44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 19, 2022 10:00AM
- May/19/22 6:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry for interrupting the hon. member, but the hon. member for Manicouagan has a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know if there is quorum.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:04:58 p.m.
- Watch
We will check.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We have quorum. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
That is very kind.
I will take the next few minutes to review the purpose of this new bill introduced by the former Conservative leader. It is essentially designed to give more work to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, but to do what? To investigate the Bank of Canada? Why?
As my colleague before me already said, the Bank of Canada is already accountable to Parliament for its own administration, its work, its monetary policies and its decisions through House and Senate committees.
It seems that the reason behind this is to hype up the bill introduced by the member for Carleton, who is pointing the finger at Canada's central bank, accusing it of creating all our inflation woes and blaming it for the current decrease in purchasing power that Quebeckers and Canadians are unfortunately experiencing. As we said earlier, the Bank of Canada is not perfect and we have a duty to criticize it and to demand accountability.
This bill is a thinly veiled threat, an attempt by the Conservatives to intrude on and interfere with the Bank of Canada, an independent body. They are doing this for partisan and political purposes. They want to use the Office of the Auditor General for partisan purposes, in a thinly veiled threat to Canada's central bank.
This bill reeks of populism. I think it is pathetic that they are taking up hours of our time in Parliament to help give a Conservative Party leadership candidate some credibility on this issue.
Of course, from a libertarian or far-right economic perspective, the likes of which can be found in the ranks of the Conservative Party, no one blames anything on big business and the massive profits these companies are making. They think it is perfectly normal for the big oil companies and big grocery chains to profit off the pandemic, the crisis and the supply chain issues by unreasonably increasing prices at the expense of workers, the least fortunate and families that are struggling.
The Conservatives are leaning into right-wing populism and will never explain why billionaires should exist or why companies make billions of dollars at Canadians' expense. Instead, they blame the Bank of Canada.
I do not necessarily agree with dramatically raising interest rates as a way to fight inflation. It has tragic consequences for people who, for example, are already having trouble paying their mortgages and bills. That is one way to do it, but it is really not in the best interests of the poor, workers and the middle class. I will come back to that later if I have time.
They want to discredit Canada's central bank in order to give more credit to cryptocurrencies. I do not know whether anyone has been following what has been happening lately with the collapse of cryptocurrencies. They are not governed or controlled by anyone, and no one is accountable to anyone else.
Of course, cryptocurrencies are an unbridled capitalist's dream. I am not sure that this is the kind of society that we want to live in. I am not sure that we should be telling people to trust this virtual currency and that this is how the country's currency is going to be run from now on, because some shadowy forces are controlling the evil Bank of Canada and that this is not in everyone's best interests.
This is really a bill that is being used for partisan purposes, for the leadership race that is going on right now.
If we want to point the finger at those largely responsible for the current price increases, then we must not be afraid to look at the facts and see who exactly is lining their pockets right now at the expense of the average citizen.
The Association des distributeurs d'énergie du Québec recently published a chart to make comparisons between the number of cents in the price at the pump between 2008 and 2022, that is attributable to different factors. In 2008, the price of oil was 84¢, while it is at 91¢ this month, May 2022.
That is not a huge increase. Pollution pricing rose from 1¢ to 9¢. Taxes have gone up, but not that much, just from 45¢ to 60¢. The refining margin, in contrast, has gone up from 9¢ to 48¢. That is the biggest contributor to rising pump prices over the last 15 years, and it is profit for big corporations like Suncor and Imperial Oil, which made billions in profits in the first quarter of this year.
We have to be able to tell people the truth. We have to be able to tell them that there are solutions other than raising interest rates. The NDP has solutions to help people get through this crisis. Increase the GST tax credit, which helps hundreds of thousands of people in Quebec and across Canada, and increase the Canada child benefit, which is a good way to redistribute wealth.
We need to be able to tax these companies that are making billions of dollars in profits so that we can redistribute that money to the people who really need it, people who are suffering right now and struggling to pay their rent and buy groceries.
