SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jun/17/24 9:09:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we have conducted many studies on the housing issue. It is all well and good to talk about housing and affordable housing, but many witnesses have said that the issue cannot be reduced to supply and demand alone. We should not just focus on supporting private sector construction; we also need to invest in social housing. We need to invest in non-market funding to support non-profit organizations and co-operative housing. That is where the needs are pressing. Does my colleague agree with such a measure?

121 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Jun/17/24 9:10:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is this: Yes, I agree. There are lots of examples where governments can work together in partnership with community organizations. When I was the mayor of Huntsville, we gave land to different community organizations to build affordable and deeply affordable units. The federal government owns all kinds of buildings, thousands and thousands of buildings that are underutilized, and all kinds of land. We could make that land available in partnership with organizations and could reduce the cost of getting these units built, and we could get a lot more done.

95 words

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

Jun/17/24 9:10:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments about the Liberal government; what we have seen is a doubling of housing prices under the Liberal government. There is no doubt. Up until now, until the NDP forced the Liberals to actually make investments in affordable housing, we saw very little action for affordable housing. The problem is, of course, that the Harper government did the same thing. It doubled housing prices and did not construct affordable housing. In fact, it was a disastrous decade for social housing, co-operative housing, and it was probably the worst period in our history. I wanted to ask my colleague why he thinks the Harper government failed, and why have Conservatives not apologized for their part in the housing affordability crisis?

127 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Jun/17/24 9:11:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick answer for that member. The Harper government did not fail. In fact, houses cost half the price back then. Rent was half the price back then. In fact, with the crisis we have today, the genesis of it was with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, in fact. It was actually the Stephen Harper government that recognized we had a problem with homelessness in this country and that came up with the housing first program. It doubled the amount of money that the previous Liberal government was putting into homeless programs. It was the one that caught on, that recognized we had a problem and that started to do something about it. It was not a failure. The Liberals love to talk about how little investment there was in the Harper era. There was investment, and it was not in a crisis.

148 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Jun/17/24 9:12:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a headline. It says, “'Impossibly unaffordable': Vancouver 3rd-worst city for housing”.

18 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Jun/17/24 9:12:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is true.

5 words

True

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/17/24 9:12:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace. Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada. We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil. We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that. Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene. The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it. As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment. Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense. This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells. Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage: It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating. I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently. I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food. There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall. In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.

1194 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Jun/17/24 9:23:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to the family of Gilles Perron. Our country relies on exports. Energy, especially oil, represents 10% of our exports. I know that Germany, Japan and Greece told the Prime Minister that they would like to have access to these products. The Prime Minister responded by saying that he would think about it, that he did not know whether there was a framework or if this would work. My question is this. Why would the Bloc Québécois rather that the money go to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela instead of Canada?

101 words

The Speaker

Jun/17/24 9:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Before giving the floor to the member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, I would like to commend my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge on his French. The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles.

48 words

Rivi
Meadows

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/17/24 9:24:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his condolences to Mr. Perron's family. This is not about the money going to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil or wherever. It is about creating a plan to get off fossil fuels. The Liberals are not really offering us that plan, and neither are the Conservatives, that is for sure. We still need oil. Unfortunately, I still have a car that runs on oil, for a short time at least. We need to create a plan to move away from fossil fuels, plain and simple.

92 words

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

Jun/17/24 9:25:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with its targets, the government is well on its way to ending fossil fuel subsidies. There are a couple of exceptions that I am aware of. For example, thinking of the environment, something needs to be done with orphan wells. There is government support to deal with them. Also, in certain situations in the north, we will see some subsidies. Can the member give an indication as to what other specific subsidies he is talking about? I ask because I am not necessarily aware of them.

88 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/17/24 9:25:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was only talking about subsidies to oil companies, which are often indirect. My colleague mentioned wells, which are reused for carbon capture. That is where the captured carbon is buried. That is the current plan. I am not saying it is 100% negative. At least they are being used for that rather than being rehabilitated, as they were supposed to be a few years ago, if memory serves. A lot of money was injected into rehabilitating these wells, which, incidentally, were created by oil companies that have not had to foot any of the bill for the damage they have caused to the environment.

