SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

Dec/14/23 6:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When I was speaking with respect to the agriculture report and concurrence, I did not talk about the corruption that was there with Stephen Harper— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:17:38 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. I would just ask members, when they rise on a point of order, to please specify the standing order that they are speaking on. The other thing is, instead of trying to interrupt members or making comments while the member is speaking, I would ask members to please wait because there is going to be an opportunity for questions and comments. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

80 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Dec/14/23 6:18:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, they cannot even help but heckle the Speaker when that member is so desperate to try to defend the indefensible, and that is the Liberal corruption that is costing Canadians and is forcing them to skip meals. The Liberals' inflationary spending is not for legacy projects. It is not to build bridges or build homes. It is to line the pockets of insiders. While we have tent cities that did not exist eight years ago and while we have food bank use in numbers that did not exist eight years ago, we have corruption the likes of which has never existed in this country, except for under the current NDP-Liberal government. It is clear that after eight years of this Prime Minister he is not worth that cost. He is not worth the cost of record food bank usage. He is not worth the cost of record food price inflation. He is not worth the cost of scandals. It is hard not to be disappointed in the government when every day there is a new scandal. These Liberals just cannot help but jump up to defend the indefensible. We saw it today, in fact, when the industry minister stood up and was very animated in defence of all of the conduct at the billion-dollar green slush fund. These are Liberal appointees who are under investigation. I understand that there might be an initial instinct, but many months have passed. The Liberals have seen the evidence. The Auditor General has now launched an investigation. That is the stage that we are at. We are at the stage where we have many millions of dollars go missing and instead of saying they are going to get Canadians their money back and they are going to make sure that everyone who had anything to do with it is held fully accountable and that of course they are going to clean house and everyone is fired, they have fired not a single person. They have not sought to recover a single dollar. I have to say that my first call would be to the RCMP because with Canadians who are starving and struggling and freezing in the dark, that is the kind of reaction that we should have to misappropriation and embezzlement; not looking to jump up and, as I said, defend corrupt practices. That is why we have put forward common-sense solutions, like Bill C-234. It is horrible to have seen the pressure that the PMO and his radical environment minister used, to have senators amend that bill before sending it back here. It is brutal. It could have provided real relief to Canadians. It could have had a real effect on food price inflation and could have contributed to food security for Canadians. While the Liberals may have given up on doing the right thing, we are always going to stand up for Canadians and we are going to bring home lower prices and food that people can afford.

503 words

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

Dec/14/23 6:21:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about food security. With respect to the issue of affordability, at the end of the day, they will find that what is happening in Europe is having more of an impact than the price on pollution on inflation here in Canada. What did the Conservative Party do in regard to Europe? Not once, not twice, not three times and not four times, but five times the Conservatives voted against Ukraine, whether it was the trade agreement or budgetary allocations. That does nothing in terms of world or European stability, which has an impact on food prices. As opposed to trying to have his fairy tales of corruption, as if only in the member's mind, why does he not recognize the fact that the Conservative approach on substantive policies like Ukraine is for the member opposite and his caucus in its entirety to vote against Ukraine at every opportunity they have had in the last number of weeks?

167 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Dec/14/23 6:22:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will offer some facts to the parliamentary secretary. The Auditor General of Canada is investigating embezzlement and corruption at the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund. That is a fact. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating not one but two Liberal appointees to the billion-dollar green slush fund for their conflicts of interest in voting for motions that put hundreds of thousands of dollars in their own pockets. That is a fact. The report that was commissioned by the government found $40 million in misappropriated funds, but a whistle-blower has now said that there is $150 million in misappropriated funds. These Liberals have sent gas turbines to Russia. They have sent detonators that are blowing up Ukrainian soldiers, and they voted with Russia in support of Hamas at the United Nations. We are not taking any lessons on foreign policy from these jokers, today or any day.

