution file is not the only file. There are others.

For the first time all premiers have come to the table, have come to an agreement with respect to the CPP. The CPP is about ensuring that our workers of today have the finances for tomorrow when they retire.

The Conservative Party across the way has lost touch with what Canadians really think. Those members do not support the CPP. However, once again, provinces of all political stripes have come together, worked with this government, and ultimately came up with a historical agreement that will ensure we are providing that much more to individuals who are working today for their retirement in the future.

The good news does not stop there either. There is, for example, the issue of health care, an issue with which Canadians most often identify. I had this discussion with my daughter just the other night. We talked about the importance of health care to the constituents we both represent in the north end of Winnipeg. I can assure the House that, whether provincially or federally, both of us have a role to play. The Minister of Health has done a phenomenal job of reaching out to the provinces. We now have an agreement with all provinces, with the exception of one, and I will not say which one, but I am hopeful that province will join the agreement.

Why do I raise these three issues in particular? It is primarily because I want Canadians to know that not only does our government take a proactive approach to building our country and providing support for Canada's middle class, but it is prepared to work with other levels of government to get the job done. This government has demonstrated that time and time again.

Tomorrow will be a good day for Canadians. The Minister of Finance will deliver on the decisions that have been made through our caucus, through cabinet, and through the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians will see a reflection of what they really want to see. I say that because our Prime Minister has consistently told not only Liberal members of Parliament but all members of Parliament that he wants them to represent here in Ottawa the interests of their ridings. He does not want them to represent the interests of Ottawa in their constituencies. I take that challenge from the Prime Minister seriously. It is one of the reasons why I always take the opportunity to share my thoughts with ministers and other members of this privileged chamber. The budget we are going to see tomorrow will be a continuation of what was in the 2016 budget. That is why today is also a good day.

I thank the House for allowing me a few minutes to share the many wonderful things that we can be happy about in Canada. It could have easily been an hour-long speech, because there are so many wonderful things to be happy about in Canada.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and he spoke a number of times about putting a price on pollution. One of the first actions the environment minister took upon her election in 2015 was to allow the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I wonder if my colleague could tell me what the price of pollution was on that. A year later the minister authorized Quebec City to dump another 86 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Could the member tell me what the price was on those acts of pollution that severely polluted our waters?

Here is my second question. We were promised a maximum $10 billion deficit, and it has now gone up to $30 billion. The really disturbing part is that the interest costs alone on this deficit are increasing by $15 billion per year, and that is added to the budget. I wonder if we can count on another $15 billion being added because of tomorrow's budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, in regard to the price on pollution, the most important thing for Ottawa to demonstrate is its ability to work with the many different stakeholders and to demonstrate very strong leadership.

The leadership we have seen on the environmental file has come not only from the minister responsible for the environment but, I would suggest, right from the Prime Minister of Canada. We have made a genuine commitment to work with others, demonstrating strong national leadership, something that was missing in the previous 10 years.

In regard to the deficit, I would put it up as a cautionary note that members across the way need to realize that Stephen Harper had a higher deficit than any other prime minister. It was well over $150 billion. Stephen Harper took a budget surplus and converted it into a budget deficit, even before the recession kicked in.

The reason I point it out the way I have is that the Liberal Party would be best advised not to take advice from the Conservatives on deficits.