SoVote

Apr/26/22 10:35:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize that the parliamentary secretary's riding was affected by the illegal blockade, as well as mine, and the extra stress it has caused on businesses. In my area, we are still out millions of dollars municipally to deal with the illegal obstruction of the traffic. Young people, persons with disabilities and those on the lowest employment scale lost out as well. Do I have the commitment from the parliamentary secretary to make the city of Windsor whole after the illegal blockade, which not only cost this country billions of dollars, but still locally millions, especially in one of the most challenged areas in Canada?

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Apr/26/22 10:36:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that those blockades and the illegal occupation were a huge blow to our respective cities and to local economies. I am very happy to see that in the case of both Ottawa and the city of Windsor the federal government has stepped up in supporting small, local businesses through investments to recover some of the losses they incurred during the occupation. We need to make sure that those types of things never happen again and that we help grow our cities, individuals, families and small businesses in both Ottawa and Windsor.

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/26/22 10:37:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It is a great privilege to rise in the House today and speak in support of this budget. I want to say at the outset that no budget is perfect. There are many, many provisions in budgets with which we agree, and there are obviously many with which we disagree. This budget is no different in that regard, and the NDP will continue to push for all of the progressive policies that we have historically pushed for, that we know Canadians need and that, unfortunately, are not contained in this budget. However, I rise today to speak in support of this budget, imperfect though it may be, for a couple of key reasons. As the health critic for the federal New Democratic Party of Canada, it is my unique privilege to be able to carry on the traditions of great health critics before me, going right back to Tommy Douglas, who is considered the father of medicare in this country. After examining this budget, I think that the absolutely most critical parts of it, and why all colleagues in this House should support this budget on a non-partisan basis on behalf of their constituents, are the historic elements it contains that would make Canadians healthier. I am going to focus on two parts of that: dental care and pharmacare. All Canadians know that a year ago the Liberals in this House voted against dental care for Canadians. A year later, here we are in a minority Parliament, and because of the hard work of 25 New Democrat MPs and of the New Democratic Party of Canada, this budget includes funding of $5.3 billion over five years and $1.7 billion a year ongoing thereafter to move ahead with a dental care program for millions of families that do not have private insurance in this country, that do not have access to dental care, with an income of $90,000 or less annually, with no copays whatsoever for anyone with an income of $70,000 or less annually. This budget includes funding to move ahead immediately on dental care for children under 12 years old, in 2022, and then next year, in 2023, expand it to all children under 18 years old, seniors, and persons living with a disability. By 2025, there would be full implementation for all individuals who meet the income criteria. This means 6.5 million Canadians, at least, would have access to primary dental care within the next 36 months because of this budget. I want to talk for a moment about dental care. I think everyone knows intuitively, without being a physician or having health care credentials, that dental care is a critical part of overall health. In fact, it is inconceivable that we have a public health care system that covers our entire bodies but carves out a section of our mouths from the tonsils forward and says that this is not covered by our public health care system. That is not only logically incongruous, but it is actually medically ridiculous. Poor oral health is linked to other serious health conditions, including cardiac problems, diabetes complications and even low birth rate and premature birth in women. Poor oral health can even kill. We pride ourselves in this country, I think across all aisles in this House, on having public health care, meaning that everybody, regardless of their station in life and their income, has access to primary health care. That is not true when it comes to dental care. When it comes to dental care, we have two-tiered, private access to health care in this country, and that is antithetical to our concept of what health care should be in this country. I should also point out that it is not just limited to physical health. People with poor oral health or bad teeth suffer from enormous mental health challenges as well. There has been a lot of focus on mental health from all parties in this House. I want to commend my colleagues, even in the Conservative Party, who have raised a number of significant deficiencies in our public health care system when it comes to mental health. Just yesterday, a Conservative member rose in this House and made a passionate plea for a suicide prevention hotline in this country. Mental health for people who are missing front teeth, people who are living with chronic pain, and seniors who have no teeth in their mouth and cannot afford dentures has an enormous impact on self-esteem and mental