44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 6:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, a quick question for the hon. member for Lakeland.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:32:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate and to ask a question of my very learned colleague from Lakeland. She is brilliant when it comes to the oil and gas sector.
It is unlikely, but is there anything in this budget that will actually help the oil and gas sector? If there is nothing, what could we do as Conservatives to make sure that we get the oil and gas sector up and running when we have the ability to govern?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:33:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this budget actually admits that the Liberals broke their own regulatory process for traditional sources of oil and gas and will now harm ever-increasing attempts at private sector investment in renewable and alternative energies in the future. There is $1.3 million in this budget allotted for regulators to “improve the efficiency” of assessments and another $50 million to help participants navigate Liberal red tape after eight years.
Let me just finish, please, the point on LNG. In the last eight years, 18 projects have been proposed in Canada. Only three have permits, and zero have been built. In the same time, the U.S. has built seven. They have approved 20 more, and they will build five more this year alone. Meanwhile, allies around the world are begging for Canadian LNG to help meet their energy needs and lower global emissions. That is what the government should focus on promoting.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about such an important democratic exercise, specifically the budget and its implementation. A budget provides a framework and a guide for the government's policy agenda. It is normally quite thick and takes a while to analyze. This bill is huge, I have to say. The government has thrown a lot in there. This type of bill is called an omnibus bill.
There are many items in the budget, but a lot of reading between the lines is still needed. The government announces things without really describing them, so we have to guess what its intentions are, what those things mean and when they will be implemented.
In this budget, I noticed that the government wants to differentiate between the investments that have already been announced and those that are forthcoming. To do that, it is putting different markers at the start of each line. Checkmarks are used for investments that have already been announced. That implies that it has been done. Arrows are used for upcoming investments. When I flip through the budget, I see a lot of checkmarks. That means that the government is announcing things a second time. That is a rather odd strategy. Announcing an investment twice does not double the amount. That is not how it works. The government needs to stop treating us like fools.
It is difficult to see what new announcements this government is making. For example, in the housing section, all we see are checkmarks. There is nothing more for the regions of Quebec, despite the fact that they too are experiencing a housing crisis. The housing crisis is not something that is only happening in big cities. There is a crisis in the largest regions of Quebec and in the smallest, and I am sure that the same is true elsewhere in Canada. Unfortunately, the funding is not reaching the smaller regions.
I do not like it when politicians criticize everything all the time. We see this every day, and I believe it does nothing to counter the cynicism people feel toward politics and toward elected members who find fault with everything.
I looked at the budget that was brought down in Quebec City shortly before the one in Ottawa. The opposition parties had some harsh criticisms. They ranted and raved, saying there was nothing good in the budget. I decided I would do my homework and acknowledge the good things when it was Ottawa's turn. It is nice for our constituents to see us commend things instead of always criticizing the government. It is nice to note the positive things, the aspects that are good, while pointing out what could have been done better.
When I received the federal budget, I realized that it would be hard to point out the good things because there are not that many, especially when I look at what Quebeckers were asking for. Often, what the Bloc Québécois suggests aligns with what Quebeckers are asking for. What Quebeckers want is what we are going to bring forward and ask for in the House of Commons.
As I was saying, the bill includes nothing for housing, nothing for seniors, nothing about the EI reform we have been asking for for years, and no long-term solution to health care underfunding. I am willing to recognize the good points, but is it that hard to meet the public's expectations?
Still, I did want to go through the process of trying to find good things in this budget. For example, the government seems to want to resolve, once and for all, the uncertainty around the calculation of the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfers of small and medium-sized businesses, especially farms. That is good. At last, this is happening. Farmers have been talking to us about this issue for a long time. Will it be resolved soon? We hope so.
Another good thing in Bill C-47 is that the government is planning to establish a real employment insurance board of appeal by incorporating elements of Bill C-37, which was introduced before the holidays. Great, that is a good thing. That is progress.
However, in all honesty, what we would have liked to see is nothing less than EI reform. That is what we have been asking for for years. Every year, unemployed workers' advocacy groups in every region of Quebec are promised that EI reform is coming and that it will be in the budget. They have been hearing this since well before 2015. Every time a budget is tabled, these groups realize they have once again been taken for a ride.
