Debates of March 23rd, 2023

Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments, so they will have an opportunity to ask questions then. I would ask members to please hold off on any of their comments and maybe jot them down so they do not forget them.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to that particular point, I can assure the members opposite that I will hang around for the 10 minutes of questions and answers, which is unlike what we saw yesterday when I attempted to ask questions and there was no one around able to answer the questions or prepared to answer the questions.

What I am referencing—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite knows he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I would ask him to withdraw his previous statement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, when a member rises on a point of order and causes the Speaker to stand, it does not take away from the time allocation a member is supposed to be given for their speech. With that in mind, I would suggest that I did not make reference to any individual at all. The member is just assuming, correctly, that it was Conservatives who abandoned the chamber so I could not actually ask the questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask individuals to please be mindful of the words they use. Again, I did not hear the hon. parliamentary secretary speak directly about a specific member, so I just want to, again, remind members to be judicious with the words they use.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was actually good news that I am prepared to answer for the comments I make in the chamber, because not all members can actually say that, as we witnessed yesterday when I attempted to ask questions of Conservative members of Parliament and they chose not to answer those questions.

I would like to—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite knows that he cannot directly or indirectly reference the presence of a member in the chamber. He is directly talking about the presence or not of a member who was not here yesterday. When we were having a debate, a member had to leave the House, and now the parliamentary secretary is bringing it up again. That is twice in the last 10 seconds that he has done it. The member needs to withdraw the statement.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind members to be careful with respect to how they use their time that they have in the House. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary speak about a specific member. Generally, that is when we take issue with specific comments made. Again, I want to ask members not to mention anybody who was or was not in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let us try this again. I believe, just for confirmation, that I have 19 minutes left in my comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the member that his time is not being eaten away by these points of order. The clock is stopped every time.

Allusion to presence or absence of members

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the point we are discussing right now is extremely important.

You just indicated that we may not refer to the presence or the absence of specific MPs in the House. I would like to have some clarification from you and from the Table.

For example, if I say that a significant number of Liberals are not in the House right now, am I making a faux pas in the House?

It is essential that I get an answer to this question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member.

I will consider the question and come back to the House with an answer shortly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, let me switch a bit, because the Conservatives are a little sensitive on the issue of accountability and responding to questions being posed to them. We witnessed that last night.

Having said that, let me assure those who are going to be following the debate today, first and foremost the many individuals who are interested in the whole issue of cybersecurity, that we will get to that debate eventually. It is just that the Conservatives have chosen to play a bit of a game. Fortunately, it is an area I really enjoy talking about, because it is an issue that is so important to all Canadians, and that is the budgetary measures the government has to put into place in order to ensure the economy is working for all of us.

Since we formed government back in 2015, we have had a very clear and concise message as a government. This is a government focused on supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. This is a government that has been there to have the backs of Canadians during a worldwide pandemic. This is a government that has recognized the need for the government to take actions, even at a time when we have inflation rates that are not acceptable.

Members opposite will talk about inflation and they will give a false impression. If we listened to what the Conservative Party is saying, we would think this government is the cause of worldwide inflation. One member says it is. We are not quite that influential around the world; I can assure the member of that. At the end of the day, if we take a look at Canada's inflation rate, we can compare it to the countries of the G7 or even the G20, our allied countries. We can look at it in terms of the United States. We will find that our inflation rate is actually lower than the U.S.A.'s and than that of most countries in Europe, whether France or others.

Our inflation rate is still of concern to the government, because we understand. As members of Parliament, we go home and understand the pains our constituents are experiencing, and that is the reason we take seriously the issue of consultations, something Stephen Harper really did not do. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who still does open, public town hall-type meetings, something the former Prime Minister never really did. We have a Minister of Finance in the department who aggressively goes out to consult with Canadians and different stakeholders consistently throughout the year, but in particular in the lead-up to making those important budgetary decisions.

We do this because we recognize how important it is, as a government, that our budget reflect what Canadians expect the government to do. Yesterday, the Conservatives wanted to focus on one aspect. They wanted to talk about the possibility of 15¢ for 24 bottles of beer and the impact that was going to have on Canadian society. That is what their focus was yesterday.

[James Bezan]

Jobs. What about the agriculture sector?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says “jobs”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I just want to remind the member that he should stick to his speech and not answer during the debate when other people are yelling out. I would also ask members not to yell out, mention other things or try to have conversations with the hon. member.

Again, I would ask members to hold on to their questions and comments. They will have 10 minutes of questions and comments.

The hon. member still has almost 14 minutes to speak, so I would ask individual members to please be mindful of that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point was that the Conservatives could have talked about what the member just heckled about, which is jobs. We could have talked about jobs yesterday.

