SoVote

Jun/7/22 1:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I am very big on making sure that I stick to the facts, and I do not like to be accused of anything to do with misinformation or disinformation because that is never my intention. The climate action incentive is going to be increased in 2022-23. I do not have the exact number for Regina, but I know that in Manitoba a family of four will receive $832. I would also say to the member that, if Manitoba or any of the provinces that receive the climate action incentive now want to put their own decarbonization plan in place, they can choose to do so, and then the price on pollution would not apply to those respective provinces.

129 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/7/22 1:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Carbon pricing is certainly a worthwhile way to fight climate change. However, given what we have learned today and what I read in Le Journal de Montréal on the huge profits that oil companies like Suncor will be making—to the tune of almost triple the profits—I think the Conservatives' proposal is shameful. I also think it is shameful that the government is still agreeing to provide funding for carbon capture strategies and has allocated $2.6 billion in the budget for that. It is going to be you, me and all Quebec and Canadian taxpayers who will be paying for oil companies to produce net-zero oil, which many people feel is completely outrageous. Does the member agree with me that we need to put an end to oil and gas subsidies as quickly as possible?

150 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Jun/7/22 1:07:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say a couple of things. First, I am hoping the oil and gas companies are going to use some of those profits to start decarbonizing and help Canada move to a low-carbon economy. We need the private sector to be stepping up. The private sector has not been stepping up in recent years, and we really need it to do so. Second, with respect to the federal investment in carbon capture technologies, I would say that our federal government needs to be investing in as many technologies as possible in order to decarbonize, reduce our overall carbon emissions and meet our overall target of net zero by 2050. We all play a role. We have to look at all of the technologies and employ as many of them as possible.

135 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/7/22 1:08:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the essence of what the Conservatives are trying to bring forward in this motion with respect to addressing inflation and Canadians suffering. I know we are all feeling that. Our constituents are feeling that, and we know we need to address it. However, the way they are going about it is not the way the New Democrats would. As the hon. member mentioned in her speech, it does not appear she agrees with it either, but I know that she is a huge proponent of long-lasting solutions, such as a guaranteed basic livable income and how that would address the poverty issues people are facing. I would like for her to maybe expand on not only how she believes a guaranteed basic livable income could help Canadians in all of our ridings, but also if she would be supporting it and if her government would be bringing that forward as we go forward in this session.

163 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Jun/7/22 1:09:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do indeed support a guaranteed basic income or a guaranteed livable income. The world of work has changed. We have a social welfare system that was set up in the 1940s that does not easily meet the current needs of Canadians in the 21st century. I think a guaranteed basic income is something we need to look at very seriously as a new foundation to our social welfare system. I thank the member for the opportunity to allow me to speak to that today.

87 words

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

Jun/7/22 1:09:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this particular motion, even though I will be voting against it. Often, the Conservatives are pretty good at using their imagination, which, at times, can be confusing and possibly even misleading in a number of the things they try to put on the record. If we listen to the Conservative Party of Canada, we would think that it is just Canada that is experiencing inflation. What they fail to recognize is that there are things happening around the world that have had an impact on the cost of living for all of us, whether it is coming out of a pandemic or what is taking place in Europe with Russian aggression and the illegal invasion of Ukraine. All of this plays a significant role, which is why I think that, at least in part, for fairness, when we talk about the inflation rate in Canada, we also need to take into consideration what is happening around the world. The inflation rate is higher in the United States than in Canada. In many European countries, the inflation rate is higher than it is in Canada. Relatively speaking, with the G7 or the U.S. and many of those European countries, we will find that Canada's inflation rate is actually lower. Does that mean that our communities are not impacted? Of course they are impacted. I do not like to see inflation any more than any other person, let alone for my constituents. They want the government to do what it can with the tools and levers we have in government to try to minimize the harm of inflation, and we have seen that in many ways. The Conservatives will talk about supporting Canadians during these times, but members opposite know that things such as our guaranteed income supplement for seniors, the old age supplement for seniors and the Canada child benefit program are indexed according to inflation. When the Conservatives say, “Well, give some tax breaks here and give some tax break there”, we see there is a Conservative mindset on tax breaks, and that is what they like to say to Canadians. However, we know that the Conservatives have been afforded the opportunity to support tax breaks. Members will recall the first budget that we brought in and the legislation that provided a tax break to middle-class Canadians. The Conservatives actually voted against it. The Conservatives have come up with a motion today, and this is their policy, their alternative to the budget. However, I would suggest that there are significant flaws in what they are suggesting. They say, “Let us reduce the tax on gas.” Yes, let us continue with all the government expenditures to support Canadians, as I just finished citing, but let us reduce the price of gas by lowering it from the consumption tax or from the price on pollution. However, there is absolutely zero guarantee that this price decrease would actually be passed on to consumers. The Conservatives cannot guarantee that price saving. Earlier today, I asked a question of my Conservative friends. When Alberta was experiencing a significant decline in economic activities, we were being criticized by the Conservatives because the price of oil was too low. They were saying that gas prices were too low, and it was damaging the Alberta economy. We were being criticized for that. Now we are being criticized because the price of gas is too high. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

