Debates of Sept. 26th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the government

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are so bad at this confidence stuff that they do not even have quorum in the House. Perhaps we could have a quorum call.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have quorum now.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member opposite is unaware of what is happening in the country, where 70% of Canadians want to get rid of the carbon tax and 70% of Canadians are very unhappy with the performance of the Liberal government.

If he thinks the Liberals' plans are so fantastic, why does he not give Canadians what they want and call a carbon tax election?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of work left to do in the best interests of Canadians. We know that dental care is in the process of being rolled out. We know that the opposition does not believe dental care exists, even though people are signing up and even though dentists are signing up. The third phase of the program needs to be rolled out, and an election now would interrupt that. We cannot take that risk.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, now I understand why we get so few answers during question period. It is because we call it “question period” and not “question and answer period”.

This afternoon, perhaps we can dare to hope that the government will give us an answer. My question is very simple. I want to know if the government is going to proceed with the irreversible implementation of two bills that the Bloc Québécois has been championing for months, namely, Bill C‑319 to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74, and the famous Bill C‑282 on supply management.

Could I have an answer?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not part of the government. I am a duly elected member of Parliament, but I do not hold a cabinet position.

As far as old age security is concerned, obviously there is a financial framework. There are many programs that could be improved. There is the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit. We could improve the child care system. Choices have to be made. I am not the Minister of Finance. I might have an opinion, but it is not up to me to decide.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the hon. member's interesting speech. I know that a couple of other members really could not control their laughter at some points, and I appreciate some entertainment in the House.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, there are a lot of health issues, especially around the health care system. There are a lot of emergency rooms in smaller communities that are having to be shut because there are not enough people to staff them. It is an ongoing issue.

I am just wondering whether the member shares the concern that I have, although I do not think the Liberals are giving as much money as they should. The Conservatives seem very interested in privatizing, which of course will mean that rural and remote communities will have many fewer services and that there is going to be an even worse epidemic where people, if they cannot pay, will not be able to access health care.

Could the member speak to that?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the health care system. Many of my constituents are afraid to get sick. They would not know where to turn. They do not want to go to the emergency department. They might have to wait 48 hours and get sick while they are at emergency.

The federal government is a funder of health care, and a recent study showed that we have increased our transfers to the provinces for health care faster and more greatly than the provinces have spent on health care. I think that perhaps provincial governments need to make the reforms, because it is a provincial jurisdiction even though it is partly federally funded. They need to spend the money required to ensure that people can have a family doctor and that, if they are sick, they can get care in a reasonably quick manner.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. I know he talked about dental care and how important that is. In my riding, Louis-Hébert, 88% of eligible seniors, or 9,200 seniors, have signed up for the program. For the rest of the population, those aged 18 to 64, they will be eligible somewhere around June 2025. What impact will this have on the lives of these citizens, on Canadians across the country?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will have a tremendous impact. I think it was the Minister of Health who mentioned it the other day during question period. Thanks to the program, people can now get a dental checkup. Some dentists have already found cancers. We can expect many lives to be saved under this program.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak today, even though it is the second day we are having a confidence vote. We cannot help but notice a definite lack of enthusiasm from across the way if we contrast today to last Tuesday. I suspect there was a bit of an accountability check on Wednesday when the Conservative Party did not get what it wanted.

What the Conservatives want is not what is in the best interest of Canadians. They want what is in the best interest of the Conservative Party and its leader. That is why I often talk about their thirst and quest for power. They let nothing get in their way, according to the Conservatives. They strive for power for the sake of having power, and power alone. We have seen that virtually from day one with the Conservatives being the official opposition.

I want to approach it in a different way, because I only have 10 minutes this time around, and talk about some of the things we know about the Conservative Party, or what I like to refer to as the Conservative-Reform party. When I say Conservative-Reform party, I do not say it lightly. At the end of the day, we see a party that has taken a very hard right turn.

Many, including myself, would suggest the Conservative Party has adopted many of the thoughts and ideas that flow from our neighbours to the south, the far right or the MAGA right. We should all be concerned about that because there is a very strong negative side to it. We see it through things like character assassination, the spreading of misinformation and the discrediting of our traditional media. These are things we should all be aware of.

