SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23

Apr/17/23 6:01:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, getting everyone around the table and being able to talk about innovation funds and so on is important. However, I just came from a committee where we talked about what happened with Imperial Oil in Alberta. When company representatives are sitting around a table, it becomes clear that there are people who listen, people who do not listen at all and people who do not consult at all. We have to keep that in mind when considering what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is putting forward.

93 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/17/23 6:02:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about fossil fuel profits and the fact that big business pocketed more than $38 billion this year alone. I find it very mysterious, however, that the costs associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline, which have ballooned to more than $30 billion, are nowhere to be found in the budget. There is absolutely no mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline issues in the budget. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Why has the government not cancelled this awful project already?

92 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:03:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at a Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development meeting I attended before the two-week break, I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change why it was impossible to get out of this bottomless financial hole. He replied that I should ask the Minister of Finance. I said I was asking the Minister of Environment because he is the one who knows what is going on, who reads the summary reports and who is responsible for ensuring that Canada meets its international commitments. That is the response I got from the Minister of Environment.

98 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Apr/17/23 6:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent presentation. The parts about carbon capture caught my attention. It seems to me that it has practically become a new religion. It is all we hear about. It is portrayed as a miracle solution. It will be universal, and it will bring happiness to the entire planet. My colleague explained that the science seems to indicate the opposite, so why is the government still going ahead with this?

77 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:04:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to ask ourselves why the government is continuing to move forward with this. I just want to remind the House that 100 of the 149 global carbon capture and storage projects were cancelled and that, in the United States, despite significant industry and government investment in the technology, 80% of the proposed projects failed to become operational because of high costs, low technological readiness, the lack of a credible financial return, and dependence on government incentives. Public money should go to known solutions. It should not go into the pockets of the oil and gas industry for futile projects they try to sell us on.

113 words

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

Apr/17/23 6:05:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and speak on yet another budget. At the end of the day, when we look at the last seven and a half years and the types of things the government has been able to accomplish, I think Canadians would feel confident that the government is on the right track. We have consistently argued, over the years, how important it is that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We have consistently argued about the importance of recognizing the role that the middle class plays in society and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. We have looked at ways we can enhance and grow the middle class. Even during the pandemic, Canadians knew that they could rely on the Government of Canada to be there in a direct way. We had the backs of Canadians, something that is so critically important. What we have seen over the years is an official opposition that has been more focused on personal attacks. While it has been focused on that, the government has been focused on delivering for Canadians. In terms of what we want to accomplish, we have a desire to build a stronger and healthier economy and society. That is what this budget reflects. It reflects the essence of what Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect their government to do, not only during good times but also challenging times. It has been challenging over the last few years. I am happy to reinforce that the government, in a very tangible way, has been there to support Canadians. In listening to the debate, we often hear from opposition members about the issues of accountability and transparency. In fact, the last question I asked was in regard to a Bloc member who stood up and said they did not necessarily believe that tax credits are a way to provide accountability and transparency. I used the example of a very important announcement within this budget. We recognize the fine work and need for us to look at ways we can support our trades from coast to coast to coast, and the important role they play. We talk about inflation. We talk about the needs of the worker. Within this budget, we have a tax credit enhancement, virtually doubling it from $500 to $1,000. That is there to ensure that those who are working in the trades are in a better position to be able to afford the cost of the important tools they require in order to apply their trade. Yes, the government has, in this budget and in previous budgets, used tax credits to assist Canadians directly. We have seen how the Government of Canada has been able to use taxes and tax rebates as a way to directly support Canadians. We have been very effective at doing that. A major part of this budget is the grocery rebate. We recognize the issue of inflation and the impact it is having in every region of this country. We understand it. Whether during break weeks or in the month of January, Liberal members of Parliament throughout the country are talking with stakeholders and their constituents so we understand the impact that inflation is having. This budget is reflective of many of those discussions that we have had with our constituents. That is why we have the grocery rebate. Imagine approximately 11 million Canadians benefiting from the grocery rebate during a time when we have concerns with inflation. Some might argue that we need to recognize that the inflation we are seeing today is not unique to Canada; it is taking place around the world. Canada is doing quite well compared to many of the European countries or our neighbour to the south, the United States. Our inflation rate has been less, and we are on the right track. We see our inflation rate going down, and we hope to see it continue to go down. Having said that, I want to highlight the two initiatives in the budget that put money in the pockets of Canadians. One that I made a quick reference to is the grocery rebate. Many of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit some grocery stores. The Minister of Justice was in Winnipeg, and we wanted to check out a grocery store. We met with the owner and talked about the impact that worldwide inflation is having on her ability to sell products. I believe she welcomed the fact that we are providing a grocery rebate, because she, like others, understands that this grocery rebate will make a difference. It also demonstrates that we have a government that genuinely cares and wants to help, even though, as I said, our inflation rate is far better than in many peer countries around the world. However, this does not mean that we ignore the issue. We can still work to do better, which is why we have the grocery rebate. In this budget, members will see the expansion of the dental program. I have listened to a number of members stand up and be somewhat critical of the government, saying that we are not doing enough for seniors, that there is nothing in the budget for seniors. That is balderdash. There are a lot of things in this budget for seniors. This budget is a reflection of many of the discussions we have had with seniors and their advocates. One of the most powerful stakeholder groups is our seniors caucus, where Liberal members continually meet and deal with senior-related issues. Hundreds, if not thousands, of stakeholders and individuals have provided direct input in making sure there would be things in the budget for seniors. This brings me to the second point. Seniors get the grocery rebate, and they also benefit from the expansion of the dental program. We have seen how successful it was in the first year when we were able to pass the legislation. It took us a while, because the Conservatives opposed that legislation. They do not support having a dental program for children under the age of 12; they made that very clear last year by opposing the legislation. We are now expanding it to include seniors. That, too, is going to be of great benefit for seniors, which is something I would think members would recognize. Not that long ago, it was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party to actually increase, by 10%, the OAS for seniors 75 and over. We recognized that there is a significant difference between the needs and disposable income of a senior who is 75 and a senior who has just retired at 65. I am thinking of such issues as medical requirements and the potential for supplementary income. That is a significant increase. In fact, we have been there virtually from day one to support our seniors. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, which we dramatically increased in the first 18 months, lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. This is not to mention going through the pandemic, where we invested literally millions into non-profit groups that were supporting seniors. We doubled the youth employment program during the pandemic period and leading up to the pandemic; many of these youth worked for seniors organizations and more. The government has done all sorts of things, not only in this budget but also over the last seven and a half years to support our seniors. On the same theme, it is interesting that Conservatives will criticize us because we are spending money. Yes, I will give them that. We are spending $198 billion on health care over the next 10 years. If we check with Canadians, as I have, they see health care as part of our core identity and want a national government that is prepared to invest in health care. That is exactly what we are doing with a 10-year commitment, because we saw what the previous government did under Stephen Harper. One would have to be blind or an idiot to believe that investment in health care will not be helping our seniors. At the end of the day, if we look at the benefits—

