SoVote

May/17/22 4:07:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we completely agree that the Liberal government's approach is the wrong one and that it will not solve the current crisis. The crisis requires urgent action. We want the government to stop, cancel and eliminate oil subsidies immediately, this year. We want it to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians, families and workers and in renewable energy.

60 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/17/22 4:08:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Victoria. The NDP motion calls for the government to stop using Canadian taxpayers’ money to subsidize oil and gas companies, and to instead reinvest that money into renewable energy and measures to help Canadians with the rising cost of living. The motion could not have come at a more desperately needed time. This week, constituents in my riding are paying over $2 a litre for gas at the pump. Many of the people scraping together the necessary funds to pay for fuel are essential workers, small business owners, families with young children and people with mobility challenges who need to drive for their livelihoods or to access essential goods and services. Canadian families are already struggling with sky-high housing costs and income precarity exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. Even before the rise in gas prices, people were living paycheque to paycheque and struggling to make ends meet. Retirees and people on fixed incomes have not seen a rise in income to account for the rise in living costs. By glaring contrast, the oil and gas companies are making record profits, while being heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money. This grossly unjust situation is a direct result of the government’s heavily misaligned priorities. The NDP motion calls on the government to fix this dire situation and place people and the planet before oil and gas company profits. As Canadians are struggling more than ever, we are also faced with the most urgent crisis of our time: the climate change crisis. The most recent IPCC report states: It is unequivocal that climate change has already disrupted human and natural systems. It goes on to say: Societal choices and actions implemented in the next decade determine the extent to which medium- and long-term pathways will deliver higher or lower climate resilient development.... Importantly climate resilient development prospects are increasingly limited if current greenhouse gas emissions do not rapidly decline, especially if 1.5°C global warming is exceeded in the near term. A new climate update issued by the World Meteorological Organization pointed out that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the annual average global temperature will temporarily reach 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level for at least one of the next five years, and this likelihood is increasing with time. Let us just think about that for one minute. They are saying that we are not going to meet our target. I should not need to remind anyone in this house of the importance of the 1.5° mark. Climate scientists have long established that holding global warming to 1.5° could limit the most dangerous and irreversible effects of climate change. Our global temperatures have already risen by 1.1° since pre-industrial levels. We are already feeling the devastating effects of climate change. B.C., my province, has just experienced one of the most challenging years of extreme weather in recent memory, with a heat dome that shattered temperature records and killed hundreds of people, followed by weather bombs that destroyed critical infrastructure, livestock and agricultural lands with record precipitation and floods. For days, B.C. was cut off from the rest of Canada by rail and road because of the damages from the unprecedented floods. Left unchecked, extreme weather connected to climate change will continue to wreak havoc on Canadian lives and livelihoods. Around the globe, we are witnessing how climate change has caused substantial damage to terrestrial, freshwater and coastal and ocean marine ecosystems. We are seeing glaciers melt, mountains change and permafrost thaw in the Arctic ecosystem. Let us be clear: This is the result of human-induced climate change. That is why we must fight the climate crisis like we mean to win. Despite the urgency of the climate crisis on our doorstep, Canada has failed to meet any of its climate targets to reduce carbon emissions over the past 40 years. In fact, not only has Canada repeatedly failed to meet its climate targets, Canada is also one of the few wealthy countries where carbon emissions continue to rise. Industrialized and wealthy nations are responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world, but the effects of climate change impact developing nations and indigenous peoples the hardest. Climate justice is justice, period. Continuing to subsidize oil and gas companies while delaying the economic and infrastructure overhaul and transition to green energy is the very opposite of climate leadership that Canadians and the world so desperately need. The new carbon capture tax credit is, in effect, a $2.6-billion subsidy to oil and gas disguised as a so-called climate solution by the Liberal government. It is the wrong path to take. Earlier this year, more than 400 Canadian climate scientists and academics pleaded with the finance minister to scrap the plan to create the carbon capture tax credit. Professor Christina Hoicka, from the University of Victoria, stated that carbon capture is expensive and unproven in its effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Julia Levin, senior climate and energy program manager, stated that by relying on unproven “techno-fixes”, the government is “gambling with our lives.” Carbon capture projects exist at the demonstration level only, and have not successfully been deployed at the scale needed to make them part of a viable pathway to reach net-zero by 2050. More than 80% of the carbon capture projects attempted in the United States have ended in failure. Shell's Quest carbon capture facility near Edmonton is emitting more greenhouse gas than it captures. Across the board, scientists are calling for the government to invest in proven climate solutions, including renewable energy, efficient affordable housing and the electrification of transportation as the way to go. The choices we make today will have a lasting impact on future generations. It has long been my belief, and the NDP's belief, that a just transition must not only create a healthier environment, but also create better opportunities and improve affordability for Canadian workers and families. A just transition creates good jobs in the renewable energy sector and supports workers and communities in transitioning to jobs in this sector. Canada could become a world leader in renewable energy development. Investing in energy-efficient home retrofits and affordable energy-efficient new homes, as well as investing in a robust electric public transit system, would make life more affordable for Canadians and reduce emissions. In other words, a just transition would help to build a stronger, resilient economy. It is an opportunity that any government that values people and the planet would jump on. Instead, Canada is spending 14 times more on financial support to the fossil-fuel sector than it does on renewable energy. The Liberals promised a just transition act in 2019, but have failed to deliver and were recently rebuked by the Environment Commissioner for their lack of a plan to support workers and communities through the transition to a low-carbon economy. At the same time, oil and gas companies are making record profits, and Canadians are being decimated at the pump with record-high prices while the world is on the brink of a climate disaster. The majority of Canadians are concerned about climate change and affordability as the cost of living continues to rise. If the Liberals eliminated the tax credits for oil and gas exploration and development right now, it would bring in almost $10 billion over the next four years. Instead—

