SoVote

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

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:29:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the member opposite likes our idea about technology, not taxes. I would inform him that the U.S. is the only country in the world that met its Paris targets, and it did that by providing capital incentives to industry to reduce emissions and by implementing more nuclear technology and more green technology. That is the right direction. Would the member admit that, since the carbon tax is not helping the Liberals meet any of their emissions target, it is time to abandon that, cap the increase planned for April 1 and focus, instead, on the same kind of incentives that were successful for the U.S.?

113 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:30:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will reject part of the question. I would agree with the hon. member that nuclear technology is extremely important and it will be part of where we have to get in terms of net neutrality. I am proud to continue being a member of Parliament calling for the government to do more on this, and we have done more. I am very proud of the fact that nuclear is now part of green bonds. I agree with the approach that the government is taking on the investment tax credits in this domain with respect to trying to match and line up with what the United States is doing. Make no mistake, though, if we talk to CEOs and leaders of companies, whether in the clean energy sector or not, the carbon price is an important signal to help justify investments. I would encourage the member to speak to companies and businesses that actually believe the carbon price is an important signal and they want some certainty about whether it will stay, because it is driving billions of dollars of investment in clean energy right now the country, in her province, in my province and provinces across the country.

201 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/1/24 3:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I agree on several points. I wonder if he could talk about what we can do to recognize what is being done on the ground in the agricultural sector. Should farmers who adopt good practices not be rewarded for that? My colleague is very familiar with this idea because I often explain it to him. The idea is to recognize good practices and create a decentralized fund that does not depend on the goodwill of the big, fat government in Ottawa, but rather on the will of entrepreneurs whenever they are ready to invest, so that they can go on to the next environmentally positive investment.

111 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:31:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C‑234. I also agree on the importance of acknowledging our farmers' relentless work in support of sustainable agriculture and having a certain tool to achieve it. That is exactly why I spoke about offset credits and their recognition by the Government of Canada in relation to the clean fuel regulations and the clean electricity regulations. Some companies could pay our farmers for their hard work. Of course, in addition to the government, big companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi should be making the same kinds of contributions.

94 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/1/24 3:32:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member bring some reality to this chamber? I know we have had conversations back and forth between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives keep going with their slogans, but they seem to be out of touch with reality. Could the Liberals talk about how rebates and income back to families matters?

56 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:33:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I mentioned this in my remarks that it is unfortunate that the Conservative Party has sought to denigrate the idea of carbon pricing so much that it is all that ills Canadians, that what we see in challenges around affordability is tied to one policy. That is not the case. There are many other external factors. One of the things that is perhaps the most unfortunate is that there has not been a recognition from the opposition benches on the way in which the government went about establishing the policy, that more money goes back to families than they pay into it. That has been established by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If the Conservatives are talking about eliminating the carbon price, I have concerns about what that means economically with respect to where the world is headed and what it means for those businesses, as I said when I took the question from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It also means that we are taking money away from vulnerable households that genuinely receive more money back than they pay. That is where we have to take this conversation so that Canadians understand the way the policy works, the fact that there are rebates, because if we listened to the opposition benches they would never know that, and the fact that if they were to cut that policy, it would hurt many vulnerable Canadian families.

237 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273