SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/23 12:10:37 a.m.
Watch

Next is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

10 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/23 12:10:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I rise this evening during the Adjournment Proceedings, most of what I want to say about the climate science is that we are running out of time and the hour is late. Both of those things are literally true, as I rise to speak after midnight. I am raising a question that I put to the Prime Minister on March 22 of this year in question period in response to the most recent and sobering report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is a large institution that was created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. It is not too much to make the proud claim that Canada had a lot to do with setting up the IPCC back in 1988. Although we talk about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a lot, it actually does painstaking work that takes years. This is the sixth assessment report, which came out with its final volume on March 20 of this year. We will not see another major review of the science from this eminent scientific body that has been created by governments, which appoint the scientists, for some time. It is a massive peer-review process. We will not see another report until sometime after 2030. The receipt of this document, and the warnings in it, could not be more urgent. As many said when the report was tabled, this is really the last report when we have a chance to make a difference. What the IPCC says very clearly is that global greenhouse gas emissions must be arrested and begin to fall rapidly before, and this is important, 2025. While the government has a target that it describes as ambitious, the target the government chose of net zero by 2050 is out of sync with the science. It is out of time with the reality that, in order to control and avoid runaway global warming, we need to act now. When I asked the question on March 22, Canada was not on fire. We had lived through a lot of extreme weather events across Canada, whether it was hurricane Fiona, the wildfire seasons that have plagued British Columbia year after year or the heat dome over four days in 2021, late June to July 1, in British Columbia, where 619 people died. We have gone through fires, floods and extreme weather events, yet we are still here talking about when we will get serious about climate action. The answer I had from the Prime Minister was to talk about the concrete actions the government has taken. As ever, the Prime Minister, or his Minister of Environment, talks about monies committed. Some of that money has been committed to things that will not address the climate crisis and may in fact worsen it. These things are disguised subsidies of fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and storage. The closing line from the Prime Minister was, “As the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said this week, we will be looking very closely at that report.” One does not even have to look at the report closely. If one makes a cursory review of that report, one knows we have not done enough to avoid exceeding 1.5°C, shooting right past 2°C and putting human civilization at risk within the next half-century. We need to do more, and we need to do it now; that is why I am back here tonight.

586 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

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

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/7/23 12:18:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a really worthwhile discussion the hon. parliamentary secretary and I are having. Here is the problem, for the answers the Prime Minister, or anybody standing up for the Liberal Party, gives, it is not good enough if we are going to put the planet at risk, continuing the trajectory we are on, which threatens the survival, and this is not hyperbole, of human civilization. We have a window in which to ensure we avoid going past 1.5°C, where we would go way past 2°C to 3°C to unstoppable, self-accelerating, runaway global warming. That is what we are trying to avoid. We cannot avoid the weather we are having now. We will continue to have very unpleasant, extreme weather events. The goal is to hang on to human civilization and arrest the climate crisis so our kids can survive. Liberal policies do not do that.

156 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/23 12:20:31 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

10 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/7/23 12:20:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are in a housing crisis in this country, plain and simple, and the key figures demonstrate exactly that. Housing prices in this country have doubled to over $700,000; mortgages have doubled to over $3,000 a month; rent has doubled to over $2,000 a month; and the amount needed for a down payment has doubled to over $40,000. The problem is that, because rent has gone up so much, people cannot save for a down payment that has doubled. It is an absolute vicious circle, when it comes to the eight-year record of the Liberals in Ottawa. This is a uniquely Canadian problem. The Liberals would have us believe it is a global challenge, but the perfect example we have in eastern Ontario, when it comes to housing affordability and housing supply, is looking at us across the St. Laurence River. There was a report recently done that talked about the contrast from one side to the other. The median asking price for a home in Watertown, New York right now is $217,000 Canadian. Meanwhile, in Kingston, just a 40-minute drive north here in Canada, the median asking price is $602,000. It is nearly triple the price of a home, between Canada and the United States, from one side of the river to the other. That is despite Canada having more land on which to build houses and the United States having 10 times the population and demand to keep up with new homes. The Liberals have created this housing crisis in this country and, while housing prices have increased around the world, none have to the degree of what we have seen these past few years. It is inflationary spending and it is the printing of new money that has gone in and bloated the prices and bloated the real estate market and that has seen this doubling in the past couple of years. I am zoning my questions in on the federal agency and the federal minister who is responsible for housing. The CMHC continues to get very negative reviews. Members should not take just Conservatives' word for it; I know members from all parties have major frustrations on the performance and operation of this agency that literally has a mandate to make housing more affordable in this country. I have just outlined how the absolute opposite has happened and continues to happen. We have a housing minister who shows zero leadership and zero ability to change the performance and quality of work at the CMHC. Every time we ask a Liberal a question about what they are doing for housing, they say they are spending a record amount of money: $90 billion. They have never spent so much money to make a problem so much worse. Members should not take my word for it. As well, the Auditor General of Canada has come out and said many negative things about the performance of the CMHC. In their recent report last year, they said that the CMHC was the lead for the national housing strategy, that $90 billion the government tries to take credit for, in saying houses were often unaffordable for low-income households, when it came to investments in rental housing units, the report said that the CMHC is not directly accountable for any of its actions and it was not working in any coordinated way. The performance standard of the CMHC is terrible. At a time when we need the private sector to increase building houses and getting more shovels in the ground, according to the CMHC's report, they are actually seeing a decrease. My follow-up question is this: What performance measures are Liberals using to determine success at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

632 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

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

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/7/23 12:28:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a great solution to start: Let us tie performance bonusing to actual performance results. Call me crazy, but at the federal, provincial or municipal level, whatever the level is, far too often we have groups and organizations, like the CMHC, and the federal housing minister making a great big announcement promising more money and more results and the opposite happens. It is like this line: We are here from the government and we are here to help. Canadians do not buy it, and $90 billion later, the problem has never been worse. Regarding the referencing back and forth, rent prices have doubled in Cornwall, in eastern Ontario and in this country. One-third of income is what an average family should budget to spend on housing, but it is now over 60%. The more the Liberals spend, the worse it gets. They do not tie the rhetoric and the announcements to actual performance results. It is not unreasonable to ask that performance results be based on performance.

171 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/23 12:30:47 a.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:30 a.m.)

41 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 207