SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Feb/14/23 12:29:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands got me thinking. I am just reflecting, but I feel like there was a Prime Minister Trudeau before the current government who ran massive inflationary policies that led to economic devastation in the seventies and eighties and massive cuts in the mid- to late nineties to health care, social service and education. I am wondering if my hon. colleague remembers that as well.

73 words

Mr. John Williamson

Feb/14/23 12:29:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am vaguely aware of the first Trudeau. What I find interesting is that the national energy policy that was devastating to Alberta and western provinces at least had Canada as the beneficiary, particularly industries in central Canada. However, I think it was a misguided policy. I look at what the Liberal government is doing today, and it is not only ruining energy policy in this country but, at the same time, making energy more expensive and selling it to Americans and Europeans at a cheaper price. It is completely backwards. The Prime Minister, in many senses, is doubling down on bad policy and is hurting Canadians.

109 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Feb/14/23 12:30:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with other parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which seeks to correct the record from yesterday's two votes. I move: That notwithstanding any Standing Order That the Journals of the House of Commons for Monday, February 13, 2023, be amended, under Division Nos. 257 and 258, to indicate the following members as paired: The Minister of Foreign Affairs with the member for Shefford The member for Ottawa South with the member for Beauport—Limoilou The member for Parkdale—High Park with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot The member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

128 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 12:31:23 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/14/23 12:31:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House to speak to this important motion that our party has put forward on the issue that is of most concern to Canadians today. I know all of us in the House, and I am sure government members are hearing it as much as we are, receive calls and emails to our offices every day from struggling working people having trouble paying their bills. People who live on fixed incomes are having to make the most difficult choices in life, like the choice between paying for heat, paying for food, paying for medication or paying for gas in the car to go get food. These are the choices that people are making as a result of the actions of the Liberal government after eight years. We are in an unprecedented situation of a 40-year high in inflation caused by the policies of the government after eight years. After eight years, people are working harder, but they are falling further behind. I know members of the Liberal Party love it when we raise Pierre Trudeau, so I will raise Pierre Trudeau. We have not had inflationary numbers like this since Pierre Trudeau was in government. That was a difficult time in the 1970s and 1980s for people. The sins of the father are now being delivered through the sins of the son. Housing prices are now twice as high as they were in 2015. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the cost of groceries is up 11%. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, half of Canadians are cutting back on groceries. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, 20% of Canadians are actually skipping meals. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment across Canada in the 10 biggest cities is $2,213 per month, compared to $1,171 per month when the Liberals were elected. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, 45% of variable mortgage rate holders say they will have to sell or vacate their homes in less than nine months due to current interest rates. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the average monthly mortgage costs have more than doubled to now over $3,000 a month. We can see that these costs are going up and that is why we are getting these calls. I am going to relate it a bit to what we experience in the Maritimes. Mr. Speaker, as a Nova Scotian, I know you are getting calls along these lines. The policies of the government have killed the investment in most industries in Canada. Bill C-69 is affectionately known as the “no pipelines bill”. I call it the “no capital bill” because it has really killed all capital investment. The result of that is that in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick, and my predecessor who spoke, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, has the same issue, we have to burn oil from Saudi Arabia to heat our houses. To give members an idea of what that costs, because of the policies of the government, it costs $1,800 to fill a tank of oil. Half that tank will be burned in four weeks. These are the expenses that are killing people on fixed incomes in my part of the world and making them think about selling their houses. We have good, clean, ethical Canadian oil and natural gas that we could be bringing to Atlantic Canada to reduce our cost of living, but the government has brought in policies to stop that. Of equal impact on inflation is the fact that the Liberals never saw a tax they did not like. What is the first thing they did? They thought they could put in carbon tax, a tax they thought would stop everything that goes on in the world with regard to weather. Carbon tax is inflationary by its nature. If it were to work, which it does not, the design of it is that it has to make everything much more expensive in order to cause people, theoretically, to change their behaviour. In my rural riding, we do not have transit. We do not have options for how we get around, how we take our kids to school, how we get to work, how we get groceries, or how we go visit our parents and family members. We have to drive. Transit is not an option that we have. The Liberals believe that imposing a carbon tax would actually change the fact that we have to drive everywhere in rural Canada. The imposition and tripling of this new tax, which would come into place this year in Nova Scotia, because the Liberals have not had enough of destroying our economies with their taxation, will make fuel cost an extra 40¢ a litre by 2030. For the mom taking her kids to hockey practice or taking her kids to school, this is a huge amount of money, on top of having to burn gasoline produced from oil from Saudi Arabia. That tax costs families thousands of dollars a year when they are trying to make healthy meals and trying to figure out how to heat their houses. Heating houses, and this may come as a shock to the Liberal government, is not optional in Canada. We actually have to do that, and a tax that makes home heating more expensive for seniors living through our frigid winters is nothing short of cruel. I am talking about the Liberal carbon tax, the tax on everything, the tax making everything more expensive. If the Prime Minister was serious about making life more affordable for our seniors, workers and families, he would cancel the carbon tax imposition in Nova Scotia, and he would cancel the tripling or quadrupling of the carbon tax that he is planning to do to make life more unaffordable for Canadians. Instead of freezing that obscene tax, the Liberal government is raising taxes on the people who are struggling to make ends meet. Of course, the Liberals pretend that somehow, magically, in their world of math we could actually get more money back than we pay. That math does not add up in grade 6, but apparently it adds up for the Liberals. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his reports on the carbon tax that exists now, has actually pointed out something the Liberals tend to ignore. I will read from the report: “most households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing” by 2030. That is a little different from the lines we hear. By then, the carbon tax levy will have increased to $170 a tonne. The moment we decide to decarbonize the economy in a relatively short period of time with a tax, if it were to work, we are talking here less than 10 years to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that there is going to be a cost. The PBO goes on to report, “Most households...under the backstop will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan” in 2030-31. The Parliamentary Budget Officer continues by stating, “Household carbon costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid...and lower income...—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.” In other words, this is not what the Liberals say during question period, that somebody magically pays into taxes to Ottawa and gets more back. I do not think anyone has believed that existed since the temporary imposition of income taxes when they first came in. It is just about as believable. An additional element of this high-priced system that the Liberals have brought in is that we have fallen behind the U.S. in our per capita economic output. In 2015, we were equal to the United States, and now we are 40% less. That is $100 billion a year lost to the Canadian income, according to the IMF. I know the Liberals like to make up their own numbers, but the IMF says that is $100 billion a year that is lost to our income relative to the United States because of the policies of the government. Up until 2015, we were fairly equal. I have many more issues, which I am sure I will get to address in the question and answer period, particularly with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I look forward to those questions.

