SoVote

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

Feb/1/24 3:07:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those are actually not the facts. Nearly 4,500 serving military members are currently awaiting housing, but the Liberals are building fewer than 20 homes per year for our troops. To add insult to injury, that Liberal minister just cut a billion dollars from the defence budget, and a leaked report confirmed that the minister is hiking the rents for our armed forces members. Our military heroes know that those Liberals are just not worth the cost, so why does the Prime Minister always shovel money into the pockets of consultants and Liberal insiders, but cut spending on the backs of our troops?

105 words

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:07:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an extraordinary question coming from the member, inasmuch as he voted against the pay raise we recently gave to Canadian Armed Forces members. He should also be aware that Canadian Armed Forces policy caps rents for all members using armed forces military housing at 25% of their gross income. We will continue to make investments in Canadian Armed Forces housing and all of the supports that he keeps voting against.

74 words

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

Feb/1/24 3:08:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, auto thefts are up a striking 34.1% after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government. In my home community of Kamloops, there was recently a car chase that ended with an RCMP cruiser getting rammed, and everyone can imagine our shock when the car was stolen. The NDP-Liberal government just is not worth the cost when it was comes to one's own property and safety. When will the NDP-Liberal government start putting Canadians and their property first ahead of fancy vacations and meaningless meetings?

90 words

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:09:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the alarming issue of auto theft very seriously. That is precisely why we invested, for example, with the Government of Ontario and local and provincial police forces, and increased resources yesterday to ensure that we are collaboratively doing everything we can do. We are going to add resources for the Canada Border Services Agency. We are going to ensure that the RCMP can continue to partner in the work that it is doing against organized crime. We take this seriously and are going to bring this alarming level down very quickly.

96 words

Mr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:09:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over 400,000 seniors aged 77 and over have successfully applied to the Canadian dental care plan since the government launched the plan in December. These numbers, which include seniors in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, demonstrate strong support for the plan. Conservatives voted against funding for the dental plan, despite one in four Canadians having reported they could not afford the cost of their dental care. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on our work to provide accessible and affordable dental care for Canadians?

91 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:10:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his advocacy to make sure that oral health is available for all Canadians. It is now available for those who are 72 years of age and older, and it is going to be rolling out to nine million Canadians. That is 3.5 million seniors and more than a million kids under 18. It is deeply disappointing that the Conservatives are voting against this and looking to get rid of dental care. It is essential not only as preventive medicine but also for the dignity of seniors who are finally being able to replace their dentures and get the oral health care they need.

115 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/1/24 3:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government says it respects reproductive rights, but the closure of Clinic 554 means that Fredericton is without a single provider for safe, trauma-informed abortion care. Despite the Prime Minister campaigning on keeping this clinic open, he has failed to protect the charter right to abortion, and Conservatives are actively threatening this right through backdoor legislation. Abortion rights are human rights. Will the minister enforce the Canada Health Act and protect abortion rights in New Brunswick?

79 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.)

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

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

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

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of International Development, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:12:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are very disturbing. We have expressed our concerns to the head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini. We are encouraged by the fact that the United Nations has launched an investigation. While we wait for the results of that investigation, we are increasing our support to the tune of $40 million to support trusted international partners on the ground that are delivering much-needed life-saving supplies. What we will not do is jump to conclusions and smear a UN body, like the leader of the official opposition. If the hon. member wants to do that—

99 words

The Speaker

Feb/1/24 3:13:33 p.m.
Watch

That is the end of question period for today. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

24 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/1/24 3:13:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a number of times in question period, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

20 words

Officer

The Speaker

Feb/1/24 3:14:03 p.m.
Watch

I ask all members to take their conversations outside the House so I can hear the point of order. All those who can hear my voice, please say “sh”. Thank you. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, from the top, please.

45 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/1/24 3:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this was brought up a number of times in question period, I am hoping that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that says very clearly that—

41 words

Budget

The Speaker

Feb/1/24 3:14:38 p.m.
Watch

I am hearing many “no”s. I encourage all members seeking unanimous support to please negotiate it in advance with the different House leaders.