There are other solutions. I would point out that, in this morning's edition of Le Devoir, a dozen economists went over different ways we could be helping people, including regulating Airbnb rentals, lowering the cost of public transit, building massive numbers of social housing units and bringing in rent control. Not all of these measures would come from the federal government, but there are some excellent ideas and solutions.
What is currently before us is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous for our democratic institutions.
977 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I am so happy to see so many people rushing into the House to listen to my speech.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, New Brunswick is large in its mind, and it is large in its geography as well. Thank you for recognizing me and permitting me to address this important piece of legislation. I should remind the House and members here that when we cut right through it, inflation is the price that we and all Canadians pay for the things that the government told us would be free. That really cuts to the core of this debate and why this bill is so important.
Parliamentary oversight and accountability are key pillars of our democracy that we as legislators should be determined to protect and safeguard. Members of Parliament have a great deal of respect for the work done over the decades by Canada's auditors general, along with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the other independent offices of Parliament. As chairman of the public accounts committee, I have heard from our current Auditor General, Ms. Hogan, and her deputy, Mr. Hayes, on a number of occasions this year. I can say that MPs from both sides of this chamber welcome their analysis on the machinery of government, through audits of federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
The Auditor General's office has historically performed a valuable service to Canadian taxpayers. Their work informs us in this House of both the missteps and the achievements that come from fulfilling policies and programs implemented by the Government of Canada. With few exceptions, these policies and programs are tied to mandates given to them by the executive, that is the cabinet. Of course, those mandates come ultimately from Canada's voters. When civil servants do not adhere to these mandates, it is on us, as parliamentarians, to hold them accountable and to make course corrections.
As such, I wholeheartedly support Bill C-253 to bring the Bank of Canada under the purview of the Auditor General by including the central bank under section 85 of the Financial Administration Act. What this bill would do is authorize the Auditor General to include the Bank of Canada in her normal audit cycle, which means the Bank of Canada would be subject to the same types of routine audits that Crown corporations and departments undergo. That is it. At its core, this is about accountability and transparency, and adherence to its mandate and Parliament.
I applaud the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for introducing this bill, because he, like me, wants accountability from the Bank of Canada to ensure it adheres to its mandate. Some hon. members protest that MPs should not examine or even criticize the Bank of Canada, because it is independent, but this is a view out of step with democratic oversight in the United States, Britain and other countries where lawmakers are today vigorously debating what their central banks got wrong. We can just turn to a couple of headlines, which read, “Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said the central bank erred in waiting to address inflation”, and “The Fed's slow response to inflation was a mistake”.
Another one, from the Financial Times, states, “MPs turn on bank's handling of economy as [British] government feels heat from cost of living crisis”. In fact, even here in Canada, the media are reporting about Bank of Canada officials. In this case, “Carolyn Rogers says the Bank of Canada is learning from its mistakes”, yet some feel that this House has no role in this debate.
Historically, the Bank of Canada has been focused on a stable rate of inflation, and the bank's previous governors successfully kept inflation under control. It was not always easy and it required work, independence and a focus on results. However, in recent years, the bank's references to employment targets has been a consideration. If colleagues look at the bank's website or listen to speeches that officials have made, other considerations are now being added by bank officials in its considerations.
More recently, the bank has also started to indicate that other goals, such as environmental and social objectives, would or could influence policy. Since the pandemic, the Liberal government's deficit spending program has been underwritten almost exclusively through the bank's use of quantitative easing. That is a fancy word for expanding the money supply, which is a polite way of saying “printing money”.
As my hon. colleague just pointed out, when we expand the money supply, we dilute or reduce its value, and that is what has happened today in Canadian wallets. Their paycheques and their savings are worth less than they previously were.
How has all of this worked out? As members of Parliament, we should not be afraid to ask, to probe questions and to seek answers. The bill we are considering would allow the Auditor General to conduct audits of the bank through its normal 10-year cycle. Such audits include performance evaluations, something that is not happening now as it would go beyond the fiscal balance sheet examinations.
This is an important and key addition, particularly since the central bank is implementing monetary policies that are without precedent, and this will have massive implications for things like interest rates, inflation, growth and household incomes going forward. It is necessary that the Bank of Canada be subject to more transparency and accountability by Parliament.
