44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 10:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do feel I need to correct the record, because there are many errors in the speech of the parliamentary secretary
The first is the claim that the Conservatives do not have any targets for climate change and emissions reduction. In fact, the Liberals' targets are Stephen Harper's 2030 targets, so that is not the case.
The member said that we did not have a plan. Our leader outlined technologies such as nuclear, carbon sequestration and carbon capture, and leveraging LNG to other places in the world that would help reduce the footprint by a factor of 10.
Why does the Liberal government keep telling Canadians things that are simply not the case, such as they were only going to pay $50 a tonne for carbon tax or they were going to get more money back than they invested? Why does the Liberal government continue to do that?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:51:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it laughable for the member opposite to suggest that the Conservative Party has a concrete plan to fight the climate crisis. She referenced Stephen Harper's government. Under Stephen Harper, our emissions ran wild.
We have put in place a robust and very ambitious target to get to net zero, and we are committed to getting there.
We hope that the Conservatives will not stand in the way.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 2:23:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the EI contribution rate today is $1.58. Next year, it will go up to $1.63. Both of those rates are lower than the EI contribution rate was in every single year when Stephen Harper was prime minister, yet the new Conservative leader, who was actually the employment minister during those years, now wants to slash our contributions.
Who do the Conservatives think was the better economic manager: Prime Minister Harper or their new leader?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 2:24:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, a Canadian earning $49,500 a year paid $931 in EI premiums. Next year, that same Canadian will pay $807. That is nearly $125 less than she paid when the Conservative leader was the minister in charge.
Yet again, Canadians really need to understand this: Whose policies do the Conservatives support: Stephen Harper's or their new leader's?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:15:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and address the issue of a price on pollution. It is an issue that just does not seem want to go away.
I had the opportunity earlier to formulate a question on something I wanted to expand upon, and that is trying to really understand what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue of a price on pollution. Over the years, we have seen many different types of positions coming from the Conservative Party. If we go back into the history books, we will find that it was the Province of Alberta that came up with the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen other provinces, whether it is British Columbia, Quebec or many, if not all, of the Atlantic provinces, that have seen the benefits of a price on pollution.
A number of years ago, when we first came into government after the 2015 federal election, we conducted a series of discussions, working with the different stakeholders and, in fact, other world leaders, as the world recognized the value of a price on pollution. People like Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and Brian Mulroney, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, supported at least the principle of a price on pollution.
We have seen the Conservative Party, in opposition, change its position. I remember when we first announced it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats in protest against a price on pollution. As we got closer to an election, particularly the most recent election, we saw a change of heart. In fact, Conservative candidates across Canada in the last federal election knocked on doors saying they supported a price on pollution. They campaigned on it.
Now the leader who got them to convert and recognize the value, as people like Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did, is no more. At least, he is no longer leader of the Conservative Party. A shiny new leader says Conservatives are opposed to a price on pollution, and now there is an energy starting to come from many of the Conservative MPs I heard years ago saying they oppose it. If we listen to some of the speeches, we can see the misinformation they are trying to spread.
Eighty per cent of the residents I represent in Winnipeg North, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will have more money coming into their homes as a direct result of the price on pollution. The Conservatives tell the constituents of Winnipeg North, my constituents, that they are paying more as a result of the price on pollution, and that is not true. I would suggest that my constituents and Canadians across the country look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in terms of the benefits to a vast majority of Canadians, and that they look at what other provinces are doing.
I would ask members to try to understand this one. The Conservative Party of Canada says it is a bad policy and it wants to get rid of it. If the Conservatives were successful, and heaven forbid that occurs, they would get rid of the price on pollution, but that applies only to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the leader of the Conservative Party approaching the different premiers of our Confederation, saying the Conservatives are going to get rid of it in Ottawa and he wants them to get rid of it in those provinces?
Does he plan on compensating those provincial governments in one form or another to encourage them to get rid of a price on pollution, or is he just saying that in some regions of the country it is okay to have a price on pollution and in other regions it is not? If there was no federal price on pollution and the Province of Manitoba at some point in time in the future wanted one, would the Conservative Party say it cannot have a price on pollution? I do not believe that to be the case.
