SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/27/24 1:43:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-69 was in the House a few Parliaments ago, the Mining Association of Canada came out very strongly in favour of the bill. I questioned the Mining Association of Canada in advance of the 2019 election as to why it would support this legislation. It has since rescinded its support for the approach taken by the NDP-Liberal government. It did that primarily because what the unconstitutional Bill C-69 does, and by extension its provisions in Bill C-49, is provide opportunities for the minister to make unilateral decisions that would create a level of uncertainty that most Canadian and foreign capital companies that want to invest in Canada are not willing to take a risk on. What we need to do, and what this bill has shown us, is that we need to provide certainty. We do need to have strong environmental reviews, but that needs to be coupled with a degree of certainty to allow investment.

164 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:11:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable who call his part of the country home. With respect, we are going to make the investments necessary to support some of the country's most vulnerable, including by partnering with communities that serve homeless Canadians, but also by making the investments necessary, worth billions of dollars, to build out the affordable housing stock so people have a durable solution. There are no immediate solutions to solve the challenges that so many Canadians are facing, but consistent investment over time, as we have been doing and will continue to ramp up, is going to make a meaningful difference in lives of some of the most vulnerable Canadians.

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/27/24 9:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, woe betide Atlantic Canada having to face the impact assessment woes of western Canada. It has not been easy over the last nine years. Provinces should have the right to develop projects within their jurisdiction. The federal government should not stand in the way. There is the whole constitutional and federal structure issue we need to discuss, but when the government stands in the way, it also puts a chill on investment. It says that if different levels of government cannot sort their things out and act civilly, then there is no point in investing. Again, we cannot afford that. Canada is now seen as a jurisdiction of high political risk. Can members believe that? It is because of problems like this, so I implore everyone in the House to support the amendment and to do due diligence so we do not see that investment chased away.

149 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/27/24 10:28:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we hear the Liberals all the time on the other side of the floor claim they are investing in Canadians, and we know at this point they are running out of Canadians' money, printing it and borrowing it. Whatever we had is pretty well gone. They are taxing it as well. Could you explain to the Liberals the true definition of investment in Canadians?

66 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mr. Rick Perkins

May/27/24 10:29:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is an Ottawa-speak that happens, in which every time somebody spends a tax dollar, the government calls it an investment. Investment is really only when we buy equity in something, and equity generally is ownership of a company, so an investment is that kind of thing. When we spend money that leads to $40 billion deficits and that leads to $800 billion of debt being added, that is called an expenditure with very little result, as we have seen from the government. We have the poorest productivity in the OECD, thanks to the government's expenditures. There is now a 40% gap between Canada and the United States in per capita income because of the expenditures, which the government calls investments. The purchasing power of our dollar is dropping, and our individual paycheques are dropping dramatically because the government's expenditure investments are producing very little in the way of economic benefit. In fact, they are hurting our economy, because the increased debt and increased spending have increased interest rates, which have increased the cost of everything to everybody and are causing an affordability and housing crisis in Canada.

193 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

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

May/27/24 10:30:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the answer to the last question, the member is saying, that because of his definition of what an investment is, things like $10-a-day child care, investing— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I should not use the word, but this is what I mean. The Conservatives will be critical of my even saying that. This is the irony of where I am going with this: Any kind of expense, as it relates to a national school food program, for example, is not an investment; it is just an expenditure. That was the member's word. He said that there is an investment and there is an expenditure, and apparently we can invest only if we are investing in something that is going to build us equity. The concept of a social equity is just going to be completely foreign to him. If I understand this correctly, an investment cannot happen in people; it can happen only in a company. Is that what he just said?

177 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mr. Pat Kelly

May/27/24 11:43:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the impact was instantaneous when the government came to power. Some 200,000 energy workers across Canada, not all in Calgary, but many thousands in Calgary, including in my own riding, lost their jobs in the early months of the government. While things are much better now, the environment is still not there for investment. Money is leaving Calgary, not coming into it, from what some of the finance community has told me. I can only imagine what the bill might do to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia. It is the uncertainty that is such a killer. If we do not know what the bill is going to do, nobody is going to invest in any project. Even the existing fishing industry does not know how it may or may not be affected. That leads to decisions that have to be made on capital allocation, and it will not be for Canada.

156 words