wellness. We should be as concerned about that as about any other mental health issue. There are, of course, economic impacts. People with poor teeth have their job and career aspirations interrupted. Members can imagine interviewing an applicant for a job who shows up and is missing top front teeth. We make judgments about people, and people are embarrassed about the state of their teeth, because they are in their face. It is what we present to the world. I think it is long past time that we brought dental care to every Canadian for economic, physical, mental and emotional health reasons. Ironically, dental care was always intended to be part of our public health care system. Back in the 1960s, the Hall commission recommended that dental care be part of our public health care system, and the only reason it was not implemented at the time was not because of cost, but because it was felt that Canada did not have sufficient dentists in this country to provide the services. That is not the case anymore. What is the reality today? It is that 35% of Canadians, which is about 13 million Canadians, do not have access to any dental insurance whatsoever, and that understates the problem, because many more have insufficient, substandard or sporadic coverage with high copays, annual limits or high deductibles. This budget, due to our work, aims to address this. New Democrats believe passionately and fervently in having universal access to public health care, so we consider this to be a down payment on our ultimate goal, which is universal dental care for every Canadian, regardless of the size of their wallet, through our public health care system, like every other medical procedure, whether it is a broken leg, heart surgery or cataract surgery. A broken tooth or an oral health issue should be no different. I want to just briefly mention a couple of the key components that need to go into a dental plan. We need to create a plan with a good range of services, comparable to any normal plan in place now for Canadians, including the plans that we as MPs have. I want to see a proper fee schedule, so that all of the dental professionals who deliver these services are compensated fairly for their time and skill. We want to make sure that all dental professionals are involved in the creation of this plan: not only dentists, but dental hygienists, dental assistants, denturists and dental therapists. We want to build a system based on prevention of decay and oral disease, because ultimately, at the end of the day, that will save money. Right now, we are fooling ourselves if we think that ignoring this problem is economically smart, because Canadians are, in record numbers, appearing in emergency rooms in every province and territory in this country every day with dental issues. In fact, I am told that the number one reason for children to enter emergency rooms in this country is poor oral health. I want to speak for a brief moment on pharmacare, because this budget also includes steps, pressured by the New Democrats, to move toward universal and national pharmacare. This budget includes the requirement to table a pharmacare act by the end of next year and to task the Canadian drug agency to develop a national formulary, which were two of the steps recommended by the Hoskins report and part of the NDP's long-standing call. New Democrats believe that comprehensive public drug coverage should be in place for all Canadians as soon as possible. Every year, as with dental care, millions of Canadians are forced to go without their prescription medications, simply because they cannot afford them. Again, there is two-tiered health care in this country. If people are rich, they can get medicine; if they are poor, they do not. That is contrary to Canadian values. One in five Canadians, which is seven and a half million citizens, has either no prescription drug coverage or inadequate insurance, and Canadians, ironically, consistently pay among the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Under the agreement made between the New Democrats and the Liberals, we aim to fix this. We will do that by compelling the introduction of legislation, creating a national formulary for essential medicines and creating a bulk-buying program, so that we can start saving money. I want to end by saying that pharmacare saves money. It would save $5 billion a year in this country; it would save businesses $16.6 billion annually; families would see their out-of-pocket drug costs reduced by $6.4 billion; and the average business would save $750, with families saving $350 a year. It makes good economic sense. I urge all my colleagues to support this budget.

1581 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/26/22 10:47:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention today. At the beginning of his speech, the member talked about the desire of the NDP to work with the government in order to see some of its priorities advanced and moved forward. Indeed, I would suggest, in a minority Parliament, that is exactly what parties within this House should be doing. I think that NDP members have seized on the opportunity to advance some of their own objectives, and it is in line. They are looking out for the best interests of Canadians, as opposed to just strictly trying to score cheap political points by criticizing the government at every single opportunity. However, as he indicated in his speech, he will still hold the government to account when he and his party see fit. I wonder if the member could comment as to whether or not he sees this opportunity that NDP members have put themselves in as an opportunity to genuinely advance things on behalf of Canadians.