Need I remind the House that about 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot get EI, even if they paid into it with every paycheque? Need I also remind the House that it is worse for women and youth because many of them work in non-standard jobs?
The only other EI measure in the budget is a one-year extension of the pilot projects to provide an extra five weeks of benefits in regions where seasonal work is particularly prevalent.
We can hope that this is good news for our ridings, but obviously there is a “but” because only unemployed workers who have access to EI can benefit from that. As I was saying, unfortunately, 60% of seasonal workers are excluded from the program. Yes, it is a good measure, but there is always a “but”.
The problem is that the measures are temporary and ill-conceived. That is what workers in my area have been complaining about for years. We wonder whether it would be possible for the government to have a more long-term vision, or any kind of vision at all, really. The government seems to think only about tomorrow, not about what might happen in the coming years. It cannot keep using one-time cheques and temporary measures, because that will never really solve the problems that have been going on for far too long.
It is a little disappointing, and it is kind of symptomatic of this government. I believe that it would not be that difficult to put in place a more well-thought-out measure, one that might perhaps take more than two weeks to create. I understand that EI reform cannot be done quickly, but people have been proposing solutions for years, and everyone has been weighing in and saying that there are solutions and they just need to be implemented.
I will quickly address another point that my colleagues have already brought up. This is the proof that this whole thing is half-baked. Bill C-47 contains items that were in Bill C-46. We thought this meant that the GST would be doubled once again and that there would be an extra $2‑billion top-up for the health transfer. It was a nice surprise for us, but it was actually just a little mistake. When Bill C‑46 was passed last week, the government forgot to remove those items from Bill C‑47. These are really rookie mistakes.
I will now talk a bit about the environment. I see that time is flying and I have a lot of things to say. The government is announcing significant sums of money for the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are talking about $80 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of cash.
To me, the energy transition means transforming our energy sources, our economic model, our consumption habits and our vision of production. That, in my opinion, is where we should be investing our money, but that is not all the government's vision. No, the government says it wants to continue to do everything the same way, but by polluting less. Obviously, we wonder how that could be done and how we can do the same thing and hope for a different result. How can we increase production while lowering greenhouse gas emissions? The government says it will be easy with carbon capture and storage technologies. Oh, that is interesting.
Now we are left to wonder whether it actually works. No one knows, because it is virtually non-existent in Canada. The Minister of Environment himself said in a Radio-Canada interview in 2021 that he wanted to lower expectations around this technology. He said that the government wanted to invest in these technologies, but added that it must be understood that nothing will happen overnight. He said that this is not the best way to reduce our emissions over the next few years. He also said we are going to need a lot of new technologies in the years to come, including things like carbon capture and storage. He said we are several years away, maybe a decade, from commercial use. That is what the minister said in 2021.
Between you and me, I would not count on it too much. This is the same government that announced in its 2015-19 policy agenda that it would ban single-use plastics by 2021. However, that ban was only put in place a few weeks ago, and it is 2023, so we will not put too much stock in that. Considering that Canada began developing this technology in 2021, perhaps we can hope that it will be ready for 2031.
The problem is that the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the next milestone year is 2030.
The government's plan for 2030 is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45%. The Minister of Environment often says that our emissions are going down, but everyone knows that was because of the pandemic. Even in 2020, emissions started to go up again due to transportation and oil and gas production.
I see my time is up, and I am ready to answer questions about the environment.
1677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I always appreciate because she speaks so eloquently. She touched on several topics in her speech on this very important bill.
Bill C-47 is important because I believe we will achieve our government's goal of helping Canadians while being very fiscally responsible.
One of the concerns that my colleague talked about is housing, and that speaks to me because I represent Orléans. Our government has implemented a number of measures, and if we look at the history of Canada, we are probably the first federal government to put forward a national housing strategy. We know we need partners, and we respect all jurisdictions. I would like to know if my colleague supports—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they should be proposing something. When I look at the section on housing in the budget, I do not see anything new. I see nothing new for the regions of Quebec, nothing new for the Lower St. Lawrence, nothing new for the Gaspé.
