SoVote

Jun/7/22 1:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I am very big on making sure that I stick to the facts, and I do not like to be accused of anything to do with misinformation or disinformation because that is never my intention. The climate action incentive is going to be increased in 2022-23. I do not have the exact number for Regina, but I know that in Manitoba a family of four will receive $832. I would also say to the member that, if Manitoba or any of the provinces that receive the climate action incentive now want to put their own decarbonization plan in place, they can choose to do so, and then the price on pollution would not apply to those respective provinces.

129 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the world price on oil and gas is not set by the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest there is no way the Conservative Party can guarantee any sort of savings by cutting a consumption tax or a price on pollution. There is no guarantee of that. The motion talks about the housing market. At the end of the day, and we have had discussions about the housing market in Canada, the national government does have a leadership role to play. There is absolutely no doubt of that. We have done that, whether it be in the fall economic statement, which the Conservatives voted against, or within this budget, which the Conservatives are voting against. Things like the annual tax on homes that are not being used as residences or the freeze being put into place through the budget on foreign ownership related issues are all having an impact. Most importantly, for the first time in a generation, we have a government that has been very proactive on the housing file. We have invested far greater amounts of money into housing and providing supports to the non-profit sector, to provincial and territorial governments and to indigenous communities. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that has been incorporated into the national housing strategy, which is something that did not exist prior. We have the intergenerational housing credit within this particular budget to encourage families to build onto homes or have something built on their property. This is an excellent program. We have encouraged community members to look at ways in which they can make their homes more energy efficient. For the first time in many, many years, we have a government that has been spending a great deal of resources and efforts at improving Canada's housing stock. It takes more than a national government to deal with this problem, whether it is municipalities in the areas of zoning and making accessible properties or individuals who want to purchase property. If someone is a normal resident, it is very difficult to buy an individual building lot, especially in urban centres. We can take a look at the amount of administration provinces are ultimately responsible for when it comes to housing. The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis to support low-income housing, not to mention the rapid housing program and other housing projects the Minister of Housing has put into place. The Conservatives will criticize the housing file, but when they were in office, they absolutely failed in comparison to some of the initiatives we have put into place. We can take a look at the speech that was given by the leader of the Conservative Party. Unlike the Conservatives, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will continue to focus our attention on the real issues that are facing Canadians every day of the week. It is why we are concerned about housing, inflation and many other issues, such as the pandemic. We will continue to do what we can to assist Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

526 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Jun/7/22 6:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer to that question is no. However, since it is not like me to provide a simple answer to a simple question, I am going to take the time to point out that there are innovative solutions. I myself came to work today in an electric car. I can say that I am not affected by the higher gas prices right now. Sure, I am making some sacrifices: I had to stop a little more often along the way. I am looking forward to seeing new charging stations installed. That is definitely part of the solution, because pollution comes at a cost. We pay for it through our health care system. The Conservatives do not talk about it, but there is a cost to polluting.

132 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 6:27:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the Bloc has recognized the motion is not worthy of voting for and for a number of different reasons. I want to highlight the need for us to recognize that the price on pollution is something that, in my home province for example, if we look at the 2021 tax year, provided a net benefit to virtually 80% of my constituents. Where the federal government is providing the price on pollution credit, our citizens are actually benefiting from it. It is having an impact. We are encouraging people to think electric, and so forth. Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the whole idea of that transition?

116 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Jun/7/22 6:28:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I will answer his question the same way I answered his colleague's. I believe we need to review the taxation of big banks in Quebec. We need to ensure that we stop investing in the oil and gas sector. The consequences are huge. Why not review equalization and make it greener? The pollution we generate in the system needs to be offset by higher equalization payments. I think it is a win-win. The greenest provinces would get more. Now that is a solution.