I want to highlight some things I think most Canadians would be very surprised and disappointed by. One of them is in regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We hear Conservative members say they are going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Many of them will say the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not done anything, and therefore, they are going to get rid of it and save money for Canadians. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

I can give the facts right now. We have $10 billion of investment coming through the public, matched by virtually $20 billion of outside investment. We have $30 billion being spent throughout different regions. Every region is receiving money and support in building Canada's infrastructure. We know that. Anyone can look it up and they can see it first-hand. However, the leader of the Conservative Party, who will likely be addressing the House soon, does not have a problem giving misinformation and saying the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not done anything and the Conservatives are going to get rid of it.

The biggest myth out there is this whole idea that the people of Canada will benefit from getting rid of the carbon rebate. Conservatives go out and tell Canadians they are going to “axe the tax”, or get rid of the carbon tax, but they say nothing about the rebate. They say nothing about the 80% of Canadians who receive more money as a direct result of this particular policy. That is a fact. It is not something that is coming just from members of the Liberal Party.

It was not that long ago that all parties in the House agreed that a price on pollution is an effective tool. The government has developed a tool to ensure that the vast majority of Canadians, 80% or more, are receiving more back. That does not match up with the Conservatives' bumper sticker or slogans.

It is just like the housing issue. When the Conservatives talk about it, they say they are going to get out there and build more homes. History will show that one of the worst individuals we could ever turn to to deal with the housing issue is in fact the leader of the Conservative Party, because he was the minister of housing. As has been pointed out by numerous members, when he was the minister he was an absolute disaster. One reason we have the problem to the extent we have today is his lack of action when he was the minister of housing. By the way, for the record, he built six houses.

Some of the greatest accomplishments of the government, I believe, outside of things like the $198 billion toward health care and the many progressive measures the Liberals have taken, are some of the economic measures. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this Prime Minister and this government. That is a fact. Liberals recognize the value in supporting Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be part of it, by freeing up and opening those trade lines that are critical to Canada's future. We have been very successful at that.

For the first time ever, the Conservative Party actually voted against one of our trade agreements. Amazingly, it was the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It was because of an issue that the Conservative leader, in principle, did not like, even though Ukraine has a price on pollution. The things we hear that come from the Conservative Party are borderline at best. I would suggest that most often they are of a very ridiculous nature. Trying to flush out the Conservatives' issues is a challenge. What do they have to say about dental care? They vote against it. What do they have to say about child care? Do members remember that in the last election they said they were going to tear it up?

These are the types of programs that are helping Canadians in every region. Therefore, when we get members talking about the Conservative hidden agenda, people should be concerned. When Conservatives talk about things like fixing the budget, that is code for Conservative cuts. They are not going to provide the types of programs we have been able to put together over the last number of years that benefit literally millions of Canadians. These things are at risk, because the Conservatives are more focused on trying to fool Canadians. That is what they are banking on. They want the election as soon as possible because they believe that the longer the House sits, it is slipping away from them.

Canadians will become more aware of the leader of the Conservative Party and what he actually stands for. As we see the contrast between the government of the day and what Conservatives have to offer, as we continue to work for Canadians while the Conservatives play games, prevent things from ultimately passing and play an obstructive role here in the chamber, Canadians will see through that. Ultimately, we will continue to serve Canadians in a very productive way from now until the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, crime is rampant in rural Canada. Last night at a town hall in Stoneville, in Notre Dame Bay, a part of my riding, with RCMP present, terrified seniors told of having been threatened that they would be burned out of their homes or burned in their beds. Seventy-five-year-old retirees who worked hard all their lives for a safe Canada are sleeping with baseball bats next to their beds in Gander. A few weeks ago in Lewisporte, an RCMP squad car was vandalized. It was spray-painted with the words “back off” by criminals in rural Canada. There are towns of fewer than 1,000 people in my riding with five crack houses operating, where teenage girls are being sold into prostitution. These are children of the people we represent.

It is time to stop the crime. How can this member support the NDP-Liberal coalition that has let this rot and this crime creep into rural Canada, in places like Notre Dame Bay in my riding?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party addressed his national caucus just before coming in. This is part of what he said: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter.... Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” This is the type of extreme, MAGA, right attitude and propaganda the Conservatives spill every day, just like what we heard opposite.