1277 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 4:18:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to signal that to her. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

26 words

Hants
Time

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/17/22 4:19:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague made it very clear that she is against any type of public financing for the oil and gas sector. The way I view it is that this particular tax credit is meant to incentivize a reduction in emissions, but I respect her point and her view on this. My question is a bit broader. Does she feel the Government of Canada has a role in working with private-sector entities to reduce emissions? She has made it very clear that she does not support that in the oil and gas sector. Where would she delineate, if at all, whether or not the Government of Canada should be providing these types of incentives to other private-sector industries?

122 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

May/17/22 4:19:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, instead of subsidizing very profitable big oil companies, the government can provide immediate relief to struggling Canadians by suspending the GST on residential energy bills, doubling the GST tax credit and increasing the Canada child benefit to all recipients by $500. That would be an immediate help for Canadians. By the way, the oil and gas industry should be paying for the work that needs to be done to make the planet better. It is making record profits and can afford to do it. There is no good reason why the Canadian Liberal government continues to subsidize it. That money should be invested in people and renewable energy.

110 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 4:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I heard the member refer in her speech to the same misinformation we identified earlier when we talked about a lie, which was propagated by a subsidiary of Tides International. It is the only place where this “14 times” number comes up. I hope she is happy, in this House of Commons, as she and her colleagues continue to repeat that misinformation, but they should recognize what it is. I am going to challenge the member on the whole thing: on carbon capture, utilization and storage, because she talked about it being at a demonstration level only in Canada. She also referred to the Shell Quest facility. Shell Quest is using the technology it has at Edmonton in the Northern Lights project that is offshore of Norway, which has a better tax regime than Canada with respect to carbon capture, utilization and storage. Can she comment on why we have developed technology in Canada that is now leaving to be exploited around the world in other environmental countries that are approaching the same problem?

178 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

May/17/22 4:21:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not realize the member was a scientist. I did not realize we should trust someone who is frankly right in the pockets of big oil instead of the scientists who have brought forward the evidence. The last time I checked, I would rather trust the scientists than the Conservatives. Let me say this on the issue of carbon capture. If that is the technology to be used, as the member suggests, why does the oil and gas industry not pay for it itself? Why does it need a subsidy from the Canadian government? I hope the member realizes that money should be invested in communities and Canadians who need that support and are being gouged right now at the pumps.