Of course, there is precedent for allowing the Auditor General to have jurisdiction over arm's-length independent financial institutions. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board operates free of political interference but is still subject to the Auditor General's oversight. This bill follows virtually the same model by amending the Financial Administration Act's exemption for the Bank of Canada to match the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Again, we are calling for the Bank of Canada to be covered in a way that other arm's-length agencies are.
Let us return to mandates and accountability. The Bank of Canada and its governor, Tiff Macklem, wield an extreme amount of power by setting our nation's monetary policy, not economic policy, as one of the members on the government bench said, but monetary policy.
I would argue that the bank's governor is the most powerful unelected civil servant in Canada. At the same time, he is bound by the mandate of his office and therefore subject to accountability, for us to ask how this governor is doing in his job. Unlike other institutions that report to Parliament, the Bank of Canada is audited by external auditors, who are appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the finance minister. Therein lies the problem. There is not enough oversight or independence.
The bank is responsible for maintaining low and stable inflation, a safe and secure currency, financial stability and the efficient management of government funds and public debt, but at its very core, the governor is responsible for keeping the rate of inflation between 1% and 3%. How is he doing? The rate of inflation, in this country, has hit 6.8%. That is a 30-year high and not a record of success.
Political elites do not want MPs or Canadians to talk about the Bank of Canada's shortcomings. This is to protect the governor from proper and legitimate criticism, yet Governor Macklem has blown Canada's inflation targets and, in doing so, was cozy with the Liberal government.
He should have done his job instead of echoing government talking points about non-existent fiscal anchors. The incestuous relationship between the Liberal government and the Bank of Canada should never have been permitted to develop.
Because the Bank of Canada did not properly perform its job, Canadian households are paying a high price and, I fear, will pay a high price for years to come. Interest rate hikes will be more punishing, and price increases will last longer than had an independent Bank of Canada acted sooner.
Instead of talking about the punishing financial hit on Canadian families and businesses, these gatekeepers, to shield the governor from legitimate public scrutiny, cried, “Respect the bank's independence.” Those cries ring hollow after the governor failed to exercise his own independence from the Liberals. The bank should be held accountable for its errors. This is not interference. This is accountability.
This bill is a modest reform to grant Parliament some oversight, since the Auditor General's audits would be tabled in Parliament and studied by its members. It would bring Canada's Parliament in step with other democracies in probing the Bank of Canada's implementation of its mandate. It would allow MPs to hold the Bank of Canada accountable and to ask and seek answers.
Conservatives do not wish to diminish the Bank of Canada's independence, but we want to ensure it is acting independently while fulfilling its mandate to control inflation. I support this bill, and I urge others to do likewise.
1495 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the outset of listening to the debate in this House and reading the text of this bill, I cannot help but wonder if the Conservatives have lost faith in the Bank of Canada. I know they are going to say they just want accountability and they just want to have proper oversight. However, as pointed out, not just by Liberals but by members from the Bloc and the NDP, this goes a lot further than just looking for accountability and oversight. This plays into that narrative that, quite honestly, the member for Carleton, who is the perceived next leader of the Conservative Party, is feeding. He is feeding that narrative, and it is the narrative that they do not have faith in one of the most important institutions in our country. Have the members across the way lost faith in the Bank of Canada?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, we just heard a yes. I heard a yes that was heckled across the way. I did not realize the answer was going to be that easy. I thought I was going to have to fight for it.
Madam Speaker, it goes to the heart of the issue, and the heart of the issue here is that this idea and this politicization of the Bank of Canada, which is being led by the member for Carleton and those who support him, for nothing more than the gains that they can make out of this populist movement, is exactly what we are seeing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asked a question earlier: Will all Conservatives support this? He stood up and said that yes, they would. I am really interested to see the vote from the member for Abbotsford, because he was extremely critical, and he agreed that the politicization of the Bank of Canada “undermines the party's credibility on economic issues”. That is the member for Abbotsford, the same member who was ousted for making a comment like this, just last night.
