44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/7/23 10:05:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:14:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to table a petition today signed by Manitobans regarding the important issue of health care.
The petitioners amplify the importance of recognizing the credentials that immigrants bring to the country with respect to health care and recognizing our post-secondary facilities and the need to better support our health care providers, who are really the backbone of our health care system.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:15:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand, please.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:42:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are is very consistent, in the sense that they neither understand nor appreciate the policy issues related to our environment. They are, indeed, climate deniers. Today, we are going to be debating the Conservatives' agenda to get rid of the price on pollution. There would be a substantial cost to that.
The member, in his election platform, indicated to his voters that he supported a price on pollution. How does he justify the 180° flip-flop on that issue?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:48:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to provide some thoughts with respect to Conservative opposition day motions. One thing I have recognized is that nothing has really changed. Time and time again, the Conservatives want to push the issue of what they classify as a tax. They say “cut the tax”, that bumper sticker about which I have talked.
In fact, in looking through social media, we see the big blue signs. We see how the Conservatives have tried to amplify and simplify that message. This is a message of deception. It is often the type of thing I would hear when I listened to Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, the messaging and types of speeches he would deliver. It is like a flashback.
I see the Conservative Party catering more and more to the far right, the MAGA right, if I can put it that way. I have made reference to how that right has virtually taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today and the office of the leader of the Conservative Party. Other that the Canada-Ukraine issue, it is difficult to imagine many other issues on which the Conservative Party is so out of tune and prepared to mislead Canadians on public policy than its “axe the tax” slogan.
For people who are following the debate, I would encourage them to listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party actually has said. When he was trying to appeal to people, he was using examples. He talked about this individual or that individual. He gave the impression that if we axed the tax, if we took away the price on pollution, we would be so much better off.
An hon. member: Yep.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one member from the Conservative Party has confirmed exactly what I have said.
Madam Speaker, it is just not true, yet the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country to spread that kind of information. I thought that style of politics was just south of the border, in the United States, where it was amplified by Donald Trump. Now we have the leader of the Conservative Party trying to out do Donald Trump.
Let us think about his comments. He says that it is more affordable for people if we get rid of the price on pollution, if we axe the tax. I represent roughly 95,000 people in Winnipeg North, although it may be starting to grow a bit more and is getting closer to that 100,000 mark. Over 80% of the residents I represent get a net benefit because of the price on pollution.
When the leader of the Conservative Party says he will get rid of the price on pollution, that also means he will get rid of the environmental rebate.
The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent, non-partisan office, with professional civil servants. It has made it very clear that over 80% of people have a net benefit because of the rebates. That is the reality and that is what we hear from the independent budget officer of the House of Commons. In Winnipeg North, it is even a little greater.
Therefore, when the member tries to give examples, when he says what about this person or that person, most of the people he is referencing get a net benefit because of the rebate. If we take away the price on pollution, or axe the tax, as the Conservatives call it, we take money out of the pockets and purses of 80% of the constituents I represent.
When the Conservative leader says that by getting rid of the price on pollution, the Conservatives will be making things more affordable for people because they are going to have more disposable income, that is just not true. The sad reality is that every Conservative member on the other side knows that. Does that prevent them from spreading untruths? No, they continue to do it through social media. That is a nice way of saying they are spreading misinformation for those who might ask me the question.
695 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:54:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is misinformation. Many would say it is misleading. Let me put it this way. A constituent of mine is told that 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay for the price on pollution, and that has been affirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, the Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who is leading the Donald Trump charge, are saying that getting rid of the price on pollution is going to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and that is not true.
How would members classify that? I cannot be bold and blunt about what the leader is saying, because it would be unparliamentary. However, if we look at the information the leader is talking about, it is misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, everything the Conservative Party is doing today seems to be focused on that one issue. It is completely ignoring the environment. We are waiting to see any form of a climate plan from the Conservative Party.
The last time I can recall the Conservatives standing in the chamber talking about their environmental plan was when Erin O'Toole was their leader, and they said they supported a price on pollution. A Conservative member just asked where he is. The Conservatives kicked him out and he is no longer around. There have been a few Conservative leaders, but they really like the current one. Maybe it is because of the far-right element. Most, if not all, Conservatives seem to be onside with moving to the far right, and it is at great cost.
As I pointed out, all Conservatives who campaigned in the election two years ago made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution. It was in their election platform. However, that has changed. That is a fact.
