44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2023 02:00PM
- May/3/23 7:21:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I am so glad the member brought up yesterday's opposition day motion, because I was not here so I was not able to contribute. Now I have the opportunity to ask her a question given she spent some time talking about it.
The Conservatives are talking about municipal gatekeepers, which is an interesting way to reflect on and appreciate municipal councils and mayors throughout the country who are elected and trying to represent their constituents. Nonetheless, what the Conservatives are doing is basically suggesting the federal government can somehow affect the direct policies in neighbourhoods about zoning, intensification and increasing density.
I know she says and the Conservatives say that this is about incentivizing municipalities to build more housing and tying, I guess, money to that incentivizing process. Can she explain to this House exactly how they would incentivize that, but more importantly, how it is different from the current existing housing accelerator fund that does exactly that?
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:27:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the member never answered my question, and I really want her to bring it home on this so that I can get a straight answer to my question.
What I asked was how the proposal by the Conservatives about incentivizing municipalities is any different from the current housing accelerator fund that exists. If she is saying that we are unsuccessful and are not producing results, what she is effectively saying is that their plan would do the same.
Can she explain to me how the Conservatives' plan to incentivize building housing is different from the current housing accelerator fund that exists?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 9:27:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, to build on the comment that the member made toward the end of his speech, I will say that I found it interesting that he was complaining that there are too many regulations in the country, but then said that the Conservative approach would be that, for every new regulation the Conservatives added, they would eliminate one. Would that not just result in the same number as already exist, which he is complaining is too high?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 9:49:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, if the member wants to understand why certain provinces such as P.E.I. have very different representation in the Senate, he should probably pick up the Constitution and have a look at it. Perhaps that will help to inform him on that.
To be honest, the last 30 or 45 seconds of his discussion were probably the most passionate of his entire 20-minute speech. He seemed to speak a lot about how much he is in favour of the bill and rhetorically speak about the need or lack of need for a lot of the regulations.
Conservative after Conservative have indicated their support for this. I wonder if the member can inform the House as to when we might be able to get on with the vote on it. If he could do that and at the same time spare me the rhetoric of needing every Conservative to represent their constituents and speak to this specific bill, that would be great too.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, that is not true. I would miss Quebec if it were to leave Canada, as the member spoke about towards the end of his speech. I would even suggest that a good portion of Quebeckers, if not a majority, would feel the same way.
At the beginning of the member's intervention, he spoke about whether there is even a need for having this discussion right now, and I could not agree more. We are literally talking about something right now that everybody is in agreement with. It has primarily just been Conservatives getting up to speak to this. I am baffled as to why that is when everybody is in agreement, notwithstanding the fact that I know people stand up and use the excuse of making sure they represent their constituents by talking about it.
Can the member try to shed some light on why we are not moving along? All it takes is for everybody to stop talking; then, by default, we would just go to a vote. Could he give his thoughts on why we are not able to do that?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 11:05:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I found the exchange a couple minutes ago very interesting. A Conservative asked his colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, about the bill, and he said he would eliminate red tape in order to create more wealth, which would then apparently be used to lift people out of poverty. I found that exchange to be very interesting. It reminds me a lot of the whole theory behind Reaganomics: Let the wealthy get even more wealthy; then the poor will do better as well. We all know how that experiment panned out.
Can he refer back to one Conservative government in the history of this country that was successful at reducing the poverty rate in Canada?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 11:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, since he is on the topic of weighing in on the various slogans, I am wondering if he wants to comment on why he did not once say “bring it home” in his last speech. We know that is the new-found slogan of the day for Conservatives. Maybe he wants to address that.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 11:48:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how many of those liquified natural gas plants the former Conservative Harper government was able to build. Just one?
More importantly, is the member sure that the future of our country is so dependent on liquified natural gas? There is no doubt that to some degree it will be used. However, what we are seeing, at least what I am seeing in my own riding, is people who are literally cutting their gas line off at the street because they are converting their heat sources to heat pumps. Heat pumps are the newest thing. They do not require natural gas. There is actually a shift, at least from a home heating perspective, away from natural gas.
I am curious why Conservatives continually put so much of their political capital into fossil fuels.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:13:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly rich that the member would take the time to requote his question and then gloss over the answer he received, not bothering to even read it into the record, so I will do that for him now. The response given was, “Madam Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recused himself from all deliberations and decisions related to the appointment of the interim Ethics Commissioner.”
The member suggested that this was just dancing around answering the question. To me, that sounds like a pretty direct answer to the question. However, what is even more important is to reflect on the fact that the individual who was appointed had a 10-year record in senior roles within the Ethics Commissioner's office, which began when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
The truth is that the characterization being sought by the member and the Conservatives on this issue, like on so many other issues related to it, undermines the office and undermines the integrity of the work it does. Quite frankly, I find it very concerning that time after time, the Conservatives get up and do the exact same thing. However, it is exactly on brand for what they do.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:16:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what an extremely rhetorical question. That is just based on the trumped-up conspiracy theories that the Conservatives like to put before this House on a daily basis. The manner in which individuals are selected and appointed is through a process and through processes that ensure they meet the qualifications.
I hope that that properly addresses his extremely rhetorical question.
Not at all, except it does—
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