1454 words

All Topics

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 12:41:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is from Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia recently we have seen some terrible hurricanes, including Fiona. We are seeing ponds not freezing over. We are seeing places where indigenous folks used to ice-fish for years but are not able to ice-fish anymore because of climate change. I wonder if the member opposite could tell me if it is right, and if there is something we need to do to put a price on pollution. Does the member agree with the Supreme Court that climate change is real? Does he agree with the scientists that climate change is real? Does he believe that we should act on this?

115 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/14/23 12:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Sydney—Victoria would be supportive of the idea of getting natural gas to Nova Scotia, since 62% of our electricity is generated by burning coal from Colombia. If the Liberals will support getting natural gas to Nova Scotia through a pipeline, we can cut our emissions in half and impact those issues that the member raises around climate change.

66 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/14/23 12:42:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about natural gas as a source of clean energy. We need to define “clean” because natural gas leaks and contaminates water sources. Natural gas needs to be flared off. I am sorry, but that is not clean. It is a polluting fossil fuel.

53 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/14/23 12:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member from Quebec, where over 52% of Quebec's energy comes from fossil fuels from western Canada. In addition to that, natural gas burns much cleaner, which is what I said, than other forms of electricity generation like coal. I am sure the hon. member would be interested to know that Pakistan just announced that because it cannot get enough natural gas from around the world, it is going to quadruple its coal production and burning in Pakistan. I am sure the member would like to see that coal burning going down by bringing good, cleaner Canadian natural gas to Pakistan and other parts of the world.

