SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

The Speaker

May/7/24 3:43:31 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette is rising on a point of order.

19 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/7/24 3:43:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to have my vote on the amendment be counted as a yes.

22 words

The Speaker

May/7/24 3:44:13 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

29 words

The Speaker

May/7/24 3:48:17 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on a point of order first raised on April 18, 2024, by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby concerning the use of false titles. In his intervention, the member objected to the frequent use by the official opposition of the term “NDP-Liberal government” to characterize the current government. He qualified the term as disinformation. He emphasized that there is no coalition in place between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party. He asserted that it should be common practice in the House that members provide only accurate information. For his part, the House leader of the official opposition stated that the choice of the term used by different members to describe the government is a matter of debate. In a subsequent intervention on May 2, 2024, the House leader referred, in support of this contention, to a ruling by the Deputy Speaker on March 29, 2022. He also suggested that the issue at hand does not pertain to the use of false titles, which are employed to identify individual members, usually in a derogatory fashion. He reminded the House that the Chair has also ruled that the use of false titles is out of order. As pointed out in the interventions, the issue of the labelling of the Liberal-New Democratic Party agreement has been raised with the Chair before. On March 29, 2022, at page 3689 of the Debates, the Chair settled this matter, which the House leader of the official opposition rightfully flagged. The Chair stated: As members know, the Chair deals with procedural issues, not political ones. Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties. Further down, it says: ...it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition. However, this agreement does not equate to the creation of a new government party or a new political caucus. On November 20, 2023, at pages 18730 to 18732 of the Debates, the Chair reiterated this same point in a different ruling. While the Chair agrees that the House is best served with accurate information, it declines the offer to enter the debate as to how the political arrangement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party should or should not be characterized. This is a matter of political discourse between the parties. As to parliamentary procedure, it remains the view of the Chair that the NDP is still an opposition party for the purposes of our rules and organization of the House and its committees. I thank all members for their attention.

461 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

May/7/24 3:51:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-59 Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together. For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off. Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways. Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders. As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race. The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive. For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce. With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy. First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities. Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems. Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future. Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home. The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced. Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%. It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing. Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind. With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

1391 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/7/24 4:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if one were to listen to the hon. member, one could not help but think that Canadians have never had it so good, but what we are seeing, and one just has to scan the headlines to see it, is that Canada's productivity is lagging. It has reached crisis levels. Productivity will take years to remedy. Weak productivity is threatening Canada's postpandemic recovery, and this has a direct impact. Lagging productivity is a threat to Canadian living standards. There is a lack of investment, a lack of capital, fleeing capital and fleeing investment. Wages are not keeping up. Just last week the finance minister announced the government would increase the debt ceiling by another $295 billion, adding to the interest that needs to be paid on the debt for future generations. That is going to have an impact. I do not know how that member can stand there to say that the Liberals are doing everything right, when all of the indicators are that they are doing everything wrong.

173 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/7/24 4:02:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member's characterization of what the government is currently doing. We have landed massive investments in the EV supply chain. We are number three in the world in foreign direct investment. We have maintained a AAA credit rating. The Bank of Canada governor was at the finance committee recently and said that the government's current budget has stuck to the fiscal guardrails that we have set out and will not be adding any fuel to the fire of inflation, which is good news for Canadians. These investment tax credits and other measures within the budget, including $2.4 billion for artificial intelligence, would help to bring in investment and increase productivity.

120 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/7/24 4:03:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to supporting seniors, the government is nowhere to be found. I am still getting emails from seniors who do not understand why nothing was announced in the last budget. No, there was nothing for seniors. This is about more than just dental care or pharmacare. That is not the answer I am looking for. Seniors also need more money in their pockets to get through this period of inflation, which affects them directly because they are on fixed incomes. Why do the Liberals continue to insist on creating two classes of seniors? Why did they not use the budget as an opportunity to announce a 10% increase for seniors aged 65 to 74 as well?

120 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/7/24 4:04:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course our government has a track record of supporting seniors right from day one, which was when we moved the age of retirement back from the Conservatives' 67 to 65. We made the largest contribution to the Canada pension plan. We have increased old age security for seniors over 75. We boosted the guaranteed income supplement. This budget has measures that directly impact seniors. I was talking to a senior in my riding yesterday who was quite happy to hear about our housing plan, which will build more rental housing units. That was her main concern, and she was very happy to also hear that dental coverage would be offered to her and many of her friends, who do not currently have dental coverage. This will save seniors thousands of dollars in their denture costs and in oral health care in general.