I would certainly like to support a national housing strategy, but the money has to be made available. It is not just major cities that are affected. Housing, affordable housing and social housing, is not going to get built by re-announcing amounts of money that have already been announced. There is a need for housing across Canada. The need is great in Quebec and in the regions. However, the money is not there, so it is difficult to support it.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:46:04 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the member mentioned indigenous issues. I am wondering if she could share her thoughts on a concern I have that this budget did not do enough for indigenous housing.
While it says that $4 billion over seven years will go to urban, rural and northern indigenous housing, that will not start until 2024 and will go over seven years. What are her thoughts on that policy?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extremely important question. I have two first nations communities in my riding, so I am well aware of the issues. I know that they too are facing housing challenges.
This is nothing new. It has been an issue for a long time. We keep bringing it to the attention of the federal government, which throws us a few crumbs in the hope that they will solve all the problems. It is definitely not enough. As my colleague mentioned, we will not see any of that money before 2024.
I think the government could be more proactive in addressing the country's housing needs, in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities. The need is great. We are seeing it more and more. The government could certainly have done more with this budget.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:47:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to keep talking to us about the environment, in connection with the budget.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:47:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to continue talking about that, because it is extremely interesting. I was talking about how many megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions Canada produces. It was 670 megatonnes in 2021. Our levels are obviously lower than they were in 2005, which is good, but it is important to remember that, when we say we want to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 40% or 45% by 2030, it is compared to the number for that base year. When we look at the overall picture right now, we have only reduced our emissions by 8.4%. We have a long way to go, and 2030 is not that far off.
We often hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say that we are a quarter of the way there and that everything is going well. When we are at 8.4% and we are trying to reach a target of 45%, I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that we are a quarter of the way there, particularly when this budget is focusing on technologies that have not yet proven to be effective. It is being said that these technologies will be ready in 10 years and that they will start giving results in 10 years. By then, 2030 will have come and gone. What are we actually relying on to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
I think that investing in these technologies is an underhanded way of continuing to give public funds to oil and gas companies. We are telling them to continue to produce but to pollute less as they do so.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:49:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I join the debate this evening to talk about the budget implementation act and go over some of the comments I have heard today about the budget. I know the member for Edmonton Griesbach talked about Mouseland and Tommy Douglas, and I am going to get to some of those points later on.
First off, on the budget, one of the main reasons I will not be able to support this budget because the extra spending is going to cost the average family an extra $4,300 a year, all on more spending. Conservatives, as an opposition party, laid out some of the things that we would like to see in this budget, so that we could go forward and work together.
One was no new spending. I think that the inflationary fire has burned out of control for long enough, so we had asked, before the budget came forward, for no new spending. Another thing we had asked for as Conservatives in opposition was no new taxes.
Although members may have heard this before, I ask the members opposite on the Liberal side to please not increase the carbon tax on April 1. On this side of the House, we have heard from all of our constituents that the carbon tax is adding to the price of groceries, home heating, driving one's vehicle to and from work, and driving one's kids to hockey.
We have three kids. I know our van is costing more to fill up when we are going to hockey for our three kids. It is just adding to the pressures of a family trying to make their budget last to the end of the month. That was not listened to either.
Another thing we had asked for, and our leader put this out in his policy declaration when he was going out for leader, was a two-for-one. If we are going to bring in new spending, perhaps we can find savings elsewhere so that we do not have to increase the deficit.
I remember this, and I have said it in a few of my speeches. I remember during COVID the Prime Minister went on national TV and said that the government was going to go into debt so Canadians did not have to.
I do not know if he knows how economics work, but there is no other way for the government to then get out of debt than by taking more money from the Canadians who earn it by going to work. There is no government in the history of the world that has ever earned a dollar. It only gets a dollar by taking it from someone else who has earned that dollar. My friends across the way and our friends in the NDP do not seem to understand that this is how governments get money.
My friend from Lakeland said it very well. This government does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. We have seen it for years and years. I can remember back to the 2015 campaign, and my friend from Winnipeg probably can as well, when they said, “We will balance that budget in 2019.” I remember that. That was a campaign promise in 2015 by the Liberals.