115 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/14/23 12:44:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rather enjoy the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets. We get along famously. We have ongoing conversations in this House. He talked about the poor Liberal mathematics. I will find some common ground first. I would agree, and I will put this on the table, that we cannot tax ourselves out of climate change and that is a fact. However, his math is not math. He talked about the good people in Nova Scotia who cannot afford to pay their bills and cannot afford to heat their homes, but not once did he talk about corporate profits. I am here to say today that if we were to abolish carbon pricing, the 1,000% profits that the oil and gas sector has had over this last year, in 2022, would continue to make it unaffordable for his residents. The hon. member is a pragmatic man. Could he at least not agree that the corporate gouging, this ridiculous out-of-control profiteering, is the economic driver that is keeping the cost of heating the homes in his home province unaffordable for working-class people?

188 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/14/23 12:45:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre and I do have some spirited conversations, which I enjoy. I will say that the cost of our energy in Atlantic Canada is driven by the fact that we have to buy Saudi Arabian oil. However, I am always curious that the members of the NDP, part of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition, seem to hate any type of profit. Without profit, the member would not have the Apple iPhone that he carries around with him, because it creates innovation and jobs. I would like to hear NDP members once in a while get up and say it is great that we are able to move forward and produce better medicines, produce better technology and produce a better lifestyle for Canadians and for the world through profits and innovation.

136 words

All Topics

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

Feb/14/23 12:46:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants. It is a nice, sunny day outside, I think, although I am not really 100% sure. However, I can say that on days like this, when the Conservative Party brings forward its best efforts to try to sway public opinion, it is like an ominous black cloud covers the House of Commons and the chamber. One can get fairly depressed just listening to the bafflegab that comes from the other side. This is a kind of warning for people who are following the debate not to believe everything the Conservatives say, because, quite frankly, they are very good at stretching the truth, if I can put it that way and still be parliamentary. I find it truly amazing just how deep in darkness the Conservative Party can really be. I would like to show some contrast between the dark side and a party that, through the years, has been there in a very tangible, real way for Canadians for the last seven years. Maybe that is a good place to start. It is kind of ridiculous that we hear the Conservatives stand up time after time and say, “eight years of Liberal government”. They should do their math. Even if we round it off, it is not quite eight years yet; it is actually closer to seven, so they will be able to regurgitate these exact same speeches a year from now.

249 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/14/23 12:47:52 p.m.
Watch