145 words

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

May/7/24 4:05:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my friend across the way is a strong advocate for sustainable finance. A few days ago, reporter John Woodside of the National Observer tweeted, “An open-secret on the hill right now is that a key climate policy - the sustainable finance taxonomy - has been long delayed because of a feud between experts and [the Minister of Finance's] office. She wants fossil fuels included, experts want a credible taxonomy.” Can the member confirm this rumour, and if so, can he explain to the House why the Minister of Finance is standing in the way of credible climate policy?

104 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/7/24 4:06:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member opposite and have worked with him on sustainable finance. I believe in a climate-aligned financial system. That is what our government has committed to. I mentioned many measures in my speech. There are many more to come. The Sustainable Finance Action Council did exceptional work on developing a green transition taxonomy. Our government has clearly committed, both in this budget and in the fall economic statement, to assessing options and moving forward. I expect next steps will be forthcoming.

89 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/7/24 4:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that comes out of the concept of fairness and about creating opportunities for younger generations. I am of generation X. The opportunities that I have had, quite honestly and quite frankly, are becoming more and more difficult for the generations after me, such as generation Z and millennials, to have. What members are seeing in this budget bill is about creating opportunities and creating fairness for those future generations. How do we do that? There are different ways to approach government's responsibility to society. The approach that conservative, small-c conservative, governments typically tend to take is more of a libertarian-style approach of stepping away, letting the market run things, letting every person fend for themselves, letting every person either make it or not based strictly on their own capabilities, their own merits. However, there is also an opportunity for the government to be part of creating fairness, ensuring that systemic biases that exist in our systems, scenarios or environmental changes do not have a significant negative effect on future generations. Quite frankly, that is the reality of where we are. I know that Conservatives will get up to say that this is all the fault of the government, that it is the government that brought in all of the policies that have created the circumstances of today, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are seeing these circumstance throughout the world. Conservatives never talk about what is going on in the United States, in Europe or in other G7 countries because, if they were to do that, they would have to acknowledge the fact that Canada is positioned much better than some of our counterparts. It is small comfort to those who are going through particular hardships right now, but in terms of positioning ourselves, I would suggest that we are actually putting ourselves in a better position. We have a lower inflation rate than the United States, for example, which is our closest ally. By all measures, by all indications, it would appear that we are in a better position for the monetary policy of Canada, which is run by the Bank of Canada, to start using the tools that it has to lower interest rates. I would argue that we are on the right course in getting our affairs in order to be able to provide fairness and opportunity for future generations. That is extremely important because I think there will be a lot of people out there who ask, “What about me? I worked hard. I did all of these things throughout my life. I did not get handouts. I did not get opportunities.” In particular, a lot of businesses or business owners would say that. My reaction to that would be to not forget that, when one's economy does well, when one's middle class does well, when people are prosperous and, in particular, those who are coming up in age, such as millennials and gen Z, are doing well, everybody does better. The economy does better as a result. Businesses and wealthy people certainly do better when economies are in full gear and are significantly making an impact, realizing the opportunities that all generations participating in an economy have to benefit. The next part I want to touch on is specifically with respect to providing opportunities for individuals with disabilities, to give them more opportunities to be in a better position to be able to contribute to our economy. One of the really interesting things that I learned during my time as a municipal politician, when I sat on the accessibility committee for the City of Kingston, was that, when we talk about accessibility and about providing opportunities, I think a lot of people default to thinking of physical accessibility. They think about bringing down barriers to allow accessibility from a perspective of getting into a store, having the right-sized doorway, having a ramp for wheelchairs, etc. However, accessibility quite often talks to economic accessibility. The reality is that, when we start to empower people and give them opportunities, we are unlocking new economic opportunity. For the disabled community in particular, not only are supports to be provided intended for the purpose of supporting individuals but also for giving them opportunities to participate in our economy so our economy can continue to grow and to flourish as a result. I note there is, I would say, some somewhat valid criticism out there about the supports, particularly when it comes to the disability