168 words

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/26/22 10:48:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for a very astute and fair question. The last time Canada had two minority parliaments in a row in which the Liberals were in government and the NDP held a balance of power, we got medicare, old age security and the Canada pension plan. That was in 1965. I think that if we asked Canadians today what they are most proud of as Canadians, they would say our public health care system, which was created by parties working together, in that case, in the 1960s, the Liberals and New Democrats. Where are we today? We have had two successive minority parliaments in a row, with the Liberals in power and the NDP holding a balance of power. We have used that power on this side of the House to work constructively for Canadians to deliver programs to make this Parliament work. I will conclude by saying that, by definition, minority parliaments require parties to work together. Nothing would get done if parties did not seek common ground, and that is what New Democrats have done in this Parliament. I look forward to working together for the good of Canadians.

199 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/26/22 10:49:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his speech. I find it utterly fascinating to hear the NDP and others talk about a dental program, especially now that the Liberals are saying this is their way of helping seniors. I would like to take this a little further because the NDP voted in favour of last year's Bloc Québécois motion recognizing that seniors are disadvantaged and that old age security should be increased. Where are the New Democrats at with that? Have they backtracked on their pledge to do more for seniors? There is nothing at all in this Liberal-NDP budget that helps seniors.

113 words

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/26/22 10:50:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member that I have been an MP for 14 years, and I cannot tell her how many seniors have come into my office who do not have access to dental care. I have had seniors in my office who had no teeth. Can the member imagine what the impact is on nutrition and oral health if one has no teeth? This budget, next year, would provide every single senior who makes under $70,000 a year and who has no dental insurance, in other words, just about every senior in the country, access to public dental care. My hon. colleague asked, “What is in the budget for seniors?” Well, I would say that this is the biggest expansion of public health care in half a century, and it will bring dental care to every senior in the country, including in Quebec. The member should support that or explain to seniors in Quebec why she is going to vote against the bill that would bring them dental care. I challenge her to ask seniors in Quebec what they think about that.

188 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/26/22 10:51:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his advocacy on public health care, with pharmacare and dental as two examples. My question is on the supply and confidence agreement that New Democrats have signed with the governing party, which mentions a plan to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. However, we know that this budget also proposes a new investment of $7.1 billion in a new subsidy for carbon capture and storage. This is my question to the member: Is this a concern to him?

91 words

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/26/22 10:51:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in short, yes, it is, and I share my hon. colleague's concerns about the climate crisis. As I said at the outset of my speech, we do not agree with everything in this budget, nor were we able to get all of the New Democrat priorities in the confidence and supply agreement. We negotiated as best we could. I think we have to do much more, and do it much more urgently, to take the climate crisis seriously. That includes phasing out all fossil fuel subsidies immediately, and transitioning immediately, as well, to sustainable forms of energy. We cannot wait any longer, and I share the member's passion and sense of urgency in dealing with the health of our planet. We have to push the government to go much further, much faster.