1385 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:18:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/17/23 6:18:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member for Winnipeg North that to imply that members in this place, or Canadians for that matter, are idiots for believing there are not investments happening in mental health or seniors' health is disrespectful. He should withdraw that comment.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:18:27 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members to be careful with respect to the words they use in the House. I know the hon. member did not pinpoint anybody in particular. Again, I know there are words that are mentioned from time to time on both sides of the House, but I want to make sure that individuals are very careful regarding the language they use in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

71 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/17/23 6:18:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point is about investing in health care and not believing that this is going to help seniors. I cannot imagine anyone truly believing that that would be the case when we are investing $198 billion over 10 years in health care. I used to be the health care critic in the province of Manitoba at the Manitoba legislature. I can assure the member across the way who just stood up on the point of order that a good portion of our health care services are there to support our seniors. Obviously they support everyone, but I can tell members that our seniors truly value and appreciate the health care system we have in Canada and would appreciate and value a federal government that makes, as we have, a 10-year commitment of $198 billion over the next 10 years. We have a government that has recognized, in many ways, the benefits that can support Canadians in other areas. We hear a lot about housing. Going back to the days when I was an MLA, at one time every political party inside the House, all of them, including the New Democrats, opposed the federal government playing a role in housing. That was in the early nineties. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Not us. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, everyone, Madam Speaker. I can tell members that for the first time, we have a Prime Minister with a government that not only talks about the importance of housing in Canada, but is invested in housing like no government in the history of the country. We have the first-ever housing strategy. We are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing every year. We are supporting tens of thousands of non-profit housing units throughout the country so that there is housing for seniors, people with disabilities and people of low incomes. We have supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity to ensure there are opportunities for people who could never own a home to own a home. We are supporting the expansion of housing co-operatives. We are putting limits on foreign investments. We believe that houses are there to be lived in, that they should not be used as an investment tool by foreigners. There is also the rapid housing initiative. Time and time again, the Minister of Housing is up during question period reminding members the degree to which we are investing in housing. If we take a look at it, not only have we demonstrated that we have a role to play in housing, but we have put the challenge out to other stakeholders and levels of government to jump on board and take the types of actions that ensure housing is more affordable. Within this budget, we created the first-time homeowner accounts. We want municipalities in particular to be there, because they really do play an important role in this. We want provinces and other stakeholders to come to the table and address the needs of housing. The federal government is there, but the federal government cannot do it alone, and we have recognized that. We have done more than any other government. We would have to go back generations on the housing file. We will continue to be there. We talk about the issue of accountability. It is interesting that the Conservatives, as I mentioned at the beginning, like to focus on personal attacks. This budget is a true reflection of what Canadian expectations are of the government. Just last week, I had the Prime Minister of Canada on McPhillips Street, at the Manitoba Building Trades Institute, where he had a town hall. There were union members and others who showed up, unscripted, to ask questions of the Prime Minister to deal with issues surrounding the budget and other issues, and what the Prime Minister did in Winnipeg, he has done in other jurisdictions. We have a Minister of Finance who consistently is reaching out and listening to stakeholders. We have members of Parliament in the caucus who are consistently reaching out to their constituents and reflecting what they are hearing, whether it is on this budget or legislative measures we are taking. This is a budget for all Canadians, and it is a reflection, in terms of what we are hearing. I believe it has Canada on the right track, and the stats will clearly demonstrate that, whether it is with jobs, social services or having the backs of Canadians.

