SoVote

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

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

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/14/23 1:12:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from Kings—Hants talked about competitiveness. He had some really good ideas. I have heard of the issue with electronic logging devices, as well, when loading and unloading cattle, and some common sense approaches to that, but he did not touch on inflation very much or some of the spending his government has done that has added to that inflationary fire. I have one simple question: Does he believe the CRA should try to get back some of the $15 billion that it said, by its own numbers, was spent on people in jail, companies that did not need it and even some people who are dead? Should we work hard on that? I know there has been an increase in capacity at the CRA. Why would we not be sure they would do the good work to get those hard-earned taxpayers' dollars back into the pockets of Canadians?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/14/23 1:13:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about inflation. As I mentioned, it is a global challenge. There are a number of reasons that are driving that, including demographics in the western world, supply chains and some of the resulting impacts of the war in Ukraine. Some of it, a small portion, is going to be related to government spending, but that member opposite was the same member who, in the 43rd Parliament, was calling on the government to do more to spend and help support businesses during that time, so it is easy to be an armchair critic on the other side and suggest somehow the government did too much. When we look at how the economy has rebounded and the amount of people who are working in this country today, we see I believe somewhere around 800,000 more Canadians working today than prior to the pandemic. Our job numbers are strong. We are still in a strong fiscal position, as it relates to our G7 comparator countries. On the CRA question, because I want to address that, yes, CRA has said that it will respond and it will make sure there is an ability to recoup that money. We have to do that reasonably in a way that actually makes sense with the resources we have, but the government has been very clear that this will be a policy moving forward.

233 words

All Topics

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

Feb/14/23 1:14:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it takes a strong stomach to sit here in the House and listen to Conservatives tell us about inflation yet again. If we read between the lines, it is clear that this motion is about the carbon tax, as if we were not living in 2023 with climate change. The Conservatives do not see the problem and think we should continue to encourage oil and fossil fuel companies that do not contribute to clean-up efforts in any way. As for the government, its talking points must be getting crumpled with use, because we keep hearing the same things over and over. The Liberals talk about the universal child care program, even though Quebec has had one for 27 years. The Liberals talk about the dental care program that no one asked for but that the government decided to put forward even though it will never be able to administer it. The Liberals also talk about the one-time $500 cheque for housing assistance, which 87,000 Quebeckers will not be eligible for because we have better social programs than elsewhere. However, the government never talks about its inability to provide high-quality, timely services to citizens. Currently, workers and families have to wait six, seven, eight, 10 or 11 months to receive an EI cheque for which they have contributed. EI reform is not part of the Liberals' commitment. I would like to see the government come up with real solutions to help workers and improve the quality of services, which it is not even able to deliver, instead of telling us how we should deliver our own.

271 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 1:16:04 p.m.
Watch

The questions are good, and some of the answers are good, too, but I think it is taking far too long to ask and answer questions. Not enough people are getting the opportunity to really participate in the discussion we are having. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

49 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/14/23 1:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, although it was less of a question and more of a speech that contained several points. I am in favour of certain measures that I believe are necessary to ensure that our businesses, owners and entrepreneurs are competitively positioned in the global market. There are a number of questions to ask, but I support the proposal to ensure that government expenditures produce acceptable results in relation to the amount of money spent to provide services.