An hon. member: He resigned.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I am sorry. I am corrected, Madam Speaker. He resigned. He was given the opportunity to resign. I thank the Conservative member across the way for correcting that.
This is about populism. That has been well documented, and not just by the member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier but indeed by other political parties in here. I am very glad to see that it is extremely clear what is going on here, and I look forward to my seven minutes that remain the next time this comes up for debate.
444 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Putin's horrific actions in Ukraine are killing children, women and elders, and displacing millions of Ukrainians who are fleeing for safety.
Since 2017, the NDP has been calling for visa-free access for Ukrainians. It is unfortunate that this has not been put in place, as it would have been the most efficient way to get people to safety. Instead, the government opted for a visa process.
Canada's immigration backlog now exceeds two million people, with significant backlogs in every stream. The minister said that he was going to fix the problem, but the situation is actually getting worse, not better.
The promise of a two-week turnaround time in processing of the Canada Ukraine emergency travel visa is just fiction. In fact, Ukrainians could not even get an appointment to get their biometrics done in two weeks. Not only that, the minister announced an extended family reunification measure for Ukrainian nationals on March 3. It has been over two and a half months, and there is still no indication of when details of the family reunification PR program stream will be launched.
Aside from the issue of processing visas and travel documents, the government is now relying on Air Miles to help Ukrainians get to safety. I certainly hope that this does not replace what is absolutely essential, which are evacuation flights. If it does, it is clearly not a very reliable way to help Ukrainians get to safety. Not only that, but it will also not help those who need to leave now.
What will happen when there are no more Air Miles points available? How will Ukrainians know that they can access points? For booking flights, points are extremely limited as there are limited seats available for each flight. As such, it could be very difficult for Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to get to safety.
Ukrainians in need of getting to safety are mired in red tape with delays in getting emergency visas. Now, they need to wait for Air Miles points to be available and hope that they can get a seat to get to Canada. Let us imagine that. The Liberal government needs to realize that this not a vacation for Ukrainian nationals. People are trying to get to safety. They are fleeing a war, and they are in a desperate situation. Canada should be partnering with Air Canada and organizing evacuation flights for Ukrainians.
Because the immigration stream made available to Ukrainians is a temporary visitor stream, concerns that they will not have the support they need are escalating. Even though the Prime Minister announced that there would be income support for them a month ago, so far there is no information on when or how they will be able to access the support. There is not even clarity on how much income support they would get or how long it would be made available to them. This cannot carry on. Also, children would not qualify for the Canada child benefit, yet we know that newcomers rely on that support to support their access to safe housing.
Provinces have said that they would help, but it is not enough. We need the federal government to bring forward a national program to address this issue and to ensure equitable access and support for all Ukrainian nationals.
556 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:29:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise to answer the member's question. Canada stands firm in its support for Ukraine. Ukrainian immigrants are an important part of Canada's cultural history, and we continue to support the courageous Ukrainian people
More than 32,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada since January 1 of this year. As part of our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or the IRCC, introduced the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This fast-track temporary residence visa is designed to help Ukrainians seeking a safe haven in Canada while war continues in their home country.
As of May 1, we have received approximately 240,000 applications under this new program and have approved over 111,000. We are meeting our target of 14 days for processing applications. We are committed to processing 80% of applications within 14 days, and we continue to meet that standard.
On May 10, the Minister of Immigration announced that three charter flights would be offered to approved Ukrainians and their families under the emergency program. The IRCC will be sending an email to those who have received their visas to come to Canada under the emergency program to let them know how they can book seats on these charters. The flights will be available on a first‑come, first‑served basis, and will depart from Warsaw, Poland, arriving in Winnipeg on May 23, Montreal on May 29, and Halifax on June 2.
Protecting people from danger and integrating them into a new community and a new country is just the beginning. Ukrainians will need support once they arrive in Canada, and that is why we have announced that Ukrainians will have access to hotel stays for up to two weeks and income support for up to six weeks.
