SoVote

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/1/23 12:55:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who seems awfully pleased with her government's program to help the least fortunate. Yesterday, along with other members of the House, I sponsored a Food Banks Canada event. The people in that organization do not think things are going very well at all. Let us look at some of the numbers. Requests for food assistance have gone up by 20% since 2021 to 2.2 million per month. In Quebec, 671,000 people used the food bank network every month in 2022, a 9% increase. There has been a 43% increase in food hamper services since 2019, and 60% of requests for food hamper services come from households whose main source of income is social assistance, old age security or employment insurance. There has been a 25% increase in requests for food hampers from households whose main source of income is an old age pension. Does my colleague think there are some pretty serious poverty issues we need to get to work on right now?

176 words

Mrs. Rechie Valdez

Jun/1/23 12:56:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to give a shout-out to the Mississauga Food Bank for its amazing work in giving back to the community and providing our communities with food. As I mentioned, or outlined, earlier in my speech, today, we have designed budget 2023 to have the biggest impact on those who need it most. We have made so many different options available to constituents to assist them in this time of need while avoiding exacerbating inflation. Again, we are committed to providing a brighter future for Canadians through these different measures.

93 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/1/23 12:57:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with regard to green energy and the Stellantis battery plant, the decision is still pending. The auto industry stretches from all the way from Windsor, Ontario, here into Quebec. Can my colleague outline more specific supports that will be available for not only the OEMs, being the original manufacturers, but also the supply chain?

56 words

Mrs. Rechie Valdez

Jun/1/23 12:57:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a part of the auto caucus, I hear all the different concerns that we get from the auto industry. I am looking forward to continuing to work with different members in this House to continue to put policies and legislation in place that can help, especially, with enhancing electric battery plants that are coming into Canada. They can also help with different investments, such as those from Stellantis and Volkswagen.

73 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Jun/1/23 12:58:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to read into the record an analysis by the Hon. Dan McTeague. He spent 18 years serving in this place as a Liberal MP, and he now serves as the president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. He states, “The Clean Fuel Standard is simply another tax grab by this government that will raise the cost of everything with no benefit to the environment.” He adds, “It is shocking that this government insists on moving forward with another ineffective tax during a time of soaring household costs”. What is my colleague's analysis on how this tax is going to drive up household costs?

111 words

Mrs. Rechie Valdez

Jun/1/23 12:58:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to state something else on the record, which is this: Data from Public Safety Canada shows that the average annual bill for disaster assistance has been $430 million over the last three years. The total damage from natural disasters in Canada has been $3.1 billion alone in 2022. Given these substantial costs, inaction towards protecting our planet and fighting climate change will inevitably affect us all, so the clean fuel regulations are critically important. They are an important part of Canada's overall approach to reducing emissions.