310 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:57:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the ways that the Conservative Party is offside and maybe do bit of contrast for members.
If we look at the emissions graph, over the last number of years we have witnessed a shift. The curve is now starting to bend in a direction that I believe Canadians would be very supportive. Had there not been a change in government back in 2015, and under Stephen Harper's leadership, the curve would have continued up by an estimated nine points. Over the last number of years, the line has gone down by seven points under this administration. We are going in the right direction when it comes to greenhouse emissions, which is an important issue to Canadians. In real numbers, I am told it is like 53 megatonnes. For my constituents who are like me, I try to better understand what that means. That is the equivalent of 11 million cars being taken off the road.
The population of Manitoba is about 1.3 million people. The population of Saskatchewan, I would guesstimate, is probably somewhere around 1.15 million. The population of the province of Alberta is well over three million, from what I can recall. We could take away every vehicle in the Prairies. Over the last number of years that is 53 megatonnes of GHG, or 11 million vehicles. To me, that speaks volumes about what the government has been able to achieve in a relatively short time span. We were able to achieve that through providing different forms of incentives and programs.
I want to highlight the fact that we know Canadians want to participate. I have heard this for many years. I remember being in the Manitoba legislature and we were talking about banning plastic bags. We can look at the banning of single-use plastics, on which this government has moved forward, or our budget measures on financial incentives to support people. Our constituents would like to do more on the environmental front. We have programs like the greener homes grant. The uptake has been fantastic. A number of people in all regions of the country are participating in a program that will ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions, again, a budgetary measure.
Another program is about electric vehicles. It is interesting when we look at the numbers. Canadians are choosing electric vehicles faster than expected, with 10% of new vehicles being ZEVs in the first half of 2023. These types of vehicles are a dependable form of transportation, with lower operating costs and reducing the environmental footprint. In its budget measures, the federal government has provided incentives. Some of the provinces have done likewise. Canadians are taking advantage of those programs. We have seen a high demand for those vehicles. I would suggest that it has been very successful.
When I think of how industry has benefited, two companies that come to mind right away are Stellantis, with the benefits that are being created there, and Volkswagen. Volkswagen is a substantial investment of a private company and both federal and provincial governments. Today, we have the Conservative Party opposing the agreement that we achieved with Volkswagen, contrary to even Doug Ford, but there is a difference, I guess, as the provincial party is a little more progressive than the federal Conservative Party. However, at the end of the day, we can think of the results and the potential that is there when we get companies around the world recognizing that Canada is on the right track when it comes to dealing with emissions.
Volkswagen, in many ways, is one of the leaders in the world moving forward in the electrification of vehicles. It made a decision not to go to the United States but to come to Canada and make a serious investment. Once that investment is complete, it will be the largest manufacturing processing facility in Canada and, I am told, even in North America. I think it will be something like 200 football fields. It is going to be a huge plant. We can think of the types of green jobs that are going to be there as a direct result of Volkswagen making that decision.
Where is the Conservative Party? It actually opposed what the federal government has done with Volkswagen. Its members do not like the fact that the federal government made a decision to make a financial contribution, even though the Progressive Conservative provincial government of Ontario has done likewise, not to mention the community of St. Thomas itself, which has also come to the table because of infrastructure. This brings real life to an industry that has the potential to grow, and the Conservatives and the climate deniers are completely offside.
It is not just the province of Ontario that would benefit. We can think of the minerals involved and the other components. It is not just Ontario or the St. Thomas community that is going to benefit from this. All of Canada, if not directly, will indirectly benefit from this, and it does not stop there. I think of Stellantis and how, in Canada, the industry of electrification of vehicles continues to grow, and those two companies are not alone.
Is it any wonder that today we lead the G7 in foreign investment coming into Canada? As a political entity, the Government of Canada recognizes that green jobs are golden jobs going forward, and we need to see those types of investments. As a government, from day one, we have supported Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for everyone.
As the Conservative Party's single focus seems to be on spreading misinformation, filibustering and ultimately playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, we will continue to be solely focused on having the backs of Canadians and providing the jobs that are going to be there for the future to ensure that life remains affordable and to deal with the issues that we know are important to Canadians. That means, in good part, dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way.
1034 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:09:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, through a procurement process, awarded Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, and that Boeing contract is going to provide hundreds of jobs for people in Winnipeg. Substantial government dollars were used to support Boeing and our having military aircraft.