124 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

May/17/22 4:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the speech denouncing the use of carbon capture technologies, which will benefit the oil companies. However, there is something I do not understand. I would like the member to explain to me how she can condemn this practice and at the same time praise it in the last budget.

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 4:22:55 p.m.
Watch

Before I get the hon. member to respond, I just want to indicate that if anybody has any questions or answers or comments, they should wait until I recognize them. Otherwise, I would ask them to be quiet until such time as I acknowledge their presence in the House. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

55 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

May/17/22 4:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the issue of the NDP negotiating with the government on the supply and confidence agreement, we have advanced the notion to call on the government to end the oil and gas subsidies. We got a bit, only $9 million, in terms of a return, but of course the government went and gave a giant gift to the oil and gas sector. That does not mean to say we will not continue to strongly advocate for this and to call the government out whenever it steps in the wrong direction. That is why we have this motion on the floor today. I hope all members of the House will support it.

113 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/17/22 4:24:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. As usual, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon to speak to the NDP opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Victoria. In principle, the motion has three elements. It recognizes that the price of gas is high, at more than $2 a litre in some regions in the country, and that that is affecting affordability across the country. The motion points out that energy companies are making profits, especially with the high price of basic energy products. The motion calls for the elimination of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage that was presented in the budget by the Minister of Finance and for the savings from that measure to be reinvested into helping Canadians. I will talk about the motion, but I will also use my time to talk about the broader issue of affordability and the energy transition in Canada and in the world. I represent a rural riding where a good number of my constituents do not have access to public transit. This conversation on affordability and the ability to use public transit for work and pleasure is an important public policy concern. As far as affordability is concerned, I would like to share with my colleagues that my father was a truck driver and my mother is an administrative assistant. We were a low-income family. One of the reasons I decided to join the Liberal Party and run as an MP is because of the work this government has done to support low- and middle-income families. I want to give some examples of how our government has done that since taking office in 2015: We created the Canada child care benefit, enhanced old age security, reversed the Conservative plan to change the eligibility age from 67 to 65, and strengthened the guaranteed income supplement. We also introduced national child care, and we had the opportunity to see that rolled out across the country. That is something that this government has focused on because it helps support affordability for families paying for child care costs. It is also an important economic driver. It had been talked about for a long time, but it was this government that stepped up, showed leadership and made it happen across the country. I was not part of it, but from 2015-19, in the 42nd Parliament, the first thing this government did was to lower taxes for lower and middle-income Canadians and increase them for the wealthiest one percent in the country. Indeed, this government has invested significantly in the Canadian housing benefit, trying to support individuals with rental costs and their ability to put a roof over their heads. I could go on with the programs I am proud of from this side. That is not to say that all issues are solved or that affordability writ large is taken care of, but I am proud of the record on this side of the House, and of the plans and programs we have introduced because they are making a difference in the lives of Canadians across the country. Let us talk about the inflation issue because it is an important piece to raise. I would suggest that from where I sit in the House, there is no one silver bullet solution to inflation. In fact, history has shown that to be the case, but let us first examine the reasons why we are seeing inflation across the economy and recognize that this is not just a Canadian problem. This is being recognized across the world, in Europe and in the United States. Indeed, the inflation we are experiencing is challenging and impacting us in Canada, but it is actually lower than in other jurisdictions around the world. It is happening, in part, because of the war in Ukraine. We heard, in question period, the Associate Minister of Finance talk about the importance of supporting Ukraine and being able to support them in their fight against Russia. The war and the conflict is having cascading impacts that are creating inflationary pressure around the world. We have to remind Canadians that this is being perpetuated by the Russian Federation, namely, Vladimir Putin. There has also been a supply chain disruption, and it has been talked about at great length. The pandemic has created those challenges. They are not easily reversed. I would also submit that the changing geopolitical situation will also have reverberations on how our supply chains have traditionally operated prior to the pandemic and, indeed, prior to the war in Ukraine. On government spending, governments around the world, including this one, were compelled to step up to support their citizens and make sure that they were taken care of. We were asking individuals to do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19 until we had access to a vaccine and until we had the work that had to done by the scientific community. This government makes no qualms about the fact that we stepped up for Canadians. Eight dollars out of every 10 were provided by this government. That was to help provinces and territories, municipal governments, businesses, and individuals. Undoubtedly, the global community stepping up to help support citizens put additional liquidity into the market. I think that has led, in part, to some of the inflationary pressures we have seen. On the aging workforce, I think this is something we have not discussed to the extent that it should be discussed in the House. We have labour challenges. We have heard that in large detail, in the 44th Parliament, about some of the challenges. That is not just Canada. That is the western world, as we have a large baby boomer demographic that is making its way to retirement. That is creating challenges in employment, which has, as well, an inflationary pressure on wages. In some cases, that can be really important for lower wages, in terms of lower hourly wages, but it is undoubtedly putting on some of that inflationary pressure. That is part of what we have seen. As we can see, it is nuanced. There is not one single thing we can point to. It is a variety of circumstances that have presented themselves for a long time and, indeed, in the last couple of years to where we find ourselves. The question becomes how best to address it. History suggests that it is not easy. Do we spend more money to give individual households some of the affordability measures that they might need? Of course, I think most of us would agree that, in principle, this sounds great. History has shown that when the economy is hot, providing additional support to households, notwithstanding that we want to do that, in some cases, can actually reverberate some of the inflationary pressure that we have seen, particularly when there is a lot of liquidity in the market, with money supply. On interest rates, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates and, indeed, that is seen as one way, from an economic theory. If we raise interest rates, it can have a cooling effect on the economy to bring inflation down, but that has an impact on the affordability element for individuals who might hold debt, in terms of their monthly mortgage payments and some of their bills on that side. I guess, at the end of the day, what I would say is that the question of inflation and affordability is an important one. There is no easy solution, but when I look at the text of this motion, which is talking about taking away a program that the government has introduced for our energy sector to reduce emissions, for us to able to meet our emissions reduction plan, which was introduced a couple months ago by our Minister of Environment, I do not think that this is the best public policy approach. I agree that we need to have important conversations about what the government can do to support affordability and to support Canadians who are having challenging times, but taking away a program that is designed to incentivize the energy sector to reduce emissions and ensure that we are competitive heading into 2050 is the wrong approach.

