SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Mar/21/24 3:34:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am using a House-approved stand microphone that cannot be seen on the screen. I want to congratulate and thank my colleague and friend, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I want to recognize his commitment to the most noble reason for going into politics and that is helping people, especially members of the working class, and making their lives better. I commend him for his approach to politics, which is firm and poised. He always seeks out common ground without compromising his values and principles. The member for Elmwood—Transcona is hard-working, intelligent, level-headed and thoughtful. To me, he embodies the Canadian left in all its glory. He is in touch with labour unions and the interests of ordinary people. He is a pragmatist, who always stands up for his principles without ever lapsing into insubstantial ideology. He is very pleasant to work with both in the House and in committee. He was our Jedi on the Standing Committee on Finance when it came to resolving deadlocks. He always came up with solutions to settle disputes. That is a rare talent, often imitated but never duplicated. I agree that this is a great opportunity to go work with the Premier of Manitoba, who is a beacon of hope. I hope that he will continue to make a real difference in the lives of ordinary people in his new role. I also hope that he will be able to spend more time with his loved ones. I thank him for everything and look forward to seeing him soon.

271 words

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

Mar/21/24 3:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the rest of the members, but I am just not going to get over missing this member for a very long time, probably never. One reason, and he knows this, is that I loved his dad so very much. His dad, Bill Blaikie, was a grand friend and a voice for this planet. I remember his dad talking about climate change in this place in 1986. He was brave and courageous and a man of great heart. The member for Elmwood—Transcona is a chip off the old block. He is someone who speaks with knowledge and speaks with profound understanding of the Westminster parliamentary tradition. There is probably nobody else in this place who gets as passionate about confidence conventions as the member for Elmwood—Transcona does. I had a great privilege over the last little while. I really disapprove of heckling, and I have never heckled not once. I would not have liked it if the member had heckled, except at the very end there; that was primo. I just have to say that I did benefit from his sotto voce comments, a running commentary on the theatre of the absurd. I was privileged to be one of the few people who could hear it. It did not violate the rules, and it did not travel all the way up to the Speaker's chair. All I can say is that I have been very impressed so far with Premier Wab Kinew. I am going to some day forgive him for drawing this fine member out of this place. There will be a hole left by the absence of his voice, not to mention the Address to a Haggis. He will have to come back. There is no doubt. We cannot do Robbie Burns night dinner around here without a Blaikie in place. I will look forward to that somehow in some way, but godspeed. I love him. I am going to miss him something fierce, and I thank him for his service to this country.

