SoVote

Dec/7/23 11:08:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Winnipeg North giving his speech on our opposition day motion to eliminate the carbon tax for farmers, first nations and families. He indicated that Stellantis and Volkswagen were getting significant federal contributions and that the Liberal government has made very large financial commitments to Volkswagen and Stellantis to the tune of about $40 billion. Is the member comfortable going back to his constituents of Winnipeg North and telling them that each and every single one of those families is going to have to contribute $3,000 for those plants in southern Ontario to function here in Canada? Is he comfortable telling his constituents that?

113 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

Dec/7/23 11:10:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and, as a Quebecker, I feel completely left out. Yet again, the House is debating the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec and has nothing to do with Quebec. Furthermore, I am wondering how the Quebec Conservative members feel about this. Every time their party moves motions, they exclude Quebec. I am wondering why they do not fight for their party to move motions about things that affect Quebeckers. On the other hand, every time the Liberals rise to speak about climate change, they make it seem like everything is hunky-dory, like it is all a bed of roses. Canada is one the worst countries at fighting climate change. It is the only G7 country whose emissions have not dropped since 1990. According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, which can hardly be described as a far left environmental group, in 2022, Canada directly or indirectly invested $50 billion in the oil industry. I would like to ask my colleague how many social housing units he thinks $50 billion could have built.

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/7/23 11:12:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is what the Liberal government is actually doing. This morning, after a two-year wait, it finally unveiled its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, the emissions cap it has been touting. However, it is worse than anything we could have imagined. Two years ago, the government said that Canadian society as a whole would have to cut its GHG emissions by 40% to 45%, but that the oil and gas sector would only have to cut its emissions by 31%. Today, we learn that that figure is no longer 31% but 16% to 20%, that the industry has no obligations to meet until 2030, and that it is free to increase oil and gas production in this country. How does my colleague explain this climate crisis betrayal?

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 11:14:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to go back to the piece my hon. colleague mentioned about the carbon price tax not being a tax. The carbon pricing regime on fuel charge is not a tax in constitutional terms, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is revenue neutral due to the rebate program and climate action incentive funds. What this looks like in my home province is Eel Ground first nation, or Natoaganeg, a Mi'kmaq community, receiving funding to complete energy efficiency upgrades and retrofitting its band office. Also, five schools in New Brunswick have seen the Government of Canada investing carbon pricing proceeds into improve energy efficiency. This is what is at stake, so I would like to bring the facts back to the conversation. Could the hon. colleague comment on that?

134 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Dec/7/23 11:16:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North continues to spread his toxic rhetoric, rumours and innuendos, which have no basis in fact. Let us be factual here. These Liberals are going to increase the cost of food. We just learned today that the Canada food report said the price of groceries is going to go up $700-plus this next year. We already know they are quadrupling the carbon tax on families, first nations and farmers. This individual does not understand how agriculture works. He is making our farmers less competitive. He is going to make sure we import more food from the United States, China and elsewhere because we will not be able to grow it cheaply enough here in Canada to provide healthy, nutritious food to Canadians. Will this member recognize that the Liberals are increasing food insecurity in Canada?

142 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Focused

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:17:06 a.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. Whether he likes the answer or not, he should still be listening. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

35 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Dec/7/23 11:18:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, where to start? I would like to make a little detour before addressing my Conservative colleagues' motion. I would like to provide a bit of context for the motion. In my opinion, if we want to understand the context, we need to look at the current situation. We are in a climate crisis. There are two possibilities. Either the Conservatives recognize that we are in a climate crisis and commit to taking action to mitigate it, or they do not recognize that we are in a climate crisis. Our main problem is that, ever since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party, the official opposition has been using disinformation as their preferred political tool. As a result, we cannot have conversations about global warming with our Conservative colleagues. Whenever we try to, they become irrational. My colleagues will understand why I say this. In my former life, I taught political science. The introductory course for first-year political science students teaches a simple concept. It teaches them what democracy is. To explain what democracy is, I would tell them that one of the key principles is that it is better to use reason rather than force. That is what democracy is. Democracy means people deliberating together. It means people having a dialogue to determine what is best for the common good. For several years now, we have been witnessing the Americanization of Canadian politics. Dialogue no longer takes precedence over threats or over the imposition of ideas. Whoever is the strongest tries to impose their law using intimidation. That is how the United States currently operates. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Donald Trump right now. Let us set that aside. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Marine Le Pen or any of those other politicians in the western world whose questionable tactics involve taking liberties with the truth to avoid entering into discussions with counterparts who often think differently. I say this because dialogue is very important. The reason I am bringing up this topic is that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. When I was younger, my mother often used to say that all things pass, meaning even a person's stupidity eventually comes to an end. I hope that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was carrying out its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-50. I have been involved in Quebec and Canadian politics since the early 1990s and, although I have always kept a close eye on parliamentary proceedings, I have never in my life seen anything as sophomoric as what I saw yesterday. There is a key principle. We can raise questions of privilege in the House because we feel that members have the right to be heard. Letting members speak, letting members vote, is a key principle of democracy. However, even this key principle, which is fundamental to democracy, was not respected yesterday. I heard Conservative members yelling to ensure that no committee member would be able to cast a vote during clause-by-clause consideration. Worse than that, I saw some highly questionable actions on the part of the member for Brantford—Brant—

554 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:22:41 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Dec/7/23 11:22:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to raise a quick point of order because I was at committee all night as well with that member. We wanted to get the—

30 words

Quick
8212

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:22:50 a.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate, not a point of order. If the hon. member wants to clarify the record, that is a point of debate. The hon. member for Jonquière.

33 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:23:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we can see that this nonsense has carried over to the House. My Conservative colleagues do not even want to hear what I have to say here. They are going to try to deprive me of my right to speak by raising points of order that are not actually points of order at all. I have been subjected to this for over two months at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where they constantly raise points of order. Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to hear myself when I speak. I would ask my colleagues not to interrupt me.

103 words

Speak

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:23:39 a.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind members to be respectful in the House. If they wish to have conversations they should take them outside. If they have comments and questions, then I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time. I am not sure who was having the discussions or trying to make comments, but I want to make sure that the whole House is aware that members need to be respectful when someone else has the floor.

78 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Dec/7/23 11:24:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was having a very quiet conversation with my colleague who is sitting right beside me here. I was in no way trying to talk at that member. He—

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:24:26 a.m.
Watch

As I said, I do not know which comments came from whom. If individuals want to have conversations they should take them outside.

23 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 264