I have no problem with the Government of Canada supporting industries that are going to provide good, sound jobs, either directly or indirectly, whether they are directly focused in the province of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or any other region of the country. It is an issue of fairness, and this government has been fair with respect to this particular project. Whether it is with Volkswagen or Stellantis, unlike the Conservative Party, we see these as investments that are going to ultimately build a stronger, healthier industry and provide good, solid middle-class jobs well into the future.
The difference is that we think of the future jobs for Canadians. We are not stuck in the past, and we are open to having a healthier environment.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:11:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the first aspect of the member's question, that is why I reinforced at the beginning of my comments that the real objective for the Conservative Party is to have a bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax”. That is really what the Conservatives are hoping to achieve. On getting rid of the price on pollution, the related facts are completely irrelevant to the Conservative Party. That is unfortunate because there is so much misinformation being spread throughout the country regarding what the Conservative Party is actually doing.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:13:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would not necessarily say that is fully accurate. I was very encouraged about today's announcement, and if I had had more time, I would have really gone into it.
The government is looking at a regulated cap-and-trade system to be established under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It would apply to all upstream oil and gas production, including offshore development as well as liquefied gas operations. Together, this represents approximately 85% of the sector's total emissions. The proposed system would include two limits: an emissions cap and a higher legal upper bound. Facilities can emit more than the emissions cap, up to the legal upper bound, by using offsets or contributing to a new decarbonization fund that would support additional reductions in the sector.
There is a lot more information available on what the government has announced today. It is a good day. It is also part of what I said earlier, which is that the government is focused on dealing with the environment. We do have a plan on the environment, unlike the official opposition.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:15:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if there is a simple message on the whole issue of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do, it is that people really need to get a better understanding of what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying. His behaviour is similar to Donald Trump's behaviour in his spreading of misinformation because misinformation is what this whole campaign is all about.
When Conservatives say that they are going to give more money back to Canadians, it is just not true. It is not true. Under the Conservatives' scheme, 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North would have money taken out of their pockets. They would lose money because of the silly and irresponsible approach the Conservative Party and the leader are taking.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:16:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us put it this way. The Conservatives are so focused—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:17:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada is so focused on getting rid of the price on pollution that its members are actually voting against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The excuse they are using is that it is because they do not believe there should be a price on pollution in Ukraine. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. That is how ridiculously reckless the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is prepared to vote against, for the first time ever, a trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada at a time of war in Europe because they have a price on pollution.
The price on pollution is something the world is moving toward. Only the leader of the Conservative Party cannot conceptualize the negative impact his reckless policy and irresponsible approach to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement are having, not only here in Canada, but also abroad.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:38:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the member was asked to the leave the chamber yesterday. I am not too sure if there was a requirement of the member to apologize—
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:46:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder about the problems of having the leader of the Conservative Party going around indicating misinformation in regard to the price on pollution. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that and what he believes the impact will be, just in terms of the general knowledge of the population?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:29:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Conservatives speak to the motion, and have have been listening to previous speeches, and the Conservative Party is spreading misinformation through social media and things of that nature. The member himself did it, to try to give the impression that the vast majority of constituents I represent would have more money in their pocket as a direct result of taking away the price on pollution. This is the “axe the tax” propaganda. He knows full well that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this is not the case.
Does the member not have any shame in trying to express to my constituents and Canadians that they are actually getting less money, when, in fact, when we factor in the rebates, they are getting more money in their pockets to allow them to buy more?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:20:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the Conservative leader saying “axe the tax”. I think there is a comeback slogan to that. It is called “axe the facts”. Before he pre-empts his speeches with this in the future, I am wondering if we should emphasize the fact that, when it comes to the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, he will “axe the facts” and then get into the bafflegab of “axe the tax” on the price on pollution. I would like the member's comments on “axe the facts”.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, lives in a government-provided house. He is also provided a government-expensed vehicle. I believe that the leader does not actually pay the “carbon tax”, as the Conservatives like to refer to it; yet, from what I understand, he does get a rebate.
I am wondering if the member sees some irony there. Does he believe that his designate should be cashing in on the rebate, while at the same time not having to pay a carbon tax because both his home and his vehicle are provided through the government?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 7:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we support human rights, and I will be voting yes. I think it is important that we have a recorded vote on this.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 8:06:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