Does the member not realize the number of jobs that have been added to Canada's economy since before the pandemic got under way? We have seen an increase of over 830,000 jobs, closer to a million. Can members imagine that? It took Stephen Harper 10 years to achieve a million jobs.

We went through a pandemic, and because we had the right priorities, unlike the Conservatives, we protected Canadians. We were there to support small businesses. Never before have we seen the type of programs that supported small businesses, whether it was with loans or wage subsidies. Millions of jobs were saved as a direct result of that. Companies were prevented from going bankrupt in many situations because of that. We were able to support Canadians through the CERB program. Imagine the eight million-plus Canadians who genuinely needed the program, which allowed them to put food on the table, pay their mortgage and so forth. By providing those types of supports, we were in a good position to rebound and build stronger after the crux of the pandemic.

As a result, there are more than 830,000 more jobs today than there were at the beginning of the pandemic. This is far better than, let us say, the United States or some other countries in the world. Why is that? It is because the federal government chose to work with Canadians, chose to work with different levels of government, and implemented policies that really made the difference. If I were to cite some of those policies today, we hear Conservatives talk about their Conservative ideas. There are a few that come to mind, some that we put in place and some that the Conservatives wished they could have put into place.

We go out and consult. What does the leader of the Conservative Party do? He says that consultation is not necessary. After all, we have YouTube. Remember cryptocurrency, which was economics 101 and his first major policy statement recommendation for Canadians? The Conservative Party of Canada was saying that the way we avoid inflation and really reap the profits was to invest in cryptocurrency. This is something he advised Canadians to do.

I will conclude with those who took the advice of the Conservative leader. They had their savings wiped out, with 60% to 70% gone. It was incredible the amount of money that was lost on cryptocurrency, going into the millions of dollars. Individuals on a fixed income who believed what the Conservative leader was saying paid a very heavy price.

Now the Conservatives are talking about interest rates. Do members remember what the leader of the Conservative Party said about the Bank of Canada? He said that we would fire or get rid of the head of the Bank of Canada.

[An hon. member]

Why would he do that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Why would he do that? This is also what the member for Abbotsford posed, and look what happened to that member. I will reference the member and the riding he is from who questioned the Conservative leader's judgment on that issue because the member for Abbotsford now sits way in the back and has been kind of ditched to the side. We very rarely hear from him. However, we have an initiative or suggestion from the leader of the Conservative Party that even progressive Conservatives disagree with.

We need to look at some of the other issues. Let us stop with some of the Conservative ideas because they can be painful to listen to. We can think of the child care program. What is the Conservative Party's position on child care? We know that during the election they said they would rip it up. They did not want anything to do with the Liberal plan. Now, because the government had the support of at least one opposition party, we were able to implement a national child care program, $10-a-day day care, throughout the country. Every province, even Doug Ford's Ontario, has signed onto the program.

The economic impact of that program will see more people participating in the workforce. There will be more recognition of quality child care. Universally, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, it has been well received. I am hoping that sometime between now and the next federal election we will see a major flip-flop by the Conservative Party on this issue. I hope it will not rip up the agreements and will continue the commitment, because we have seen the success of that particular program. All one needs to do is look at the province of Quebec and the positive impact it has had on that province, particularly women becoming engaged in the workforce as a direct result. That is an idea that really makes a difference.

Speaking of flip-flops, my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston referred to the price on pollution. We really have to follow the bouncing ball on that one. Representatives from around the world went to Paris where there was a great deal of discussion about what we can do about the environment. They recognized that climate change is real. Climate change is a reality of life on earth today. There are some in the Conservative Party who do not quite understand that, or choose to not believe it is a reality, but it is a reality.

From that Paris conference came the idea that we needed to implement a national price on pollution. Some provinces, indirectly or in some other way, had it, so we said we were going to put in a policy to protect the environment, via a backstop to make sure that all of the provinces and territories have it. The price on pollution is quickly becoming the go-to tool for ensuring that Canadians are participating in diminishing greenhouse gases. Other provinces have now opted into the price on pollution because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear, there is a net benefit for the majority of Canadians with the federal backstop program on the price on pollution. That is a really positive thing.

The Conservatives, prior to the last election, were opposed to it. They fought it tooth and nail. Then they had a new leader, about two or three leaders ago, and the new leader said that a price on pollution is a good thing. They came up with a different type of design so they could stamp it blue to put it in their campaign. There were 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast saying they supported a price on pollution, and they got a lot of votes based on that, a lot of votes. A lot of people thought that maybe the Conservatives could be sensitive to the environment.

After the election, a new, shiny leader took over and that idea was gone. It was history. It was toast. Now the Conservative Party says not to worry about climate change because, after all, we do not need a price on pollution. It wanted to get rid of it. Getting rid of the price on pollution will be a platform issue, no doubt, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.

