SoVote

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

May/7/24 12:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for the member from the Bloc Québécois is this: How much extra hydro energy does Quebec have, and what does it do with the product?

33 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not fully understand my colleague's question. I apologize. I can simply say that Hydro‑Québec has never received support from the federal government to pay for its facilities, unlike the oil and gas companies who, for the past 25 years, have benefited from generous tax credits and completely unbridled support from the federal government. As I said in my speech, these large oil and gas corporations are possibly the greediest players in Quebec society. In addition to polluting our lives and tarnishing our record on greenhouse gas emissions, they are making record profits while we continue to pay for them. This should concern my colleague far more than Hydro‑Québec.

121 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/7/24 12:48:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑69, there is, for example, the government's commitment— Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I cannot hear myself speak.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:48:41 p.m.
Watch

I agree. I do not understand what is happening. The noise continues. We will check to see what is happening. The hon. member for Montcalm.

25 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/7/24 12:48:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if more members across the way attended the debate instead of lingering in the lobby, that would be better.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:49:02 p.m.
Watch

The member knows that we cannot make mention of members who are present or not. The noise is currently coming from the opposition side. The hon. member for Montcalm.

29 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/7/24 12:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bill includes a commitment to introduce dental care and pharmacare. The Quebec nation, speaking unanimously through its national assembly, told Ottawa it did not want this. What we want is the right to opt out with full compensation. We will enhance our own programs ourselves based on our own priorities. Can my colleague tell me how a member from Quebec could possibly ignore the unanimous voice of the Quebec nation, as expressed by its national assembly, and see what Ottawa is going to do as political progress?

90 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:49:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is completely right and he answered his own question. How can anyone ignore the wishes expressed by the Quebec National Assembly concerning pharmacare? I heard my colleagues in the NDP say that the unions were on board. I would like to point out to my NDP colleagues that many unions belong to OUI Québec, a sovereignty group. I do not know whether my colleagues are willing to respect the unions' wishes on that issue and support Quebec independence. I would be glad to hear an answer on this subject.

95 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/7/24 12:50:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recently supported the major federal subsidies to build electric battery plants. Why is the Bloc Québécois supporting the federal government's expansion in the province of Quebec?

40 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know what my colleague is referring to, but there is one thing we will never support, and that is Conservative common sense. We will never support populism and overly simplistic thinking. What I am seeing on social media right now is certain people posting half-truths in the hope that the staff at our riding offices will be flooded with calls from all sorts of cuckoo conspiracy theorists. In my view, the Conservative Party is making this atmosphere of unbridled polarization even worse. We will never support that. That is for sure.

97 words

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

May/7/24 12:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing is clear to us in the NDP. Access to dental care for everyone is a priority for millions of Quebeckers. It is a priority for the four million Quebeckers who have no access to dental care right now because they do not have private or public coverage. We said we were coming to Ottawa to fight for this. We made it happen. We delivered on our promises. It is starting to become a reality, and we are very proud of it. With regard to the Conservative Party's populism, my colleague reminded me that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is posting vicious attacks on social media and lumping members in with dangerous criminals. He is pointing people to the offices of Liberal and Bloc Québécois members. I think that behaviour is despicable, and I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the Conservative Party is turning into the Canadian wing of Donald Trump's party.

173 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, basically, it is very simple. What I can tell the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is that, if people in my riding office receive any threats, I will hold him personally responsible.

