44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/16/22 2:29:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We know inflation is rising around the world. Here in Canada, it has not risen as much, but we know it is still an issue for Canadians at the grocery store and at the pump.
That is why we introduced a dental care plan for Canadians in our budget. The Canada workers benefit will give couples an extra $2,400 and single workers an extra $1,200. We have an affordability plan, and we will follow it.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:30:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They are seeing the price of everything skyrocket, from gasoline to groceries. All the while, Liberal officials jet-set around the world in decadence, drinking champagne and, if we can believe it, eating caviar. The $93,000 cost of catering on one of these flights would feed a Canadian family for years. Canadians are looking to catch a break, not catch a slap in the face.
When will the Liberals set their entitlements aside and finally put Canadians first?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:31:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we know inflation is having an impact on Canadian lives, but I would like to take my colleague down memory lane. He referred to the expenses linked to alcohol. Stephen Harper's delegation took 348 bottles when it went to South Africa in 2013. I just wanted to state the facts. Of course, I hope—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:31:40 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I will ask the hon. minister to please continue.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the members opposite need to take back their fake outrage.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, well, the minister wants to talk about what happened a decade ago or more. We are talking about what has been happening while they have been in office. We are reading stories in the newspaper about Canadians who cannot afford a full tank of gas. They are running out of gas on their way to work in record numbers across the country. They are not able to afford groceries, prescriptions or even to turn on the air conditioning during a heat wave because of inflationary pressures.
We are asking the government to take a reality check, not take a luxurious flight and spend $93,000 on catering when they could do with a little less. When will they put their entitlements aside and put Canadians first?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:32:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would love to have known where that rhetoric was in support of Canadians when we were in the House trying to pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and the budget implementation act, which include billions of dollars to go into the hands of Canadians. Instead, we took the reins to make sure we could get legislation passed, so we could get $8.9 billion into the hands of Canadians.
For child care, which the people on the other side just want to shred, in Toronto alone, a family will save $19,790 a year. That will help families afford groceries and gas. We are doing this across the country because this government puts Canada first.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:33:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has repeatedly said that he invoked the Emergencies Act, a historic law that had never been used before in this country, at the request of the police. The problem is that every single police force has told the committee that they never asked for it.
I am asking the minister to do the only honourable thing left to him and resign.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:34:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, it is clear that we will always protect Canadians' needs and safety. That is exactly why we invoked the Emergencies Act. In the process, we sought the advice of the police and used that advice to make our decisions.
On the other side, there are the Conservatives, who encouraged the illegal blockade. They must apologize.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:34:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, himself a former chief of police, said the following in committee, referring to the Emergencies Act: “I do not believe that would have been an appropriate thing for law enforcement to ask, and they did not ask”.
The reality is that we have a Minister of Public Safety who has totally lost Canadians' confidence. There is only one course open to him now, and that is to do the honourable thing and resign. What is he waiting for?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:35:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government will always defend its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, because it was a necessary decision.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the decision. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police supports the decision. The Canadian Police Association supports the decision. Why? Because it was necessary.
We on this side understand that. The Conservatives have never understood that. They need to apologize for their role in the illegal blockade.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister continues to hide the truth from Canadians on the use of the Emergencies Act. The minister cannot just tell Canadians that the act was necessary. He must show them. That is his job. I will quote the emergency preparedness minister, who said, “I do not believe that would have been an appropriate thing for law enforcement to ask, and they did not ask.”
The public safety minister has misled Canadians and Parliament. Will he resign today?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:36:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been consistent and clear on this side of the House that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was necessary because it was needed to restore public safety. Past president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Gary Conn, said that, in their view, the Emergencies Act provided the appropriate authorities and powers for police services to ensure the rule of law and the safety of citizens. He said that had been their experience, particularly during the “freedom convoy” of 2022.
That is law enforcement right there, and it was the Conservatives who exacerbated the situation with their reckless behaviour.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:37:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, these are more diversion tactics to avoid answering one simple question. The public safety minister has misled Canadians and Parliament. Law enforcement did not ask to have the use of the Emergencies Act. It is just that simple. I will quote the emergency preparedness minister: “I am not aware of any recommendation of law enforcement.”
Will the minister do the honourable thing and resign today, right now?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:37:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, doing the honourable thing means protecting Canadians. That is why we invoked the Emergencies Act. Doing the honourable thing means not taking that decision in a vacuum, which means consulting with police, searching for their advice and using that advice to inform the decision of the Emergencies Act, which is why police associations across the country supported the decision.
It was the Conservatives who knew all to well that, by making reckless statements asking the blockades to double down and entrench, they were undermining public safety, and they should apologize for that role. They undermined public safety, but on this side of the House, we protect it
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a flaw in how Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are calculated. Canada is the fourth-largest oil exporter in the world, but it is not responsible for what it sells.
Between 2016 and 2020, Canada as a whole emitted 3.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, yet Ecojustice calculated that fossil fuel exports caused 4.4 billion tonnes of emissions elsewhere in the world.
Canadian exports pollute 29% more than Canada in its entirety. Does the minister find it acceptable to wash his hands of that pollution?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:39:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me give a quick lesson on the greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Canada uses the same methodology as every country in the world, which is the one used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Simply put, emissions are calculated at the point of combustion. If the oil is burned here, it goes into our emissions balance, and if the oil is burned in the United States or Europe, it goes into their balance. That is how it works for everyone on the planet, including Canada.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, even if the Bay du Nord project pumps the minimum estimated volume of oil, which would be an additional 500 million barrels, the minister keeps saying that this project will achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. I am inclined to say that he is washing his hands of it. However, if oil pollutes while it is being extracted, it also pollutes while it is being used. This oil will never be zero-emission once it is burned in a vehicle in Canada or elsewhere.
Climate change does not care whether it is Canada or another country that is responsible for accounting for the pollution.
In the middle of a climate crisis, how can the Minister of the Environment really claim that Bay du Nord is going to reach net-zero emissions?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:40:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not a claim, but rather a condition for the project to go ahead. This is the first time in this country's history that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has imposed a net-zero condition on a project.
Second, I would invite my colleague to read the International Energy Agency report, which states that in 2050, we will still be using fossil fuel products, not as fuels, but instead as solvents or to build roads, for example. We will no longer be burning that fuel in 2050, but we will be using it for other purposes.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to hear the Minister of Environment boast about having the support of environmental groups when none other than Équiterre is taking him to court over Bay du Nord.
It is also absurd to hear him say that the number of additional barrels has no impact, as though more means less. It is utterly absurd to hear him speak about zero-emission oil as though it were green oil. It is even more absurd to hear him defending Canada's responsibility for pollution as a mere accounting exercise, while turning a blind eye to the impact of these oil exports.
The minister is speaking, but what we are hearing is the voice of the oil companies. Does he realize this?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