There was the bail reform bill that was supported—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to get a bit of mileage out of the question my Conservative colleague just asked. I do not think that there is a single member in the House who does not want to reduce crime in Canada and ensure that our communities are safe. Sometimes there are different approaches to this.

If this is so important to the Conservatives, can my colleague explain why, under their reign, we observed a series of cuts to our intelligence agencies, the border services, and the police forces that fall under the federal government's responsibility?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that Ottawa worked with all the different provinces and we brought in bail reform, which we were ultimately able to pass even with the Conservative Party dragging and kicking, because they did obstruct it. That was something we worked on with the provinces, and the provinces are the administrator. In regard to how important it is to deal with crime, we do not take anything for granted. That is one of the reasons we conducted the automobile theft inquiry. Prior to that, the leader of the Conservative Party was nowhere; he did not even raise the issue until we raised the issue. These are the types of responsible things Liberals are doing as government, working with Canadians to make them feel safe in their communities.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I am not hearing the Conservatives speak about, which I am hoping the member can share his thoughts on, is the horrific attacks on the right of Canadians to access comprehensive, safe reproductive health care, including abortions. It is very problematic and concerning to see the Conservative Party putting forth petitions and legislation attacking these rights.

I am wondering if the member can speak to this and share his thoughts, but I also wonder why we have not seen the Liberals taking the action required to ensure these rights are accessible for all Canadians. We have seen a decrease in access to this vital care in rural communities, for example.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as a government, Liberals have brought forward pharmacare. Free contraception is one of our first initiatives on the pharmacare file, and I am hoping we will be able to expand. I have talked about shingles in the past. There are so many Canadians who would benefit. A national pharmacare program is something Canadians would value. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has made it very clear it does not support a national pharmacare plan. I find that unfortunate because it is something Canadians want.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I will simply read the motion and then go over each item to prove that no one can vote against it.

That, given that, after nine years, the government has doubled housing costs, taxed food, punished work, unleashed crime, and is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, the House has lost confidence in the government and offers Canadians the option to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the first point: that “the government has doubled housing costs”. There is no debating that. It is basic math. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who says that the economy is not numbers or figures, it is people. Rent is a number. The cost of a mortgage is a number. When someone buys a house, the price is measured in numbers. Numbers control the universe.

Here are the facts. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in 2015 was $973. Now it is $1,877. It has doubled. For a two-bedroom apartment, again, rent has doubled from $1,172 to $2,337. That is twice as much. The amount needed for a down payment on an average home has doubled from $22,000 to $47,000. That is twice as much. The mortgage payment for an average new home was $1,400 in 2015. Now it is $3,000. It has doubled. There is no debating that.

Let us move on to the next point, which is that the government “taxed food”. People may agree with the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois that a carbon tax is good. People may think that a 61¢-a-litre tax is the best idea in the history of the world, but they cannot deny that it increases the cost of food because farmers use fossil fuels to power their machinery. Truckers have to use diesel. This is the first carbon tax, and it applies across Canada. It applies to Quebec indirectly because all the food produced in and transported from the rest of Canada costs more. The second carbon tax, which the federal government is imposing with the support of the Bloc Québécois, will increase the cost of gas by 17¢ a litre. That will directly increase farmers' costs, and therefore consumers' costs as well. There is no debating the fact that the government is taxing food.

The third point says that the government has “punished work”. According to the Fraser Institute, recognized as the most prestigious academic institute in the country, 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more taxes than they used to. Taxes penalize work. People who work harder pay more. That is penalizing work. On top of that, the government has blocked a number of natural resource development projects. It is allowing the Americans to kill forestry jobs. It is considering issuing a radical Liberal order on caribou that will kill jobs and punish work at the same time. There is no debate on that either. The government is punishing work.

It is also allowing crime to spiral out of control. The Liberals passed three main bills. The legislation arising from Bill C‑75 provides for the automatic release of criminals, and crime in Canada has increased by 50%. Gun crime has increased by 121%. Despite spending $69 million, the Liberals have failed to remove a single rifle banned in Canada since their big election announcements on this issue. Today, gun crime is up, as is crime in general. In addition, 47,000 people have lost their lives to drug overdoses since the government liberalized drugs. There is no debating that. Since this government came to power, there has been more crime.