84 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/14/23 1:17:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight elections, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who continue to vote for me to be their parliamentary valentine. As dean of the Conservative caucus, it is my role to provide institutional memory and a bit of history. After nearly eight months under the leadership of the member for Carleton, our party is more united than ever. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians need our party to be more united than ever, because after eight years of reckless inflation-fuelled spending Canada is broken. After eight years of the Prime Minister, he cannot protect our citizens. The paid-off media claims our military is short 10,000 soldiers. In truth, it would be hard pressed to muster 10,000 soldiers if they were needed. We have foreign incursions into our Arctic waters with no way to monitor traffic below the surface. Within weeks of the 2015 election, the Liberal Prime Minister was dismantling our national defence, starting with our navy. As one of his very first acts, he tried to deep-six the project to build a naval supply ship, when our country had none. We have four submarines, which were catastrophically flawed from the time they were purchased used, and we are lucky to have one in service at any given point in time. We have one submarine operational. Four in total are needed due to the maintenance schedules. A submarine takes 10 years to build, even if it is off the shelf from an ally. Instead of taking action to replace them now to ensure we have underwater capability a decade from now, the Liberal Prime Minister is throwing good money after bad on retrofits. After eight years, Canada cannot protect our airspace. Thanks to the U.S. media, Canadians saw for themselves how the absence of an early warning system left us vulnerable to penetration by air. With the Internet three decades old, Canada does not have a cyber-defence force stood up yet. Sure, the Liberal Prime Minister has plans to censor the Internet, just so his warped, woke doctrine can be propagated. However, after eight wasted years, we cannot protect our electrical grids, our water systems or our transportation systems from cyber-attacks. After eight years of the Liberal government, we cannot afford four more. Not again. I say not again because it really feels like we have been here before. In 1972, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau lost his majority, so he cut a deal with the NDP. Spending went up, debt went up and inflation took off. By 1984, the deficit had reached 8% of GDP. Canadians were tired of Pierre Trudeau and his irresponsible policies, so they turned to Brian Mulroney, and he won the largest majority government in history. I do not want to raise expectations for the member for Carleton. I just think my colleagues across the way should mentally prepare themselves. If they continue to ignore recent Canadian history and to spend without concern for the future, there will be a reckoning. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada is broken. Canadians can feel it. After eight years of the progressive Prime Minister, public spending is up. There are more public servants and more consultants, but basic services are falling apart. Nearly a year ago, I wrote to the minister responsible for passports and warned them that service performance was plummeting. It was not until June that they announced a task force to look into the problem. Recently, the minister was claiming mission accomplished. Congratulations. The government is now processing fewer passports with more personnel. Famously, the government has a productivity problem, which is not a surprise from a government that brags about doing less with more. It is not just passports. How many members across the aisle tried to renew their possession and acquisition licence? I will go out on a limb and guess zero. How many members heard from constituents who cannot even reach someone on the phone? After eight years of the Prime Minister, the Canadian firearms centre is broken. If Canadians are starting to feel as if everything is broken, it might be because it is. The Financial Consumer Agency has been conducting a regular monthly survey since the start of the pandemic. At the height of the lockdowns, with business closures and mass layoffs, 26% of Canadians had to borrow to make ends meet. Now, with no lockdowns and a labour shortage, 38% of Canadians have had to borrow just to make it through the month. The number of people using payday loans has risen from 1.4% to 4.5%, but percentages really do not tell the story. In 2020, there were as many people living in London, Ontario, as there were using payday loans. After less than three years, it is now as many as the number of people living in Calgary. How many of my colleagues across the aisle got into politics to triple the customer base for payday loans? That is part of their legacy now, and that might be a hard truth to swallow. After eight reckless years of deficits, the medicine cannot be sugar-coated. One cannot borrow forever. The government tried to convince itself that as long as the debt-to-GDP ratio was not increasing, it could borrow until kingdom come. Unfortunately, for the gang who cannot spend straight, reality has a fiscal bias. At first, the Liberals tried to deny that inflation was even happening. We saw prices skyrocket. It turns out that when one gives high school students CERB, they use it to buy NFTs. When one keeps interest rates artificially low, people with houses buy more houses. When one forces everyone to work from home, many opt to buy a better home. When one increases the carbon tax, the cost of everything goes up. Once inflation could no longer be denied, the Liberals and their media allies instantly pivoted from denying the reality of inflation to denying the cause of inflation. First, it was magical supply chains causing inflation. The problem for inflation deniers is that we do not import hairdressers. Many of the critical bottlenecks in shipping cleared well before the consumer price index started to rise. Prices were already increasing before Putin's invasion. Countries around the world, which had all followed similar expansionary, fiscal and monetary policies, began experiencing inflation. The new line was that inflation is a global problem, which was a pretty convenient excuse for a Prime Minister who brags about his intellectual disinterest in monetary policy. However, a fly just flew into the Liberals' delusional ointment. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said, “inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what's happening in Canada.” First, they denied inflation. Then they denied the cause. Finally, the finance minister tabled her fiscal update. In her speech, it sounded like she got it. The words fiscal responsibility poured from her mouth like a mountain spring, but the numbers on the page told a different story, or rather the same old story. Taxes are up, spending is up and they are borrowing more. After eight years, Canadians are tired of this broken record. Many Canadians might not remember, but after the massive deficits of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, Canada hit a fiscal wall. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were forced to balance a budget. They slashed spending and laid off tens of thousands of people. They devastated health care in Canada. The crisis in health care today is that eventually, with socialism, one runs out of other people's money. The Liberals thought they could laugh in the face of history. They thought they could deny economic reality, but the world has a way of catching up. As they prepare for their next budget, they should pay some mind to the lessons history can teach. The most important lesson is the bill always comes due.