They will spread all sorts of misinformation. They will attempt to give the false impression that most people are not going to receive, or have not been receiving, a net benefit. They have been talking a lot about doctors and health care workers. The government of Canada has been working with different levels of government to ensure that we can get more credentials recognized. We have been providing incentives for that to take place and looking at ways in which immigration itself could assist. We know and we realize that we want to see an enhancement of health care workers.

The Conservatives came up with this next idea about having a common national test. Members can imagine what they are telling Canadians. They are saying to Canadians that they are going to get them more doctors. The way they are going to do it is to have an exam so that someone coming into Canada, or any doctor, I would assume, could write this exam and then go to any province or territory to be a doctor. That is balderdash. A federal Conservative government in the future, heaven forbid, could not do what it is that they are talking about doing.

The administration of health care is done through provinces. There are professional organizations and all sorts of stakeholders out there. It is not as simple as saying that we are going to have a national exam and if someone passes that national exam then they are going to be able to practice medicine. When do they think they would be able to implement something of that nature? I think that they are looking at this and thinking they will hoodwink Canadians on this, much like they have tried to trick them on other issues.

In the last 20-plus years of its history, the Conservative Party has never demonstrated an interest in health care. What we negotiated back in the 2004 health care accord, was expired by the Conservatives. They are the ones who reduced it from 6% to 3%. They had no interest in meeting federal and provincial first ministerial meetings to deal with the health care issue.

One of the first things did, whether in previous administrations or this administration, has been to invest in health care. We achieved health care accord agreements with individual provinces shortly after. We have just invested $198 billion in health care. Health care is a part of our core identity as Canadians, and we have made the investment, recognizing that those are the types of priorities Canadians have. That is what this Liberal caucus is reflecting on: the priorities of Canadians. The good news is that next week we are going to have a federal budget that will amplify what it is that Canadians expect of the government.

I look forward to seeing that budget and being able to participate in that debate.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will bring the debate back to budget requests. The earlier exchanges were not very respectful.

I would like my colleague to speak about the agriculture sector and agri-food processing. Agricultural groups informed the government that they were expecting significant support to deal with inflation, especially newer businesses. Next-generation businesses currently have very high debt levels. They need some liquidity.

Does my colleague agree that those sectors need support? Has he supported the creation of such measures within his party?

We have to help the next generation. We also need an innovation program to improve agri-food processing, which is affected by a significant and very serious delay in infrastructure investment. We must not wait for it to be more profitable for a multinational to demolish a building and put up a new one because we do not know where the new one will be built. It is important that the government provide assistance for that. I would like to hear my colleague's reaction to that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, our agricultural industries throughout the country are of critical importance. When the member talks about infrastructure, there is no government that has invested more in infrastructure, at least in the last 50, 60 or 70 years, than this government has over the last five, six or seven years. In agriculture, of course it is important.

We have to be careful when we talk about interest rates or inflation. Let us do a fair comparison. Take a look at what is happening in the United States. Take a look at what is happening in the G20 countries. To say that interest rates in Canada are going up and that we are not comfortable with the inflation rate in Canada, yes, the government is aware of that. We are taking action. In relative comparison to other jurisdictions, we are doing well, but that is still not good enough. That is the reason why someone such as myself, being from the Prairies, looks at agriculture and the diversity of agriculture.

I am very proud of how the pork industry, for example, has grown. I will add comments as—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments: the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague. There are two things. One thing he just mentioned was interest rates and inflation. Right now, Alberta has a 3.2% inflation rate, whereas we are at 5.2% for the rest of the country. Part of the reason for this is that the province is cutting taxes and making sure people have money in their pockets so they can invest in things that are important. This is something different than what we see in the government, and we start to worry about whether the taxes are going to be increased and make it more difficult.

The last point I want to make is about health care, which the member talked about. Could he explain what the Liberal government did in the 1990s, when it slashed the money that was going toward health care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when one thinks about the different fluctuating rates of inflation across the country, one also needs to take a look at natural resources, the provincial GDPs and so forth. All of that has an impact on inflation rates.

On the health care issue, I am glad the member brings it up. Jean Chrétien established a clear cash transfer on health care. Prior to that commitment, we were working on a tax point shift that ultimately would have seen Ottawa defunding health care into the future. I was concerned.

I was in the Manitoba legislature at the time as a parliamentarian, and there was a great deal of discussion that Ottawa was getting out of health care. Thanks to Jean Chrétien and that particular government, we not only established a very strong presence in health care, but we also continued to grow that through health care agreements and accords to ultimately reach what we have today. That is a $198-billion commitment under this particular administration for health care.