36 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/7/24 12:52:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time. Three weeks ago today, the government's Minister of Finance delivered Canada's budget for this fiscal year. Today we are debating the budget implementation bill. In the current Parliament, it has been titled Bill C-69. That is a vile title. The last Parliament that lasted long enough to get to 69 government bills was the 42nd Parliament, the Liberal government's first Parliament. It has been downhill ever since. The Liberal government thrives on divide-and-conquer misinformation narratives in order to keep Canadians unfocused on how much worse this country's prospects have become after nine years of aimless management. I say “aimless” benevolently, as if the Prime Minister and his flock do not actually know the harm they are causing the economy and the country. However, I worry that it is much worse. I worry that Canada being the first post-nation state means we dismantle all that Canada has stood for, all that Canadians value in their institutions and all that new Canadians strive to be part of as they seek to build a new life in this once great nation. After nine years, we are far less than we have been. Our economy is the sick child of the G7. Our international standing in the world has suffered greatly. Our friends no longer see us as a dependable ally. Our military is limping along, and we continue to underfund our capabilities in what is clearly becoming a more dangerous, less secure world. The world is now seeing more conflict than it has seen since the end of the Second World War, almost 80 years ago. The Liberal government remains oblivious to what is on the horizon, because it is content to navel gaze and mislead Canadians about where we actually stand in the world. Bill C-69 still has a clang to it that has crystallized what has been misguided about the government from its outset. The last Bill C-69, from six years ago, was successfully challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. There, finally, the constitutionally offensive parts of the legislation were overruled. However, that was a legal journey that took years. It was as if it could not be foreseen and avoided. We had years of divisiveness in this country, of project delays and of holding back taxpaying sectors of Canada's economy while shovelling money out the door to well-connected insiders. We had years of economic destruction and of watching our closest competitors move forward in a rapidly changing world while Canada's opportunities were held back. We had years of the Liberal government feeding propagandists billions of taxpayer dollars to trumpet its recycled narrative, to no benefit for the country but much benefit to the pockets of connected insiders. The previous Bill C-69 was a vile affront like no other, and this one can only pale in comparison. Budget 2024, as delivered, was a 416-page document, with lots of back-patting and nonsensical narratives, plus a 74-page supplement. It was entitled, “Fairness for Every Generation.” What a great marketing slogan that is. Was the title because excessive overspending would affect every Canadian equally badly? I would caution that it is particularly bad for young Canadians, those who are being saddled with paying for the cost of $1.3 trillion of Canadian debt, which is growing with no end in sight. How do we tell new Canadians or those entering the workforce, “Congratulations, you are now inheriting your share of debt for money thrown away by a spendy government that knew nothing about fiscal management”? It is $30,000 per head, in addition to the provincial debt that, in many cases, doubles that number; their mortgage debt, if they are lucky enough to own a home; and their student debt, consumer debt and auto debt payments. Is it any wonder that Canadians are considered some of the most indebted people in the world? Many times, I have clearly stated in the House that the metric the government tries to use, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is neither comparatively useful nor, in fact, honest. It tries to re-collect the amounts that Canadians have had deducted from their paycheques specifically for their retirement, both in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. The government pretends that those amounts, over $800 billion, should be used as collateral for the government. It does not work that way elsewhere, but the Liberal government is content to mislead Canadians so they can use this in their justification of showing financial prudence. It is dishonest. If the government's backup plan for maintaining fiscal stability in the future is to take back, and I should say “steal back”, the funds Canadians believe belong to them, independently managed for their retirement, then tell that to them directly. The Minister of Finance should directly say, “Canadian workers, all pension earnings are our collateral, used to capitalize our overspending.” This budget implementation act that we are debating takes what was in that nearly 490 pages of budget information and puts it into legislative format, 660 pages of legislative changes to be addressed, debated and voted upon, an omnibus bill. It would be interesting if it had much to do with the budget, but as always, it is a mishmash of legislative changes, much of which have absolutely nothing to do with the 490 pages presented in the House of Commons three weeks ago. I was really looking for the parts of it that were relevant to young Canadians who are trying to buy a home or who are trying to rent a home in a rising housing market with stagnant salaries, while inflation is making their purchasing power for food, rent, clothing, heat, light, education and the basics more challenging. The budget was presented with much fanfare. It is called “Fairness for Every Generation”. The government seized on the problem being felt most acutely by Canadians, particularly young Canadians, and presented an array of programming to address the real issue of housing, the inability to house Canadians. The cost of buying a house has doubled under the government's watch. The cost of renting a home has doubled under the government's watch. Has take-home pay doubled? Absolutely not. As a result, the ratio of housing prices and rent to income has doubled in these past nine years. Housing is not just twice as expensive. The ability to fund one's home now takes twice the percentage of one's take-home pay. Canada's economy has withered in relation to our peers. Nothing gets done in this country unless the government writes someone a cheque to do it: “Please, set up business here with taxpayer money.” It will pay $4 million to $5 million per job provided, as long as it is in the right area or what it thinks is the right industry, flavour-of-the-day stuff, chasing what everyone else is chasing, risky business, taxpayer-funded corporate welfare and funds that will never be recouped in the economy. I counted the number of initiatives the government would take to alleviate housing concerns, the most resonant concern to the public. There were 53 measures to address housing: building, financing, mortgaging, targeting, bribing, pontificating. I then went through the 660-page bill, and I found two points that were relevant to housing. The first is the increase to the homebuyers withdrawal plan limit from $35,000 to $60,000. I would like to see the size of that target market, a Canadian who has over $60,000 in their RSP and does not have a home. That is definitely not the financial makeup of the great majority of Canadians who have found themselves squeezed out of Canada's housing market. The second measure allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase its mortgage default insurance limit from $750 billion to $800 billion. Remember, that $750 billion was temporarily increased from $600 billion in 2020 to deal with the effects of the pandemic, long passed. I suppose some temporary effects last longer than others. This is $800 billion of risk that the government bears for mortgages in Canada. That is in addition to the almost $1.3 trillion in debt the Government of Canada owes money managers around the world or the $350 billion of liabilities at the Bank of Canada. Canada's federal government debt payments now total $54 billion a year. That is more than the government spends on health care. That is more than Canadians pay through the GST. The issue with housing is a cautionary tale. Housing should be a sound investment, one that holds its value over time, especially if the homeowner provides the proper upkeep, a store of value for years when incomes will be lower. It is a savings plan and it is a contrast to paying rent, where one's payments will always rise with inflation and the value accumulated is paid to someone else. Sometimes that makes sense, but most Canadians benefit from owning a home. For the sake of young Canadians who hope to one day raise their families in homes like their parents did or like they anticipated when they moved to Canada, let me advise the government to listen to all of the voices that are telling it this, including the Bank of Canada governor: Get the budget balance back. Stop causing inflation. Let the economy grow, and stop punishing sectors that are not its chosen sectors.