1391 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/17/22 4:33:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's riding includes Windsor, which is where my grandmother was born and raised. As he said, it is not a wealthy riding. I just checked, and the median income there is $31,000, which means more than half of his constituents were too low-income to benefit from the Liberals' much-vaunted tax cut for the middle class. All this is to say, I am just wondering if he could comment on the fact that we have multinational oil companies making billions of dollars in profits while we are spending tax money to support them. We are doing this, in various ways, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. How can he justify that, with where we are in the world today, when we have to move away from the oil and gas sector? Why are we supporting these very profitable companies with tax dollars?

152 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:34:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, we are very blessed to have deep connections to Windsor. It is a beautiful township, which I have the privilege of representing. I will try to address the question twofold. The member opposite talked about some of the tax credits and incentives this government is putting in. I have said in this House before that I believe there will be an oil and gas industry in 2050. The oil and gas market will be much reduced globally, but Canada has a role to work with energy companies to help reduce emissions to be able to also position them on competitive footing heading into 2050. Canada still has a role to play in that market. The question I would then ask back, and I have posed it to the NDP before, is this: Where do we stop? If not oil and gas, do we have other roles in working with the private sector? It has made it very clear it is against oil and gas on public financing and support for reducing emissions. Should that extend to other sectors? It is not clear to me based on the responses so far.

193 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/17/22 4:36:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about Canada's role not ending anytime soon when it comes to fossil fuels and what we provide the world. I want him to perhaps speak to the geopolitical role Canada plays with energy production and supplying energy to our allies. It was at a meeting in Prince George where I heard the Japanese ambassador imploring Canada to supply natural gas to Japan. Certainly we hear about carbon a lot, and that is an important conversation to have, but we rarely hear the geopolitical conversation about Canada's role in providing that energy to our allies. I would like the member to speak to that, please.