347 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Mar/21/24 3:38:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today with a bit of mixed emotion. As I pay tribute to and express gratitude for my dear friend and colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, I am both excited for the opportunity that this presents for his family and for the province of Manitoba, and also deeply saddened by the loss that it is going to mean for me as a leader and for us as a team. I want to acknowledge right off the bat that his late father, Bill, and mother, Brenda, did a great job. They made not just a great human in the member for Elmwood—Transcona, but great humans of all of their kids. One would think when people have a number of kids that they might miss here or there, but every single one of them are incredible, so a big shout-out to the great work done by some fabulous parents. I think about this speech almost as a résumé, so that it is on the record what this great member has accomplished. For folks who do not know, we talk sometimes about the idea of a poet warrior or a philosopher warrior. This is a philosopher electrician, someone who has a master's degree in philosophy and is a Red Seal electrician, someone who combines the idea of being a worker and who has worked on the front lines as a proud member of IBEW with the heart of a philosopher. He brought that to this Parliament. That already is something pretty phenomenal. Think about the way he has done his work. I have to say that he brought in a particular element that is very unique to the Prairies. It is a prairie pragmatism that comes from having been in a province where we know that, for the past five decades, the majority of that time the province was governed by a New Democratic government that ran and governed on the principles of compassion, competency and getting stuff done. That is very much what we can see in the member for Elmwood—Transcona, this principle of having deep compassion and care. We heard it in his speech. He cares deeply about workers. He cares deeply about people, but he also wants to get things done. He has played many roles on our team. He was the caucus chair. Most recently, he was my critic for finance. It would be difficult to find another finance critic, from any opposition but particularly from the fourth party, who has played such an outsized role in shaping our country. He has been integral to a committee that has been set up to ensure that the Liberals follow through on commitments we forced them to do, and he has been integral to making these things happen. He has played a fundamental role in shaping our country when it comes to bringing in and negotiating record-breaking, history-making dental care and pharmacare programs, programs that are going to save and improve the lives of millions of people, ensuring that people have access to needed medication, as well as access to dental care, which we know has direct impacts on health. He has been integral to making that happen. We have forced the Liberal government to make significant changes. I can say, with confidence, that I could not have done that work without having the member for Elmwood—Transcona there. I also want to share that, as someone who has a young family, I know the incredible sacrifice that is involved. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge Janelle and their two incredible kids, Robert and Noah. My thanks to them for sharing their pops and partner with us. It has made a huge difference in the lives of Canadians. I hope they know how much it was worth it. I know sometimes it maybe did not feel like it when he was so far away, but it has made a huge difference to this country. Losing the member for Elmwood—Transcona is going to certainly feel like a loss, but it is also an opportunity. I always like to look at the positive side of things. We know that he will not be far away. It is a neighbouring province to Ontario, so we can get over there pretty quickly if we need to. He is also going to be continuing to do great work to ensure that the people of Manitoba receive significant and important investments from the federal government, so I acknowledge that great work. I want to acknowledge the Premier of Manitoba for having the vision to recruit such an incredible member. I am a little bit sad, but I think Premier Kinew did a great job because the member is an incredible addition to any team. I think he did the right thing for his province. I just want to touch on some other interesting notes about the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I had never actually been to an Address to a Haggis before in life. The first time I went to one was when I was invited by the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I did not realize, first of all, that he would have such an epic presence at this event. I did not realize he was such a great bagpipe player, another thing that should be added to his résumé. I did not know about his humour, because I have always thought of him as this philosopher and a hard-working member of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Then I heard him break out into a Scottish accent, which I did not know was a thing, and just regale the crowd with incredible humour. I thought, “This is an incredible package: a philosopher, electrician, member of Parliament, and someone who can play the bagpipes and regale a crowd in a Scottish accent.” It was an incredible experience. I thank the member for everything he has contributed to this Parliament. I thank him for the work he has done on our team. Our movement is better because of him. He has done his father, mother and family proud.

1040 words

The Speaker

Mar/21/24 3:44:39 p.m.
Watch

If members would permit me, I would also like to thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for his years of undying service to his people and to the people of Canada. Like the leader of the NDP just mentioned, I discovered many things about this member, and some only very recently as I assumed this role of Speaker. One of them is that I did know the member spoke English and French, but I did not know he spoke Gaelic. He spoke Gaelic enough to fool me. If he is not fluent in it, he is pretty darn close. I appreciated his Address to a Haggis, which will always be a memory. I hope he will honour us by coming back every Robbie Burns Day to participate in the ceremonies here on the Hill. I know that he will always be welcomed by the warm and open arms of all members of the House. We thank him for his great service to Canada.