107 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/17/24 9:26:47 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad the member talked about oil and gas companies. I want to ask him a question similar to one that I have asked in the House before regarding how investments could be made, especially during this time of climate change. The Liberals have been offered a solution: Nunavut communities could help combat climate change by transitioning to not relying on diesel anymore. However, the Liberals are refusing to fund that project. Nunavummiut could contribute to combatting it. I wonder if the member can explain to us why investing in Nunavut through the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project could help Nunavummiut and Canada reach their targets, which, in my view, they are far from reaching.

117 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/17/24 9:27:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is 2024 and it is time to put the brakes on oil. Fortunately, there are alternatives. We are talking about wind turbines and solar energy harvesters that can support entire villages. At my cottage in the Laurentians, I even installed a system that is not fully operational yet but will enable me to take 1,500 square meters completely off-grid in a few years. This is affordable for everyone. Let us not forget that solar panels cost half as much as they did 10 years ago. They can be installed anywhere on the planet, in Nunavut in fact.

102 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Jun/17/24 9:29:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. As we have heard in the debate going on tonight regarding the bill, there are a number of concerns on this side of the House, specifically the government's new spending ideas: $61 billion in new spending. We do this when we are having and dealing with a very real inflation crisis that is causing real hardship throughout the country. The number of people who are raising their voices to that fact is something we have never seen before. Food bank usage across the country is up to record levels. There are homeless encampments now in pretty much all of our major cities, not to mention the smaller rural communities as well, where this was never seen or heard about. To make matters worse, this year we will be spending $54.1 billion to service the national debt. It is unfortunate, because we are paying more money for interest than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. That is absolutely significant. I do not think I have ever heard a single person articulate the benefit of paying more in interest payments on the national debt, how that actually makes sense. It is wasted money. Not only that, but because we are paying only the interest, we are not actually paying down the debt. That means the payments will continue. That could fluctuate based on the interest rate at the time, depending on how that certain part of the debt is structured. Future generations and the last generation we are looking at right now, the youth graduating high school who are going to college or university, are recognizing they might not ever be able to buy a house. They might not ever be able to have the dream many generations here in Canada had before them. Yes, there is a group of people, the very wealthy, who are not being hurt by this and are not affected by it. It is those everyday, normal, working-class people who are being punished with higher prices for food, rent, fuel and heat, all of the things making life more difficult for working Canadians. When people have less money in their pockets, less money to spend on their priorities, cutbacks in family budgets occur. We have seen and heard the stories that grace the newspaper articles and the headlines about people skipping meals and watering down milk for their kids trying to stretch dollars and stretch the supply in the refrigerator a little longer just to get through the next day or so. It is absolutely crushing to hear and read these stories in a country like Canada, where the dream has always been absolutely real. It is absolutely crushing to see these young people. The other side will always ask for patience, more time and more resources. There will always be the promise that utopia is just around the corner and that it will be worth it if we just keep spending. The other side will say that, but will it actually be what the Prime Minister is promising? I would argue no. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party inherited a balanced budget. The economy was on fire. Life was affordable and life was enjoyable. Now look at where we are. Was it worth it? The average Canadian's net worth, their nest egg, their savings account and their retirement package have suffered. The buying power of their dollars has suffered. The path the government is on is not worth it for the everyday person. The policies need to change. We have to start focusing on what used to make us extraordinary. Ontario, especially, used to be the manufacturing wheel of this country. We used to build a lot more things in this country. It is unfortunate that in Ontario, when Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty were in the premier's office, obviously separately, one after the other, they started to mess around in the energy market. That is when hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs left Ontario. We are watching the numbers continue under the Liberal government, because when the Liberal Party of Ontario lost the election, a lot of staffers made the trip up the 401 or Highway 7 to Ottawa and started working for the current government. We can see it is a continuation of the mentality that if we just keep spending, just keep borrowing and just keep taxing, we will eventually get there, but life has only gotten worse for the majority of Canadians. The reality is that the Liberal Party has gone too far. Its members do not know how to fix it, and their solution at this point is yet another government program. They will start the tape; they will look at the problem they created, and the solution will be a new program. The government can get money only by borrowing, taxing, printing or a combination thereof, and if it does too much in excess, it can debase the economy or the currency. We have seen a bit of both here. Conservatives want to look to where the problem started and address it from its root, and that is where a lot of our common-sense plans come from. We are addressing the fact that we need to build and make things again in Canada. How do we do that? We need a regulatory environment that allows private enterprise to start up and flourish. The bureaucracy has gotten bigger under the current government. That, unfortunately, has been slowing a lot of the progress from the private sector, and we have seen money in the billions of dollars flee this country looking for other jurisdictions, because capital is like water; it takes the path of least resistance. When we allow the private sector to do what it does best, to innovate and to create opportunities and wealth in our communities, the economy grows. When the economy grows, jobs are created, spending happens, more jobs are created and overall happiness rises, because when people have options, when they have choice, they are happier. When they do not have choice, people are more miserable, and in Canada there is very little competition in pretty much every single sector, such as airlines, groceries or telecommunications. The list goes on, and it is getting worse. We need some common-sense solutions here in this party. The Conservative Party is ready to take on that challenge.