We will be getting to eight years eventually. Hopefully, with the blessing of Canadians, we will be able to double down on that in the time to come, but we need to be able to show that, at the end of the day, we are prepared to respect what we have been given. We were given a mandate to manage the economy in a minority situation, meaning that we have to work with all political entities here in order to get things passed through the House of Commons. From my perspective, the essence of the motion before us today can be broken down into two things, the amount of spending and the inflation issue. First and foremost, we have to understand and appreciate that the everyday lives that Canadians are going through can be very challenging. Costs have gone up and we have recognized that. That is why we have brought forward programs, whether through legislation or budgetary measures, to support Canadians in every region of our country in a very real and tangible way by putting money in their pockets. Let there be no doubt about that. We are concerned about the issues of being able to have groceries and pay those bills. That is one of the reasons why we are developing the programs and putting them out, even though the Conservatives vote against those programs. What is truly amazing is how the Conservatives try to misrepresent the reality in the world today. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that the inflation rate today is unique to Canada and is all because of this particular government. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Surely to goodness, the Conservatives do not believe that Canadians are so dumb as to believe that. Canada is, among many other nations, doing reasonably well in terms of the inflation rate. We are doing better than the United States, England and the European Union, where the inflation rates are higher than Canada's. As much as the Conservatives try to give the impression, the Prime Minister of Canada is not causing worldwide inflation. The Prime Minister and the government are providing supports for Canadians in a very real and tangible way, so that we can assist them in dealing with the inflation rate here in Canada, because we understand and recognize the hardship. What happens when we do that, when we recognize that, first and foremost, yes, we have to take action, even though we have a lower inflation rate than countries around the world? We have to do things such as doubling the GST rebate on a short-term basis. Originally, the Conservatives came out against that particular policy stand. They had to be shamed into ultimately coming onside and supporting that particular initiative. What about others, such as the rental support program? They voted against that. On the one hand, they are criticizing the cost of rent. On the other hand, when we provide a support for a good number of Canadians on that front, what do they do? They vote against it. What about the benefits being provided to children under the age of 12 for dental care? Tens of thousands throughout the country, thousands in Manitoba, have already taken advantage of that program. We are talking about hundreds of dollars in the pockets of families for dental work for kids under 12. What did the Conservative Party do? It voted against that too. We bring in programs that are having a real, tangible impact, such as the Canada workers benefit. For workers out there having a difficult time and working hard, we are topping off their salaries, making life more affordable for them. Do members know that over four million Canadians will benefit from that program? We get criticized by the Conservatives regarding how much money we are spending. They say that we are spending so much more than just what has to do with the pandemic. Yes, we are spending money. We are investing in children. By having a national child care program, we will have more people engaged in the workforce. We will improve the quality of care for children. We will improve the quality of life for Canadians in general, as more people will enter the workforce as a direct result. We have seen first-hand in the province of Quebec, when it instituted that very same policy, how that had such a positive impact. In fact, there is a cost to the program, but because of it, revenues will actually increase. We know that. We just signed off on a $198-billion health care agreement to enforce a national health care system. I wish I could have half an hour to expand on why that is so important not only to the people of Canada today, but also to future generations. Those who want to talk about mental health, palliative and long-term care, waiting lists and doctor shortages, the need for the managing of health care, accountability and transparency should be supporting this initiative for the $198-billion, 10-year proposal. I am so glad to see that the provinces are now onside with it. Our health care system is a part of who we are as Canadians. People have an expectation of the government, that we will be there to protect them and to have their backs when the economy is having some difficulties, whether during a pandemic, a slowdown, inflation, or whatever it might be. This government from day one has been investing in Canadians and in our infrastructure, and has been building a stronger, healthier economy even during the turmoil of a pandemic. By providing those types of supports, and, yes, the billions of dollars, the government has put Canada in a better position to build back better. We believe in Canada's middle class. We want to see an economy that works for all Canadians. There are a lot of good things taking place in Canada today, contrary to what the Conservative Party might try to get Canadians to believe. There is reason to be very optimistic, because as we deal with those economic measures, we are not forgetting about the environmental measures. We are not forgetting about those important social programs that Canadians are so dependent on and very fond of. This is a government that will continue to bring in progressive legislation and make budgets that will be there every day for Canadians no matter where they live.

1083 words

All Topics

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Feb/14/23 12:56:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was quite something. In response to Conservatives saying that the current government, after eight years, is destroying the country, the hon. member corrected us by saying that it has been destroying the country for only seven years and that we should get our facts straight. In response to our saying that the record levels of spending by the Liberal government are destroying our economy, his answer was to ask why we will not support the government in spending billions more. One thing he talked about was truth. I have a very specific question. With all of the record levels of spending the government is doing, somehow it has not found enough money to fulfill the promise it made during the election, on page 75 of its platform, costed out at $4.5 billion, for the Canada mental health transfer. Right now the government was supposed to have spent almost a billion dollars. I want a straight answer from the member because he talked a lot about truth. Where is that money? Where is the almost $1 billion that was promised to have been spent by now for the Canada mental health transfer?

195 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/14/23 12:57:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a humorous way, the member tries to make the difference between seven and eight versus the word “broken”. I understand that Conservative members who stand up and use the word “broken” probably get little gold stars put beside their names in the Conservative room. That is all part of the Conservative spin. The Canadian economy and society are not broken. We continue to move forward. We continue to build. I would gladly debate that particular member any time and anywhere, as long as it is somewhat reasonable, in terms of the planning of the things we have been able to accomplish compared to 10 years of Stephen Harper. With regard to the issue of mental health, I would remind the member that part of our health care system is recognizing that the administrative responsibilities lie with the provinces. From an Ottawa perspective, we are investing historic amounts of money in health care. We continue to raise the profile of mental health, unlike the previous Harper regime.