26 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the minister of state in the House of Commons, who will take on the role of Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for the next few weeks and months. I would like to ask him if the government has planned to put anything of interest to Canadians on the agenda tomorrow, and what the plan is for next week.

69 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:15:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62 Bill C-59 Bill C-57

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. I assure him that the House of Commons is in for a good time. There will always be interesting things to debate because we keep introducing good bills in the House. Tomorrow, Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, will be the subject of debate. When we return on Monday, we will call Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days. On Wednesday we will begin debate on Bill C‑62 on medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier today by my hon. colleague the Minister of Health.

125 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:17:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses. There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one. Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things. I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition. There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition. When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition. Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces. I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil. It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that. How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted. That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy. Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples. This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada. Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada. My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill. This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords. Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—

1321 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to quell the noise that is in the hallway. The hon. member for Kings—Hants may continue.

26 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:24:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for trying to keep the decorum. I think members are probably cheering so loudly in the back benches, but that is good. We will get them calmed down in here for interpretation. Let us remember, the last Conservative prime minister in this country said that Atlantic Canadians had a “culture of defeat”. That was Stephen Harper. I have not heard that from the member for Carleton, but he was part of that government. However, as we try to drive economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada, the Conservative Party suggests that it knows better than the duly elected Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. These provinces want to agree to these provisions. They want to move quickly. We are in a global race. To listen to the way in which the Conservative Party suggests it knows better than the governments of my region is unbelievable. I do not have words for it. However, I am going to make sure that Atlantic Canadians know, and we are going to make sure that Nova Scotians know. The last bit I will say is that the Conservatives do not believe in the price signal for carbon pricing, which could actually help drive economic models. They talk about technology, not taxes, but how do we get it? How do we incentivize companies to want to invest in the technologies that are going to drive emissions down? We hear the member for Carleton talking about that all the time. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets made it very clear at the natural resources committee that he does not believe there is a role for public funding in these types of technologies. He was talking about projects such as EverWind, which could mean billions of dollars to Nova Scotia. He was running that project down, and it was disappointing to hear. I think it symbolizes where the Conservative Party is at right now in this conversation. Conservatives are against clean fuel regulations. I can appreciate that the oil and gas emissions cap has particular sensitivities in western Canada, and perhaps in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have stood in the House and said that I believe in the Canadian oil and gas sector, but I have also said that we need to make sure that we can find ways to use things such as nuclear technology and green hydrogen to help bring down the emission intensity of the barrel of Canadian oil. In a world where we become more constrained on demand, Canadian oil is not only competitive on price but is also competitive on carbon intensity. Again, that is what this cap could help do, by working with industry, and Conservatives oppose it. I also want to talk about how the environmental policies of the government could actually lead to positive outcomes for farmers and foresters, particularly through offset protocols. This is something that I will say in the House, which is that I would like to give a nudge to the ministry at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I think they have done some good work, but I would like to see more on offset protocols around farming practices and forestry. How can we change the conversation that the carbon price? Notwithstanding that the Conservatives are not helping on that, but about the economic ability, how do we turn that into the environmental policies of the government and create huge economic opportunities for our farmers to support the good, sustainable practices they are doing and also make sure our forestry sector is supported? I would like to see a little more on that. We also have to give some context to what is happening around the world. The European Union, the United Kingdom, and the Biden administration in the U.S. are all talking about carbon pricing adjustments at their borders. They are talking about putting carbon pricing as part of our economic trading model. I have to ask my Conservative colleagues a question: If we are going to cut carbon pricing altogether in this country, what could that mean for our industries that are then otherwise going to face tariff barriers at those potential borders as we start to line this up? Canada has a tremendous opportunity. Our industries are sustainable. They are world class, and they are innovative. With the existing carbon price right now, we could have a global advantage, as that is the way in which the world is potentially heading. We should be focused on that. Why would the Conservatives want to mess with that? Why would they talk about eliminating it altogether? If Conservatives have good, thoughtful ideas on adjustments, they should be bringing those forward, but I am not hearing a whole lot.

797 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273