benefit, but I would counter that by saying that this is a starting point. This is the very first time in our nation's history that we have a program that is aimed specifically, from the federal level, at supporting disabled individuals throughout our country. We can build on it from this point. We can make it better. We can continue to strive for more and for better. One of the things we are really worried about in this over $6-billion program throughout the country is making sure provinces do not take the opportunity with the disability benefit to say that the feds are giving $200 so they can claw back $200. It would never be as direct as that. Doug Ford in Ontario is not going to say that the feds are giving $200, so they are going to claw back. The way they would most likely do it is that they would freeze the supports and then they would let inflation slowly creep up and replace that $200. We want to make sure provinces do not look at this as an opportunity to say that the feds are going to take care of this, so they can get out of the way and reduce their contribution, whether that is directly or, as I suggested, through inflation. There is work to be done there. I certainly will be an advocate to continue pushing because I believe, as I stated earlier, this is not just about providing for individuals who require supports more than others. It is also about unlocking economic opportunity as individuals have more opportunity to enter into our economy and to participate in our economy. One of the programs in particular I was really glad to see in this piece of legislation, this budget bill, was a national school food program. I want to thank the countless number of schools throughout my community that put together petitions, individual petitions from each school, that called on the Minister of Finance to do this. I want to give special kudos to Brenda in my community. I will not use her last name because I did not get approval to mention her full name, but I want to give special congratulations to Brenda for her work, for doing this and for going around to the schools. When I called her to tell her about this, Brenda told me a story. When the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made that announcement, I immediately called Brenda and, “Brenda, you now know your advocacy was worth something and it mattered.” She said that she was so glad to have the opportunity to talk to me about this because she would go to schools and some of the schools would ask her why she was even doing this. They would say that this was never going to matter and these petitions were not going to matter. However, they do. The voices in our communities matter. I want to thank Brenda for the advocacy she did, going around to every school in the Kingston area to get these petitions together so I could then come here to present them. I know in one small way people using their voices to be heard affected the outcome of this. I send Brenda congratulations for all the incredible work she did in making sure our community's voices, when it came to developing a national school food program, were being heard. As a result, we are now presenting this program, which I know we would be able to build on in the years to come that will genuinely help kids get the best possible start every single day they go to school. I told this story before in the House, and I will tell it again. In Kingston, we have the Food Sharing Project, and this is Andy Mills and a bunch of other people who have been doing this on a volunteer, not-for-profit basis. There are a lot of volunteers with a very low budget. They have been finding deals on food and bringing all the food together in a small warehouse in an old industrial part of Kingston, organizing all the packages and sending them out to the schools on a daily basis, literally on a shoestring budget. They have been doing this for decades. I went to the warehouse with my family. We were invited on a tour. I said that I would bring my family one morning, and we could help pack all the boxes of food that would be sent out. Andy said, “Absolutely”. We went there, and it dawned on me when my seven-year-old said, “So this is where that food comes from”. From my seven-year-old's perspective, it was not free food for poor kids, or it was not food that was specially set aside in a classroom. It was there for everybody. This program is about giving kids nutritious food to eat to start their day, and throughout the day, but it also does an incredible job of breaking down stereotypes that exist. They are stereotypes that, quite frankly, I am sure I witnessed and was influenced by when I was growing up, when I saw kids who did not have a full lunch when they came to school. When my seven-year-old made that comment and said, “So this is where that food comes from”, and he connected all the dots, then it dawned on me that he had no idea. He just thought this was food at the school for kids to eat. That, in my opinion, is why a national school food program is so important. It is just a basic, fundamental opportunity to have nutritious food while in school. I am extremely proud to have been in the House to see this come forward in a budget. I was very perplexed when Conservatives would not even vote for the program before there was even any money allocated to it. I find it even more concerning how Conservatives will continually stand up and talk about food bank usage and talk about the suffering and pain that Canadians are going through, yet they will not vote in favour of a national school food program, nor will they vote in favour, as they have indicated they will not, of putting money behind it. It is quite rich and very hypocritical to stand up in the House and say that the government is not doing enough to support and to give families the food they need. Literally, we are talking about giving kids food in schools, and