111 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:36:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in a world where we are going to see a smaller role for oil and gas, and I think the International Energy Agency has said that, my thoughts are we actually need to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure its emission intensity per barrel is some of the lowest in the world. That comes back to the CCUS and how important that is. We also, undoubtedly, need to make a transition. I am just trying to be realistic in that I believe this product will still be important. Canada is the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and the fifth-largest for gas. How can we work to reduce emissions so Canada still has a role in the energy that will still be needed? To the geopolitical piece, our role right now in the world has to be engaging with our allies to find opportunities to provide energy security, which would include natural gas in the short term. Longer term, it will be hydrogen and working on critical minerals to support energy transition. It is a really important question, and I hope we can continue with it here in the House.

197 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/17/22 4:37:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would not want to be in any Liberal members' shoes right now, because they are stuck having to defend the indefensible. Trans Mountain was supposed to cost $4 billion, but now it is up to $20 billion. Then we have the Bay du Nord deal, along with everything else. Canada is the fourth largest oil producer in the world, with 5.23 million barrels per day. Canada gives 14 times more financial resources to the fossil fuel sector than to the renewable energy sector. How can my colleague explain that?

96 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:38:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would normally respond in French, but I will speak in English so as to be very clear. It is very easy for that member to suggest that Canada being the fourth-largest oil producer is a bad thing. That is the way he framed it. This is a resource that has been extremely beneficial from Victoria to Newfoundland and Labrador, and everywhere in between, including in his home province. We have an obligation to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure it is on competitive footing and reducing emissions, while also transitioning to technologies to transition to lower-emission fuels as part of our commitment to net neutrality in 2050.

115 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 4:39:07 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