1334 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/14/23 1:27:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was quite entertaining to hear about those woke little green men who are flying around and were invited by the Prime Minister. However, let us talk about reality. Let us talk about Stephen Harper. In 2011, when reports came in that Defence Research and Development Canada had been targeted by the Chinese government, the Harper government did nothing. The Harper government sat on the fact that the Chinese government was hacking both the finance department and Treasury Board. The Harper government did not have a problem with that. Then, Stephen Harper tried to sell off the oil sands to China. He sold $15 billion of a state-owned company to a Chinese state government and then invited Huawei in. We are not even beginning to get to the perfidy of this. It was a secretive free trade deal that allowed Chinese state companies to sue municipalities in this country. That is how the Conservatives rolled over. Could members imagine the Americans letting China sue Montana, Washington or Miami? Stephen Harper was willing to do that, as he left us open to cyber-attacks, as he supported Chinese state intervention in our economy. He was willing to sell—

201 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 1:28:55 p.m.
Watch

It is seems that I am failing at my task dramatically. I do not want to fail the members of the House of Commons in making sure that everyone gets an opportunity to ask questions and, of course, that we get the answers. Let us make sure we keep our questions short and keep our answers short so that everybody can participate. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

71 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/14/23 1:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' coalition of spending wants to talk about former prime ministers. The longer they delay, the bigger the bill. Pierre Trudeau's reckless spending led to the GST and to massive cuts to health care. Canadians pay more but get less. It is another shining example of the Liberals being unproductive. Like father, like son. Just like his father, he centralized power in the Prime Minister's Office. To hear former finance minister Bill Morneau tell it, the Prime Minister has adopted many of his father's worst instincts: imperious, aloof and dictatorial.

96 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/14/23 1:30:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the words that are said in this place matter for our democracy. In her speech the member mentioned paid-off media. She mentioned media allies. I think this leads Canadians to believe there is someone in the governing party who is paying the media to say certain things. I wonder if the member could give examples of what so-called paid-off media is. If not, could she retract the statement?

73 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/14/23 1:30:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, decisions are made on the basis of what would make the best headline rather than what would make the best policy. It is all style and no substance. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, more Canadians than ever are living paycheque to paycheque. The cost to rent a two-bedroom apartment has doubled. More Canadians are using food banks than at any point in history. After eight years, Canada is broken. Canadians have little hope that the government is even capable of making life better. However, for the sake of our nation, could the Liberals at least stop making the situation worse?

106 words

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

Feb/14/23 1:31:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a discussion here. Some members want to know who wrote the speech that the member has provided. Is it her, or does she have someone who writes it and then she edits it? We are really quite curious about who wrote the speech.

50 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/14/23 1:31:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, members are looking at the author. They can vote for this motion, cap spending, fire the high-priced consultants, eliminate inflationary deficits and scrap the taxes that have caused a cost-of-living crisis for Canadians. After eight years of the terrible Liberal government, it is time for a change.

52 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/14/23 1:32:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we hear my hon. colleague talk incessantly about cutting spending, cutting taxes, making cuts everywhere. When will we hear that member call for cuts to fossil fuel subsidies?

