Debates of Nov. 5th, 2024

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, before I get into my real speech, I want to make reference to what we just witnessed on the floor. When I posed a question about misleading Canadians, what did the member do? He doubled down. He said that it was Stephen Harper who signed the trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, which is made up of a number of countries.

That is just not true. I do not know how much clearer I can be. It is history. Members can take a look at the documents and when the trade agreement was signed. It is just not true. Still, his Conservative colleagues gave him a virtual ovation because, once again, he was spreading misinformation with his comments.

This is the issue we see with the Conservative Party of Canada today. They will go outside the chamber and say all sorts of bizarre things, whether it is about what members have said in the House or the leader of the Conservative Party going around Canada saying how Canada is broken, when, in fact, it is not broken. Canada is the best country in the world to call home.

Only a Conservative, only a MAGA right Conservative—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are members who continue to heckle. I addressed this not too long ago. I would ask members to please wait. They will have 10 minutes of questions and comments after the hon. parliamentary secretary's speech, so there is lots of time to put their thoughts down and wait for the appropriate time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, only a MAGA right Conservative, a far-right person like the current leader of the Conservative Party, would take that sort of tactic. It is a tactic coming up from the United States and being funnelled through the leader of the opposition's office, quite frankly, or at least greatly encouraged. That is why I was very serious when I posed the question to the member opposite about the degree in which that far-right element was infiltrating and playing such a strong role in policy development in the Conservative Party today.

I do not say that lightly, because all we need to do is look at what will be a very important issue in the next election, the price on pollution; the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would like to highlight a couple of points on that. First is the fact that Erin O'Toole, former leader of the Conservative Party, had 337 candidates and an election platform, which indicated that they were campaigning on a price on pollution, a carbon tax. It is nothing new. In fact, I believe 17 to 19 Conservatives campaigned on it a second time.

A good number of them, including their former leader, the current House leader, campaigned on it not once, but twice. The new shiny leader comes in, that far-right MAGA guy, and what does he do? He takes this huge flip-flop on this, like a fish on a dry dock. He changed the direction and said that they would cut the tax, or axe the tax. I do not want to misquote the Conservative slogan on this issue.

Behind that slogan is a pile of misinformation. The Conservatives are spending millions of dollars promoting misinformation. They try to give people, like the residents of Winnipeg North, the impression that they have a net loss of disposable income as a direct result of the carbon rebate versus carbon tax. That is just not true, and they know that. We would think that would stop them from saying it, but absolutely not. They continue to spread misinformation. Literally dozens of economic and university professors have said that what we have said is true, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reinforced that. However, the Conservatives have no qualms in spreading that misinformation.

That is not what I want to share today. I want to address many of the issues brought up by members opposite. Some of this stuff may be completely irrelevant when they start with the character assassination of the Prime Minister. When they talk about the Prime Minister, they do not tell us about Stephen Harper, the person they glorify, and I can understand why. Their current leader is tied so closely to him. Not only was he in his cabinet, but before being in his cabinet, he was his parliamentary secretary.

I have this booklet and it is entitled “ Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power.” People would not believe the number of scandals. The leader of the Conservative Party today is even referenced on a couple of occasions. They are talking about the filibuster in their comments. Stephen Harper and the current leader were found in contempt of Parliament. They are the only prime minister and parliamentary secretary who have been found in contempt of Parliament.

Let us fast-forward to the comments we hear from the Conservatives today. They are talking about how we have this privilege issue, and they are right. There is a privilege issue before us today. The reason it is still with us today is because the current leader of the Conservative Party has learned nothing from the past.

He is engaged in a multi-million dollar political game on the floor of the House of Commons that is in his personal best interest and in the interest of the Conservative Party. That is what we are witnessing. The leader of the Conservative Party is not putting Canadian interests ahead of his party's political interests, and that is unfortunate. This is why I call it a multi-million dollar game.

They make reference to the Prime Minister and a few of the issues to try to generate public interest. I can talk about public interest on a number of issues, in particular, with respect to the leader of the Conservative Party, who continues to refuse to get a security clearance.

One of my colleagues has suggested that the rumours are true. The rumours are that the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding something from Canadians. Something is going to prevent him from getting the security clearance and that is the real reason why he refuses to get it. After all, every other leader in the House of Commons has that security clearance. Every other leader is taking the issue of foreign interference seriously and getting that clearance.

Only the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has chosen not to get security clearance. Why? When the Conservatives start focusing on the Prime Minister, as they have already done this morning, I suggest that they need to start focusing on their leader, because when he is too scared to get a security clearance, something in his past is going to come back and possibly haunt them. That is the real reason.