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:37:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the city of Stockholm is at the forefront. I will not talk about the many praiseworthy elements of its urban planning, but, in short, it is a model city. Obviously, some will say that Sweden is a small country that does not face the same challenges as Canada. That is true. However, the real difference is that Sweden has the political will and courage to do things differently, with the common objective of meeting the collective imperatives. What are the current collective imperatives? The climate crisis and even the survival of humans. We must acknowledge this and take action to counter the declining biodiversity and the material threats represented by all climate events, such as violent winds, forest fires and the destruction of infrastructure. These events are reported every day in the newspapers. I have not forgotten about health. The World Health Organization just issued a new policy brief on the measures that countries must implement to address health issues related to climate change. This brief was released as Stockholm+50 ended. The WHO urges us to view health not just from the historical perspective of pollution and its links to cancer, but by also factoring in psychosocial well-being, anxiety, depression, persistent grief and suicidal behaviour. It is David versus Goliath. David is the millions of citizens who are worried about their future and their children's future. David also represents the organizations that are trying to knock some sense into politicians. Goliath is big oil, which is dominated by foreign interests and whose ambitions are being legitimized by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an influential third party, which is really worrisome. In December 2021, the Council of Canadians released a report analyzing the system that is in place. It revealed an industry sector that is holding the government hostage and keeping it captive through intensive lobbying. This is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The author of the study is an economist, author and university professor. He uncovered a significant issue: CAPP was allowed to register as a third-party advertiser in the 2019 federal election, letting it run ads and advocate on key issues. Third parties are allowed to spend up to $1 million in the pre-writ period and up to $500,000 during the election campaign. One would think we were in the United States. The Canada Elections Act prohibits a person or entity from making or publishing false statements during an election to affect election results. However, during the 2019 election, CAPP made two false statements on the Vote Energy platform website. In its first statement, it wrote that “Canada's only credible path to meeting its Paris commitments is through increased exports of Canadian natural gas”. It was implying that fossil fuels were actually going to help us. In the second statement, it called for Canada to “acknowledge that Canada's oil and natural gas sector is not subsidized”. As false statements go, I do not think it gets any worse than this second statement. We understand better now why the government cannot resolve the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. Obviously, hundreds of meetings in 12 months with ministers and other elected government officials produce results. How can we expect to make a real transition? We are even at the point where the Canada Elections Act would have to be amended in order to close another loophole. It seems to me that we have enough on our plates already. Let us not add to it, for goodness' sake. We learned recently, after the supplementary estimates (A) were released, that Canada's six largest banks have quietly provided $10 billion in financing for Trans Mountain. Canada's Department of Finance had repeatedly refused to reveal who was behind the huge loan for the controversial oil sands pipeline. Bloomberg, the largest supplier of financial data, has confirmed that all the Canadian banks are listed as lenders. With the guaranteed returns on a loan this big, the banks are getting a good deal. Everyone needs to understand something. Even if Trans Mountain does not pay back the full amount, the federal government's commitment means that the banks involved are in no danger of losing money. We will see why. When was that promise made? The deal with the banks was signed on April 29, the same day that the federal loan guarantee was approved by the Prime Minister's Office, as first reported by the news website Politico. The exact amount loaned by each bank is not disclosed, but if I divide the $10 billion by the number of banks, each bank would have loaned roughly $1.7 billion. Some observers have said that it was a formality. Why say such a thing? A $10‑billion loan coordinated between six banks is a complex agreement that would have taken months to prepare, which once again raises the problem of the lack of transparency. It seems like Export Development Canada's habit of not being transparent is starting to rub off on the Department of Finance. Trans Mountain is a Crown corporation. It is funded in part by taxpayers' money. It should therefore be a paragon of transparency, not opacity. The government wants to build a pipeline, but it does not have any credible arguments for doing so. The Minister of Finance said in February that no additional public money would be spent on that project and that the necessary funding would be secured through third-party financing, either in the public debt markets or with financial institutions. She failed to mention that the government would guarantee these arrangements. Again, Canada's account administered by Export Development Canada is the account fed by the public treasury, meaning our money. It is not like the Bloc Québécois has not talked about that account. We have not stopped talking about it. It takes some nerve to tell people stories like that. It is disgusting. It would be irrational not to be concerned about the current state of governance. If this were some kind of amazing, solid project that was a guaranteed money-maker and guaranteed to be safe for the climate while ensuring a future for our children and our health, I would bet anything that the government and Canadian banks would shout it from the rooftops, but no, this is all being done in secret. This project is an environmental death sentence that violates indigenous rights and compromises the global community's efforts to slow the climate crisis. It is a financial disaster. It is a carbon bomb being built through the mountains. It flies in the face of climate science. Nobody can be proud of this project. It is obvious why they are not exactly advertising it, so it should come as no surprise that the latest developments in this shameful saga are being hushed up. The arrangement shows how non-Canadian institutions feel about the financial prospects of the tar sands. It also speaks to the undue influence of the oil and gas industry, the loopholes in the Canada Elections Act, and finally, the consequences we will collectively face in the future. To attract private lenders such as the big Canadian banks, experts say the federal government is likely to have subordinated its own debt, which means that private sector investors will be paid first if the project is completed and generates revenue. If what the experts say proves to be true, if that really is the case, an investigation will be in order to shed some light on the decision-making process. However, the government is keeping mum. The Bloc Québécois has been systematically calling for an end to the support for Trans Mountain for a very long time. Are the Bloc members the only ones who are fed up with all the lies and double-talk?

1325 words

All Topics