I also remember another promise by the Liberals in the 2019 campaign. They, hand over heart, said that they would never increase the carbon tax over $50 a tonne. I remember that. We talked to people in Saskatchewan. We have not wanted a carbon tax ever, but some people who were going to support the Liberals said that, no, they are not going to increase it past $50 a tonne. I remember having these conversations and thinking we will see.
The 2021 campaign rolls around and, lo and behold, they believed it, but now we see that it is at $70 a tonne. It is affecting people's everyday lives now. In 2030, if the Liberals are still in government, that is going to be 41¢ a litre on gas, when the carbon tax gets to $170 a tonne.
I do not know about many people, and I do not know if the members opposite have talked to their constituents, but I think that the price of gas has increased substantially over the last few years. I do not know anyone who can afford an extra 41¢ a litre when they fill their vehicle, whether they are going to work or taking their kids to sports or driving to school. I know that where I went to school at the University of Regina, kids drove back and forth from out of town, from Moose Jaw, from Indian Head. They drove in. That is going to be a thing of the past because I do not know a lot of students who can afford an extra 41¢ a litre on their gas.
There is something else that I wanted to touch on. I listened to the member for Edmonton Griesbach. He talked about the late, great Tommy Douglas, and there are some great things there. I see the member is coming into the chamber, and I know that he talked about—
881 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:54:28 p.m.
- Watch
This is a very simple rule that has existed for a while. There should be no mention of who is in the House or who is not.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am excited that more people are here to listen to the second part of Mouseland. Tommy Douglas said that mice should vote for mice because if mice vote for cats, cats only govern cats.
In 2010, there was a Mouseland part two. It was delivered by Premier Brad Wall in a 2010 convention speech. I would like to read Mouseland part two for my NDP colleagues. Brad Wall stated:
It seems a great change had taken place in this magical location known as Mouseland. For many years, life in Mouseland had been going downhill because mice aren't exactly the most productive species in the animal kingdom. They don't really produce anything except droplets. What they do is wreck things that others have produced, like the time they got into the potatoes, spud coal. Now, for years, all the other animals had been sick and tired of the mice wrecking everything so a lot of them just left to Alberta. There was one mouse ... who had been around for a long time ... a long, long time. He was one of the mice who had made life difficult for the other animals, he was one of the mice who had wrecked the potatoes. But one day he even got sick of the other mice, so he packed up and moved to the land next door [known as Alberta]. The funny thing is when he got there, he told everyone, he wasn't really a mouse. He put on fake cat ears and fake cat whiskers and told everyone he was a cat. Now, no one there really believed him but there weren't very many mice in the new land next door. Not enough to wreck anything anyways so they decided to let him stay.
Now, as I was saying, after he left, a great change took place in Mouseland. The cats and the other animals had finally had enough of the mice wrecking everything and told the mice they weren't allowed to run things anymore. In fact, the place wasn't even called Mouseland. They discovered, that place called Saskatchewan. All of the animals liked this new Saskatchewan with the mice no longer chewing up all the food, there was more food for everyone. The animals stopped moving away. In fact, new animals started moving in from near and far and for the first time that anyone could remember Saskatchewan was growing. Lots of animals who came liked to dig holes in the ground and as it turned out there was buried treasure everywhere, oil, potash and uranium, and so there were lots of new jobs digging holes and lots of new jobs for all the other animals doing things they liked to do. Things were even better jobs for the mice. There was more cheese for the mice, so they didn't have to chew on other animal potatoes anymore. Things were going so well in the new Mouseland called Saskatchewan that the mouse who had moved next door decided that he wanted to move back home [and take over]. So, he took off his fake cat ears and fake cat whiskers and he came back and announced that he was going to be the new leader [but the changes that had happened in Mouseland caused people to not want to go back to the way thing used to be. They considered it] ...the bad old days of the mice wrecking everything and driving the other animals away. Even the mice didn't seem too sure [they wanted to go back to the way Mouseland was. They weren't sure they wanted a fake cat from next door, Alberta, to come back and lead them]... Some of the mice liked the new Saskatchewan with its new abundance of cheese, some of the other mice didn't really trust him. They weren't so sure he really even was a mouse anymore. [After all, those fake ears looked pretty real.] ...as a result, the new mouse who now looked like a cat didn't have many mice [supporting him]... everything had changed, the old Mouseland and had changed to the new Saskatchewan and one day soon, all the animals would make a great choice. Did they want to follow the mouse who looked like a cat going back to the old Mouseland days or did they want to keep moving forward in the new Saskatchewan and that chapter has yet to be written.