30 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/14/23 1:32:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we believe that if one is going to spend more, one has to find some way to take from other places that do not impact on Canadians' day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, with the government and all their partners who vote with their money bills, they are not doing that. We just dig deeper into the hole. Eventually, that bill comes due.

64 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/14/23 1:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate this afternoon. I have been sitting here for most of the morning listening to some of my colleagues' speeches. I am proud to see that the member for Timmins—James Bay still has Harper derangement syndrome, proud that he is still full-fledged with that last question. The House leader for the NDP has full-on Harper derangement syndrome as well. He still blames the former prime minister for almost everything that has gone wrong in his life, probably that he did not get the Christmas present he wanted as well. Mr. Harper probably does not think about them whatsoever anymore, so I am glad he is still making breakfast in their kitchen. I want to talk about a few things around competitiveness and how people are doing in Canada right now. The motion is quite long, and a few people did not get to the motion. The member for Kings—Hants talked about competitiveness more so than inflation. A few of the members started on the issue of inflation and how it was affecting Canadians. I want to really dive into that and how it has affected people in Regina—Lewvan and my community. One thing I want to put on the record are a few comments that the Prime Minister a couple of years ago. I remember when the budget was delivered. Speaking through the national media to Canadians, he said that the government decided to take on the debt so Canadians would not have to. I will never forget that moment. As soon as those words came out of his mouth, I thought, if the government takes on debt, who eventually pays that back? It shows that he does not think about monetary policy. No government in the world has ever actually created wealth. They do not create revenue. The way the government gives revenue is that it takes it from people who work and pay taxes. It takes it from businesses that make revenue. The government does not create its own stream of revenue. That was probably one of the most out of touch comments I have ever heard a leader of our country make. As my colleague, who just wrapped up, said, eventually the bill does come due, and it is the Canadian taxpayer who has to pay that bill. We are seeing that in the very real result of inflation. I know that Tiff Macklem and random Liberals like Mark Carney and Bill Morneau are all talking about how inflation is more and more a made-in-Canada issue. That inflation has hit everyone hard. It has hit the parents trying to take their kids to sports and buy healthy groceries. People take pictures of their groceries and send them to me to show me what $200 of groceries looks like, and it is four bags of groceries. It is a real issue for people right now trying to make good choices to feed their families. As we have talked about in question period, parents are skipping meals so their kids do not have to; 1.5 million Canadians line up each month at food banks. We are the bread basket of the world, and 1.5 million Canadians are using food banks. Members of the government and the coalition should listen to that. That is a real number. People are making these decisions to go to a food bank. They cannot afford groceries because of inflation. One of the huge things that has driven up the cost of groceries is the carbon tax. When we have brought in opposition motions about scrapping the carbon tax, immediately everyone says that we do not have a environment plan. We will hear that from the NDP and the Liberals, that there is no environmental plan on this side and why would we want to scrap the carbon tax. As we say all the time, a carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. We can see it in the results. We asked our Liberal colleagues and the NDP, which always supports the Liberal carbon tax, about the results. What targets have they hit? Could they show us an emissions target they have hit in the last eight years to sell the carbon tax to Canadians. They are trying to sell it as this green plan but emissions have continued to go up. At the last COP meeting, where everyone flew their private jets in and had a fancy gathering, we heard that Canada was 58 in the world in reducing its emissions. That is over the Liberal government's whole history. Being 58 in the world is not something to be proud of. Therefore, when the Liberals are trying to sell this carbon tax as a tax plan, it is not true. If they are trying to sell the carbon tax as an environmental plan, it is not working. Maybe they have to go back to the drawing board for something that actually would lower emissions across our country. With regard to competitiveness, as my friend from Kings—Hants mentioned, I met with the Canadian Steel Producers Association. We had an all-party steel caucus. One of the things that it brought up was competitiveness. I will take this time right now for a shout-out to say that my heart is with the 100 or so USW 5890 workers in Regina, who are on the verge of being laid off. One of the reasons they are having more layoffs at Evraz steel in Regina is because we cannot sell our product, because our country is being flooded with cheap steel from countries like South Korea, China and India. Their steel is costing pennies on the dollar of what our steel is costing. Because of the carbon tax, it is costs so much more now to make that steel. We want to talk about being more competitive, and my friend is shaking his head and agreeing. He was on the Zoom meeting as well from Flamborough—Glanbrook, and I really appreciated his contribution. One thing we can all agree on is that when it comes to made-in-Canada steel, it is way more environmentally friendly than any other steel that people are using in infrastructure projects in our country. We have the most environmentally friendly steel. We have a steel industry where our workers are treated well and they are paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. In a lot of other countries that does not happen. The fact is this. If we not only used more Canadian steel in our infrastructure and in our projects but exported it to other areas of the world, it would lower emissions in our country. That is just in one sector of our economy. That is where we want to talk about competitiveness and what inflation does, not only to our whole economy and people's day-to-day lives but for the growth of our economy. The Conservatives agree. We are always talking about growing that pie, not cutting it up into smaller chunks for each individual province or sector. We have an opportunity in our country now, coming out of COVID, to grow our economy, to get stronger and we do not see that happening with the current government. I just heard the member for Winnipeg North say that they were going to build back better. Many Canadians would look him in the eye and tell him not to worry about building back better; just put it back the way it was. We hear this all the time, that we should quit trying to make things better because all the Liberals are doing is making Canadians fall further and further behind. I was an MLA for eight years before I became a member of Parliament. One of the things I heard a colleague say was that sometimes one of the best things government could do was to get out of the way. Sometimes the best thing it can do is nothing and let the entrepreneurs of our country do it. Canadians are very good at knowing what to do with their own money. I say in many of my speeches that a dollar in the pocket of the person who made it is worth twice as much as having the government take it and spend it. The Liberals were talking about their job numbers. Since February 2020, 80% of all the jobs made under the government were in the public sector. It seems like the Liberals have forgotten about the private sector and entrepreneurs, those people who invest their money and create jobs, where the government does not have to do it for them every day. I am proud to represent Regina—Lewvan and to put some of the people's stories on the record today. Inflation is hitting everyone hard across our province and in our city. Under a government led by our new leader, we would take the tax off and keep the heat on.