155 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Dec/14/23 6:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, concerning grocery store prices, I would like to ask my colleague for his interpretation of the theatrical performance put on by the Minister of Industry. The minister called in the CEOs of major corporations to give evidence and asked them to change their prices. However, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, these same CEOs told us that they had not changed their practices and that everything is the same as it always was. Instead of following the committee's existing recommendations, the government decided to put on a show to win popular support. What does my colleague think about that?

108 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Dec/14/23 6:24:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, it was the same theatre that we saw from the minister when talking about his refusal to take action on the billion-dollar green slush fund. There was an awful lot of motion. He was quite blustery, but he wanted us to confuse that for action. He is not taking any action there, and he is not taking any action on food price affordability. When standing committees particularly make recommendations, those should be the first thing that the minister looks at, instead of having a big show trial where he brings in grocery CEOs to look him in the eye and talk sternly to them. We have presented concrete ways that they can bring down food price inflation and one of those ways would be to pass the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234.

137 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:25:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary on this seemed to doubt that there was any kind of a problem with the billion-dollar green slush fund, wherein members have actually admitted at committee to have voted to give themselves money. I wonder if the member, in whatever time he has left, could ensure the parliamentary secretary does have his facts straight.

60 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Dec/14/23 6:26:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge rightly identified that it was the Liberal-appointed chair of the billion-dollar green slush fund who not only moved the motion, but also voted for the motion to give herself hundreds of thousands of dollars. She put it into a company and then withdrew a salary for $120,000 from that company, at a time when Canadians are struggling to feed themselves. That is what the minister is defending. That is what the parliamentary secretary is defending. It is indefensible, and we need common-sense solutions such as Conservative Bill C-234.