165 words

Gaelic

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Mar/21/24 3:45:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak here on behalf of my constituents, the people of Chilliwack—Hope. I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I just want to read again, as we start after question period, the motion that we are debating today, which states: That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23% on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, and call for the House to be dissolved so Canadians can vote in a carbon tax election. I think that a number of my constituents have been calling for a non-confidence vote in the House for a long time. Of course every time we vote against the government's fiscal plan, we are voting non-confidence, but this is the first time we have explicitly stated that it is time for Canadians to have a choice and to be able to have their voice heard on whether they believe that their costs should continue to be increased by the costly coalition government. We know that this is exactly what is going to happen on April 1. The carbon tax is scheduled to go up by 23%. That will mean higher costs right across the board, because we know that the carbon tax is actually a tax on everything. It impacts dozens of different fuels, and it certainly has an impact at the pumps and on Canadians who need to drive to get to work, to get to school or to take their elderly relatives to hospital appointments. The cost of all of these things will be going up on April 1 because the government has refused to spike the tax hike. That is what has brought about the motion before us. Earlier this week, we gave the government an opportunity to spike the April 1 tax hike of 23%, because we are out there listening to our constituents and we know how difficult it is for them to make ends meet right now, as 200,000 British Columbians visit a food bank every month. Those numbers, I would suggest, are probably quite out of date and have not gone down. We know that there are a million more Canadians visiting food banks every month; now two million Canadians are visiting the food bank every month in Canada. The government either does not realize or does not care that by raising the cost of the carbon tax by 23%, it is raising the cost of groceries. When one taxes the farmer who produces the food and taxes the trucker who moves the food from the farmer to the market, one is driving up the cost of the goods that we need to put food on the table. Time and time again we have raised this in the House, and time and time again the government has not been responsive. We heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer just recently. He came before a parliamentary committee and made it very clear when he said the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax. That is his most up-to-date pronouncement on the issue. We hear the government talk about eight in 10 Canadians, or quote statistics that are out of date. It should listen to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. Just to be clear, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was appointed by the Prime Minister to provide unbiased, independent analysis of government announcements and government programs, to ensure that there would be an independent voice. The Parliamentary Budget Officer serves all of Parliament. When he speaks, we should listen. What he has said is that the majority of Canadians will be negatively impacted. Certainly Canadians who live in my home province of British Columbia will be negatively impacted. We saw two things in the recent budget from the B.C. NDP that made it clear that it had no choice but to jack up the carbon tax on April 1 because that is what the federal Liberal government requires it to do. If it does not jack up the price of the carbon tax, it will be punished by the federal government. I would argue that with the B.C. NDP, it was a bit like pushing on an open door to force it to increase the carbon tax. However, it is a fact that if it had not done it, the federal government would have come down on it and imposed a tax, as it has in many provinces across this country. Federal legislation is driving up prices in my home province of British Columbia even though the British Columbia government has its own carbon tax program. What does the program do? The budget document makes it clear that over the next three years, the B.C. government will collect $9 billion from British Columbians in the carbon tax, and it will give back $3.5 billion in rebates. We hear nonsense about how getting rid of the rebates would be a terrible thing, but in my home province, $5.5 billion more goes into general government revenues, for the B.C. NDP government to spend on whatever it wants. It is a straight-up tax. We have seen that emissions have continued to go up right across the country, including in my own province of British Columbia. The only time emissions went down was when the government locked everyone down because of COVID. It says very proudly that if we look back at the numbers in 2022, it is great that the numbers went down. However, it was because the government locked everyone down. It is very proud that emissions went down as a result of no one being allowed to travel, go to work, etc. We are seeing again and again the costs for Canadians continuing to rise on gas, on home heating and on homes themselves. Canadians, including British Columbians, are losing hope. They have seen the cost of rent double. They have seen the cost of mortgages double. They have seen the money required for down payments more than double. In fact it takes almost as much time now to save for a down payment in this country as it used to take to pay off an entire mortgage. It would take many Canadians over 20 years to save for a down payment on a home. With respect to the costs of a mortgage in the major markets in this country, in Vancouver, for example, over $230,000 of income is required to afford to make the minimum mortgage payments to buy a home. Canadians cannot afford additional costs being layered on top by the government, which is exactly what it is doing. The government has broken its word time and time again when it comes to the carbon tax. It said that the tax would never go higher than $50 a tonne. Now the tax is set to reach $170 per tonne. The Prime Minister said that the carbon tax would be revenue-neutral, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that Canadians pay more than they get back in rebates. We know that over the last number of years, the government has collected $20 billion in carbon tax and has given only $18 billion back. It said the tax would help to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but the government has not met a single environmental target it has set, and it will miss its 2030 target as well. The people of Chilliwack—Hope have no confidence in the government, and the people of British Columbia are increasingly losing confidence in the government and in the 15 silent Liberal members of Parliament from British Columbia who refuse to stand up to spike the tax hike. It is time for an election. If the Liberals and their partners in the NDP are so proud of their record, then let us go to an election. Let Canadians give the final word. When Canadians are given the opportunity, they will vote for a party with a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is what Conservatives will bring home. Let us bring on an election. We will see them at the polls.

1410 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mar/21/24 3:55:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a few times in the House, in response to comments colleagues across the way have made vis-à-vis the relationship between a price on pollution and food prices, I have raised that we have very clear data, including from the OECD, that tells us that Canada has the second-lowest inflation rate for food prices in the G7. That is on par with the United States, a jurisdiction that does not have a price on pollution. I want to save my colleague, who I know will come back and say, “Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't have data because the Liberals don't track it”, some trouble, so I will get ahead of that a little bit and say that, actually, there is no data because there is no evidence to support the assertion that he and his colleagues have made in relation to food price increases and a price on pollution. I wonder whether the member could comment on why it is that OECD data is suggesting that his position is contrary to ours.