173 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/14/23 12:59:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I am in a good mood. I thank my colleague for his speech. He mentioned the Liberal government's great generosity several times, but what about health transfers? What about the money that has been owed to us for years? Our health care system is underfunded, and yet the Government of Canada's own health department gets billions of dollars in funding even though it manages not a single nurse, hospital or doctor and does not provide any care whatsoever. When will we get the health transfers that Quebec deserves?

93 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/14/23 12:59:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Bloc would have had an opposition day motion based on health care transfers. I think this is the first time in a generation when we have had such a long-term commitment toward a truly national health care system. It has just been signed off on, with the provinces now agreeing to the principles of the $198-plus billion over the next 10 years. There is a history of fiscal transfers. We have the highest number of federal dollars going toward health care in the history of Canada. The tax point shift was made back in, I believe, the late 1970s, toward tax points versus actual health dollars. I am very happy to say that, because of this particular agreement, we are going to see a permanent, solid presence of health care throughout the country. There will be more transparency and accountability and a higher sense of a national program, which I think all Canadians will be very proud of.

167 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/14/23 1:01:07 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if the government had extended the Canada recovery dividend to stores like Loblaws and the oil and gas sector, it would have generated $4.3 billion in revenue. Can the member say that the Liberal government will learn from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and extend that recovery dividend to such box stores?

59 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/14/23 1:01:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that, whether it has been the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, they have been very clear in terms of the issue of tax fairness. We have brought in some measures to ensure there is more accountability. Taxes coming in from banks is an example from the financial industry. I am sure that all things are on the table as the government tries to ensure a higher sense of fair taxation.