the Conservatives are against it. I find it to be very concerning. I want to pivot to something else that we have seen coming from the Conservative benches in the last couple of weeks. In particular, we heard a speech the Leader of the Opposition was giving about legislation and criminal legislation. He made a point of saying that he would use every tool and resource to impose his laws, as if he were the supreme leader and as if he were the end of all. He could use the notwithstanding clause and could bring in whatever laws he wants; it is as easy as that. That is something that has never been done by the federal government since we have had our Charter of Rights. It is very alarming when the Leader of the Opposition starts making these claims. He is basically saying that he has an idea, that he has a law, that this is the way the law is going to be and that he is going to impose it. If someone has a problem with it, they can vote him out a number of years later, regardless of the fact that it may not be constitutional. What is the point in even having a Constitution if someone does not believe in protecting minority rights? A Constitution is about protecting minority rights. I have an answer to why Conservatives are acting like this. In my opinion, Conservatives do not care about the Constitution because they are just a reincarnation of the old Reform Party. The Brian Mulroney Conservatives are gone. Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, a Progressive Conservative, would not even recognize what one sees over there right now. That is the former Reform Party of Canada, and as we know, it was never in favour of the Constitution. Stephen Harper— Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Hear, hear! Good. They are being honest. Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I have accused a Conservative Party of being the former Reform Party. I have said this many times in the House, but now the Conservatives are actually applauding it. In all honesty, I respect their honesty on the matter. I respect where Conservatives are coming from. I respect that they are being honest about it, and I mean that genuinely. They are the Reform Party. They do not believe in the Constitution. That is just the way it is. We have the Leader of the Opposition, who routinely suggests that he would use the notwithstanding clause, as he sees fit, to ensure that all the laws that he thinks should be subject to the law of the land shall be there. We have a Constitution for a reason, and that is to protect minorities and to protect the rights of minorities. That was the whole intent of it. In fairness, I respect the fact that the Conservatives are so open about this. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, on Friday, said that, to be clear, they would only use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to using it for the purposes of criminal justice. That is interesting. That sounds reasonable, at least to the layperson, does it not? Let us just think about what he is saying. He is saying, as it relates to criminal matters, that they are open and willing to use the notwithstanding clause. If the Reform Party had that same approach in the 1990s, it could have used that notwithstanding clause when the Supreme Court overturned the criminal offence of performing an abortion. What we are talking about here is the Conservative Party of Canada literally starting to talk about restricting and removing rights of Canadians. This issue matters to me. I have a five-year-old daughter, and I want to make sure that my daughter grows up in the world with the same rights that her mother had. I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion about rolling back a woman's right to choose. The member for Peace River—Westlock today, presenting on behalf of his constituents, said that he wanted to roll back the charter decision and ask the government to bring in more restrictive measures for individuals, in particular women, who are trying to exercise their rights to choose. We are entering very dangerous territory with that rhetoric. I know where their political angle is. They think the average person will not know what the notwithstanding clause is, what it means or what the implications are, so it really does not matter. They will just sound good in what they are saying, and people will believe them. Do members know what? I am not going to weigh in on whether I believe that to be right or wrong, but I will say that even just using that language and going down that road, being willing to treat people in a manner in which they can make sure that they can do things because people are not going to be paying attention, is extremely dangerous. That is what we are seeing. It cannot be a coincidence, literally almost a year ago to the day in the United States of America, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, that suddenly, Conservatives are feeling empowered and emboldened to start having these discussions now. We would not have heard that come from Conservatives a year ago or five years ago. Stephen Harper intentionally avoided talking about it because he did not want to go anywhere near the matter, even though he may have had his own personal opinions on the Constitution. He never went near it because he knew it was not smart to do so. The Leader of the Opposition is looking at the opportunities in the States, parroting the alt-right MAGA Republican politics of the States and trying to utilize those exact same talking points and those exact same ways of operating in Canada. I will commit to any and every Canadian who is watching this and, indeed, who is in Canada, that I will do everything I personally can to ensure that the Constitution and the Charter of Rights continue to mean something and continue to be something that they can rely on to protect the rights of minorities in this country.