590 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 1:14:41 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that it is not time for questions and comments yet, but the official opposition will have the first question. I would ask individuals to be mindful of this point until the hon. member has finished his speech.

42 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the world price on oil and gas is not set by the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest there is no way the Conservative Party can guarantee any sort of savings by cutting a consumption tax or a price on pollution. There is no guarantee of that. The motion talks about the housing market. At the end of the day, and we have had discussions about the housing market in Canada, the national government does have a leadership role to play. There is absolutely no doubt of that. We have done that, whether it be in the fall economic statement, which the Conservatives voted against, or within this budget, which the Conservatives are voting against. Things like the annual tax on homes that are not being used as residences or the freeze being put into place through the budget on foreign ownership related issues are all having an impact. Most importantly, for the first time in a generation, we have a government that has been very proactive on the housing file. We have invested far greater amounts of money into housing and providing supports to the non-profit sector, to provincial and territorial governments and to indigenous communities. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that has been incorporated into the national housing strategy, which is something that did not exist prior. We have the intergenerational housing credit within this particular budget to encourage families to build onto homes or have something built on their property. This is an excellent program. We have encouraged community members to look at ways in which they can make their homes more energy efficient. For the first time in many, many years, we have a government that has been spending a great deal of resources and efforts at improving Canada's housing stock. It takes more than a national government to deal with this problem, whether it is municipalities in the areas of zoning and making accessible properties or individuals who want to purchase property. If someone is a normal resident, it is very difficult to buy an individual building lot, especially in urban centres. We can take a look at the amount of administration provinces are ultimately responsible for when it comes to housing. The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis to support low-income housing, not to mention the rapid housing program and other housing projects the Minister of Housing has put into place. The Conservatives will criticize the housing file, but when they were in office, they absolutely failed in comparison to some of the initiatives we have put into place. We can take a look at the speech that was given by the leader of the Conservative Party. Unlike the Conservatives, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will continue to focus our attention on the real issues that are facing Canadians every day of the week. It is why we are concerned about housing, inflation and many other issues, such as the pandemic. We will continue to do what we can to assist Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

526 words

All Topics

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/7/22 1:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and heard him say something we heard earlier today. I would like him to very clear about it. Is he telling the House that the reason the Liberals cannot eliminate, even temporarily, the GST on fuel and the carbon tax, or even just on fuel, is they believe retailers would collude to prevent the tax savings from going to consumers? Yes or no, is that the reason you cannot do this?

80 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 1:20:36 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

23 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:20:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we need to recognize, when we talk about consumption taxes, that there is absolutely no guarantee, and the Conservatives cannot guarantee, that any sort of savings could be passed on in that direction. I would suggest to the member that there are other things the government does. For example, a GST rebate and a price-on-pollution credit are given out so that individuals in the most need are receiving benefits. Those are the types things that I believe a government could be more focused on, as opposed to the simple solutions the Conservatives like to put on paper while they say to get rid of this or get rid of that. It is a populist attitude, and is much like when the leader of the Conservative Party says he will fire, banish or punish the Bank of Canada governor, or makes irresponsible statements of that nature. We are not going to do that on this side of the House.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 1:21:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if the member did it deliberately or not, but referring to the leader of the Conservative Party as somebody who is a leadership contestant is offside. He should refrain from doing that.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 1:22:08 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

11 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/7/22 1:22:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague opposite so often says, “at the end of the day”, knowing that no other parties are going to support this omnibus Conservative motion, not much is going to change. “At the end of the day”, nothing will change. However, I would like to know if my colleague opposite is prepared to do something that, “at the end of the day”, would make a big difference, for example, helping seniors. They need to stop cuts to the guaranteed income supplement immediately and agree to increase old age pensions, as we have been calling for for so long. That has fallen on deaf ears. I have no desire to hear, once again, that they have always been there for seniors and that they have handed out a one-time payment of $500. A $500 payment is a joke, given today's inflation. Increases to old age pensions: Yea or nay?