93 words

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

Jun/1/23 12:59:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one can imagine my surprise when I found out that the Conservatives wanted to talk about a price on pollution again. I say that tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not surprised. It is interesting. If someone has followed the debate on the price on pollution, they will find that the first jurisdiction, I believe, in North America, many years ago, that instituted the principles of a price on pollution was actually a Conservative government in the province of Alberta. The Conservative member applauds across the way. He is quite right. It was a Conservative provincial government. I have to qualify this: It was a Progressive Conservative government. There is a big, substantial difference between the Progressive Conservatives and the extreme right movement we now have, which the leader of the Conservative Party heads today. Let us fast-forward and imagine an international conference being held in Paris. Countries from around the world convene in Paris and come up with the idea of a price on pollution, and say that we should be promoting it. Canada comes back from Paris and says, “Look, some provinces already have some form of a price on pollution, and what we need to be able to do is ensure that all provinces are on the same level playing field, in essence, and are dealing with the environment.” We established a program that allowed for provinces that had plans in place to have those plans respected as long as they met certain targets. We still have provinces today that have their own programs. In other words, the price on pollution that we have today is, in fact, applied to most provinces and territories but not to all provinces. British Columbia and Quebec are examples of that. If we look at it from that perspective, we now have the Conservative Party of today, that far right movement. What is it saying? As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, the far right party of today is very different, even from the party of 2021. The leader, at that time, had a policy platform, and in that policy platform, he was able to reverse the Conservative position that came out of the Paris accord. Coming out of the Paris accord, the Conservative Party of Canada said that it did not like it. After a great deal of debate, the Conservative Party changed its mind and told Canadians that. It said to Canadians that it had changed its mind and that it now supported a price on pollution. People do not have to take my word for it; they can actually look at the party policy platform of the Conservative Party in 2021 and they will find that the Conservatives supported a price on pollution. Let us fast-forward. The Conservatives dumped that leader and adopted a new, shiny leader, the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton now comes out saying that the Conservatives have changed their opinion. It does not matter that it was an election platform issue that all 338 candidates had incorporated in the last federal election, saying that they supported a price on pollution. That is just pushed to the side because the Conservative Party, that right-wing party today, wants to be able to have a bumper sticker that, in essence, says that it is going to get rid of the carbon tax. There are inconsistencies even in that, if we think about it. I will use the province of British Columbia as an example. From coast to coast to coast, the new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party is telling people that the Conservatives are going to get rid of the price on pollution. What about the province of British Columbia? The Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution in the rest of Canada, but they are not doing it in the province of British Columbia. What is the member for Abbotsford going to be telling his constituents? Will he say that what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying does not apply to British Columbia, or is the Conservative Party going to be consistent and say it will subsidize and compensate the residents of British Columbia because the rest of Canada is getting that so-called tax break? The Conservative Party is intentionally misleading Canadians in many different ways, all because it wants a simple bumper sticker saying that it is prepared to abandon principles the traditional, progressive party actually supported. It supported them, whether decades ago or in the last federal election, because the principles of a price on pollution are, in fact, effective; they work. The Conservatives can talk all they want about emission controls. It does not take away the principles of what a price on pollution does as an incentive. When the Conservative leader says he will get rid of the so-called carbon tax, he does not tell Canadians that, along with the tax, he will get rid of the rebate portion. I would like to reflect on the residents I represent in Winnipeg North. The Conservative Party will take away, from more than 80% of my constituents, a net gain because of the price on pollution. In essence, he is reaching into their pockets and taking money out of them, while, in the same breath, he is trying to tell them he is giving them a tax break. It is completely inconsistent. This is not the first time, when we really take a look at what the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing. It just does not make sense. It is not good for the environment. It is not good for the economy. It is not good for supporting Canada's middle class. However, I guess it will fit on a bumper sticker, and the leader may be able to fool some Canadians. That is the driving force behind this. It reminds me of another idea he had when he was running for the leadership, which was cryptocurrency. Do people remember that one? Those who would have followed his advice would have lost thousands of dollars. In some areas, individuals may have lost 60% of their life's earnings if they had invested in cryptocurrency. We had today's leader of the official opposition advocating for it. He still has not apologized for that piece of wisdom, which turned out to be a total failure. I think there is a responsibility of the Conservative Party. One of my colleagues said that its leader has now been the leader for more than 250 days. I do not know the actual number, but we still do not have an environmental policy coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. On this side of the House, we consistently announce programs that will assist in protecting our environment, whether by the expansion of conservation sites, the expansion of national parks, the banning of single-use plastics, making zero-emission vehicles more affordable or the idea of planting more trees. These are the types of things we are talking about, and the price on pollution is a major part of what a progressive government needs to do in order to protect our environment, support Canadians and build a healthier economy. We are building greener jobs. A good example of that, and there are many examples one can give, is the Volkswagen battery plant. It is going to be the largest factory in Canada. The Conservatives are opposing even that.

1254 words

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

Jun/1/23 1:09:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member brought up the issue of planting trees, so I would like him to clarify this for the House and for Canada. Under the two billion trees program the Liberals have promised, how many of those two billion trees have been planted? Specifically, in my riding, I have been trying to get any organization to qualify for this bureaucratic process that is filled with red tape. I have gone to the municipalities. We tried to band together with local conservation groups, and the feedback I got from my counties when they reached out to the Liberal government was that they cannot qualify as they do not meet the requirements. I live in a rural area that is willing to plant all sorts of trees to help deal with reducing carbon emissions in this country, yet the program seems to be failing. Can the member provide some clarity?