2953 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/7/24 4:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague was filling the time because he did not have that much to say, so he went on about a whole bunch of things that had nothing to do with the budget implementation act. It was just rhetoric about defending the Constitution. Was he defending the Constitution when the Emergencies Act came out and Canadians' bank accounts were frozen? I would ask him that question. I would also ask him about this. He was very proud of somebody in his riding who went and got a bunch of petitions to present to Parliament to actually start food banks as a national program—

109 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/7/24 4:26:37 p.m.
Watch

It was not food banks.

5 words

Banks
Food

Mr. Greg McLean

May/7/24 4:26:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, he is right. I misspoke there. Actually, it was for a program to have food in schools because that is something that has to be done nationally, not locally and not provincially. It is done nationally. In Calgary, food bank usage is up significantly, and their carbon tax is up significantly. Does my colleague draw any connection here to the pain the Liberal government has caused Canadians?

69 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/7/24 4:27:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very good memory. The member asked me a question the last time I talked about the budget, only a couple of week ago, and he did the exact same thing that he did this time. He did not listen to what I said, but he chose to listen to certain parts of it. Had the member listened, he would have known that I talked about the fact that this is a local program in my community, where I went with my family to help them put together boxes of food to distribute to schools. I specifically talked about food banks and about how I find it ironic that Conservatives sit here and talk about food banks and talk about the hardships of Canadians, yet the member, while he stands there trying to preach to me about Canadians' use of food banks, will not even support a national school food program to put food in the bellies of children while they start their day at school. With all due respect, I take a lot from Conservatives, but I will not be lectured on food programs, in particular, school food programs, from a Conservative member.

198 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/7/24 4:28:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for three years now, the Liberals have been saying that they recognize the decline of French in Quebec, that they will take steps to promote French in Quebec. However, we have yet to see them take any action. There were no measures in the latest budget either. What does my colleague think? Do they want to protect French in Quebec or do they want it to continue to decline?

71 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/7/24 4:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to live in a country that recognizes that we have two official languages, English and French. I am very proud to spend a lot of time in Quebec, as my cottage is in Quebec. I am very proud of the amount of time that I have spent personally going to Logibec in Quebec City to learn French. The member might find some shortfalls in this particular budget, as it relates to new opportunities for what he is suggesting, but certainly, it is my view that we are a better country as a result of everything that has come from having two official languages. It makes us better, more diverse, more robust, and it makes us a better country. That is why, even though the Bloc Québécois is a political party whose members wish that they were not even sitting in the House of Commons and that they were not even a part of Canada, I know that my part of Canada, where I live in Ontario, is in a better country because of Quebec and Quebec's participation in our country.

191 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/7/24 4:30:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we just had a vote in the House of Commons, where the Conservatives and members of the Bloc blocked the pharmacare bill. What we see now is the Conservatives again speaking out against school lunches. We saw Conservatives attack and try to destroy the dental care program, which, thankfully, has been a huge success already with 15,000 seniors in the first 72 hours being able to access dental care, sometimes for the very first time. Many of them are in Conservative-held ridings, yet Conservatives have blocked the programs that would make a difference for people. They blocked affordable housing, and we saw, of course, during the 10 dismal, horrible years of the Harper regime, how they were willing to destroy services for veterans, force seniors to work longer and rip away supports for families. It was the worst 10 years in Canadian history, under the Harper regime. I think the Liberal government can do more, there is no doubt, but we cannot go back to the dismal years of Conservative rule. I want to ask my colleague what he thinks motivates Conservatives when they block all the things that would actually make a difference for people living through an affordability crisis. Why are Conservative MPs blocking things that would help their own constituents?

217 words

Harper

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/7/24 4:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for starters, we call them “Conservatives”. They have the same colour of blue, and they use the same name, but I would argue that this is actually the Reform Party. I think that it is entirely appropriate to question whether or not they are even Conservatives because, quite frankly, although she is no longer with us, I am sure that Flora MacDonald, who was from Kingston and the Islands, would look at the Conservative Party and would say that it really is not what she represented when she was in this place. However, the member brought up the Conservatives' position on pharmacare. I was here to listen to that debate on pharmacare. Do members know how many Conservatives got up and said that only one in five Canadians want this? It is as though one in five Canadians needing something does not qualify us to actually do something about it. To answer the member's question about the motivation of the Conservatives, they know that those one in five Canadians are not who they are banking on to vote for them. They know that those one in five Canadians are some of the most vulnerable in our communities who actually really need access to pharmacare, and they are willing to brush them aside because they know that they are not contained within the four out of five who they actually do rely on for their votes.

240 words