Kevin Lamoureux

[Housing, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, every Canadian should have the ability to afford a safe and adequate place to call home.

The government is committed to ensuring that Canada's residential housing stock is not used unproductively by foreign or non-resident investors. More generally, the government is committed to a fair tax system so that it has the resources to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and to fund the programs and services on which Canadians rely.

The government is providing $1 billion in funding through the rapid housing initiative. The funding in this initiative is available to municipalities, provinces and territories, indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and non-profit organizations. The funding is to be used for the construction of modular housing, as well as the acquisition of land and the conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing units.

Our plan is to continue to invest in Canadians and their families, so that the growth of Canada—

[Housing, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I suspect we would have to go back 50 years or more to see a government, particularly a prime minister and a number of cabinet ministers, that has committed so much in financial resources and striven to get strategic plans before Canadians to deal with the housing issue.

Our government is focused on making changes that help as many Canadians as possible, including their ability to afford safe and adequate places to call home. This challenge is particularly true in Canada's largest cities, where a limited supply of affordable housing is making it harder for many Canadians to afford homes of their own. COVID-19 has exacerbated the existing housing affordability and the homelessness issue and called attention to the public health risks of substandard and crowded living quarters. Affordable housing is also essential for economic fairness and growth.

The hon. member has noted that speculative demand from foreign non-resident investors is contributing to the unaffordable housing prices for many Canadians in some of the biggest cities. To help make the housing market more secure and affordable for Canadians, the government has committed to ensuring that foreign non-resident owners who simply use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing pay their fair share. That is why, in the fall economic statement, the government indicated it would take steps over the coming year to implement a national tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing owned by non-residents and non-Canadians.

Such a measure would ensure that foreign non-resident owners of Canadian residential real estate are contributing to Canada's tax base, either by paying income tax or rental income or through a tax on unproductive use of residential real estate. The fall economic statement also proposed to expand the existing rental construction financing initiative by $12 billion over the next seven years. This initiative provides low-cost loans for the construction of new purpose-built rental housing. The expansion will enable the program to support the construction of 28,500 additional rental units and employment in residential construction and other skilled trades.

This government is committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that homes are affordable for Canadians, and we are looking at ways to make a difference for as many Canadians as possible. I often talk about Habitat for Humanity, a non-profit organization that really makes a difference in Winnipeg North. Through that program, people are getting new homes in communities where they would would never have had the opportunity before. It is not just about the federal government working with other levels of government; it is about engaging and supporting non-profit organizations wherever we can. I cite Habitat for Humanity for the fine work it has done in Winnipeg North, in particular, but obviously also in all regions of the province and in most regions, from what I understand, in Canada.

[Ethics, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the government listened to Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, many other stakeholders and members on all sides of the House when we introduced new programs because of the pandemic. The programs required some changes, and we did the responsible thing by having ongoing dialogue and making sure we could retool to produce protective gear and have vaccines for Canadians. That has been a priority for the government because we understand and appreciate the difficulties we all have to go through. I would hope members of the opposition would not exaggerate things, such as Liberal contracts. I can assure members that Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives all received contracts in one form or another. I suspect even some Bloc members received contracts—

[Ethics, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, to be very clear, the Government of Canada has put Canadians in all regions of our great nation first right from the very beginning, and that has been the focus of this government, diligently, every day of the week, and I would like to start by paying a tribute to the many people who have worked alongside the Government of Canada in so many ways to ensure that we could minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what has actually transpired over the last 12 months than what the member opposite just finished saying on the record. A wide variety of programs were brought forward to assist small businesses, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account, the credit availability program and the regional relief and recovery funds. For individuals, we had the CERB, which helped just under nine million Canadians. The government has been there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians.

We have also been listening to the advice of experts, which is why we have a national vaccine committee to ensure that Canada got it right. There were hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to make sure that we would be positioned as well as we are today with the vaccines and the vaccine rollout, ensuring that we will have those six million doses by the end of March and that Canadians who want to be vaccinated will be vaccinated before the end of September. We have a plan. We have been working with partners to make sure that Canadians' backs have been covered.

The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has been focused more on personal attacks and more on what sort of destructive role they can play. Conservatives like to say that they have been co-operative, and to be fair, to a certain degree, in certain areas, they have been. However, when I hear the Conservatives talk about hindsight issues, whether it is the vaccines or the rapid tests, I would suggest that they would have a lot more credibility if in fact they had focused on issues of that nature back in the summertime as opposed to trying to look for conspiracies, corruption and so forth.

Yes, when we spend billions and billions of dollars covering the backs of Canadians, there are going to be some mistakes, and yes, there were some mistakes, and we have learned from them. However, to say that it was corrupt is a stretch. To try to give an impression that Canadians have not been the first priority of this government over the last 12 months is a real stretch, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or members of the Liberal caucus, we have been working seven days a week and 24 hours a day to ensure that Canadians would be protected and that we would be able to continue to move forward on this very important issue that we all have to face, which is to overcome this pandemic.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on the important issue of our environment.

When I looked at Bill C-215, the first thing that came across my mind was that in November of last year, the government introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. If we were to look at these two pieces of legislation side by side, we would easily understand why we should be supporting Bill C-12. I look forward to debating Bill C-12 to hear the ongoing discussions, because it covers so much more than Bill C-215.

Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. That is the essence of what Bill C-215 does. Having said that, there are some significant differences between the bills. There are certain things that Bill C-215 does not have.

Before I comment on some of those differences, I want to emphasize that we must take advantage of the economic opportunity that climate action presents in order to provide the world with the cleanest and most cutting-edge innovation. I think, for example, of hydroelectricity in my home province of Manitoba. When we talk about the development of clean energy and being innovative, there is so much potential in my home province. Equally, I suspect that if we were to go to all regions of our beautiful country, we would find opportunities. That is why it is critically important that we take to heart the idea of net-zero emissions and the goal of 2050 and take actions today that will really make a difference going forward.

I made reference to some key differences between Bill C-215 and Bill C-12, and I will now give a couple of specific examples.

In Bill C-12, the government's bill, there is a requirement for consultations with the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, experts and Canadians as a whole. This is absent in Bill C-215.

Bill C-215 would only require the publication of a single action plan. Contrast this with Bill C-12, the government's legislation. It would require the publication of an emissions reduction plan for every milestone year. That is a significant difference. Bill C-12 would also require the government to set each target at least five years before the beginning of the related milestone. Bill C-215 would require the government to set all of its targets up front.

Those are the types of differences that I believe clearly demonstrate that we should be looking at ways to get Bill C-12 through the House of Commons and encourage some form of consultation about it at committee, and encourage the Senate to recognize the true value of the bill. I suggest that my friend from the Bloc, who introduced Bill C-215, review the bill to see if maybe there are aspects of the legislation that could in fact be incorporated at the committee stage.

Bill C-12 requires the Minister of Finance to publish an annual report describing how departments and Crown corporations are considering the financial risks and opportunities of climate change in their decision-making, whereas Bill C-215 does not include any such provision. That is why I would encourage members of the Conservative Party who are supporting Bill C-215 to seriously look at ways in which we could see Bill C-12 pass. I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, and members can look at some of the content that I put on the record at that time.

One of the things that I want to put in perspective is the issue of other initiatives. In the throne speech introduced in September, we not only talked about green policy but we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to ensuring that we were on the right track. I look forward to when a budget is presented to Canadians, and to the many initiatives and specifics that will give Canadians reason to be optimistic that we finally have a government that is taking the environment seriously.

As a government, we have recognized from the beginning that, to have a healthy economy, we also need to strive for a healthy environment, and that we can develop policies that complement both the environment and the economy. We have recognized the value of major projects going through the department of environment or through independent provincial or national commissions, and that it is important to do research and consultations because those will give projects a better chance of success.

I want to very quickly say that I am excited about the pledge to plant two billion trees. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we, as a government, are committed to planting two billion trees. That will be a great filter for our water. It will ensure that the air we breathe is healthier.

These are the types of initiatives that people can understand and relate to, and they are going to make a difference and get Canadians that much more excited about working to improve our environment.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words on this legislation.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative spin we just listened to is a lot to take. Is the member serious? We had a national vaccine committee with health experts who relied on research. They did a fantastic job at protecting Canadians' interests. The reality is that we will have over six million doses by the end of March.

Where was this Conservative concern back in August and July when the Conservatives had thousands of questions regarding vaccines and other issues such as rapid tests? Hindsight is 20/20, and the Conservatives have dropped the ball when it comes to holding the government accountable. Our focus has been the coronavirus and minimizing the damage, and that is exactly what we continue to do by working with Canadians.

Would my friend provide his thoughts on the national vaccine council?

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member talk about the environment, this came to mind. If she were to read the throne speech, she would find many substantial financial measures. That was back in September.

In November, we introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. Net-zero is not just a plan for a healthier environment; it is a plan to build a cleaner more competitive economy.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on those two statements. She tries to give the false impression that the government is not doing anything, but the reality seems quite different.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, February 2nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned, which has been reinforced by my constituents and Canadians from all regions of the country, is that there is an expectation that goes far beyond Ottawa just providing cash for health care. We can see that when people raise the issue of standards in long-term care and reinforce the need for pharmacare involvement. There seems to be a real tangible desire that we build back better on the health care file.

I wonder if my colleague recognizes that Canadians in all regions of the country expect the federal government to play more of a proactive role in the area of health care, given that it is such an important issue to all of us.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, we actually need to recognize and provide substantial support to our culture and arts community. That community plays a very important role in our society, and there is no doubt it has been hit very hard because of the coronavirus. Many cultural shows were cancelled and artists have found it very difficult, and so I am wondering if my colleague could continue to provide his thoughts on how this industry plays a critical role in our communities, whether in terms of jobs or just our Canadian heritage. That is why it was so important that we reached out and supported that community through some of our programs over the last 12 months.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, February 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague's assessment is not right. In fact, it is pretty far off when he talks about helping friends and says we did not do enough with CERB, the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy programs, and that we could have issued more money and support. Nine million is a lot of friends, Canadians, to have received CERB. Millions received the wage subsidy program, and tens of thousands received the rent subsidy program.

On one hand he is criticizing the government for not spending enough money on these programs, yet the Conservatives are saying we are spending too much money and they are concerned about the deficit.

Can he provide clarification? Are we spending too much money or not enough money?