Then we had the Conservatives talk about the economy. They talk about ideas and how they want to contribute to the economy. Our inflation rate is below 2% today, which is good news. Interest rates are on a downward trajectory. I think they have gone down now maybe three or even four times. We are leading the G7 on the issue. Canada's economy is getting healthier and stronger, yet the Conservatives continue to downplay Canada's economy. It is unfortunate.

The other day the Conservatives, who have been very critical of the government's approach in regard to housing, had this big rollout of the shiny, brand-new housing policy of the Conservative Party of Canada, going into the next election. Earlier in my comments, I talked about a flip-flop. The Conservatives seriously need to do another flip-flop on this issue. Their housing announcement is a dud. It is a laughable policy. When we have affordable housing being a serious issue, the Conservative Party of Canada says that it will get rid of the programs that will address the issue. It makes no sense at all. Even within the Conservative Party members are already sending mixed messages.

Conservative members have actually written the Minister of Housing asking for more support from the housing accelerator fund. They are encouraging local governments—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know the hon. member's speech is very engaging, but I would ask members to please wait until the appropriate time and to not try to engage other members back and forth. I do not think it is one side more than the other; it is both sides. I want to remind members to please wait and be respectful to the individual who happens to have the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting because one of the hecklers is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He is one of the many members who has appealed to the Minister of Housing and he wants to ultimately get support from the—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has an obligation to speak accurately. If he reads my letter, I lambasted the minister for this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member is rising on a point of debate and not a point of order.

The hon. government deputy House leader is also rising on a point of order, I hope.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table the letter from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Back to the engaging speech of the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is saved by the Conservative member who yelled “No” to having that impressive letter released.

I was talking about how the Conservative policy they just announced would actually be to the detriment of Canadians. It is a dud of a policy. The Conservatives would cancel the accelerator fund, among many other things. That is true. It is just one program they would cancel.

In doing that, the Conservatives would make it more difficult for Canadians to find an affordable home. They would make it more difficult for municipalities and many other stakeholders to increase the housing stock. How many people who are living in homeless shelters, are homeless or are making $30,000 or $40,000 a year would be helped by the policy the Conservatives just announced?

At the end of the day, we have mayors, other local officials and Conservative members of Parliament who all recognize the true value of the accelerator fund. Earlier this year, we had the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Manitoba, the mayor of Winnipeg and, I believe, David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, talking about how working together, through programs like the accelerator fund, would improve the housing situation for Canadians.

The Conservatives' idea is to get rid of it. I have a sense of who is generating their ideas. We see it in the flip-flop on the price on pollution. It goes back to that far-right element within the Conservative Party today. It is that same grouping, that MAGA right, who is ultimately saying, “We want to cut.” It does not matter which program. We can articulate the true value of the housing accelerator program, but the Conservatives do not care. They would just cut it.

We can think about the dental program. One million-plus Canadians have now benefited from the first-ever nationwide Canadian dental program. The Conservative Party says, “Who cares? We are going to cut that program too.”

The Conservatives talk a great deal about the economy. As a government, we are focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that works for all Canadians. Nothing has changed on that since 2015, when we brought in tax breaks for the middle class, brought in dramatic increases for individuals receiving the guaranteed income supplement and reformed the Canada child benefit program so millionaires would not be receiving the benefits; we enhanced the overall benefit for the average Canadian.

The Liberal government has created over two million jobs, which is double the number Stephen Harper did in the same amount of time. No government in the last 50 years has invested more real dollars in infrastructure than the Liberal government. The Conservative Party has made it very clear it would cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Members can take a look, do a Google search, and see the billions of dollars of additional funding that has complemented the millions that the Government of Canada has invested.

We are building a stronger, healthier infrastructure, something we never saw under Stephen Harper. This is a government that understands the importance of infrastructure, whether it is coming up with supportive programs for housing or building the streets and communities where we live. All of that is being supported by the type of question I posed earlier today on the issue of international trade. Contrary to the misleading information the Conservatives talk about, no government has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government in the history of Canada. Canada is a trading nation, which is something that elevates all of us and something the government continues to invest in. We see the true value in reaching out, working with Canadians and dealing with the provinces in the best way we can on how to build a healthier economy and support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Those are the types of policy decisions, whether on budgetary or legislative measures, that the government has been taking since day one.

I talk about this silly multi-million dollar game the Conservative leader is playing because we could still be doing a lot more if the Conservatives would stop thinking about their personal interests and the interests of their party and refocusing on what is right for Canadians. There is substantial legislation not being debated because of the multi-million dollar filibuster game they are playing. The sooner they get over it, the sooner we will be able to get down to business here in the House and do a whole lot more for Canadians.