The IRCC is issuing open work and study permits to Ukrainian nationals and their families who are currently in Canada and cannot return home safely, allowing them to extend their stay in Canada for up to three years. In addition, on March 30 of this year, the Government of Canada announced temporary federal support to help eligible Ukrainians arriving under the new program to settle into their new communities.
These extended settlement program services, which are typically only available to permanent residents, will be available until March 31, 2023, and include the following: language training; information about and orientation to life in Canada, such as help with enrolling children in school; information and services to help access the labour market, including mentoring, networking, counselling, skills development and training; activities that promote connections with communities; assessments of other needs Ukrainians may have; services targeted to the needs of women, seniors, youth and LGBTQ2+ persons; and other settlement supports.
We will continue to do more to welcome Ukrainians seeking refuge here in Canada from Putin's war as quickly as possible, and we will take care of them when they get here.
504 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government is very good at making announcements, but the reality is that it actually has not followed up. The parliamentary secretary just talked about the income support for Ukrainians. Where is it? How can people access it? Where is the information for people to obtain that support? I have constituents who are hosting Ukrainians and they do not know where they can get that support. It is simply not there, even though the announcement was made by the Prime Minister weeks ago. Talk is cheap. We need to actually act on it and put those programs in place.
Finally, it is absolutely essential that the government does not rob Peter to pay Paul, and that it ensures that refugees from other countries are also supported, so agencies and resettlement agencies are not stuck without the support that they need for all those other countries. They all deserve support. The government also needs to take action to ensure resettlement services agencies have the capacity to do this work.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:34:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to have a conversation with the hon. member. I am very happy to report on the settlement. Earlier this year, we made an announcement that we were going forward with $35 million for our rural and small communities. I had the privilege last week to go to Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, where I announced $14.2 million that will be distributed among 11 rural communities. We have been there since day one with our Ukrainian community. We will continue to be there and support them, and I am very proud of the actions that our government has taken.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on this adjournment debate. I want to acknowledge I am standing here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The question I am pursuing tonight I originally asked on April 27, so it had not been long since we had received the final chapter of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with its most dire warnings ever.
I asked the Prime Minister how it could be, given we had been told by the IPCC that emissions must peak globally by 2025 and drop dramatically from there to at least half by 2030, that two days later the government approved the Bay du Nord project, and how it could be that, three days later, the budget included continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, while somehow transferring that monstrosity to indigenous ownership.
The Prime Minister's answer, as ever, was that the government was doing so much and had committed $100 billion to be spent between 2016 and 2030. One hundred billion dollars is a lot of money, but it does not save us. The government's plan does not come close to holding to 2°C or 1.5°C.
We are facing some very serious realities, and talking points will not do. I have to admit that I made an error in my question of April 27. On how bad things were, I quoted from the IPCC lead author, who said that it was “now or never”. I read the report of the IPCC as saying, as I just did, that we had until 2025 globally to ensure that emissions had peaked and dropped from there. I was wrong.
I went back and reread page 22 of the “Summary for Policymakers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report. We do not have until 2025; we have less time. The quote is that “global emissions must peak between 2020 and, at the latest, before 2025”.
This is not a political debate. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is as good and decent a person as we are ever going to find in this place, and the minister is a good person and the Prime Minister is a good person, but it does not matter. The difference between policies developed by good people who fall short on climate change and policies by people who do not believe climate change exists, in the words of Bill McKibben, one of our leading champions for climate action globally, is losing more slowly.
The Liberal plan before us does not deal with the science. It does not. Setting net-zero by 2050 as if it means anything is spin. It is not science. Net-zero by 2050 is only relevant if global emissions peak before 2025 and drop rapidly from there.
I know what the hon. minister has said in this place about Bay du Nord and the emissions not being Canada's problem. Really? When did he lose his moral compass? The emissions do not matter if they happen somewhere else? Canada is to continue to increase producing oil and gas? It is not our problem if the emissions in other countries condemn our children to an unlivable world? That is what we are talking about; nothing less than that.
When we have a choice between now or never, please do not choose never.
579 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:39:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the points raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I always like discussing this issue with her.
Fighting climate change is very important to me. It is an issue that really guides the work that I do in this place every day.