180 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/21/24 3:56:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when my constituents go to the grocery store, they see a massive increase in the price of groceries. I think it is common sense that when we raise the price of gasoline and diesel, it affects everything that moves in the country. We do not have the ability to grow locally everything that people buy in a grocery store, so this stuff is moving thousands of kilometres many times, and there is a cost that goes through the entire supply chain. Therefore I do not think it is accurate. The agriculture and agri-food committee has been studying this very extensively, and it has heard from numerous witnesses who have indicated that the carbon tax, in fact, does have a negative impact on the cost of food. By that I mean it drives the price up. We stand by that, as do the witnesses who have appeared at the agri-food committee.

154 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/21/24 3:58:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague. I travel back and forth with him quite often to B.C. However, I would remind him of a few facts that he kind of glossed over during his speech. The food bank lineups doubled under the Harper regime and have doubled again under the Liberals, absolutely, which is why the NDP has been fighting for more affordability measures for Canadians. The price of housing doubled under the Harper regime and doubled again under the Liberals. The Conservatives are responsible for 50% of the crisis and even more than that, because 800,000 affordable housing unit were lost, converted into high-priced condos, under the Conservatives. Also, the reality is that food price gouging was encouraged under the Harper regime, and the Conservatives have not said a word in the House of Commons about the food price gouging we have seen from the corporate food chains and their CEOs. The member did correctly identify, finally, and it is good to have a Conservative admit, that there is a different approach on the price on pollution in British Columbia, Quebec and the Northwest Territories. I appreciate that he actually mentioned that. However, he did not mention the fact that in B.C. it came under Gordon Campbell, the B.C. Liberal-Conservative government, which was supported by him and by other Conservatives up until very recently. The B.C. Liberals were their party of choice. Will the member admit that the B.C. Liberals and Gordon Campbell put the price on pollution into effect?

259 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/21/24 3:59:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, they put it into effect, and it did not work. It has not worked under the B.C. Liberals, and it has not worked under the B.C. NDP. To hear the member criticize the Liberal government on anything is, to me, hilarious, because he has supported it every step of the way. Every budget measure it has made on housing, on food pricing, on any part of it, he has been there as the most reliable partner that the Prime Minister has ever had. Therefore for him to criticize a government that he will support no matter what it does is, I think, disingenuous. The people of British Columbia, when they have a chance, hopefully in a federal election, will be sending a lot more Conservative members of Parliament here to fight for them, to fight for lower prices, and to bring the cost of living down so that they can afford to feed their family, put a roof over their head and drive their car to work.