Premier Wall gave this speech in 2010. What happened is in 2016 and 2021, he decided to move forward with a new Saskatchewan.
771 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:59:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed storytime. I hope my colleagues enjoyed storytime. The whole time, I was searching for a reference to the budget, to the implementation act, to renewable energy or to any of the challenges that are being faced by the great province of Saskatchewan. As my colleague knows, my father used to live in Saskatchewan. I visited often. We have some mutual friends over there.
There is a lot in budget 2023 for Saskatchewan, particularly because prairie provinces are leading on sustainable energy, electrification, and extraction of critical minerals for batteries and for many other technologies. We have an opportunity to build a clean, prosperous and sustainable made-in-Canada economy for ourselves, the future of Canada, our children and our grandchildren.
Can the member opposite elaborate, perhaps with another story, on how many great things there are in budget 2023 for Saskatchewan?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:00:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would take that comment and question as coming from a mouse because they believe that the government is always the answer to fix everything.
Saskatchewan was doing much better before the Liberals took power. They brought policies forward to try and make, in the government's eyes, Saskatchewan fall behind. We were doing fine with oil and gas extraction. We were doing fine with carbon capture. In fact, we have the ingenuity to move forward. The thing is that sometimes the government does not understand that it just needs to get out of the way so we can unleash our economic potential.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:01:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly think that speech should be watched by all Canadians. We are in very serious times. We are dealing with a war in Ukraine that has upended inflation. We are dealing with a climate crisis.
I find it telling that the Conservatives are telling us toxic nursery rhymes about how much they hate mice and how much the world would be better if we all hated mice. This is a party that believes the world is flat and does not believe there is a climate crisis. This is a party that believes that its leader is entitled to a chef and groundskeeper, that is paid for by the taxpayer, and he lives in a mansion, when he has a house that is only half an hour away from Ottawa.
What I find concerning is that the Conservatives want to present these toxic fairytales, rather than talk about the serious issues we need to address in this nation and whether this budget is doing that. There are some great things in this budget. There are real problems in the budget, but if the member is happy reading nursery rhymes, then he is probably very happy in the Conservative caucus.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is the problem with the NDP. The old NDP does not exist anymore. His party is the one that started storytime with Mouseland and he thought it was really funny when his colleague talked about Mouseland and Tommy Douglas. The NDP has always been the party of “do what we say, not what we do”. That is why it is drippingly ironic that he talks down on something that his party member did.
This is a very interesting time to be an NDP member because he will talk about how the Liberals are leaving people behind, but then that member will support the Prime Minister and his party every step of the way. The NDP will do anything to make sure the Prime Minister stays in power.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:03:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Regina—Lewvan on having done a great job reading somebody else's speech. It is always interesting when people choose to use the words of others, rather than their own words in this place.
I thought maybe the member for Regina, of all places, might have a better handle on the Mouseland story, in which, of course, the mice are working people. I take his criticisms of mice running government as being quite demonstrative of the Conservative position over the years in respect of working people and whether they should be allowed to control their own destiny, which is the point of the Mouseland story.
I know he talked a lot about inflation. He talked about fat cats. Perhaps he will know that 25% of every inflation dollar spent by Canadians in this economy has gone not just to the oil and gas industry but to the profits of the oil and gas industry. That has not been shared with workers. That $18 billion in extra expenses by Canadians has gone to the oil and gas sector, and only $650 million of it actually went into the pockets of workers.
What does he think about that?
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:04:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously the member did not listen to the actual story I told. It is always an honour to bring forward the words of someone like former premier Wall into this House because he was a great premier. The fact is that the Mouseland that we talked about was about bringing people together. They always want to divide and conquer, and that is not what we are going to—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