The Conservative policy really makes no sense at all. If we listen to what has been said by the Conservatives over the years, we understand that they are all over the place, and at the end of the day it makes no sense. I think they need to go back to the drawing board, like their former leader, the one who campaigned in favour of the price on pollution in the last federal election. Maybe they should invite him in and allow him to participate in that discussion. The Conservatives need to be more consistent in understanding the long-term impact of the type of misinformation they give, and should even try to deal with the issue, which many of us have, that there are many climate change deniers in the Conservative Party.
We have heard from the newly minted leader of the Conservative Party and many of his colleagues that he is this new economic guru of sorts. He actually made a statement, so my colleague from Kingston posed a question on it, as did our parliamentary secretary for tourism: What about the advice to Canadians about cryptocurrency?
Let us remember that when he was running for the leadership, there were two things that really stood out. One was that he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not want to say any unparliamentary words, but suffice it to say, that is not a good idea. Along with that was forgetting about the Canadian dollar and investing in cryptocurrency. He was contending to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Believe it or not, unfortunately, some people would have followed the advice, been intrigued by the statement and looked into it. I would suggest that many would have bought into cryptocurrency. Today, those who did are suffering great losses as a result of listening to the leader of the Conservative Party.
I find this interesting. Yesterday, I was listening to a number of the Conservatives talk about having a wonderful economic policy. I have not seen it. There is some room for encouragement, I guess, and we talked about the GST rebate to support Canadians during this time of inflation. I recognize there is inflation. Our inflation is lower than that of the United States and the European Union, but we can always do better. We are striving to do that, and one of the ways we are doing that is by introducing substantial legislation to provide relief to Canadians in all regions of the country.
We have Bill C-31, on dental care. The Conservatives are still offside and say it is a bad idea. It is the only party in the chamber saying it is a bad idea. However, with respect to Bill C-30, the Conservatives saw the light. Originally, they were against it, but I guess they did some math and figured out we are giving 11 million Canadians a financial break through the enhanced GST rebate, so over the weekend they made the decision to support it.
Let me give them some words of encouragement. If they are genuine in wanting to support Canadians and help them deal with inflation, why not do what they can to encourage the quick passage of our legislation, and at least Bill C-30? After all, they apparently support it now. That is some good, sound advice. I hope they take advantage of it.
1246 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:42:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Regina—Lewvan that this government has been making significant investments in Canadian agriculture. I am glad that he has been asking many questions, but I am going to stick to agriculture, as that is my passion and my job in the House.
I would remind the hon. member as well of the way our government has been supporting agriculture. Our total budget for 2021-22 was just shy of $4 billion, the highest in recent years. I would also remind him that there was $400 million cut when the Conservatives' hero, Mr. Harper, was in government. We have put back $500 million, and I am glad that the Province of Saskatchewan signed on this July for the federal-provincial-territorial meeting, which created a new program. This includes historic investments in innovation, business risk management, market development and compensating our producers and processors under supply management.
We fully recognize that the price of inputs increased due to a number of factors, including COVID and supply-chain disruptions, which is why we have taken concrete actions to help producers facing this challenge. We increased interest-free loans to provide them with the necessary cash flow to access key inputs, such as fertilizer. We increased the interest-free portion of the advance payments program from $100,000 to $250,000 to help producers cover the cost of inputs, including fertilizer, which is an average savings of $7,700 per producer and a total savings of $69 million over two years for the approximately 11,000 producers who take advantage of advances above $100,000. Canadian producers have access to business risk management programs, and we continue to make them more bankable for them.
In July, federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed to increase the compensation rate under AgriStability to 80%, and I think that is good news for Saskatchewan. It would be up to an additional $72 million per year to better support our farmers in times of need. This builds on our removal last year of the reference margin limit, which could increase the overall amount that the program pays out to Canadian farmers by another $95 million a year.
We worked hard to ensure that Canadian producers have the support they need to succeed in the 2022 growing season, and producers have responded. As the harvest nears completion, Statistics Canada is projecting significant increases in production this year compared to last year, with over 55% for wheat and almost 40% for canola.
Let me remind the House that climate change is real. Last year, western farmers lost 38.5% of their crops. On this side of the House, we needed to act as this supports agriculture across Canada, and we are closely monitoring the situation with regard to the sourcing of the fertilizer needed for 2023.
477 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