I would point out that we are at the point of seeing a flattening of emissions from this country, and that is a very big deal. In 2019, we began to see a decoupling, where the economy grew and emissions were flattening. They were not growing in the same way the economy was.
In 2020, our emissions in fact dropped, but that was a different year. We all know that because we were not travelling the way we had before. However, I will point out that some of that drop is a permanent piece that comes from the work that we have done to remove coal-fired electricity from the electrical grid, as we are doing, so there are positives steps. I think it is really important to highlight some of that as well because I feel the anxiety, as I think so many people do, and it is important to point out that progress is being made.
The member has also raised the Bay du Nord project. I have pointed out that we are making progress. There is work being done. It is hard work. We put a price on carbon pollution. That was a big deal. We had to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to make it stick. That was a lot of hard work, and it is a having an impact. It is a very strong market mechanism.
If we look toward next things, we are mandating zero-emission vehicles so that 100% of all new light-duty vehicles sold by 2035 will be zero emission. We are retrofitting buildings as set out in the emissions reduction plan. As quickly as we seek to make that transition, there are many logistical challenges that we are overcoming to make that happen quickly.
Currently, we are still in a place where we rely on oil and gas for our homes and transportation. Even as we transition from the combustion of fossil fuels, and this was something that was a big learning for me, there is going to remain a need for non-combustion related uses. For example, I was at my bike shop talking to someone about my bike. Right now, there is no other quality way to lubricate the chain on my bicycle than to use oil. It is also used for plastics in a medical context. Those are needs that are still there. Therefore, the world will still need some fossil fuels, but not necessarily for combustion, which brings me to the question of Bay du Nord.
The federal government accepted the environmental assessment of the Impact Assessment Agency regarding the Baie du Nord project after four years of consideration and scrutiny by scientific experts. The projected emissions from Baie du Nord are 10 times less than the oil sands on average and five times less than the average oil and gas project. Ultimately, I am going to highlight this, because it is something that is important to me as I look at all of this: The atmosphere sees emissions, but it does not see production barrel numbers.
What we are doing is driving down the combustion of fossil fuels in our own country through the work I have outlined above, and there is so much work being done. We are also putting a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. Those are all steps we are taking that are important steps forward. I would say we are making tremendous progress. It is a hard mountain to move, but we are doing it.
I thank the hon. member for all of her feedback and work on this issue.
658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:43:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did not say in my four minutes up here that the government is not working. I did not say that individuals are not working hard. I did not say the government is not making progress. I said that the totality of what it has proposed does not protect my grandchildren from the Mad Max dystopian future that awaits them on if we stay on the trajectory we are on, so we must be sure we do more.
There is no excuse for the government wasting billions of dollars on the Trans Mountain pipeline. There is no excuse for an emissions reduction plan that includes an increase of 21% by 2030 of oil and gas production. There is no excuse for approving Baie du Nord.
My Liberal friends, who claim to be climate active, should hang their heads in shame. They must do more. We stand on the edge of too late, but it is not yet too late.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:44:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do understand the urgency. It is, in fact, something I take very seriously in the work I do. It is something that I take to heart, and there is urgency in the work we are doing. In only looking through the emissions reduction plan, it goes through every sector of our economy, putting forward projections to reduce our emissions.
We have signed on to international agreements. Canada joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. If we look at all of the work put together, including reducing emissions by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, then we are on a path to net zero by 2050.
It is urgent, I absolutely agree, and we are working with that urgency. We will continue to do so.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:45:33 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. The House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Public Works and Government Services in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:46:07 p.m.
- Watch
Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.
Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, meaning how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and comments.
Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with another member shall indicate this to the Chair. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours as needed to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each.
I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.
We will now begin tonight's session.
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:48:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to salute and welcome the minister. Now, on to the first question.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the following at the February 4 meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates: “The pattern is that whenever we look at major procurement issues, for example, combat ships, supply ships, and now polar icebreakers, there is one constant: the costs are always higher when an independent office estimates them rather than the government.”
Why is that?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, we always provide the estimates, and we do our best to maintain procurement that matches up with those estimates.
21 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