50 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

May/17/22 4:39:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here and it is wonderful to be speaking to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member for Victoria. I would like to start off by framing this opposition motion the way I view it. When I think of a trifecta and of the energy industry where we are, both domestically and globally, and how it relates to affordability and where gas prices are today, I think of three things. I think of energy security, which means security of supply and also security of work. I think of energy affordability, which means being able to afford the energy we buy. We have seen the prices of commodities rise globally due to supply chain bottlenecks and the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Putin's regime, which imperils energy affordability. Then, we talk about decarbonization. I think of energy security, energy affordability and then a longer-term transition where we have decarbonization. That is important because, when we think about it, Canada is an energy leader. This morning, I spent some time researching what I wanted to say this afternoon. I went to the Natural Resources Canada website and looked at the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”. There is some great information out there for policy wonks and people who want to understand just how important both the renewable and non-renewable energy industries are to Canada and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. According to the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”, produced on the Natural Resources website, direct to indirect jobs total 845,000 folks. These are hard-working middle-class Canadians who earn their livelihoods from this industry. That is very important to understand. The investments that are taking place, just on the renewable side or clean energy, have totalled roughly $80 billion to $100 billion every year for the past several years. I was looking at the numbers: the total was $92.1 billion in 2021. That is wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, solar and tidal. There is this industry in Canada that we need to be extremely proud of, and that I am very proud to support and to speak about on this opposition day motion, from which Canadians are earning their livelihoods. People are putting their kids in school. They are paying for their hockey lessons and swimming lessons, and we are here to support them. The opposition day motion talks about ending any sort of financial support to the fossil fuel sector. Our budget that we produced states, I believe, that by 2023 there will be no more direct financial support provided to the energy sector, when we talk about the non-renewable side. When we think about energy security, we must think about Canada and areas such as the western Canada sedimentary basin. I know some of my colleagues on the opposite side come from these areas, and I am from British Columbia originally. There are literally tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline in that area that are moving gas everywhere in North America. In fact, it is being exported via LNG sites in the United States to Europe at this time and helping our European allies. We need to consider that. It is easy to criticize an industry when one thinks it is fun to do so, and I use that word carefully. I do not. There are 845,000 Canadians tied to this industry. In reference to the carbon capture tax credit, the third pillar I spoke about was decarbonization. With respect to decarbonization, to me the story is to lower greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and globally. We do not want leakage. We will do that in a manner where we work with stakeholders, including industry. Industry has these roughly 845,000 Canadians who earn their livelihoods from the energy industry. That, to me, is what is called “responsible leadership”. That, to me, is doing the right thing and moving this needle and yardstick in the right direction. In fact, in our budget, and I look forward to seeing the full details in the fall economic statement, we will introduce a new tax credit for investment in clean technology of 30% for zero-emission technologies and battery storage; in clean hydrogen, which is very exciting; and in blue hydrogen, which I have been learning a lot about in the past few weeks. It is very important. What I think of as the three pillars are energy security, energy affordability and decarbonization. We are on a track that I am proud of, the emissions reduction plan, which is under the umbrella of Bill C-12: the net-zero accountability act. It is accountable, it is tangible and it lays out a framework so that we can decarbonize our economy and, yes, lower greenhouse gas emissions. To my hon. colleagues in the NDP and the member for Victoria, when I think about affordability, yes, gas prices are absolutely high. Yes, they are absolutely pinching Canadians. We must demonstrate empathy. I know that. I live in the suburbs outside of Toronto, and everyone in my neighbourhood drives two or three vehicles. They have to get their kids to school and sports and they have to drive them home. We understand that and I understand that, but inflationary forces, be they supply chain bottlenecks or how refineries operate, which would take another hour to explain on the refinery margins part, fracking and NAC and all that stuff, and what has happened with Russia's barbaric invasion of Ukraine have driven up prices across the board. Even the Europeans have reached out by saying they need more gas. That is the energy security component. On the affordability component for my hon. colleague for Victoria, I think about the Canada child benefit that we introduced in 2015, which all parties voted against, including the New Democratic Party. It benefits the residents of my riding in the amount of over $60 million a month. Almost $7,000 can help a family with one child earning below a certain amount. We returned the old age security and GIS eligibility to age 65. In June and July, over three million Canadians will be receiving a 10% increase in their old age security payments, bringing it up to $766. That is how to help on the affordability side, particularly at a time when inflationary forces are elevated, and we must be cognizant of that. For seniors who are concerned about how they are going to pay their dental bills, we are going to go down that route, just as we got national child care done after the Conservatives scrapped it many years ago. It is going to benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and allow for greater and higher labour force participation rates by parents. It will be a boost to our labour supply and good for our productive capacity. We will do the same thing on dental care. We will ensure seniors and individuals who do not have insurance or a copay will benefit from that. Our government has been there for Canadians, and we need to continue to be there. On the recovery from COVID, as I said, we were there for Canadians and we had their backs. We must work with all industries as we come out of COVID, which we have been, and we must keep our eye on the ball that climate change continues to be the transition in front of us, independent of what is happening in other parts, because that is where the world is going. The auto sector right now is investing roughly $515 billion in transforming itself into what I call auto to electric vehicles. That is something we are participating in, and we are at the table. It is important that we remain focused on that front. When I read the opposition motion that talks about carbon capture, utilization and storage and other forces at play, I ask myself what we are doing in the economy that allows us to decarbonize, which is an element of working with stakeholders and listening, and at the same time making life more affordable for Canadians. There are things we are doing on the housing front, such as providing 100,000 new homes and doubling housing construction, allowing Canadians to save for a home with the first-time homebuyers' investment vehicle, getting the froth out of the housing market by ending blind bidding and speculation, and banning foreign purchases. On the affordability front, we are doing what is right for Canadians not only for today, but for the long term. I am so proud of the $10-a-day day care national child care plan modelled after la belle province that is going help residents in my riding because, frankly, it costs $1,500 to $2,000 for a family to put a child in day care in the city of Vaughan and York Region. Those are after-tax dollars, and we are going to help them.

1508 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

May/17/22 4:49:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have some important questions related to what the member said. We have heard from the Conservatives, for example, that the government is spending too much money, raising the cost of inflation. Simultaneously, the Conservatives talk about how the government spends too much. The member is talking about how the government is going to continue these subsidies. Which is it? Are Liberals going to spend too much raising the cost for Canadians there, or are they going to truly put that money back into the pockets of families that really need it? The people in my community do not have two or three cars to be spending that money on, like the member opposite. Will they give Canadians their money back?

123 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73