44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, people often call my riding office to ask about services for seniors and children of low-income families.
Right now, my riding is particularly well off. Since dental care is a service for low-income people, what does my colleague have to say to voters in my riding and his riding who need help and who want this budget to be passed?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the scholarly history lesson. I have enjoyed a lot of the speeches tonight. They have been quite wide-ranging. I heard a bootstrap argument about the agency to make more decisions about one's own economic future. I agree with that. However, I would note that it came from a member who would like for women to have fewer choices about their own reproductive futures. I also heard a comparison saying that $467 in support would never do anything to help a Canadian family but $330 was an extraordinary burden. There has been some difficulty on math.
I know that the member did not touch on carbon pricing tonight, but he did mention taxation. He said there is too much tax in Canada. I observed that in the last election, he, like all 338 MPs and candidates, ran on a carbon pricing scheme in one form or another. Oftentimes, people point to Brian Mulroney's ability to abate acid rain. I would point out that the Conservatives did that with cap and trade and a ban on burning certain types of coal. These are the types of advancements that come from really good government programs.
I will ask a question directly about the member's previous commitment to run on a carbon price. Where does he stand now on carbon pricing?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
For most of the evening, we have been hearing some pretty fanciful stuff with respect to climate change and the efforts by previous prime minister Brian Mulroney to abate acid rain, which was historic and so important. However, the way that this former prime minister worked to deal with the issues of the time have been stretched a little bit. Of course, he and the president of the day, George Bush, used things like cap and trade and changes in products used to produce electricity.
I note that my colleague's home province is Manitoba, which generates almost all of its electricity through renewable resources like hydro and wind. Most of the members who are so against carbon pricing are from provinces that still generate a lot of their electricity from coal and natural gas, like Saskatchewan and Alberta. Currently over 80% of the power from those provinces is from fossil fuels.
Perhaps the member from the NDP could comment on how carbon pricing is an effective measure to move provinces toward using renewable resources to generate electricity.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I regret having to play fact check. First, on foreign direct investment, the five-year snapshot of the foreign direct investments in the last five years is upward of $1,141 billion, so over $1 trillion is an average. In the Harper years, it was almost half of that, $617 billion over a five-year period per year. On foreign direct investment, there is really no comparing the federal Liberal government to the Conservative government. The Conservatives were just not able to attract the same level of investment.
Second, I am not sure why the member wants to compare COVID-19 to opioid deaths. However, more Canadians did die from COVID-19, tragically, than opioids. Opioids have consumed far too many lives in this country and we need to find solutions for both treatment and more safe supply. It is not a simple solution. It is complex.
Last, the member opposite lives in a province with carbon pricing, which has effectively demonstrated an ability to reduce carbon emissions. He ran on it in the last election. Will he stand up and tell his constituents that he no longer believes in carbon pricing?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friend, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, is among the thousands of British Columbians saving $550 or $450 a month on child care fees as a result of these investments. However, I agree that more needs to be done to increase spaces. Certainly the labour shortage across the country is not specific to child care but is in every sector.
I am also thrilled to hear that the member is an advocate for means testing for various programs, especially given the Conservatives' previous version of the Canada child benefit, which was a universal program that sent thousands and thousands of dollars to millionaire families. However, I would say that this is an education program; it is all about education. I question whether or not public schools should be available to wealthier families. I believe they should be, and I think early learning and child care should also be available to wealthier families.
How can we, in a collaborative way, increase the labour force and make sure that there are more spaces in the communities that do not have enough?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the notion that somehow anybody in this House has devalued the importance of women in parenting roles is absurd. This is all about choice. This program has helped so many women and fathers go back to work earlier as a result of this subsidy. For what it is worth, I know lots of men who are the primary caretakers and lots of women who are the primary earners in those relationships, and I think it is wonderful that we live in a country where people can have that choice.
The member, prior to that absurd allegation that our government does not value women who stay home to care for their children, which I find offensive, was talking about—
An hon. member: He's offended.
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Madam Speaker, yes, I am offended. As the product of a single mother, I am quite offended by that.
