Kevin Lamoureux

[Energy Costs, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting listening to the Conservatives. We have heard them, not only today but in previous weeks and months, talk about the tax on tax, as if Stephen Harper never did it. One would think the Conservative Party never had a tax on tax.

Every week, Canadians from coast to coast to coast were paying a tax on a tax that Stephen Harper was very supportive of. When people put gas in their vehicle, there is a provincial and federal levy, and then there is the GST. My understanding is that the GST is a tax that is applied onto a tax. Yet, the Conservative Party is so offended by taxes on taxes, as if it has never happened before.

Why did Stephen Harper not deal with the tax on tax? What happened then to the oomph of the Conservative Party today, saying that a tax on a tax is bad? The Conservative Party is probably the one that came up with the idea of a tax on a tax. It was actually the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta that first came up with the idea of a price on pollution in North America. That is the reality of it.

The Conservatives are really good at opposition, and I have said this before: I hope we keep them in opposition for many years. However, we really need to reflect on some of the speeches that Conservatives give in the House. They are truly amazing. We hear all about the balanced budget stuff. Conservatives try to give the impression that the Conservative Party is good at managing budgets. Seriously.

Stephen Harper took a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit even before there was a recession. That is the honest to God truth. That is the reality. Stephen Harper had deficit after deficit, and I would have to say it was for eight or nine years. He accumulated over $150 billion in deficits, and yet Conservatives try to give us advice on deficits.

By the way, as we know, the current leader just flip-flopped on his deficit projections. Now a Conservative government would take five years to get rid of the deficit. I can appreciate that, if we take a look at what Liberals have been able to do in the last little while because of many of the budgetary measures we have taken. We have seen the generation of over a million new jobs in Canada in the last three and a half years, because of some of the changes we have made.

The Conservative Party wants to ask about this tax or that tax, but what did it really do when it mattered the most to most Canadians?

The most substantial tax break given in many years by the House of Commons was in Bill C-2. We call it the middle-class tax break, the tax cut for Canada's middle class. Millions of families benefited all across Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to Canadians, to the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

What did the Conservative Party do? The Conservatives voted against it. It is hard to believe that when it comes right down to voting, a Conservative Party that preaches about giving tax breaks voted against our tax cut. In fairness, the Conservatives also voted against a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%, which is consistent with many of the different types of boutique tax credits the Conservatives like to come up with.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party and those deep thinkers within it, and here I am talking about people like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, the potential leadership contenders in the next go-around, need to sit down with Stephen Harper and the current leader and start revisiting the types of issues they have to try to overcome between now and the next election.

When I go door-knocking and speak to residents of Winnipeg North, I am always happy to share with them the reality of the Conservative Party, and I must say that it can be very discouraging at times.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to much of the content the member has put on the record, a few thoughts have come across my mind.

The Conservative government, for example, spent close to $1 billion, that is, hundreds of millions of dollars, on advertising. I argued back then that it was absolutely irresponsible.

The member opposite will identify an area. He will mention $1 million here or $1 million there. I could easily pick and choose. I could mention the $1 million plane ride for a chauffeured car to go to another country that the previous government spent because Stephen Harper did not want to use a vehicle belonging to that country. He wanted his own car flown overseas.

There are numerous examples that one could give of Conservative spending. They misspent hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question is very specific. The Conservative Party has voted against tax cuts for Canada's middle class. Could the member opposite explain how he and his party can justify voting against tax breaks for Canada's middle class? That is exactly what they did.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 12 midnight so that the House will adjourn.

[National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion.

In listening to the member raise this issue in such a manner, one of the things that came to mind is that this issue, unfortunately, is not new. I was first elected back in 1988, and one of the first reports I recall reviewing was presented by the Manitoba Intercultural Council. At that time, it was an important report for me personally. I have always represented the north end of Winnipeg where there is a great diverse community, and that report was all about the issue of racism, and there were a number of recommendations that came out of the report. The one that was most compelling for me personally was that if we are going to fight racism, we need to incorporate cross-cultural discussions and educational programs that would enlighten people about the benefits of diversity. That may not be the exact wording of the recommendation; it was 30 years ago. However, I think it demonstrates two things very clearly. One is that this is the type of issue that has been with us very for many years. A second is that there are some potential things that government can do to try to minimize the amount of racism, bigotry and violence out there.

I suspect that all 330-plus members who make up the House of Commons would recognize where we, as a society, can take action, and that we should take action to combat this violence, bigotry and racism. However, I would suggest that it is not just Ottawa that should act, and I will provide some thoughts about what Ottawa has done in a very tangible way, but also that we should get different levels of government and society as a whole more engaged on this particular file.

If we want to be effective in fighting bigotry and racism, we need to look at our classrooms and school divisions and the role that provincial and national governments can play. From my perspective, the national government can demonstrate very sound, solid leadership on this file. Provincial and other levels of government can look to Ottawa and see that it is in fact taking action, and they need to do likewise. However, it goes beyond just government institutions. I would suggest that it also includes non-profit organizations, business communities, the private sector, unions, all of which have recognized in the past that they do have a role to play. Indeed, we need to have that strong, more united approach. This is one of the reasons we have, for example, an international day against racism. It goes beyond Canadian borders. We will find many schools, parliamentarians at different levels and private sector companies who recognize that day.