1525 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 1:43:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit ironic that the member opposite would have presented as a candidate in the last election by talking about carbon pricing. This was something on which that member ran. I take notice that he and the Conservative Party may not agree with the approach that this government is taking. He talked about it as being an environmental plan. However, really the core of what the carbon price is about is trying to incentivize changed behaviour. It is trying to drive technological innovation. I was in the member's home province of Saskatchewan. Federated Co-operatives Limited is making a hundreds-of-million-dollars investment on the basis of trying to benefit from getting around the idea that there is a market mechanism to change behaviour. I take notice that the member might not like this plan, but an honest and genuine question back to him is this. What would he suggest is the best mechanism from government to actually try to drive the innovation and technology that is needed? Is it government regulation? Is it big, bossy government programs? What exactly would he like to see? On this side, I think it is a market mechanism, which is inherently a conservative play. Why does he not like it?

214 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Feb/14/23 1:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy it when a Liberal shows up in Saskatchewan, because we have not had one since 2019. Federated Co-operatives Limited is putting $1.3 billion into a renewable diesel plant and a canola crushing operation, which is going to be fantastic. What the government could do is appreciate some of that private money going toward making new jobs. While we are on are on the topic of promises during elections, that government also ran on a promise to never to never increase the carbon tax over $50 a tonne. The member is going to have to go back and explain to his constituents why it is going to $170 a tonne, which will triple the cost of heating their homes in the winter.

128 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/14/23 1:44:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I missed what the member said at the beginning, so I will stick to what the motion says. When the Conservatives talk about cutting spending, do they want to cut the $65 billion in old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments to seniors? Do they want to cut the $7 billion in GST rebates for low-income earners? Do they want to cut the $4 billion in veterans' benefits? Do they want to cut the $43 billion in EI benefits? Do they want to cut health transfers? When they talk about cutting spending, exactly what are they talking about?

108 words