159 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, to my friend across the way, I should not make the presumption that the member for Carleton will ultimately prevail. I know it does scare a lot of his colleagues, but a vast majority seem to want to support him. With regard to seniors, virtually from day one, this government has been supportive of seniors. The member might not necessarily like to hear that, but we can talk about substantial increases to the GIS at the very beginning of the pandemic, when there were $300 and $200 direct payments, depending on whether someone was collecting GIS. At the very least, that went to every senior who was 65 and above. We have seen 10% increases for seniors who are 75 and over. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars invested into many non-profit organizations throughout Canada that provide support services for seniors. We have also invested a huge amount of money into long-term care and issues of mental health, and have reduced the cost of pharmaceuticals, all to the benefit of seniors.

180 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Jun/7/22 1:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we have all expressed here, we are opposed to this Conservative take on supporting Canadians who are struggling. Are the the Liberals prepared to ensure tax fairness and make sure the rich are paying their fair share of taxes so we can reinvest that money into supporting Canadians, who are struggling so much right now?

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. From the very beginning, we saw the issue of income inequality. It is one of the reasons we put a tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% at the beginning of the mandate. If we take a look at this particular budget, we will see a luxury tax of just over $100,000 and $250,000 on boats. This is a government that genuinely believes that for us to move forward, we need to continue to support our middle class and those who need the support of government to get into the middle class.

