Kevin Lamoureux

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, May 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I can assure you I will remain very relevant. In fact, the person who moved the motion—

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, May 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I guess the member could be excused, since he was the one who brought in the motion.

It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party really knows no shame. Think about it; the member who moved the motion is criticizing the government because we are not getting this legislation passed because it is the fall economic statement. Well, duh. Who does one think is preventing it from passing? It is the Conservative Party of Canada. They are doing it by bringing in silly motions that the member just introduced, even though he did not even talk about it.

Can the member explain to Canadians how it is that they can justify filibustering legislation and then blaming the government because we are not stopping them from filibustering fast enough?

[National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act, May 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre. However, at the end of the day, I think that we need to take a broader look at how it is, as a society, we are there to support and the types of support programs that are put in place.

Canada's social safety net is something that has evolved. We have jurisdictional responsibilities in different areas, and some governments have been more successful than other governments in trying to eliminate poverty, in particular with a focus on children, and I would like to give some attention to that.

However, I want to emphasize that, every year, the national government hands over, in the form of a social transfer, hundreds of millions of dollars. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $15 billion a year. That is to go to provinces to provide all forms of social support, which is the reason I raise the issue.

I was first elected in 1988 and, through the years, there has always been a great deal of discussion on how we ensure that the people who need the support get the type of support that is necessary. However, on having an income that we guarantee for everyone, I do not know if Canada is ready, and I know the member would be upset with that statement. I do not know and I am not convinced that Canada is in a position to do what it is that the proposed legislation is asking for. I do believe that we need to take a look at how government is able to lower the poverty rate and target funding. I have yet to be convinced, but I am open to the issue before us.

When I look at what, for example, we have been able to accomplish through targeted actions, it is very significant. I have talked about, for example, the Canada child benefit program and how that program lifted thousands of children in Winnipeg North out of poverty. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, something the member made reference to, and again how hundreds of the poorest seniors in the country are being lifted out of poverty as a direct result. There are ways in which governments, both at the provincial level and at the national level, can target in order to support people.

When we came into government, the poverty rate was just under 15%. Today, it is actually around 10%. I suspect that is because of the targeted actions we have taken as a government, and those are direct dollars. It does not take away from other types of investments that the government makes. For example, I was very proud of the fact that we came up with a $200-billion, over 10 years, commitment towards health care. That commitment is going to ensure that people, no matter what their income levels are, will be provided quality health care services into the future.

In recent budgets, we have seen an expansion, for example, with the dental program. When that is completely rolled out to Canada's population of 40 million people, we are talking about over nine million people who are going to have access to that dental program.

In this budget, I believe the single largest expenditure, and I stand to be corrected on this, is going towards the disability program that we are putting out.

We look at it as a very important first step, and it is going to have a positive impact in our communities. Some will ask why it is only $200. However, before this amount, it did not exist. When we talk about the hundreds of thousands of applicants and use the multiplying factor, this is a very good start.

There are other programs we have brought in through the budget. The pharmacare program is going to provide life-saving medications for some individuals in Canada. If we think of the numbers, they will be going to hundreds of thousands of people who are affected with diabetes. I do not know the actual numbers. Now we have a national government that is going to be there in a very real and tangible way.

These programs that are specifically targeted make a difference in our communities until, at least, I feel comfortable knowing that what is being suggested through the legislation is not going to take away from the enhancement of programs that I know are having a positive impact. When I say “take away from”, we are also talking about the financial commitments.

We increased the OAS for people 75 and above by 10%; we were criticized by members because we made a commitment to do just that. If we think about when people are hitting 75, some of their retirement money is starting to diminish and their medical needs increase. They also have that sense of independence as a senior. We now have a government that says that it is going to find the resources to ensure that they get that substantial 10% increase. That, in itself, helps a great number of seniors.

The government is able to look at ways it can actually make a difference, such as the child care program and the billions of dollars it cost. Who here, outside the Conservative Party, would say that was a bad program? We all got behind it and supported $10-a-day day care, which is going to help every region of our country.

When we think of programs, there are some that we do not necessarily get to talk about that often. With respect to the CPP program, there are approximately six million people who have retired and look to the CPP. It is something we worked on with the provinces in order to ensure people would get increases during their retirement.

I may look at ending it on that, because the way I started was by saying that I was familiar with what took place in the province of Manitoba, maybe not in great detail, but I was around during the discussions that followed in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years. I did not see or hear the Province of Manitoba, which is a fairly progressive province, advance with either a Progressive Conservative or NDP government that it wanted the country to be moving in this direction. There were no Liberal provincial governments, although we tried. I suspect that it did not say this because it saw the value of having targeted ways to bring people out of poverty. The government has demonstrated that through many budgetary measures we have taken, virtually since 2015. As a direct result, the poverty rate has gone down dramatically. I think this is viable, in a healthy way, moving forward.

[National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act, May 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but I was actually elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988 and had the opportunity to experience both a provincial Conservative government as well as a provincial NDP government. I was very much aware of the fact that this experiment had taken place in Dauphin. Many were surprised that neither administration, whether the NDP for now 20-plus years or the Conservatives for 15-plus years, had taken the initiative any further or had had that discussion or debate, at least while I was there, in any real way that led to a resolution or a recommendation to Ottawa.

I wonder if the member could maybe expand upon what she believes Manitoba's actual position is with respect to that, because I was never really clear on that.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2024]

This is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way.

Mr. Speaker, also on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”.

Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”.

Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.”

On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them.

I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair.

Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.”

The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final.

Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point.

Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states:

The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression.

If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair.

It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings.

Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House.

Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states:

Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.

On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges.

In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further.

Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, May 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that, in fact, Canada is not broken and that we are on the right economic track. The Conservatives are very good at spreading misinformation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who follows the debate.

For example, the member said that we are scaring away investors. Last year, Canada was number one in the G7 countries for GDP, based on the population base in terms of direct foreign investment for the first three quarters. Worldwide, we were number three on a per capita basis.

How can the member or the Conservative Party across the way try to mislead Canadians by saying we are scaring away investment when we see that kind of reality staring us in the face?

[Motions for Papers, May 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, May 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, let us think of the improvement in the quality of life for the thousands of young people who are going to have the opportunity to gain employment through companies like the VW plant, Canada's largest manufacturing plant; 200 football fields could fit into it. That is not to mention the Honda plant. We are not alone. Not only does the Liberal government see that, but so does the Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario, because it is also supporting these two initiatives.

We are supporting industries, and, yes, it does cost money. Can the member from the Reform Party tell us why it is that they oppose this type of investment, when we see Progressive Conservatives getting behind it?