746 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Apr/17/23 6:25:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to ask a question of my colleague from Winnipeg North. He just made the comment that this is a budget for all Canadians, and it certainly is. Every Canadian is going to have to repay the extreme debt the Liberals have put this country in. It is the biggest debt ever. He talked about accountability. The current government said it spent $500 billion for COVID, and the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada indicated that 40% of that had nothing to do with COVID. That has contributed to inflation. It will continue to, and even at the rates we have, it is the worst in decades. He can compare it to wherever he likes, but comparing it to ourselves, it is still the worst ever. Can he give us an accounting of why we are still 3.5 million houses short, if the Liberals' housing program is working so well?

156 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/17/23 6:26:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are spending $198 billion on health care. We are spending billions of dollars on a child care program. By the way, in February it was shown that we have the highest ever percentage of women in the workforce, because we wanted to ensure that child care is affordable. We have ultimately gone through a pandemic where we have spent billions of dollars to support small businesses and billions of dollars in order to be able to provide direct financial support for Canadians, i.e. the CERB wage loss program. We literally saved thousands of businesses from going bankrupt by doing so and literally put food and other necessities on the table for Canadians during the pandemic. Yes, we have spent money, and I suspect now, even though the Conservatives supported a lot of those measures, they want to oppose them for political convenience, so that they can say that we are spending too much money. The bottom line is that this is a government that has had the backs of Canadians, and it will continue to do so.

181 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:27:09 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:27, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment to the amendment be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

102 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/17/23 6:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:29:47 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Speaker

Apr/17/23 7:18:58 p.m.
Watch

I declare the subamendment defeated.

5 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Apr/17/23 7:19:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always. Several weeks ago, back in December actually, I asked the Minister of Finance a question in the House of Commons about why European nations were withdrawing any taxes on their fuels in Europe to the tune of about 8,000 euros per family while this government was considering moving ahead with a 30% increase in carbon taxes. I did not get that good of a response, but in the interim, two weeks ago as a matter of fact, Canada's independent officer of Parliament, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, came out with a new report on the whole matter. I brought it with me here to make sure that any of the talking heads on the other side who do not like what it says can hear from it directly. In 2023-24, the federal fuel surcharge was set at $65 per tonne. We estimate the government will collect $11.8 billion in fuel charges from the seven provinces where the charge applies. This will be in addition, a tax on tax here because there is GST on top of that tax that amounts to $429 million in GST on top of that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report makes a pretty clear case that one of the problems with this is that it takes away an income tax base, particularly from the provinces. It talks about the economic impact, and it effectively goes through what this impact will be. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in 2030-31, once the full $170 is actually implemented, the province it affects the most is Alberta, with an average of $2,773 per household. Now, this is something. The lowest province affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, will only be affected by $1,316 per household. I know that there will be much gnashing of teeth on the other side about this because those members have been claiming for a year now that this tax is actually a net positive for Canadians. Well, clearly it is not. However, no sooner had this report come out than my colleague on the other side of the House, the member of Parliament for Guelph, stood up and said that we need to make sure that the costs associated with the environment are considered in here. Well, let me say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a report, which considered exactly that; surprisingly, it came out on November 8, 2022. The problem with these speculative reports going forward is that they are just that: speculative. They are based on a scenario, but one of the things that came out quite clearly in it is that compared to every other factor the world is going to face, including economic downturns, recessions and conflicts, climate change will be less of a factor in the analysis going forward. Nevertheless, if we take a look at what the numbers are when we analyze it, by 2100 we will have changed the economy, by the PBO's numbers, by less than three one-thousandths of a percentage point per year. That is a lot if we are spending tens of billions of dollars. Energy costs are by nature inflationary, and there is a reason the Bank of Canada wants energy cost increases excluded when it calculates inflation. It's the trimmed median, whatever it wants to talk about; it is about excluding the number one cause of inflation from the carbon tax because that is what they want consumers to believe at the end of the day. Even the Europeans do not buy into that, as they reduced it by 8,000 euros per family over this past year because of what they are facing in Europe. Now, I will say again that in my strong opinion, European countries are very poor financial and economic managers, but they did give this rebate back to all the citizens across Europe at a point in time. Therefore, I will repeat the question I asked at the time: Why is the Minister of Finance pushing Canada, punishing Canadians, with a 30% increase to an already inflation-causing tax?