1089 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 9:38:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, did we just hear a speech from the hon. member on the opposite side, whom I have a lot of respect for? The Province of Ontario has created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs since we came into power. The Province of Ontario lost the jobs that the hon. member was referring to during the Harper administration. I want to know who is correct. Are Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives correct in saying they and we have created, collaboratively, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ontario, or is Doug Ford wrong? I have one final question: What programs is the hon. member mentioning that the Conservatives will cut? Is it dental care, seniors' payments or child education? What is it? I want to know.

128 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Jun/17/24 9:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we do not need to go far to find the wasteful spending in the current government. The list goes on. It will not take much to figure it out. I have a lot of respect for my friend as well. Yes, those jobs did leave in the 2000s. Guess who was in charge in the province of Ontario. It was the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Liberals cannot say the jobs left under Harper but forget who was in charge of the energy policy in the province of Ontario that drove up electricity rates to the highest among most jurisdictions in North America and then wonder why manufacturing left the province. If they are driving up the cost of energy, which manufacturing needs in order to produce, and then are just shocked when the manufacturers leave, there is their answer. When we talk about Conservatives getting to the root, that is the root.

155 words

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

Jun/17/24 9:40:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like the member, but, gosh, talk about inventing alternative facts. I lived through the Harper regime. We lived through the terrible financial mismanagement of the Harper regime. We saw $116 billion given to Canada's big banks in liquidity supports because the Harper government just wanted to splurge on the banking sector. That resulted in dividend payments and corporate bonuses. However, the worst part of the Harper financial mismanagement was the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, which the PBO tells us cost us over $30 billion each and every year. That is why the Harper government was always in deficit, It was massive financial mismanagement. In fact, Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. When the Conservatives have such a lamentable financial management record, how could they possibly give lessons to anybody else?

135 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Jun/17/24 9:41:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, likewise, I do respect the member, but he also forgets we were in a global economic crisis, and countries all around the world agreed that they would deficit spend on infrastructure. It was agreed that the taps would open but eventually would close, and that is where the Liberals forget that the story continues. One has to turn off the taps in order to maintain financial strength. The NDP was the party asking for more spending. By the time 2015 came along, the budget was balanced, the economy was back on track and we were growing as a country economically and politically across the world.

107 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 9:41:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, there is alternate news here all right. Inflation in 2011 was 2.91%. It is now 2.7%. I wanted to also mention that in the summer of 2015, Canada was still technically in recession from the downturn in 2009, and it is simply because the Harper government turned off the taps way too soon. It took until we came along, recovering from the pandemic, when we added over a million jobs and cut the poverty rate and the unemployment rate significantly. Therefore I wonder whether the hon. member could go back and kind of revise his perspective on things.

103 words