44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/1/24 10:47:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, and that member in particular, want to talk a lot about the price on pollution but do not want to talk about the other things the government is doing, in particular for the agriculture sector.
There is one riding in Ontario that receives $6.8 million through the agriculture sector emissions reductions and clean-tech funding. This is money that is actually given to the agricultural sector to help it reduce its emissions and find clean technology.
Do members know whose riding receives $6.8 million a year from the federal government for that? It is that member's riding. That member's riding receives $6.8 million of federal money to help the agricultural industry move away from emissions and in the direction of clean tech.
I am wondering, in the interest of axing everything, whether the member would comment on whether the Conservative government would axe this clean-tech funding and this $6.8 million to his riding.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 10:53:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Here we are once again, talking about the same motion based on the same red herrings we have seen time and time again coming from the Conservatives. I listened to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just moments ago, where he tried to imply that the federal funding toward the reduction of emissions and toward clean technology was only one particular program. It is clear the member has no concept whatsoever of what the federal government is doing for farmers, in that there are so many programs.
When I said $6.8 million, I was giving the total number over a whole vast array of various different programs. It is not a single program, but it is not new and not unique to me to hear Conservatives talking like this. It is what they want to do repeatedly. They want to take an issue like global inflation and try to apply it to Canada and say that it is a problem only in Canada. They say that this is a problem that has been created by the price on pollution, which is ludicrous.
We know, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the price on pollution contributes to 0.15% as it relates to inflation. It is literally negligible and could be chalked up to a rounding error, yet Conservatives jump on it as though this is what is making life unaffordable for many Canadians right now. They do not want to talk about the realities. They do not want to talk about what is actually going on throughout the world and how Canada is positioning itself to be at the forefront when it comes to these new technologies.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about building car batteries in Canada. Is he not aware that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, one of his Conservative members, had the largest investment, not in Canada but in North America, for building batteries to go into vehicles? That is all happening a 20-kilometre drive from where I live, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This is setting the course for the future in terms of the industry being at the forefront, so that we will not be importing technology and so that we will be the ones actually creating the technology and developing those products right here in Canada. That particular facility, Umicore, will produce 800,000 batteries to go into vehicles each and every year. It is a multi-billion dollar investment from Umicore, not just into Canada but into Ontario, into Hastings—Lennox and Addington, into the Kingston region.
This is huge, but it is only one example. We are well aware of Stellantis and the other various different players emerging in Canada as it relates to environmental technologies and the green technologies of tomorrow. People look toward Canada. Companies and businesses look toward Canada because they know we have the resources and the political will to push toward this new and emerging technology. This is why we are seeing people come and invest here.
While I am on the topic, do members know why Umicore even picked Ontario? The president of Umicore said, in his press conference, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington was there with a big smile on her face when it happened at Queen's University two summers ago, that Umicore chose Ontario because it is producing environmentally sustainable products and it wants to know that what goes into those products is environmentally sustainable. A vast majority of the resources that go into building those batteries comes from electricity, and he recognized that Ontario does not burn coal to produce electricity. That is thanks to a previous provincial Liberal government, by the way. He recognized that Ontario has taken great strides toward ensuring that we have renewable, sustainable electricity produced in a responsible way. That is why companies are choosing to invest in Canada. That is why they are choosing Ontario. That is why they are choosing Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
The mayors in the surrounding area, including in Kingston, are thrilled about this. The city councils are thrilled about this. The economic opportunities that are being produced as a result of investments like this, because of the initiatives of the Liberal government, will last for generations, quite frankly.
I get real kick out of it when I see Conservative members being super excited about these things when they are back in there ridings, but when they come to the House of Commons, they toe the line of the Leader of the Opposition, that the only solution forward is to go back to burning as much fossil fuel as we possibly can.
When we talk about the price on pollution and what Conservatives are proposing today, it is really important that we actually talk about what they are proposing. They talk about axing a lot of stuff. What they are going to be axing are rebates to families. It might not be the families that they are interested in, because lower-income families receive more through the climate action incentive rebate than higher-income families. However, the reality is that what Conservatives would be axing, is a family of four, in the spring of this year, will receive $244 for one quarter; in Manitoba, $264; in Saskatchewan, $340. The same family living in Alberta, for one quarter, would receive, and currently receives, $386.
We hear the Conservatives routinely say that we are going to double it or triple the tax, but of course they do not tell us the timeline, because some of the timelines are a decade out. However, what they forget to say is that the rebate doubles and triples as well. We recognize that in order to transition away from fossil fuels, which I want to do, and I know many members of the House of Commons, the Canadian population and a majority of our constituents want to do, we have to incentivize people to make change.
In an economic model that is built on capitalism, that is built on supply and demand, the way to incentivize people is by putting a price on things on which we want to change behaviour. We would think that the Conservatives before anybody else would know this. The same thing happens with taxes on tobacco. The same thing happens with taxes on other products where we are looking to change behaviour. However, the key difference to any other tax, and what the Conservatives never want to mention, is that in order to accomplish this, but still be reasonable for families to absorb those prices, is to return all the money to them.