101 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:26:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what an ironic situation to be standing in the House talking about concurrence in a committee report dealing with strengthening food processing capacity after we just spent an hour of private members' business talking about a Liberal private member's bill that is going to shut down an entire portion of Canada's agricultural economy. It is bizarre to stand here today and talk about food security in the context of the greatest food insecurity time that we have ever had. Since food banks started recording information in 1989, there has never been more demand at our food banks than right now. We have had eight years of the Liberals, now propped up by the NDP, making bad policy, bad law and bad budget after bad policy, bad law and bad budget. We find ourselves in a scenario where inflation, caused by the doubling of our national debt, all previous prime ministers combined, came to a little over $600 billion. For the current Prime Minister, it was $600 billion in just eight years, making the cost of everything go up. The Liberals' proudest moment was when the Prime Minister stood in this House and announced he was going to implement a carbon tax, a tax that we as Conservatives said would be a tax on everything. Here we are. Canadians are choosing between heating their homes and eating. Seniors are moving back in with their children. Children are not even able to move out of their parents' house. Parents are wondering if they are going to have their kids and parents living in their house. There are a lot of people asking themselves those questions right now. The agriculture committee studies food processing. That is part of the entire supply chain, so let us take a look at how we get food here. Liberals would have us believe that Canada cannot produce its own food, that we somehow need to support other countries around the world in order to have food here. That is not true. We are one of, I believe, only five nations in the world that are net food exporters. That means that Canada can make more than enough food for ourselves and can export food around the world. That is what we do with beef, grain, oilseeds, pork and hopefully still horses if there is any sensibility in the room. Imagine the arrogance of a government knowing what people should be able to choose on the shelf. Imagine it being so knowledgeable that it can do people's shopping for them right here in the House of Commons and tell them what they can and cannot have. We see that all the time with the government. It is not just with respect to the food we eat, but the energy we can use for our vehicles and homes, the modes of transportation we can use and the firearms we get to use when we decide to go hunting. A lot more people are hunting these days. Madam Speaker is from a riding with a lot of hunters in it. That is not necessarily because they want to, but out of necessity because of the cost of food. There is a lot of uptake in hunting, which is a good thing. I am a hunter. I like that. This is all premised on the notion that the Liberal government has no trouble berating its own industries that it does not like. It berates our oil and gas sector, even though we have one of the cleanest oil and gas sectors on the planet. It berates our agricultural sector, even though we are one of the most advanced societies relying on technology. We have to be innovative. We only have four or five months of a growing season in the year to grow crops. If we were not innovative, we could not compete with countries that can grow grass 12 months of the year. We would not keep up with them. We need to be innovative with greenhouses. In my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe, we have great greenhouses. Guess what we do to increase the efficiency of food production in a greenhouse. Does anyone have any idea what we might pump into a greenhouse to make plants grow faster and help the crop be more productive? It is carbon dioxide. That is what we put into a greenhouse. What goes into fertilizer? It is natural gas to create urea. We need this so we can use our innovative farming techniques for single pass. When I was a kid growing up on a farm in central Alberta, we used to have things like rod weeders and all kinds of other equipment we would use. We would even contemplate summer fallow, which is leaving the ground empty for an entire growing season just to deal with the weed problem. We do not have to deal with that anymore because we have so much innovation making our land more productive and reducing our input costs. How do we reduce our input costs? It is by using the innovative technologies I just talked about, which all depend on things like natural gas for the creation of fertilizer. However, now that is taxed. We are talking about Bill S-234 right now. It was in the Senate. It was passed by this place so that farmers could have a bit of an easier go when it comes to drying their grain. Some years they can take it off dry; some years they cannot. They do not get to pick and choose. Farmers in my riding are showing me their carbon tax bills: $18,000 a year to dry 90,000 bushels of grain and oilseed. Where are they going to recoup that cost? Are they just going to pass it along to the consumer or the next purchaser? They are already paying more for their fertilizer because there is a carbon tax on that as well, before the inputs even get there. With the shipping of new farm equipment to their farm, like a new truck, tractor, cultivator or harvester, now there is a carbon tax. It is not only on the creation of the machinery but on the shipping of the machinery. Before they even get a kernel of grain or raise a cow, they are already paying the carbon tax on the items that were brought to the farm. Now they go through their growing season and are harvesting, and everything they do is taxed. They get a few little exemptions on farm fuel but it is taxed. Then what happens? They put grain in the truck and take it to wherever the market is. They are marketing it to the grain terminal or taking their livestock to the auction market, wherever that happens to be. There is a carbon tax on that fuel and a carbon tax on that vehicle. Then it gets purchased by a buyer and gets shipped someplace else in the world. There is a carbon tax anytime the stuff moves or changes hands. Hopefully it ends up at a processor, which is what this report is all about. By that time, it has already had a carbon tax applied two or three times directly or indirectly just to get enough grain over to a terminal, where it is sent to a processor. Now that processor is paying a carbon tax on the electricity being used in the building and for the shipment of all the boxes and everything other type of thing they might have. Their entire production line is going to consume energy, which means a carbon tax. Is it any wonder that we have seen the price of food go up? We have not even gotten to the grocery store yet. How do Canadian farmers, shippers, processors and grocers have a chance when they are taxed to bring us the food that the consumer ends up having to pay the bill for? They cannot do it. It is time to axe the tax. We want to help innovation for processors. Let us get out of their way, axe the tax and make it affordable.

1364 words

Alberta

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:36:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Just today I was alerted to something that was really unfortunate with two people in my riding. I found out that two family members of a family that I grew up with had recently passed. On Tuesday, Allen Nordick passed away. May perpetual light shine upon him. Unfortunately, the day following, his mother, Maybelle Nordick, passed away at 93, so there were two deaths in the family within 24 hours. It is very difficult to see a mother and her son both pass away. May perpetual light shine on Mabel Nordick as well. I will be attending the joint funeral on Monday. My deepest condolences go out to the family. To my colleague, if he could change one thing that this Liberal government could do in light of his speech, what would that be?