The suggestion that it costs too much to provide an early learning and child care program was also false. When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to personalize a little, and I can too. Last Friday, I was walking through Milton and knocking on doors. In between doors, I talked to Teddy, who was pushing his son in a little stroller. Teddy's son was driving the stroller, actually. I asked how his family was doing. I said I knew there are tough financial times right now and asked if everybody was doing well. He said the big thing is that his family is saving $500 or $600 a month on child care. The Conservatives have repeatedly called this program a failure, saying that investing in a child care program for Canadians is a failure.
I can tell the member first-hand that this is not a question for Teddy's family. Canadians are provided with the kind of support that they are demanding from us. It is saving families a lot of money. It might not be reaching every single family in Canada yet, but it is a great start, and Teddy's family is very grateful.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:14:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for being here this evening and into the wee hours of the morning. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her question this evening, but not just for that. I want to thank her for her decades of service and her leadership. I would also like to thank her for being an incredible steward and spokesperson, a voice of reason in this House, an extraordinarily knowledge parliamentarian, and a great friend. I thank the member very much for engaging in the debate this evening.
Moving on to the substantive question, indeed, since 2015, our government has, as the member pointed out, invested a lot of money in climate action. We can be proud of this, collectively. We got elected, three times, on promises to take strong climate action, and since 2015, over $120 billion has been invested in over 100 various measures to support climate action and to address the climate emergency that we are all experiencing, highlighted today by many members in this House, who had noticeable differences in their voices. I cannot help but wonder if that is as a result of the smoke outside because of the nearby forest fires, which are not even really that nearby. They are just so big that the smoke has arrived here in Ottawa.
I saw some social media posts from people who have lived in Ottawa a lot longer than the time I have spent in Ottawa, some for over 50 years, saying they have never seen the sky look like it has today. It is really tragic that we find ourselves here.
We must continue to take bold action and be leaders on this issue for the world and for other countries to take note. We have a lot of common ground in the House. There are quite a few members, I would say the vast majority of the House believes in climate changes, believes it is an emergency and believes that we must take action.
It is still alarming to hear members, and I did today, say things such as, “It is weather. It is normal. There has always been climate change.” It is challenging, to be honest, to be in this place, to be a progressive politician and to care so much about climate action, and recognize that there are some of these very antiquated views that are persistent, primarily in the Conservative Party. I have never heard a member from another party in this House falsely describe climate change as “weather”.
We agree that oil and gas emissions must come down. To do that, we must introduce a cap on those emissions for the industry and for the sector. We have also taken action on the consumer side. It is well known and it is extremely well documented that pricing carbon and pricing pollution does result in lower emissions in the long run. It is shocking that we spend so much time in the House debating whether or not a price on pollution is effective, given that 338 members of the House, every single Conservative, NDP, Bloc Québécois, Liberal and Green member, campaigned on a promise to price carbon, yet we find ourselves, in 2023, debating the veracity and legitimacy of a price on pollution.
On this side of the House, including the Green side of the House, we agree that pricing pollution is one of the many ways that we can fight climate change, but we know that there is more that we must do. We have a bold price on pollution, but we also have to take more environmental action and more climate mitigation, as well as adaptation strategies.
I can see that I am nearing the end of my speech, and I will have time for a follow-up, so I will pass it back to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
662 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:19:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in fact, I would go a step farther in saying my goal is not just so that my children, knock on wood, as I do not have any yet but I would like to one day, could survive.
My goal in the House of Commons, and one of the main reasons I put my name on a ballot, and I know I share this with many of my colleagues in the House, regardless of party stripe, is so that my future children thrive in this world. It is not enough to have a planet that is survivable. This planet needs to be one that allows our species of humans to thrive.
To do that, we need an ambitious and achievable plan. I am confident that we are on the right track. I know the member shares an admiration for Jean Chrétien. He says that, if the Conservatives are telling someone they are being too socialist, and the socialists are saying they are being too conservatives, they might be getting it right.