693 words

Fuels
Fuel

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Apr/17/23 7:23:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe we can all agree that climate change is a very serious issue for Canada. Something has to be done about it, and inaction is no longer an option, at least not for the present government. The truth is that climate change is already having serious effects in Canada. It is affecting our homes, cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across our country. While addressing climate change is an environmental imperative for this country, it is also an economic opportunity for all Canadians, and we cannot afford to be left behind. For example, the United States is moving forward with the Inflation Reduction Act, and it is important for Canada to keep pace. We simply cannot miss this opportunity to participate in the transition to the clean economy. That is why we are proposing, in budget 2023, to make key investments in the clean economy. This will enable us to not only fight climate change but also create jobs for Canadians across the country, including in my colleague's home province, Alberta. Our made-in-Canada plan, presented in budget 2023, is underpinned by a new federal tool kit for investing in the clean economy. We are proposing a set of clear and predictable investment tax credits, low-cost strategic financing and targeted investments and programming where necessary to respond to the unique needs of sectors or projects of national economic significance. Budget 2023 would ensure that a clean Canadian economy can deliver prosperity, middle-class jobs and more vibrant communities across Canada. When it comes to our pollution pricing system itself, I would like to remind my colleague from Calgary Centre that it is putting money back in the pockets of Canadian households. In 2023, through CAI payments, a family of four will have received $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, those living in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. Households in these provinces started to receive their latest quarterly payment last week. Is my colleague against these payments to Canadian families? Our government understands that many Canadians are still struggling to make ends meet in this period of high inflation. Canadians see it when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. However, I would like to remind my colleagues that inflation is dropping. The inflation rate in Canada was 8.1% in June, and it is now 5.2%. We do understand, however, that many Canadian families still need some support. That is why we are supporting those who need it the most, when they need it the most, with targeted measures. For example, we proposed in budget 2023 the new one-time grocery rebate. This targeted inflation relief has been designed to help support the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. The grocery rebate would help approximately 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families across the country. This would mean a one-time payment of up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children, up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children, and an extra $225 for seniors, on average.

543 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Apr/17/23 7:27:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I have to beseech the members on the other side to actually read the report they are referring to here, because they will find the numbers somewhat instructive. However, let us go “déjà vu, all over again” because we can look at the 1980s for massive government deficits at the time that led to high inflation, just like today. The U.S. fought this with what is called the strong dollar policy, which means higher interest rates on its bonds all the way through the economy. This penalized the developing world because most of the developing world has to pay its debt in U.S. dollars and with U.S. interest rates. This led to a decade of economic stagnation in the developing world, and some economies actually went negative over the decade of the 1980s to the 1990s. Therefore, this was predominantly thrust upon the world's poor to address inflation. However, one issue that addressed inflation was the fact that there was cheap energy, because oil became less than $10 a barrel at the time. Let me ask the question again. These are costs. Will the minister take a lesson and acknowledge that she is on the wrong path?

214 words

Ms. Annie Koutrakis

Apr/17/23 7:28:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as demonstrated by the recent federal budget, Canadians can continue to count on this government to implement measures that will protect the environment and create jobs at the same time. We have a plan to ensure that Canada is part of the clean economy, and we can all be proud of that. Of course, we understand that some Canadians still need targeted inflation relief support, and that is why we are moving forward with our grocery rebate.

79 words