80 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 1:02:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here debating the opposition motion moved by the Conservative Party. The motion focuses on affordability. This is of the utmost importance to all Canadians at this time. It is important for people around the world because inflation is a global issue. It affects all of the world's economies. First, I would like to talk about some government programs that target low-income Canadians. The rest of my speech will focus on issues with the competitiveness of our businesses. In her fall economic update, the Minister of Finance created a GST credit for low-income Canadians. It is a temporary measure, but it is very important to those who need help now. There is the national child care program. We introduced a bill in the House to ensure that this program will remain in place for future generations. That is one way to help families with children save money. It is also a way to create spaces for rural communities, remote communities and all Canadians. I would also like to mention the 10% increase in old age security for those over 75 years of age. That is another measure put in place by the government to help vulnerable people. Lastly, there is the subsidy to help renters pay their rent. We have a number of programs in place that really speak to affordability. We know it is a tough question, and it is ultimately about making sure that the government is there to help support, in a targeted way, without adding to inflation. I will speak to the opposition motion. The questions around affordability are fine to raise, but the way the motion reads, of course, it is not designed for any member on this side of the House to support it whatsoever. It is framed in a way that any issue, any challenges of the day, are simply at the foot of the government. I want to talk about some of the elements that I thought the member for Calgary Forest Lawn missed in his opposition day motion. There is not one word on competitiveness. I really think that we have seen the government step up, and the member for Winnipeg North talked about the fact that the government has been here to help support with additional money. However, it looks as though those bilaterals are going to be coming into place over the next couple of months. We, as a government and a country, have to respond to the Inflation Reduction Act. The Americans have put down a significant package that is going to, frankly, drive investment decisions for clean energy for generations to come. Our country and our government would be unwise to not do something to respond to that. I guess my questions to those across the way would be these: Do my Conservative colleagues not agree with that type of spending? Should the government not be moving in that direction? There is no mention of that whatsoever and no mention of competitiveness. This will be a lens that I will talk about in my remaining time. Yes, right now, we are spending on health. We are going to spend on clean energy transition. However, we have to get more creative on things that do not cost money that could drive benefits for stakeholder groups and benefits for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, and I intend to give members a few of those here today. One that I have talked about before is the idea of a presumptive approval. Every day, Health Canada regulates products from hockey helmets to fertilizers to crop protection products. However, certainly on new products that are coming to the market, applicants are usually coming with an approval in hand from larger jurisdictions, because the reality is that a company that makes some of these products is going to start to try to get regulatory approval in the United States or in Europe before it comes to Canada. They are just larger markets and the smarter play for companies. Usually applicants arrive at Health Canada with an application in hand from a trusted jurisdiction. I would submit that, if the United States goes through a process to grant approval of a particular product, we can trust that was a rigorous scientific approval and not some kangaroo approval from a jurisdiction that may not take those issues seriously. It is the same thing in Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom. I could name certain jurisdictions that I think have that alignment, yet we do not have an expedited model where an applicant can get a presumptive approval to allow that product to be available to Canadian farmers, or whatever the case may be, through Health Canada. There is a way we can close the gap by simply providing the presumptive approval based on the science of other jurisdictions and go through the regulatory process. If there are any issues along the way, a red flag could be raised and that presumptive approval could be dismissed until such time as that the application is in good standing. There is one example of a regulatory innovation that we could use that would drive competitiveness in this country. I want to talk about streamlined approval of major projects. I have spoken in the House at great length about my requisite concern about the need to drive major projects that would focus on our decarbonization and our future. That can be different things to different people, in the types of industries and technologies we can use. When I look at the mining approval process in this country, the Minister of Natural Resources himself recognizes that is a 12-year to 15-year process in some cases. We need the critical minerals. Canada is going to be relied upon globally to meet that. Yes, this government, and I commend it for it, has been putting money on the table to help drive innovation, to help work on processes, but at the same time, there are some things we could do to help streamline those approval processes without compromising our values. It is easier said than done, I understand, but otherwise we are going to be facing a situation where we do not have the critical minerals to drive our decarbonized future. I have a couple of suggestions on that. It is no mistake that I have been a strong proponent of nuclear energy. I have talked about it often in this House. I think it is going to be needed to drive our future. Right now, under the Impact Assessment Act, there is a threshold. If the project is over 300 megawatts, it goes to the Impact Assessment Agency. If it is under, it goes with the Nuclear Safety Commission. We should be leaving the determination of whether or not projects are safe to the actual experts and deal with a regulator that is recognized around the world. Let us either increase that threshold or leave nuclear projects that are being contemplated, SMR or otherwise, to the nuclear regulator. That is one suggestion I have that would drive competitiveness in the important decarbonization that has to happen for our clean energy future. The next suggestion concerns provincial approvals and federal approvals. How can we find a one-window approach where, if the Impact Assessment Agency and DFO are asking for the same thing, as well as transport and other agencies, how do we not allow that to be a duplicative process and just allow one agency to take the lead? That is something we need to do a better job on. It is not necessarily an absolute critique of this government, but it is something that I want this government to take notice of and that we all as parliamentarians should be pushing for, because that matters for our clean energy future. That matters if we are genuinely serious about decarbonization and getting emissions down. We have to seriously focus on these types of issues. The last suggestion involves transport regulations. I have had conversations with agriculture interests. The government just introduced ELD, which is an electronic logging device. It is to make sure that we have safety for truck drivers in this country. I absolutely agree with the premise of what we are doing. However, there is a need for Transport Canada to provide a policy clarification for truck drivers. Although they might be at the very upper echelon of what they are allowed to drive in this country, if there is an adverse weather delay and animal safety is in question, we need some clarification that truck drivers would be able to finish perhaps even 30 minutes of driving as opposed to waiting eight hours on the side of a highway. These are some of the examples among the many out there that we all need to be focused on to drive in the days ahead. It matters for our competitiveness in this country, and I really want to see all of us talking more about these types of things. The Conservatives talk about the capping of spending. I am okay with looking at fiscal restraint and where we can find efficiencies in the government sector, but we have heard very clearly that the leader of the official opposition supposedly would not vote down any type of measures that we are putting on the provinces with health. They talk about capping spending. Would they not meet the moment right now in the spending that will be needed to drive our transition to a lower-carbon economy and to make sure that we have a place in the industrial revolution that is happening in relation to clean tech? That has yet to be determined. They like to talk out of both sides.

1639 words

All Topics