172 words

Criticize

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

Mar/21/24 4:00:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope on his excellent speech today. He has once again demonstrated how good Conservatives are at voicing the concerns of people across the country here in the House. My colleague just conveyed the concerns of people way over on the other side of the country, in British Columbia. I want to thank him for that. I think it is worth taking a few moments today to point out that we are here to debate a motion of non-confidence. What does that mean? Simply put, if the government does not win the vote, it has to call an election. The motion reads as follows: That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23 % on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax.... Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the future of the government is in the hands of the opposition parties. We know the Liberal members will vote against our motion, even though some of them would rather not. There is a party line, and they will toe it. Coincidentally, another party exists within the same party. Together, they are called the NDP-Liberal coalition. It would come as quite a surprise if the NDP decided to stand by its values and defeat this government, which it heavily criticizes every day. It claims that it is keeping the Liberals in power to make gains that it achieves by coercing and manipulating the government. Knowing that the government is being manipulated by another party should be one more reason for us to want to defeat it. Then there is the Bloc Québécois, which voices its many recriminations against the Liberal government day after day. It could vote in step with the wishes of the majority of Quebeckers. The majority of Quebeckers want a change of government. Most Quebeckers want the Prime Minister to go. This would give the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to fill the role it has claimed for itself all along as the representative of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. Will it vote to defeat this Liberal government tonight? We should not get our hopes up too high. Based on what I heard today, the Bloc Québécois is going to rush to defend the Liberal government and the Prime Minister once again. Why does it feel like we are dealing with a majority government when it is actually a minority government? It is important to mention this for anyone who may be watching us right now. This minority government should not be so self-assured and arrogant as to impose its inflationary spending, for these decisions are creating chaos across the country, particularly in terms of the cost of housing, inflation and the cost of food. Normally, all these decisions should have led the opposition parties to say that enough is enough and that they wanted to put an end to this government. This is a minority government, and there is no reason to keep it in power. Unfortunately, not everyone is keen to call an election and change the government. In fact, in a La Presse article, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proudly said, “If the next election is two years away, that doesn't bother me at all. It gives us time to properly identify, define and share information about our opponents.” He also said that Bloc Québécois members have been telling Liberal ministers that they are in no rush to head into an election campaign. If this Prime Minister and his government hang on for another two years, it is also because of the support they are getting from the Bloc Québécois, which is very comfortable with all the consequences, of which there are many. The Conservatives have a common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Why do we want to cut taxes? Let me talk about agriculture, for one. The Minister of Agriculture bragged about the sector's resilience, with continued growth in farm income. While he was saying that, there were 400 farmers and their families in the Lower St. Lawrence who were making a heartfelt plea and talking about their financial distress. Martin Caron, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, said that the annual net income for farmers in Quebec would be close to zero in 2024. It is unacceptable for people who work so hard, who get up before the sun rises and go to bed after everyone else, to have zero net income. A week after the demonstration in the Lower St. Lawrence, farmers descended on the streets of Quebec City and the north shore to express their frustration. People are not taking it anymore. Why? The input costs for farmers have gone up because the carbon tax has a direct impact on the cost of inputs that these farmers have to buy to grow their crops. The carbon tax has a direct impact on farmers and growers who produce food across Canada. It has a direct impact on the people who process this food because they have to pay the carbon tax. It has a direct impact on truck drivers who transport the food and deliver it to Quebec. When we look at the list of all the taxes that farmers, processors and truck drivers have to pay before the food arrives in Quebec, it is not surprising that the cost of food in Quebec has gone up. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase this tax, which is why, yesterday, it voted against our motion to cancel the carbon tax hike set for April 1. That is no April Fool's joke. That is the date the government chose to increase the carbon tax by 23%. We need to build housing. Has anyone not heard about the current nationwide housing crisis? There is a housing crisis in Quebec, too. When the common-sense Conservatives asked the minister about his housing accelerator fund, he admitted that not a single housing unit had been built as a result of that fund, even though it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.15 billion. I would like to talk about a Montreal couple, Martin and Marie-Hélène, who are pandemic borrowers. They renewed their mortgage in 2020 at a very low 2% rate and will have to renew in 2025 at a much higher rate. When asked whether they have figured out how much more it is going to cost them, Martin immediately said he is just not ready to calculate how much more it will cost him every month. He knows full well that he may have trouble paying the bill. When it comes to taxes and housing, the Bloc Québécois has clearly chosen to support the Liberals. Why? We are going to fix the budget. As everyone knows, this government's inflationary spending has contributed to rising interest rates. That has made housing and food more expensive, and people cannot make ends meet. Unfortunately, the $20 billion in additional discretionary spending introduced by the minister in the last budget update received full support form the Bloc Québécois. In fact, 100% of that discretionary spending was supported by the Bloc Québécois. Finally, everyone knows that crime levels across the country are going from bad to worse. Just think about car thefts, this government's lax policies and its willingness to allow dangerous repeat criminals to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison. This has created an extremely chaotic situation across the country. We want to fix it. Unfortunately, these lax policies that allow house arrest instead of jail time have also been supported by the Bloc Québécois. I invite the Bloc Québécois to support this motion this evening in order to truly represent the interests of the majority of Quebeckers who no longer want this government. There is a way to do this. Let us set ideological squabbles aside and focus on the practical. If we want to get rid of this government, then we have to vote for the Conservatives' common-sense motion.

1420 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/21/24 4:10:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague, but let us set the record straight. First, we saw the lineups at food banks double in size. Under the Harper regime, it was awful. We can criticize the Liberals, but the Conservatives were just as bad. And on top of that, the cost of housing also doubled under the Conservatives. The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals for things the Conservatives did, and the Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives for the same things they did. It is really just the NDP that is being sensible by introducing a variety of policies, including dental care, pharmacare and funding for housing. I know that my colleague knows full well that in Quebec, there is a price on pollution that is different, just like in British Columbia, where the price on pollution is not regulated by the federal government. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The cost of food has gone up because of some CEOs. Why are the Conservatives not speaking out against these profit-boosting price increases?