136 words

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

Apr/26/22 10:52:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today to take part in this discussion, this very important debate. I applaud the excellent speech given by the previous speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. She did a great job presenting the progressive and humanistic vision of concrete gains that the NDP wants to achieve for people, including citizens, tenants, seniors, those who are struggling, and the less fortunate. While it is not perfect, the budget does have some good points, and I will talk about them. The NDP managed to get some of the things we wanted, but not all of them, and we will continue to work on those. This also stems from the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians voted in another minority government in Ottawa, with roughly the same proportion of members for each party as before. Voters told us to work together and come up with solutions, much like Jack Layton told us back in the day. In fact, our campaign slogan in Quebec in 2011 was about working together, so we in the NDP have used our strength, the fact that we hold the balance of power, to negotiate with this minority government in order to make gains and progress. I too will come back to the very real gain of having a dental care program. It is a major breakthrough. At the NDP we have always been very proud of being the force behind our universal and free public health care system. The system still needs to be improved, of course, and we obviously agree that transfers to the provinces need to be enhanced. The system presents us with an absurd situation where some parts of the body are insured by the public plan but others are not. For example, my heart is insured, my lungs are insured, but my teeth and my eyes are not. It is as though the human body is a puzzle and some pieces are insured but others are not. Dental care, for example, is a major piece. During the last election campaign, when I was door‑knocking and talking to the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Montreal and Quebec in general, people were very pleased with and receptive to the NDP's proposal to provide accessible dental care free of charge to people who earn less than $90,000 a year. I believe that this budget sets out a clear game plan. Beginning this year, children under 12 will be eligible for free dental care. Beginning next year, teens, seniors aged 65 and over and people living with disabilities will be eligible. In the third year of the plan, all households, families and individuals earning less than $90,000 a year will be eligible. Fully one-third of Canadians will have access to dental care, whereas currently they do not. We know that this has a considerable impact on people's lives, and especially on their wallets, because dental care is very expensive. If people have to pay out of pocket and cannot do so, they will not go to the dentist for cleaning or care, even though they should. I believe that this has an impact on one's self-esteem, personal life and professional life, when it comes to choosing a career. The quality of dental health care is a question of social class, and I am very proud that the NDP, the opposition party, was able to get dental care into the budget. This will deliver tangible results for people. This is not about creating a federal program with federal dental clinics and federal dentists. This is about instituting an insurance plan that will cover the bills for people eligible for this program. The bills will be paid by the government so that people do not have to pay out of pocket, which will help families in Quebec and all across Canada save thousands of dollars a year. I am also very pleased to see a game plan for pharmacare. The first steps of the Hoskins report will be implemented through a bill slated to be introduced next year. This will be an important step forward. We pay far too much for medications, which hurts workers, businesses and the government. A public, universal pharmacare program that is, of course, negotiated with the provinces, would represent a breakthrough that would help everyone. Quebec civil society, the Union des consommateurs du Québec, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ have all called for such a program. The NDP believes that this can be done while giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation. However, we believe that this program would have so many benefits that it would ultimately be worthwhile for everyone, for both workers and employers. The cost of supplementary health insurance is staggering. It has been skyrocketing for years. There are workers who must sign up for these supplementary insurance plans through their job. For example, I have met people who work part time in grocery stores in Montreal, and 25% of their salary is used to pay for these company insurance plans, the supplemental insurance packages. A universal public pharmacare program could represent a nearly 25% increase in salary for people who work part time, particularly in grocery stores. Another major gain we won in this budget was redefining the term “affordable housing”. Under the Liberals, affordable housing in Montreal could cost $2,225 a month according to CMHC rules. This is completely absurd and out of touch with reality. We negotiated a review of this definition so that it would not exceed 80% of the average price of housing in a municipality. For Montrealers, that means $730 a month for affordable housing. That is quite a difference. We have just lowered the price of an affordable unit in CMHC projects by about $1,500, but we are also increasing the percentage of mandatory affordable housing units in projects from 20% to 40%. I am particularly proud of that. Home ownership and being able to pay the rent is a big concern for people. Again, in the last election, people often talked to us about health care and housing. For years, there has been a serious housing crisis in Montreal and in Quebec in general. We should be proud of this win. One area in which the budget does not pass muster is the environment and the climate crisis. We would have liked to see much more ambition and action from the Liberal government. It is cutting one small oil subsidy, but it is creating a sizable new one with the tax credit for carbon capture, which is an inefficient technology. It is a kind of high-tech magic wand that will not appreciably reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals' failure to deliver meaningful results in this area is appalling. Their greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan is just not good enough right now. They talked about targeting 40% to 45% reductions, but that does not meet the IPCC target of at least 50%, which is what the NDP campaigned on. Within that 40% to 45% range, they are aiming for the low end, the 40%. For the oil sector, the goal is 31%. Essentially, the government is giving the oil sector a gift when it is one of the industries, together with transportation, that should be working harder. Recently I was amazed to learn that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions had gone down for the first time since the Liberals have been in power, but that was for 2020. In 2020, the economy was on pause because of the global pandemic. They celebrated that decline even though they had nothing to do with it and the economy was basically a standstill. There were no trucks or cars in the street, no transportation, no manufacturing. That is not how we are going to meet our international obligations and provide a brighter and more reassuring future for our children and grandchildren. We are not going to get there with decisions like the one on the Bay du Nord project, which, fortunately, is not in the budget. It is a ministerial order. A decision like the one on the Bay du Nord development project is not going to take us in the right direction because we are once again going to increase oil production in Canada through a totally irresponsible project. Yes, we are aware that extracting oil in this way is less polluting than the oil sands, but production in the oil sands has not decreased either. That oil produces 85% of its pollution when it is burned, when it is consumed. That means that if it is consumed abroad because we exported it, it is not counted as part of our record, which is completely unrealistic, anti‑scientific and hypocritical. It should be factored into our record because we are the ones who decided to extract it. We are extremely disappointed in the climate and environmental measures in the Liberal budget. We managed to make some progress for Canadians, but we will continue to work hard on other issues, including the environment.

