Kevin Lamoureux

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I respect that the member has provided her thoughts regarding the budget, even though they are somewhat misinformed. She is very selective with respect to what what she is telling Canadians. Despite her conclusion, things are quite the opposite.

Our government has been genuinely focused on supporting Canada's middle class, not only through budgetary motions but also through many different policy initiatives. These have had a profound positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I could speak to the tax break for Canada's middle class, the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and the increase to the Canada child benefit. The government has done a litany of different things.

The bottom line is that our economy has done exceptionally well. By working with Canadians, we have generated over 900,000 jobs in the last three and a half years. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to accomplish what we were able to do in three and a half years. We have put forward so many wonderful policy initiatives.

I wonder if the member opposite might want to revisit her thinking and maybe conclude, as I believe most Canadians would, that this government continues to be focused on Canada's middle class, which is a good thing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the member's closing remarks. The government has done exceptionally well in preparing, going forward. The numbers speak for themselves, with well over 900,000 new jobs in the last three and a half years by working with Canadians from every region of the country. We have seen exceptional growth in many different areas.

What I find interesting is how the Conservatives try to give the impression that they know how to manage deficits. They are very critical of the current government's deficit. Could the member explain to Canadians why it is that Stephen Harper, when he was the prime minister, actually accumulated $150 billion-plus in debt? That is to keep in mind that when he as prime minister inherited the books of Canada, he actually inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. The so-called fictitious balance that the Conservatives say they ended his 10 years with was really non-existent.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Absolutely.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the important issues. There is nothing more important than the Government of Canada's budget agenda—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts with regard to what the member talked about, from a national perspective. The government has made significant investments in Canada's infrastructure in all regions of the country. We have seen capital infrastructure built.

We have also seen, on a national basis, an investment in people in very real ways. Examples are the substantial increases for some of the poorest seniors in our country, including in the member opposite's own constituency, through the GIS increase and the Canada child benefit program, not to mention, as I referenced earlier, the tax breaks for Canada's middle class, all of which put money into her constituents' pockets. At the same time, the government has invested in capital throughout our country.

Could the member reflect on that aspect of what this government has been able to accomplish, not only in this budget but in previous budgets, which has further supported Canadians in all regions of our country?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his first speech. He spent a great deal of time talking about Lake Simcoe. Throughout Canada, we have many beautiful lakes, rivers, waterways and so forth. I am sure he would share the concern with regard to Canada's environment. This is something that is always top of mind for Canadians, no matter where they live in our vast country.

One issue is trying to get to the bottom of what political parties have to say. We have talked a great deal about the idea that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on it. That is something we have acted on where provinces have not. Maybe five provinces have not acted on it, so the federal government has come to the plate.

We are waiting for the Conservative plan. The leader of the Conservative Party indicated long ago that it would not be too long and that it was coming. We have been waiting for over a year now. Would he not agree that Canadians are entitled to get a sense of what the official opposition's plans are regarding Canada's environment? Would he not think that would be healthy—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about changing this budget. Canadians had that opportunity back in October of 2015, when they soundly rejected Stephen Harper's politics of austerity and when they looked at what the Harper government was able to accomplish.

I would challenge the member any day to talk about the types of things our government has done in the last three and a half years, such as creating 900,000 jobs by working with Canadians and, unlike the false impression the member across the way is trying to give, providing the tax breaks that the member voted against. We provided a tax break to Canada's middle class, and the Conservative Party, including that member, voted against it.

The member can say whatever he wants, but at the end of the day the facts speak the truth, and the truth is that over 900,000 jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of children and seniors were lifted out of poverty, and the list goes on.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Sanding Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in the days I sat in the far corner over there in the third party, the leader of the Liberal Party indicated that we needed more proactive disclosure. We had to get the Conservatives and the New Democrats to support that.

Proactive disclosure means sharing with Canadians how we are spending tax dollars. Whether it was when the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party or today, the he has consistently ensured more transparency and accountability through legislation and very tangible, positive actions.

We can contrast that with the very closed-door attitude of the Conservatives. We had to force the Conservative Party by law to make changes to ensure there would be more transparency for taxpayers. I am not surprised the Conservative leader would have a think tank of sorts on how to manipulate the next federal election. However, I will leave that issue until I have a bit more knowledge of the content of it.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there is just too much there for me to be able to respond. I am going to pick up on what the member started off with, the refrigerator issue, which is an issue I believe NDP members are trying to exploit, because they believe that it is going to be a vote-getter. Does the NDP support the government using public resources to access additional funds to move us forward on the road to reducing emissions? If the answer to that is yes, then that 25% contribution by the federal government is exceptionally effective, because it is going to take away the emissions of 50,000 vehicles on an annual basis.

When I talk about the private sector or the company, which happens to be Loblaws, we need to remember that Loblaws is not the only company. It is just the one the Conservative-NDP unholy alliance wants to focus on. There are civic governments, non-profits and others that have participated in the same program. Over 50 applicants were approved. The question the NDP and its friends in the Conservative Party need to answer is whether they believe that the private sector should be subsidized in any fashion.

The Conservatives say no. What does the NDP say? I must say to the Conservatives that I wish Harper did not believe that. However, let us wait and see. Maybe that is their new policy. They just made it very clear that the Government of Canada should not. I wonder what would have happened to GM, Chrysler and many other companies with that sort of attitude.