I do not want to suggest that we have to strike a balance on climate action. We need to be an example for the world, an example for economies around the world. When there is investment in green technologies, investment in the future and growth in the economy, climate change can be fought and—
230 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:24:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about something that I care very deeply about, and that is affordable housing in Canada.
Before I get to the substantive question, I note that in an earlier debate this evening, we were talking about child care. Since we are talking about home finances, I think it prudent to put down that there is a calculator on the federal government's website where we can calculate benefits. It was suggested by members of the Conservative Party that there is no benefit for stay-at-home mothers and that somebody on this side of the House suggested at some point, fallaciously I would add, that single parents or mothers who stay home are less valued by this government. I would challenge that assertion. The Canada child benefit is an example of something that does support parents who choose to stay home if they earn less.
I ran a scenario through the website. I used a scenario where there is a $70,000 earner and a $45,000 earner in a household with two children eligible for child care. When the $45,000 earner stays home, they receive $250 extra a month. That is $3,000 a year, which actually meets that family halfway on the child care subsidy they would receive otherwise. Given that child care would be available to the family if they are paying more tax, the program pays for a lot of itself, and I think it is quite prudent.
On the substantive question regarding housing, while the member opposite was speaking, he talked about how housing was so much more expensive on his side of the river than on the other side. I found some classifieds on both sides, from Malone, New York, and Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and I found that apartments were actually a very similar price. Sometimes Conservatives just throw out prices and say that a one-bedroom apartment is now $2,500. The veracity of those claims should be analyzed by people listening. I found apartments in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry anywhere from $400 for a single room explicitly for a female student to $1,200, $1,500 and $1,600 for a three-bedroom apartment. At the same time, I found two-bedroom apartments for $1,320, or $900 U.S., in Malone, New York, just across the way.
The reality is that Canada needs more homes, and any member of this House who is serious about the issue would agree that we need to focus on getting more housing built, including affordable housing and purpose-built rentals. While some in this House, like the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, say that the federal government has to do less and pull back from investing in housing, we fundamentally disagree. I think most Canadians would disagree as well. Quite frankly, we know we need to do more.
Since 2015, this government has invested more than $36 billion to support, create and repair half a million homes across this country and help nearly two million individuals and families get the housing they need. I am a co-op housing kid. I grew up in a co-op, and I am proud that this government has also invested $1.5 billion in a restart to the federal co-op strategy.
We have made housing affordability a central pillar of recent budgets. For example, budget 2022 pledged billions to boost supply and put housing within reach of everyone in this country, and our most recent budget has provisions to build on that momentum, particularly for indigenous housing, with over $3 billion invested in recent budgets. There is also the housing accelerator fund, a $4-billion fund that intends to yield over 100,000 net new housing units over five years.
I can talk about the leadership demonstrated by the minister, who was in Milton, Oakville and London meeting with the mayors of those communities. He talked about the importance of the housing accelerator fund and how municipalities across this country can step up, find solutions and cut some of the red tape that the member opposite has referenced this evening. Since the member opposite has served in a municipal capacity, he would know that much of that red tape is, in fact, municipal. I would love to hear some solutions rather than just slogans and criticisms of things that have not worked. He is an expert on municipal affairs, and he could probably provide this House with some recommendations on how to cut municipal red tape in the housing sector.
769 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:29:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, the member opposite just pulled numbers out of thin air, stating that 60% of somebody's paycheque is going to housing. Those are examples, not statistics. We are driven by evidence on this side of the House to make sure that we are investing where it is needed.
For example, recently the federal government and Ontario's provincial government came together to find an infill solution in Milton. I rushed home from Parliament in order to do a housing announcement with the minister, a former member of Parliament here in this House, who is now in Doug Ford's Conservative government, Parm Gill. I will give a quick little shout-out to my Conservative colleague down there.
We worked together to find solutions. Thirty-four new units were built for just under $5 million for residents. They are already occupied. They are already tenanted. We are finding solutions because, regardless of our parties' stripes, we are working together, not just making accusations across the way, or making up numbers and throwing wild figures around about doubling and tripling, and how a supposed cutting of the price on pollution is going to solve everybody's problems. That is not true—
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