1528 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Apr/26/22 11:02:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the member if he has had any opportunity or taken advantage of an opportunity to travel to Saskatchewan, to Estevan, and hear directly from those who have done an amazing job of creating carbon capture and storage in our province. Also, does he see any value in the fact that coal mines are being developed all over the world that need our technology, and that perhaps that would be an amazing way for us to make a difference to the global climate?

90 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/26/22 11:03:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I did indeed have the opportunity to go to Saskatchewan. I did not meet with the workers she talked about, but I met many workers who were concerned about their future and who wanted to continue to have a good job to pay for their home and their children's education. That is why a just transition is so important for the NDP. I think that technologies like carbon capture put the problem off until later and are not very effective. We need an energy transition that gives these families and workers a chance to retrain so that they can continue to work with dignity using clean, renewable energy. I think Saskatchewan has incredible potential that is just waiting to be developed.

131 words

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

Apr/26/22 11:03:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank provides opportunities for capital investments, and one of the significant aspects of capital investments is to have a green transition. A good example of that is in Brampton, where zero-emission buses will be put in place as a direct result of agreements between the City of Brampton and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the potential positive role the Canada Infrastructure Bank could have in investing in green transition.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/26/22 11:04:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The NDP calls the Canada Infrastructure Bank the privatization bank, because it is governed by a market-based logic in which investors get guaranteed profits and returns. As a result, projects are selected mainly based on returns, not public usefulness. That is what the NDP has a problem with. We would like to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank become a real public bank that serves the public interest, not a bank that gives guaranteed returns to private investors. If the bank is operating from a perspective of guaranteed returns, then the choices that are made will not necessarily be good for the energy transition or the well-being of the population in general. They will only be good for shareholders.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/26/22 11:05:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are two things in life: pretty words and concrete action. In his speech, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie denounced the government's climate inaction. Yesterday, however, we voted on a subamendment that called for concrete action. In his speech, my colleague said that the NDP had achieved significant results for seniors, yet old age pensions are still not being increased at age 65. We proposed this in the subamendment we voted on yesterday. We also proposed increasing health transfers to Quebec, which the member claims to agree with most of the time, but of course we wanted concrete action. Now we get a speech from the NDP suggesting that they are the good guys, that they have an alliance, and that they are happy to be achieving results. The fact is, however, that his party voted against Quebeckers and against seniors yesterday. I wonder if he could explain why the NDP voted as it did. Indeed, if we are talking about the balance of power, a tremendous opportunity was missed yesterday.