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:38:06 p.m.
Watch

I also want to extend my condolences on behalf of myself and this House to your constituents' family. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

26 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/14/23 6:38:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously the issue that my colleague brought up is a difficult one, and I send my support and sympathies as well. I thank him for the question. It is really quite simple. The carbon tax is a tax on everything, because energy is what we use to do everything we do in our lives. The entire economy rests upon our ability to have energy. It powers us in everything we do: work, play and our quality of life. When we tax our quality of life, our quality of life goes down, which is what is happening. Our productivity is going down, our affordability is going down, our cost of living is going up and Canadians are struggling. It is time to axe the tax.

126 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:39:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe and his hard work on this file in representing large agricultural areas, as I do. Both of us are farm kids and have first-hand experience. We witnessed here all fall the Liberals refusing to give a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers. The Liberals are creating food inflation and they are creating food insecurity. As they bring in more and more of their environmental restrictions—and now we are looking at methane and looking at reductions in fertilizer applications across this country—these restrictions will drive down production significantly, will drive down profitability of our farms and will increase the price of food to consumers. These Liberals would rather import food from other countries that do not have the same regulatory standards and environmental standards that we have here in Canada, plus pay the cost of transporting all of that food to feed Canadians, probably at even a higher cost. That, to me, is ridiculous. Now these guys like to talk about making sure that we are protecting Ukraine. That is something that is very near and dear to my heart as a Ukrainian-Canadian, but these individuals, instead of helping Ukraine by sending it more weapons, are actually allowing detonators to go in land mines that wreak havoc in those fields and are actually killing Ukrainian farmers. My question to the hon. colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe is this: Does he believe these Liberals are undermining food security in Canada and around the world?

264 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/14/23 6:40:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. My colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is exactly right. He knows very well how things work from the farm gate right to the grocery store. It is really sad to see what is transpiring in this place with the accusations from the government about support for Ukraine. If this government were actually truly supporting Ukraine, it would make absolutely certain that no products leaving Canada would ever be used against our friends in Ukraine. We see that with detonators. We have seen that with the turbine. We have seen the humiliating incident right here in this chamber when the government hosted President Zelenskyy and we had the unfortunate incident that led to the resignation of the previous Speaker. Hopefully there will be the resignation of the current one. We will take no lessons from the chaps on the other side. It is time that we actually had a new government in this country to restore our credibility and reputation internationally and to restore some hope to the Canadian public.

174 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise. I am not going to speak at length about the report. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same by adding to Recommendation 5 of the report a call to the government to discontinue the carbon tax, given that over 100 first nations communities have taken the government to court because it is violating the rights of First Nations with the carbon tax on rural and remote people and the recent request from the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who joins other premiers, for an exemption from the carbon tax”.

159 words

Agriculture

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:43:13 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