150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/1/23 1:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points. The member referred to an election platform issue. Is this not somewhat ironic, when the election platform issue of the Conservative Party was to support a price on pollution? If we look up the word “hypocrisy” in Webster's Dictionary, we can see that we might want to incorporate this as an excellent example. The second point I would make is that we should remember that all trees start from a seed. We cannot just wish for a tree to be six feet tall. It takes—

96 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 1:11:26 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

8 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/1/23 1:11:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

8 words

8212

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 1:11:39 p.m.
Watch

Order. Can we let the hon. member ask his question? The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

18 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Jun/1/23 1:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find the current debate a little pathetic. I hope that everyone in Quebec is watching the debate we have been having since 10 o'clock this morning. Quebec is strongly committed to the fight against climate change. Quebeckers know that this is a serious, major threat, and they want to take action to address it. This is a pathetic spectacle. On one side, we have a government that is absolutely incapable of taking action. Since the Liberals came to power, Canada has been one of the worst performers in the world when it comes to tackling climate change. Our greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise since the Liberals came to power. That is the Liberal record. On the other side, we have the Conservatives, who are saying this morning that we need to do even less. They are proposing that we do less about the biggest challenge of our time. It is a bit pathetic. Then they wonder why there are 32 Bloc Québécois MPs. It is because Quebeckers are strongly committed and want governments to act—

189 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 1:12:53 p.m.
Watch

I must let the hon. parliamentary secretary respond to the comment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

26 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/1/23 1:12:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member can say whatever he wants when he stands to speak, but the reality is quite the opposite in terms of what the member is saying about the government. I listed a number of initiatives the Government of Canada has taken over the years that are making a positive difference. In working with provincial jurisdictions, we have been able to accomplish some great things, and we will continue to work with the provincial, territorial and indigenous governments to ensure that our environment is protected, while advancing our economy, building on good-quality, middle-class jobs and providing an economy that works for all Canadians.

107 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 1:13:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals like to talk about heat pumps, so I will ask a heat pump question. By my estimation and the numbers I have seen from experts, Canada needs about 500,000 additional heat pumps by 2030 to meet its target. How many heat pumps did the Liberals incentivize under the greener homes program in the two years since it was launched? It was 438. I did the math, and, by my calculation, it is going to take 1,000 years at that pace to hit their 2030 target. Can the parliamentary secretary square the math for me and tell me whether Canadians are going to have to wait 1,000 years to hit the target?

118 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/1/23 1:14:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the greener homes program does more than just heat pumps. It provides Canadians from coast to coast the opportunity to improve the condition of their homes and assists by having the pumps put in. Not only will Canadians take up and use those incentives, but I suspect a good number of Canadians will also move forward even without the incentives. We need to encourage both, and I believe we are working in the right direction.