177 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/26/22 11:06:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question. I am very proud to have achieved real results for Quebeckers. We won on dental care for the poorest people and for the middle class. We have achieved results for tenants who are struggling and for Quebeckers having a hard time paying their rent. We have achieved results for workers who pay too much for their prescription drugs. We have achieved results for much fairer taxation. Dental care is important for seniors. I can list everything the NDP has achieved. What has the Bloc Québécois ever achieved?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/26/22 11:07:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was originally planning to speak for 20 minutes, but I then heard that the member for Richmond Hill had some very important stuff to contribute to the debate, so I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Hill today. I look forward to his speech. I will start by saying that I am very happy that the government was able to come to a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP for the next few budgets that will be introduced in the House. I think that it is good to have the ability to to work together with other political parties on the important issues of Canadians. I say that because quite often what we hear, and the engagement in the House that comes from across the way, is just opportunity after opportunity to be overly critical and hyperpartisan, and to point fingers at individual personalities and people, rather than try to advance the objectives of Canadians. We have seen the supply and confidence agreement come to fruition. Members from across the way in the Conservative Party are already heckling me over this, and I cannot help but remember earlier in the debate when the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake was so critical of this supply and confidence agreement. He said, and I will paraphrase because I do not have the direct quote, that Canadians did not vote for this, that they did not vote for an NDP and Liberal agreement like this and that they did not want any part of that. He was extremely critical of it. However, do members want to hear something? In probably the most ironic twist of fate, with hypocrisy spewing out of this place with that comment, that very member, the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick. When they did not form a government in 2018, that member and his colleagues chose to enter into a supply and confidence agreement with, get this, the right-wing populist People's Alliance party. For 18 months, that member was in a supply and confidence agreement, provincially, in New Brunswick, yet he had the gall and the audacity to stand up in the House and insist that Canadians did not vote for the agreement the NDP and the Liberals have come together on. I think the hypocrisy that comes from across the way is just absolutely remarkable, and we see it time after time, yet they continue to heckle me now. I do not want to get caught up and hung up on just talking about the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, but the good news is that I will also be talking about New Brunswick in my speech, because he referenced the fact that New Brunswick does not have a lot of charging stations. Well, I have good news for him on environmental vehicles. The good news is that the government is investing $1.7 billion over 5 years to extend the incentivizing of zero-emission vehicles until March of 2025— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

521 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/26/22 11:10:41 a.m.
Watch

Order. There is a lot of heckling going on from the opposition. I would just ask them to hold onto their thoughts, or write them down if they are afraid they are going to forget them, because there will be an opportunity for questions and comments, and that is the time to voice their concerns or their opinions.

58 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/26/22 11:11:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I see I have got the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake all worked up. There is no doubt, given the hypocrisy I revealed only moments ago. Nonetheless, we are investing in those charging stations right across the country. As a matter of fact, the federal government has already contributed to over 1,500 charging stations throughout this country. Later this year, we, the Liberal Party, are having our national caucus meeting in St. Andrews by-the-Sea in New Brunswick. My wife and I will be attending the conference, and we will be driving our electric car from Kingston, Ontario, to St. Andrews by-the-Sea, New Brunswick. I look forward to giving the member a full update on the various charging stations we stopped at along the way, including those in New Brunswick, so he can see the value in having an electric vehicle and the ability to move across the country quite freely with an electric vehicle. Later on, perhaps in the fall, I will have the opportunity to update the member on the success of our trip and whether or not my wife and I made it back in one piece. I do want to also touch on another part, a very important part, of this budget.

213 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/26/22 11:12:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am flattered that the member's entire budget speech is about me. I love that kind of promotion, but the budget speech is supposed to be about the budget. As proud as I am to get his endorsement over and over again, which I appreciate, I really do—

59 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 58