Lastly, this is a centralizing government. We have seen excessive centralization. There is no need for me to argue this point, since the House leader of the Bloc Québécois has done it for me. He said, and I quote, “For the first time in history, excessive centralization became a fact of life. Despite its difficulty in managing its own responsibilities, this government started poking its nose into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.”

This is the biggest, most centralizing and most costly government. It added 100,000 public servants, who meddle in Quebec's business. It doubled spending on consultants. It doubled the debt. This centralizing and costly government punishes work, taxes food and doubled the cost of housing. The evidence is clear. That is why Quebeckers deserve to choose a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is exactly want we are proposing.

We are calling on all the opposition parties to show their independence from this centralizing government and vote to allow their constituents to choose a new government that would allow Canadians to bring home a bigger paycheque to buy food and gas in a safe community. That is common sense.

I am going to be very clinical here and simply read the motion and prove it is true. It states:

That, given that, after nine years, the government has doubled housing costs, taxed food, punished work, unleashed crime, and is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, the House has lost confidence in the government and offers Canadians the option to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us go through the items one by one.

Did the Liberals double housing costs? Let us look at prices. In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom was $973 and today it is $1,877. In 2015, the average cost of monthly rent for a two-bedroom was $1,072 and today it is $2,337. In 2015, the average down payment needed for a new home was $22,000 and today it is $47,000. In 2015, the average mortgage payment on an average new home was $1,400 and today it is $3,020. There is no debate; it is double trouble when it comes to housing.

Are the Liberals taxing food? Well, they admit they are taxing diesel, which is what powers combines, tractors and other equipment. They admit they are taxing the natural gas that dries the grains in the silos. They admit they are taxing the truckers who bring us our food. There is no debate there. They want to quadruple that tax to 61¢ a litre. There is no debate on that either.

Are the Liberals punishing work? They have increased income taxes on 80% of middle-class people.

Are the Liberals unleashing crime? Violent crime is up 50% and gun crime is up 120%.

Are the Liberals a centralist government? They doubled their debt. They have doubled the amount of money for consultants.

All of these points are proven. That is why Canadians deserve the chance to elect a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime so that hard work earns a powerful paycheque that buys affordable food and homes in safe neighbourhoods where the promise of Canada is restored in the freest country on earth, Canada. Let us bring it home.

I am splitting my time with the member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his interesting speech. I would like to ask him two questions that directly affect people in the Quebec City area.

The first question has to do with the tramway. Quebec City is the only city of its size in North America that does not have an integral public transit system. This summer there was some confusion. The Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party, who is sitting right next to him, said that, even if the Conservatives came to power, there would still be funding for the tramway. He then quickly changed his mind and said that, no matter how far along the project was, a Conservative federal government would not be providing funding. This directly affects residents of Quebec City. The Conservatives can confer on the benches and respond directly. Where do they stand on the tramway? Are they going to provide funding for it?

My second question for the Leader of the Opposition is this. There are 8,200 seniors in Sainte-Foy, Sillery and Cap-Rouge in my riding who have enrolled in the dental plan that we introduced and who have benefited from it over the past year. There will be a lot more people who will benefit next year when the program is opened to people between the ages of 18 and 64. What does he have to say to them? This is very real care that seniors in my riding received thanks to this program. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we will not interfere in Quebec's business by forcing people to have a tramway. I know that the “Liberal Bloc” wants to force people to have a tramway that would cost at least $15,000 per family, even though the people do not want it. I respect the will of Quebeckers, who want a third link. I know that the Liberals are against the third link. The Bloc Québécois wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction to stop Quebec from building a third link.

What would I say to seniors in the member's riding? I am aware of the fact that they cannot pay for groceries because this government's inflation is stopping them from eating. Often, they are forced to use food banks. It is unfortunate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give another person the opportunity to ask a question.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple.

The opposition leader, who badly wants to trigger an election, has had several opportunities to present his plan. I am not talking about the four items he mentions, we know that song by heart. He declines invitations to participate in a debate with the leader of the Bloc Québécois in front of the national media. Why?