I believe that the vast, overwhelming majority of the people we represent understand and appreciate the value of what makes Canada as great as it, namely our diversity, and we need to treasure and protect it. When we see things that take place here in Canadian society or abroad that go against the value of diversity, we need to speak out, as we have all seen inside and outside the House. Some of us have have experienced it firsthand.

I think of the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills and the fine work she did. When the issue came before us, dealing with racism in the worst way, she stood in her place and took a strong stand. By taking that stand, she subjected herself to a considerable amount of hatred, directed to her personally. I am so proud of my colleague who stood firm. Other caucus members and members from other sides of the House joined her to provide support.

Since I was elected in 1998, I have visited gudwaras all over Canada and in other places of the world. I visited gudwaras, synagogues, churches and mosques. I understand, appreciate and value the places where we practise our faith, the value they add to our society as a whole.

I wish others were given the same opportunities I have had as an elected official to go into these communities and experience first-hand the love and caring attitude toward not only individuals such as me, but facilities, churches, mosques, synagogues or temples all across our land.

I admire the Sikh society gurdwara. I am proud to say that a female is now running the gudwara in her role of president. One of the teachings of Sikhism, which I really appreciate, is that when people enter a gudwara, they take off their shoes and squat to listen to the service. Everyone is an equal and that has stuck with me over the years. Whether it is in Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Toronto or the Punjab, where I visited many gudwaras, including the golden temple, everyone is treated as an equal.

I believe that same principle will be found in all our religious communities where that sort of respect is offered. That is why I will go back to the Manitoba Intercultural Council. It came up with a report many decades ago. It said that if we wanted to combat bigotry and racism, we needed to ensure a better sense of cross-cultural awareness. I believe it recommended that MLAs take a course on cross-cultural awareness. The report was right on. Members of Parliament could become more sensitive to cross-cultural awareness.

The Prime Minister is one of the strongest advocates in our country in talking about the benefits and strength of Canada being our diversity. The Prime Minister is right in his assertion. If we want to get a sense of it, we need to look at the different regions of our country. Will get a far better appreciation of what is meant when say our diversity is our greatest strength.

I would encourage not only members here, but all parliamentarians to take the challenge recommended not only by the Manitoba Intercultural Council, but by many other organizations.

Let us appreciate what we have. Let us become more educated.

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. In the last federal election, the NDP favoured decriminalization, and the Conservatives were passing out all sorts of false information, saying how bad it would be if the Liberals were to legalize cannabis. Today, we have a government that not only has moved forward and legalized cannabis, but it is now seeking to provide a pardon through this legislation. Now the two opposition parties are uniting and saying that it should be an expungement. One could easily see the hypocrisy there.

We have heard that the Conservatives want to amend Bill C-93. Would it be the intention of a future Conservative government to change it to expungement? Is that one of the amendments we can anticipate if the Conservatives come to office?

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, fairly strong words came down from the PMO. If an opposition member were to propose an amendment, to not allow it to see the light of day. That has changed from the time of Stephen Harper to the current Prime Minister. We have a prime minister who encourages members of Parliament of all political stripes to look at ways in which legislation can be improved. Whether it is this legislation, or Bill C-45 or many other pieces of legislation, we have seen ministers respond to the presentations being made and listen to members on all sides of the standing committees.

Would the member not agree that this is a much better attitude toward standing committees than Stephen Harper ever had?

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we look at the legislation and do a comparison. From day one, I have made numerous references to Bill C-2, which has given the middle-class of Canada a substantial tax break while at the same time increasing the tax level on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Today we are debating Bill C-93, which is in essence going to provide a pardon for simple possession of cannabis. Whether it was day one or today, this is a government that believes we should work hard every day.

Would the member agree, as we look at the next 14 or 15 days of the House's sitting, that we have a responsibility to do what we can to support legislation and see it come to a vote, believing that Canadians will benefit from members of Parliament who are prepared to work all the way to the very last day?

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, which should come as no surprise. When we take a look at this legislation, much like many other pieces of legislation this government has been introducing virtually from day one, it is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a campaign commitment that the Liberal Party made in the 2015 election.

However, I guess where we differ from the Conservative Party is that I believe, whether it is Bill C-2, which we brought in on day one of our mandate to give Canada's middle class a tax break while at the same time putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, or Bill C-93, which we are debating today and which would allow for a pardon for individuals with convictions for simple possession of cannabis, these are all good, solid, sound pieces of legislation, and I am grateful.

The member is supporting this legislation, I understand. Would the member not agree that we should continue to look at ways in which we can pass legislation for every day that we sit. Would he agree that just because we are in the last 10 or 15 days, we do not have to stop passing legislation?

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we hear members on the opposition benches say that we have 17 or 18 days left to go. From day one, this government introduced Bill C-2 that gave a tax break to Canada's middle class and put an extra tax on the wealthiest 1%. Today, we are debating Bill C-93 that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians.

Would the member not agree that the number of sitting days left does not matter, that if we are afforded the opportunity to do good work for Canadians by passing legislation that will make a difference in their lives, we should all support and encourage that?