44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 4, 2022 11:00AM
- Apr/4/22 12:22:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, this economic update is a masterpiece of vacuousness. There is not much in it.
As members of the Bloc Québécois have said many times, however, it does contain a major development worth noting, and that is an attempt by Ottawa to meddle in property taxes, something that it has never done before. That is extremely serious, even though we must admit that real estate speculation is a real problem and that something must be done about it.
I think that the real problem with real estate is that more investments are needed. Ottawa has backed away from the construction of social and affordable housing in a big way. Do our Conservative colleagues believe that more money needs to be invested in the construction of such housing?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:58:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, climate change is the greatest long-term threat to our country. It is an existential threat, yet we know that a market mechanism, and an important mechanism, is carbon capture, use and storage. Important investments were made in budget 2021.
We have put on the floor of the House the emissions reductions plan. It is an ambitious plan. It is an important plan, and we will continue to work with industry and all stakeholders to make sure that we get to where we need to be to save the planet and have good, long-paying jobs across the country.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 5:23:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contributions to the debate today. Specifically, I would like to ask him about carbon capture, utilization and storage. The government has been making promises, through the Minister of Finance, to the energy industry. It has said it will support an investment tax credit to allow for those pathways to net-zero projects to move forward. There are a number of energy companies waiting for that. If we do not see those kinds of investments being made, they will simply go to other regions or places and we will be left with fewer jobs and less opportunity.
Where do the New Democrats stand on carbon capture, utilization and storage? Do they believe it is a fossil fuel subsidy or a way to responsibly develop our resources?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:28:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the comments from the hon. member for Abbotsford. They tend to be measured and are sometimes on point, but most often are off point, I would say.
In three days' time, or thereabouts, we will see the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who I have a great amount of faith in, deliver a budget in the House that moves Canada forward as we have been doing since 2015.
When we talk about leadership, I always say that we have responsible leadership. That is what we have provided Canadians, day in and day out.
Regarding inflation, we see every country in the world battling inflation these days. We are, too. We know supply chains are returning to normal, but when the member talks about a plan, we have presented a plan. We had a management plan in last year's budget: in the fall economic statement. That was there. Many of the questions that the member opposite raised were things that we have done or we are doing, and we have fiscal guardrails in place in terms of where we move forward. I have young kids, and we are going to leave a brighter economy for them.
I ask the hon. member this. Are the investments that are ongoing today not the right investments, including our social fabric and today a $2-billion announcement by General Motors, with the Conservative government in Ontario and the Liberal government—
246 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 7:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if it is not a silver bullet, why are we giving them $50 billion for it? The fact is that this is not about whether the government wants to pat itself on the back or cite others who are. To get to 1.5°C means at least a 60% reduction by 2030. This is the first plan that is saying that the government is not actually going to do the range anymore: It is going to let go of the 45% part and aim for 40%. The potential pathway in this plan actually only adds up to 36%.
The question for the parliamentary secretary is the same. It is whether the government is going to choose to rise to the moment that we are in, to move past the partisanship of it all, and to invest in the kinds of climate solutions that we know are required not just for a potential pathway, but to ensure that we put together the proposals and the investments we need to—
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