59 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:45:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the government when it would rein in its inflationary spending and balance the budget to bring down inflation and give Canadian homeowners interest rate relief. The parliamentary secretary took a cheap shot at the Conservative Party leader, but the main meat of his response needs some unpacking. He referred to his government supposedly working with the City of Calgary, and that point needs correcting. In this case, the minister the parliamentary secretary speaks for wrote a threatening letter to the mayor, demanding that city council take a vote on a specific proposal or lose housing accelerator funding. They were not working with the City of Calgary; they were threatening it. It is a classic “my way or the highway” type of move. Sadly, it is one that they have also undertaken with other municipalities. I would like to contrast that approach with the building homes not bureaucracy act, the housing plan that has already been partly tabled in the House of Commons by the Conservative Party's leader. Under this plan, the federal government would tie municipal funding to outcomes, but not by sticking its nose into municipal government's business. Instead, a Conservative government approach would respect municipal decision-making. It would simply tie national government funding to national policy objectives; increasing the national housing supply is a critical policy imperative. The question that I asked remains unanswered. Under the NDP-Liberal government, interest rates have gone through the roof. Even the government's own experts and all kinds of random Liberals have affirmed without any doubt that the government's spending and borrowing are contributing to inflation. Former Liberal finance ministers, such as Bill Morneau and John Manley, have clearly said that the government is losing the battle against inflation because it keeps pouring gasoline on the inflationary fire. Current and former governors of the Bank of Canada have also weighed in with concern about how the government's spending and deficits make inflation worse. The finance minister herself even admitted earlier this year that her government was going to have to rein in its spending to fight inflation. However, she then tabled a fall economic statement with more spending, taxes, borrowing and deficits, which means more inflation and higher interest rates. Inflation has been called the cruellest tax ever. It robs workers of the value of their wages, it robs savers of the value of their savings and it robs seniors of the value of their pensions. Inflation is crushing Canadians and lower-income retirees with higher interest rates. Moreover, higher interest rates threaten mortgagors and threaten to suppress housing construction. They even threaten the entire financial system because of the weight of mortgage asset balances. Canadians cannot afford the homes they already own, in many cases, because they were forced to buy at peak prices that were bid up by a lack of supply. Now their mortgages are maturing at shockingly high rates. Under the government's watch, some were even forced into fixed-payment variable rate mortgages, because at the very peak of prices, qualifying calculations actually made it more advantageous to do so. People were just trying to put a roof over their head, and they had to take on these riskier mortgages just to get into a home. Now they have negatively amortizing mortgages, where the balance owing is increasing. Thus, they are having to either make giant payments of principal or face huge increases on their payments, but they do not have any extra money. People are desperately worried that they are going to lose their homes, and observers worry that the banking system itself is at risk. Therefore, I ask again. When will the government rein in its deficits, reduce its wasteful spending and get inflation under control so interest rates can come down, Canadians can afford to keep a roof over their own head and builders can afford to build?

660 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 6:49:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the challenges we are facing are complex and multi-faceted. There is no simple solution. This is a nationwide issue that can only be solved with close co-operation between partners in every sector and all levels of government. After decades of absence at the housing table, this government has stepped up and assumed a leadership role. To this end, I am happy to remind members what the Government of Canada is doing for Canadians and the solutions we have put forward for Canadians to find homes they can afford and improve communities across the country. On housing, we are taking a practical approach to increase the supply of all types of homes. We have to look at the housing challenge holistically. As I said, this is multi-faceted with a range of factors that requires participation from all concerned. We are talking about shelters, transitional housing, community housing, affordable rental housing and more. Each of these comes with its own unique set of challenges. With that mind, we are attacking it from all angles. To get more homes built, we are working with partners directly or indirectly involved in the housing sector. That includes provinces, indigenous governments, municipalities and private and community sectors. Thanks to various programs under the national housing strategy, many projects have been started in my colleague's city of Calgary. One such example is the Sheriff King Home women's shelter. By working with the Government of Alberta, we were able to double the number of available spaces. Another example is the Templemont Place and Gardens residence, which opened last spring. This 120-unit affordable housing project for seniors provides 50 affordable housing units and 70 supportive housing units, where residents have access to on-site doctors and nurses. This housing complex was made possible thanks to contributions from the national housing co-investment fund, the Canada-Alberta National Housing Strategy Bilateral Agreement and the seed fund program. No doubt, this initiative demonstrates the success that comes through a concentrated approach and this is the approach we are taking to get more homes built more quickly. This government invests to ensure greater equity across the country that is essential to making a difference for all Canadians.

373 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/14/23 6:51:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary still has not answered my question. When are the Liberals going to rein in the spending, rein in their deficits and get inflation under control so that interest rates can come down and Canadians can get on with living their lives and not have to deal with the catastrophic effects of the inflationary and high-interest-rate environment that they have created? People's payments, in some cases, are doubling. It is normal now for a maturing mortgage to add $700, $800 or more a month to people's payments. They cannot afford it. They cannot afford to keep the homes they are in. I did not hear an answer to my question. I heard him tick off a couple of announcements of funding and openings, but that comes amid the need for millions of new housing construction in the years to come. The answer I got is not going to cut it for the needs of Canadian housing and certainly will give no relief to existing Canadian mortgage holders, which is the substance of the question that I had asked.

186 words