97 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Jun/7/22 1:25:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North. We are talking about an affordability crisis in the House today. I am very confident that I am not the only member of the House who is getting dozens and dozens of calls and emails every single day from constituents who are very concerned about their ability to put food on the table, put fuel in their cars, heat their homes and put their kids in the activities they enjoy the most. What we are talking about here in our opposition day motion is reducing taxes to make life more affordable for Canadians by eliminating the GST on fuel and the carbon tax. What I am hearing is somewhat unbelievable. The argument from the Liberals and the NDP is that somehow eliminating a point-of-sale tax does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I am not sure how one can even argue that. In fact, their argument against this is that retailers are going to collude to ensure that savings are not passed on to Canadians. I can say from experience that in Alberta, where the provincial government has removed the provincial sales tax on fuel, fuel is about 20¢ cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. Albertans are benefiting from a government that has seen the difficulties Canadians are facing, has taken action to address them and has passed savings directly to Canadians. What I am hearing from my constituents, after two years of the pandemic, is that they are exhausted; they are tired. They want to get life back to normal. While they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that the pandemic is all but over and that businesses are opening back up, they see the affordability crisis, where fuel prices are exorbitant, grocery prices are going up and housing prices are going up. A lot of this has to fall at the feet of the Liberal government. I know the Liberals like to say this is a global issue and that the war in Ukraine with Putin is causing prices to increase. However, I have been in the House pretty much every day and I do not ever recall Vladimir Putin sitting across the way and voting in favour of a carbon tax. I do not recall Vladimir Putin putting forward legislation or a bill to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Maybe I missed that. I am not sure if my colleagues around the House can confirm that Vladimir Putin is the reason the carbon tax went up 25% on April 1, despite an affordability crisis around the world and a war in Ukraine. I am not sure how we put this all at the feet of Vladimir Putin. Instead of the government offering relief to Canadians when they need it most, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world with no mask in sight, and here at home he is punishing Canadians over and over again with his draconian mandates and travel restrictions, which are not in place anywhere else around the world. That really seems to be the modus operandi of the Liberal government. It is going to punish Canadians at home and do something completely different around the world. A good example of that is the fertilizer tariff. My colleague across the way does not seem to think that this is a problem and thinks this is a way of punishing Russia. I would invite my Liberal colleagues talk to any farmer, especially in eastern Canada, and ask them if the fertilizer tariff is hurting Vladimir Putin. The only people this fertilizer tariff of 35% is punishing are Canadian farmers. Vladimir Putin, once again, is not paying this tariff; Canadian farmers are paying this tariff. Even before the war in Ukraine, fertilizer prices in many parts of the country were more than double what they were the year before, as a result, in many cases, of the carbon tax. Do members know what makes fertilizer? It is natural gas. Carbon taxes put on natural gas cause prices to increase. Canadian farmers are being punished and we have offered solutions. We have asked the Liberal government to provide an exemption on fertilizers purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would offer compensation to farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for that tariff. Again, the Liberals said no. Let me put this in perspective. Canada is the only G7 country putting a tariff on Russian fertilizer, meaning that Canadian farmers are now at a severe competitive disadvantage to our compatriots around the world. They are paying an exorbitantly high carbon tax and they are paying a tariff on fertilizer. At the same time, we are in the midst of a global food crisis. Food insecurity is probably the number one priority on earth and we are the only country on earth that is increasing taxes and putting a tariff on fertilizer. How does that make us competitive? How does that give us the ability to carry the burden of helping in a global food crisis, which our farmers absolutely want to do? They want to be there to help, but the Liberal government is doing everything possible to ensure that we cannot do that and do not meet our potential. Despite the Conservatives offering these solutions, the Liberals carry on with this activist agenda, let us say, or the theatrics they are putting on that this is somehow punishing Putin when it is only punishing Canadian farmers. However, it is not just Canadians farmers who are going to feel the impact of this. If Canadian farmers have to reduce their use of fertilizer simply because they cannot afford it, yields are going to go down and the prices of commodities are going to go up. We have already seen the price of groceries go up. In many cases they are up 15%, depending on the product. This is only going to get worse. We are not only talking about countries that have been relying on Ukrainian commodities such as barley, wheat and sunflower oil; this is going to be felt here at home. My NDP colleagues have been talking about food insecurity here at home in Canada. A lot of that is the result of Liberal policies. The Liberals are the ones increasing the cost of those groceries by increasing the carbon tax, putting a tariff on fertilizer and having additional red tape, making it very difficult for our farmers to do the job they do best and better than anyone else in the world. We are the only country with a government, in a food security crisis, that is asking Canadian consumers to pay more. It is the only government asking farmers to pay more. How does this make any sense whatsoever? I want to get to another part of our opposition day motion. I talked about fertilizer, but I also want to talk about the carbon tax. The carbon tax is something for which the Conservatives have offered a solution. My colleague from Huron—Bruce offered a private member's bill that would eliminate the carbon tax on farm fuels, Bill C-234. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in assessing the carbon tax, has said a few things that I think are very enlightening: The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, the carbon tax increases inflation and the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. This is everything the Liberals are saying the carbon tax will accomplish, and the study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer has refuted all of those claims. Why are we charging this carbon tax on our Canadian farmers? We put forward a solution in Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done the math. In the first year of the carbon tax, Canadian farmers paid on average about $14,000 a year. With the increase on April 1, that goes to $45,000 per average farmer. The Liberals are going to say there is a carbon tax rebate and eight out of 10 families make more off the carbon tax. Again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an arm's-length officer of the House, has said that is not the case. In Bill C-8, with the carbon tax rebate, farmers get $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are contributing to the carbon tax. Farmers are price-takers. They cannot afford to carry the burden of the carbon tax when we are asking them to improve yields and their efficiency. It does not make sense. At a time when we are talking about global food security, we also need to talk about affordability. Our farmers, producers and manufacturers need to be able to do what they do and do it efficiently. I have talked about the carbon tax and the fertilizer price, but there is another issue where the Liberals continue to throw on red tape and obstacles, which is going to be coming out in the next little while. It is front-of-package labelling. That is a direct attack on beef and pork producers in Canada. The United States has already identified this as a trade irritant that will impact our beef exports and increase grocery costs here at home, making things even more unaffordable for Canadians. In conclusion, our motion is very prudent. It would ensure that we address the affordability crisis facing Canadians, and, most importantly, help our farmers, producers and ranchers, who are doing all they can to address a global food security crisis, ensure that groceries are affordable for all Canadians.

1637 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 1:35:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have noticed that the motion calls for eliminating tariffs on fertilizer. Some Canadian companies have reorganized their supply chains, have said they agree with Canada and do not want to buy Russian fertilizer or Belarusian fertilizer, and have gone somewhere else and paid a higher price. Does the member not believe that they too should get a break from high fertilizer costs?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Jun/7/22 1:36:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, they were going to find those new resources only because of the tariff put on Russian fertilizer by the Liberal government. Again, we are not arguing that there should not be sanctions on Russia, but they should be sanctions that actually impact Russia and its economy. This tariff is only punishing Canadian farmers. If we have realized anything through COVID, it is that we must diversify our trade agreements and be much more self-sufficient. The tariff that the Liberals put on Russian fertilizer is the only reason farmers are paying higher costs. I might add too that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance did not even realize that Canada purchased fertilizer from Russia before putting on that tariff.

123 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 83