I appeal to my Conservative friends on the other side of the aisle to start looking and behaving in that way. A good starting point would be the leader of the Conservative Party getting the security clearance and stopping the filibuster.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Where should I start? My colleague spoke about one of the Conservative members in a speech that was all over the place. It is almost as though the Liberals have become that which they state they abhor, the people who appeal to conspiracy theorists. What could possibly be there, wink, wink?

There was a story about this in the national newspaper. The moment anybody brings up anything about the Prime Minister's past the Liberals do not want to talk about it. They do not want to talk about the reporter in the Kootenays or how people experienced it differently. It is complete and utter hypocrisy.

The member said we should get over this filibuster. What will get us over the filibuster is the Liberals handing over the documents. Why will they not do it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is a lawyer. Surely to goodness he can appreciate why, as a government, we are going to listen to the RCMP. We are going to listen—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are discussions being had on both sides of the House. I would ask individuals to please wait until the appropriate time so I can actually hear what the parliamentary secretary's answer is.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has chosen to listen to the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former deputy law clerk and many other stakeholders. In the Hill Times story on this silly game the Conservatives are playing, the conclusion is that the Conservatives are abusing power. We have the leader of the Conservative Party abusing his authority on the floor of the House of Commons while he is in opposition. It reminds me of when he was the parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister when that prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament, which was the first time ever in the British Commonwealth. Seriously, the Conservatives should stop the game and let us start dealing with the interests of Canadians.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us return to the topic at hand, namely Canada's record in the fight against climate change. Oil companies are swimming in surpluses after enjoying record profits in recent years. What is more, they are being subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars. On one side we have the Conservatives wanting to make cuts everywhere, except in this area. On the other, we have the Liberals unwilling to make cuts anywhere. They say they want to make cuts here, but they are not.

This is the real coalition. It is the Liberal-Conservative coalition, the Canadian coalition, the Ottawa coalition, the oil coalition. That is what it boils down to, despite the fact that at the G8 in 2008, 2009 or 2010, I think, Ottawa pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies.

Why did they break this promise? Are Quebeckers being told that it will be easier in our future country of Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. For the first time ever, for 2026, we are on target to hit our climate goals. I see that as a very strong, positive thing. One of the differences between the Bloc and the government is that we recognize that in order to grow the economy, we have to be sensitive and respond to the environment also. We can do well on both. Sustainable development can be done in a very successful fashion, and we have demonstrated that as a government.

I do not think we want to shut down industries. This is not the end goal. The end goal is to have a healthier, stronger and cleaner environment that is acceptable by Canadian norms and standards, and I think we have made major strides, whether the price on pollution, the ban on single-use plastics or the cap on emissions we just put in.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of the riding of Waterloo, who actually support making sure that pollution is not free in Canada. They are concerned about the misinformation coming through different channels, especially the Conservative Party of Canada, and they believe, as constituents and as a riding for the most part, that everyone should pay their fair share.

We recognize a transition is happening. More people are using electric vehicles and so forth, and that transition is the result of meaningful measures that the government has been taking.

What I find fascinating is that the Conservatives today are choosing to do this, asking to have transparency reign and get the information. A Canadian was killed on Canadian soil by a foreign government, and the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get his clearance. I would like to ask the member why the Conservatives do not want real information and why they promote disinformation and misinformation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a very serious issue before us, the issue of foreign interference. Whether it is about extortion, an assassination that has taken place or foreign interference in the leadership of the Conservative Party, there are Conservative parliamentarians who the Conservative leader needs to be aware of.

What is the leader of the Conservative Party actually doing? He has chosen to be silenced. He does not want the security clearance. It is disgraceful. As leader of the official opposition, there is an obligation for him to do the right thing, and doing the right thing means getting the security clearance. This is a Conservative scandal in the making, in a serious way.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, we all get to hear the great words of wisdom from the member for Winnipeg North very often. However, it is important, I think, in this debate today, to hear from the commissioner of the environment, whom I will quote in direct reference to the member's statement that the government is on track.

The commissioner says:

...despite various policies and commitments from government after government to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the past 30 years, “Canada has failed to translate these commitments into real reductions in net emissions. Instead, Canada’s emissions have continued to rise. Meanwhile, the global climate crisis has gotten worse.”

What would the member say to the independent environment commissioner, who is raising a warning about the fact that what the member is saying is not true?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have confidence that, as a government, we will be able to achieve our goal in 2026. I also believe that we are on track for zero emissions by 2050.

At the same time, there has been concern in regard to the NDP softening on the price on pollution. I am hoping we will see the NDP recognize that there is value in it. We should continue to work together and fight for a price on pollution. That is a good thing, especially when we factor in the carbon rebate providing that incentive for people to do things like, as the member for Waterloo made reference to, encouraging the consumption of less fossil fuel. That is good for the environment and it helps support a greener economy.