77 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Jun/1/23 1:15:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my amazing colleague and good friend, the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It was a scam all along. It was never sold as advertised. This carbon tax scam, in 2015, was sold to Canadians as a scam that the Conservatives called out all along the way. First Liberals said it was a levy. They said it was a levy for one's Chevy, that they wanted to charge us for driving our Chevys around rural Canada to get from job site to job site and job site to home. They said that it would make Canadians better off. That was the other scam they sold with carbon tax scam 1.0. They said that Canadians would get more into their pockets than what they paid. That was the scam. Thank God we have a public budgeting officer. Who should we believe? Should we believe the public budgeting officer the Liberals appointed themselves or should we believe a drama teacher, the Prime Minister, who has the most scandals of any prime minister in Canada's history? Should we believe the public budgeting officer, whose job is to tell the truth and expose any scandal or any mistruths being told in any type of reporting or should we believe an environment minister, who is the only one in this House I know of who has been in an orange jumpsuit? Should we believe the public budgeting officer or should we believe a finance minister who said she would not fuel the flames of inflation and who just months ago took a big $63-billion jerry can of inflation of fuel and threw it on the inflationary fire she started herself? Who should we believe? The misinformation continues from the Liberal-NDP costly coalition, which continuously says Canadians get more into their pockets and are much better off. The reality is that after eight years, the carbon tax scam 1.0 is still a scam. It will cost on average every single Canadian household, every struggling Canadian household, around $1,500 each. This is at a time when we see inflation out of control because the Liberal-NDP government spent out of control and spent more money than all governments before it combined, making inflation out of control. We see rents out of control and mortgages unaffordable, going up by the day, because it could not stop spending Canadians' money. Then the Liberals sold this other scam that it would magically fix the environment and that the weather would start getting better, the more they charged Canadians for this scam. They said that they would be fix all the problems we see around the world with climate. The reality is that was a scam all along too, because Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in its climate plan. This is behind China, of all countries, the same country the Prime Minister admires because he admires that basic dictatorship. Although Canada produces much less emissions than China, we are still behind it. That just goes to show how big a scam this was from day one. Let us now talk about the realities of what Canadians are going through today. As I said, we see inflation out of control. Food inflation is out of control. We see mortgages have doubled since the Liberal-NDP government has taken over. We see rents that are out of control. There is not enough housing. One in five Canadians are skipping meals today because they cannot afford to eat and heat their homes. There are 1.5 million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month in this country. I could not have imagined when my family and I moved to this country that this would be what Canada is today, a country where one can have two or three jobs and still not be able to afford eating and heating one's home. Not only has the Liberal-NDP government caused the price of food to go up, it added to that price, because of the carbon tax scam, which has made it more expensive for farmers to grow food, to transport it and to store it at the grocery store. At the end of the day, Canadians are having to pay those costs, at a time when one in four Canadians are saying they have to borrow money to meet their basic necessities. This is not the Canada my family and I moved to so many years ago. Like other immigrants who came here, we were looking for hope, hope for a better future and a government that wanted to support them, not continue to kick them down and take more from them while giving less back. This carbon tax scam is hurting Canadians and Canadian households. It takes more out of their pockets, leaving them with even less. We see parents and single moms having to choose between being able to afford tutors for their children or feed them nutritious food three times a day at minimum. They are making choices they have never had to make before. What did the Liberal government do? It added a second carbon tax scam on top of it, one without any phony rebates. Now, on average, every single Canadian household in this country is going to spend $2,000 on these carbon tax 1.0 and 2.0 scams combined. This is the Liberal-NDP solution to a problem it created for struggling Canadian households. Canada is in a dire situation. I will quote some statistics from a representative of the Daily Bread Food Bank who came to the finance committee on May 17. Before the pandemic it saw 60,000 clients a month, during the pandemic it saw 120,000, but in March 2023 it spiked to 270,000 visits. I will quote Neil Hetherington, from the Daily Bread Food Bank, who stated: The underlying reasons for this are complex, but I can summarize them in one sentence: People do not have enough income to afford the rapidly rising cost of living. The Liberal-NDP government not only made housing impossible to find in this country, but its out-of-control spending made mortgages and rents go up. Now it wants to take even more from Canadians who are struggling. It is impossible for anyone to be able to survive today. I have spoken with newcomers who have said that they find it impossible to stay in this country when they came here looking for hope. Hope is on the horizon. We are going to get rid of these carbon tax 1.0 and 2.0 scams. We are going to make sure we build more green, clean projects in this country to bring down the cost of our energy. We are going to make sure we are supporting families, not taking more from them. We will leave more in their pockets. We are going to bring home more powerful paycheques by lowering prices and making sure we get rid of the carbon tax scam. We need to make sure our immigrants, newcomers and young people can all see the hope of a better future in this country, and we will see that hope when the member for Carleton becomes the Prime Minister of this country.

1222 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/1/23 1:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is incorrect when he said that we have not been doing our part in the world when it comes to reducing emissions. As a matter of fact, between 2019 and 2021, Canada's GHG emissions dropped by 9%. Conservatives will quickly say it was the pandemic that slowed it down. The problem with that argument is that our economy continued to grow during that time, so we are indeed bending the curve on GHG emissions, despite the fact we continue to see economic growth. Would the member like to reflect on his comment and perhaps provide more truth in his next statement?

106 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/1/23 1:25:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the only thing bending about that member's statement is the truth. The Liberals are talking about lower emissions during a lockdown. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that we can take this member seriously when they are bragging about a lockdown that brought down emissions. Actually, what they did do was make sure that we have the worst growth in all of the OECD developed countries. Canada will be performing the absolute worst, and yet their solution to all of this is to tax Canadians even more and make sure there are going to be more people going to food banks and borrowing more money just to meet their necessities. This is the out-of-touch policy—

121 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204