1614 words

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

May/7/24 1:03:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, where does one start when one hears a speech of that nature? We can tell it is drafted by the Conservative Party of Canada as it tries to mislead Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us compare that speech to reality. One of the things I raised was the fact that Canada is number one in the world in terms of per capita direct investments. That means people around the world, corporations around the world, are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Let us compare the Liberals to Stephen Harper. In 10 years, the Conservatives created under a million jobs. In less than 10 years, we have created over two million jobs. Trust me and get outside, because it is not as bad as the member tries to portray. Canada is not broken. Why does the Conservative Party want to try to portray something that is not true? Canada is not broken.

158 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/7/24 1:04:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start where he finished. I do not think I used those words in my speech at all. However, I am a little offended. The member should know I write my own speeches. That was a speech, and he can come check on my computer, that was, word for word, written by me. In effect, the Liberal government has destroyed the economy. Let us take a look at what he has put out as stats. There is no investment coming into this country without government assistance, which is in my speech. The government will give billions of dollars if one sets up a plant in Canada. How good is that for the Canadian economy? It replaces what used to be private sector money investing in Canada. That is now going elsewhere. The Minister of Finance misled Canadians and misled this member when she said that Canada is attracting the most investment from around the world. Yes, some is coming in. Much more is leaving. On a net basis, we are doing very badly. I hope the member will look at that.

184 words

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

May/7/24 1:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I only heard the last two minutes of my colleague’s speech, but I heard him talking about housing, and that piqued my interest. The Liberals have been investing in housing for the past several years. The problem is that the government is not really investing. It is investing, but in the wrong places. Its plan is not working. It injected $82 billion into the major national housing strategy in 2017. In 2024, more than halfway through the strategy, we still need to build 5.8 million housing units. We know that the private sector alone will not do the job. Sooner or later, the government will have to invest or intervene in the market, in particular to build social housing. All the Conservatives do is say that they will be making budget cuts and more budget cuts, but I have not heard them offer even a hint of a solution to the housing crisis since they started talking about the problem in the House. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

181 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/7/24 1:06:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the past, the answer to housing was to have a market for people who build homes and for the buyers and sellers of homes. It was not a problem until the current government came to power, but now they are saying that the government needs to do something to adjust house prices in Canada. Why is that? I am sure that there is not enough social housing in Canada. That is a small problem in Canada. Consultants in Calgary are saying that 20% of the market needs social housing support. That is too much.

97 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/7/24 1:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, it is great to hear intelligent speeches from the Conservatives. It is great to hear not all Conservatives take a “play bingo” approach to saying as many slogans as they can in their interventions, so I really appreciate that very much. In 2022, the RBC, the Royal Bank, invested $41 billion in fossil fuels. In this time of climate change, would the member not agree it would be better to invest in renewable energies, in projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which would get Nunavut communities off dirty diesel and transitioned to more renewable energies? Would he not agree that what the government can do is make sure companies like the RBC are not subsidizing fossil fuels but transitioning to renewable energies for the betterment of earth, so we can combat climate change in a better way?

143 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/7/24 1:08:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question was well stated. The issue with climate change and the issue with energy in Canada is that we need all kinds of energy. The energy sector is projected to grow by 160%, as far as the energy that Canadians are going to consume goes. We are going to need all forms: renewable energy, geothermal, solar and wind. However, we are going to need to continue to have that base load of hydro, nuclear and oil and gas in order to make our economy function and to make sure that Canadians have the basics of life that are required. It is the backbone—

109 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 1:09:03 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

15 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 310