The natural question is, “Why do it in the first place?” I just assumed that Conservatives could understand how market mechanisms work to incentivize and change behaviour in the market. Apparently they do not.
The good news is that we know that it is working, and we are starting to see it. The projections are showing that by 2030 over a third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed specifically to pricing pollution.
We are not the only ones that price pollution. Countless jurisdictions throughout the world price pollution. Ukraine prices pollution. Ukraine, a country that is literally at war right now, prices pollution, and it has since 2011. It was the only way that the European economy was going to let it participate in the economy. Most, if not all, European economies have a price on pollution in one form or another, whether that is a direct price, or cap and trade or one of the various different models.
The Conservatives never miss an opportunity to try to conflate and confuse Canadians as to what the realities are when it comes to the price on pollution and how it works, generally speaking.
Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the Conservatives have brought forward motion after motion on the same issue, not just the issue of pricing pollution and the fact that they are against it but on an issue that they ran on in the last election. All Conservative members in here, whether they say they agree with it or not, ran under a policy that included pricing pollution. Now they have such buyers' remorse over their last leader that they have used just about every opposition day in this session of Parliament on this issue.
I am looking forward to answering questions that my colleagues might have. I am quite certain that this is not the last time the Conservatives will bring forward this motion, but it is certainly a policy that will be to the benefit of our environment in the future.
1483 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:21:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had an important question, but then I got caught up, when the member was talking about how much he loved capitalism, in reflecting on the fact that we are here talking about solutions around the climate crisis. It is a little concerning to me that, when we are talking about a system that focuses on growth and profit at the expense of everything else, we are continuing to promote the reproduction of the system that is creating the climate crisis that we are in. I could go down a whole rabbit hole on that one.
I wanted to ask about the greener homes grant. My colleague was talking about the emissions coming from residential buildings. Will there be further investment into the greener homes grant? What will be happening to ensure accessibility of this funding? We know that there were huge issues with people being unable to access the funds. Having to pay ahead, for example, is a barrier for people living on low incomes.
Can you please tell me what the Liberals are committed to when ensuring that everybody has access—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 2:25:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Minister of Public Safety and I were with the Premier of Ontario, we announced $121 million of funding to help with attacking crime in places like Ontario. That will help to stop this flow of what we see in terms of auto theft.
The other thing we heard from the premier, and what we have heard from the law enforcement officials who were there, is that if we want to tackle this we have to tackle organized crime. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition is directing his caucus to vote against anti-money laundering initiatives that are contained in the fall economic statement to address exactly that.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 2:51:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advocacy. We are committed to building more homes, including affordable housing for low-income families. In fact, in the member's own community, a Métis-led project is going ahead that will provide affordable homes for community residents and support for women and children fleeing violence. We have increased funding for co-operative housing for the first time in decades, with a program to be launched soon that is backed by $1.5 billion. We have increased funding for affordable housing in the recent fall economic statement, with an additional $1 billion. We have constructed or renovated hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units. We care about the most vulnerable and know that they deserve to have a roof over their heads.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 2:59:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage opened the door to additional federal funding for Radio-Canada, even though the public broadcaster is about to announce the elimination of 600 positions.
A number of analysts believe that the cuts planned by CEO Catherine Tait were premature, possibly even excessive, and clearly unfair to the francophone side of the network.
Will the minister insist that CBC/Radio-Canada cancel these ill-timed layoffs before it receives any additional funding?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:11:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that women across this country have access to the health care they need in order to protect their reproductive and sexual health is absolutely essential. Of course, we did withhold funding from New Brunswick because of the lack of funding for Clinic 554. It made the decision on its own to shut down, but we are deeply concerned with the impact that this is going to have on the ability of women to get access to an abortion.
I have already reached out to the Government of New Brunswick. We are continuing a conversation because it is essential that those services be kept open to women across the country, and certainly in New Brunswick.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:12:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some UNRWA personnel are said to have participated in the October 7 Hamas terror attack. However, Canada had sent UNRWA $48 million by the time the government got around to suspending its funding. Aside from transparency, timing and creative accounting, International Development, Global Affairs, is now shocked to learn taxpayer dollars have been going to an agency joined at the fanatical hip with Hamas.
Does the Minister of International Development still think UNRWA is a “trusted” agency, or is he finally going to recognize that taxpayers do not like funding an agency linked to a listed terror group?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 4:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have appreciated working with the member. I would say that I take a bit of offence to some of the member's comments. My presentation was full of numbers and data. I was not just meandering about, with whatever insult I felt about the Conservative Party. I had statistics and am happy to share them with the member.
Winston Churchill once said that taxing oneself into prosperity is like a man standing in his bucket and trying to pull it up. It is impossible. Yes, we can talk about funding arrangements and support for farmers; that is all well and good, but the first thing we need to do is get off their back.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