176 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/21/24 4:12:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that just shows how out of touch the NDP are with the reality facing Canadians. While I talk about food banks and mention that two million Canadians a month use them, or that food bank use in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable increased by 40% to 50% this year, all the NDP can do is live in the past and say that things are the same they always were. As Conservatives, we are forward-looking. We are looking for clear and practical solutions to give Canadians back the country they knew before this Liberal government. Things were not like that before the Liberals, and will not be like that after them, in other words, soon. Once again the NDP is going to support the Liberals. For all that the New Democrats criticize this government, they always end up voting for it. As far as I can tell, the NDP and the Liberals are pretty much the same party.

165 words

Democrats

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/21/24 4:13:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Regarding the alternative facts that he often cites—instead of repeating ideas written by others, that criticize without offering solutions or that disregard the separation of powers—I would like to know whether they are deceptive, or a distortion of the truth.

72 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/21/24 4:13:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really like my colleague, but sometimes he is hard to follow. I do not really understand what he was trying to get at with that question. All I know is that, on the one hand, the Bloc Québécois claims to defend the interests of Quebeckers. The reality on the ground, however, is that Quebeckers are paying twice as much for housing, they are paying a lot more for groceries and they are left with less and less from each paycheque. There is a quick and simple way to change the situation, which would be to change the government that is responsible for all this. The Bloc Québécois will probably support the Liberals in this evening's vote on the non-confidence motion. However, that is the reality, those are the facts, and that is what people are experiencing every day. I hope my colleague will have a better grasp of what he is trying to ask next time, so we can understand what he is getting at.

178 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:14:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, of the last two questions we are talking about, one was from a B.C. MP. One of the food staples I get from British Columbia is apples, and I am sure many people from Quebec do too. The crop of apples that would have been grown in B.C. and shipped across—

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/24 4:15:00 p.m.
Watch

On a point of order, the member knows Nova Scotia has better apples. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

23 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Mar/21/24 4:15:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I love those apples. On those apples from B.C. that get shipped all the way over to Quebec, the carbon tax is paid. It is driving the price of those apples up. As an example from my province, I am sure there is some wheat that goes into loaves of bread or bagels in Montreal, and it is coming from Saskatchewan. It has a carbon tax that, when it is jacked up by 23%, is only going to jack up the price of breads and apples in those two examples. Has the member heard of other constituents who are having issues covering those increased food costs?

109 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/21/24 4:15:43 p.m.
Watch

It is rare that I have to do this in the House, but I have to say that the apples that are grown in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable are very good, and I think that I will buy apples from Mégantic—L'Érable before I buy apples from my colleague's riding. We have seen it. It is obvious. Food prices have increased, and the carbon tax has a direct impact on the price of food that is imported to Quebec from other parts of Canada. We can put a stop to that by axing the tax, fixing the budget, building the homes and stopping the crime.

117 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Mar/21/24 4:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in the House. I will be splitting my time with the parliamentary secretary to the health minister, the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. He has been a dear friend for many years, I would say. Before I begin to speak to the heart of the matter, which is the CPC opposition day motion, as this may be my last opportunity to speak before the constituency week break, I would like to wish all my residents a happy Easter. Of course, Passover is also coming. Ramadan mubarak to all the residents of the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Buona Pasqua a tutti to those back home. I look forward to going to church the night before Palm Sunday, then for Easter, of course. Good Friday marks the most holiest of days in the Catholic calendar. I would also like to say, before I go to the comments, that there are some rumours in the newspapers that the city of Vaughan will be getting a medical school, that it is potentially with the forthcoming provincial budget. I hope to see that come to fruition in the city of Vaughan. We have the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital, which is a $2-billion investment. We are also getting a community centre, along with the $700-million Highway 427, a $2.5-billion hospital and a subway to our city. I get to represent the most generous and entrepreneurial residents, I would argue, in all of Canada, just as members would argue the same for their ridings. We are here to talk about the economy and the environment because we know that, in the world we are living in, they go hand in hand. We cannot have a strong economy without having a strong environmental policy. It is almost like the commercial a few years ago, to date many of us, that asked, “Where's the beef?” Our government has put in place a very robust environmental plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to transition to a green economy, and to build a strong and inclusive economy. Why did we do that? It is because that is where the world and private capital are going. That is where we are taking our country, focusing on providing a better and brighter future for families across Canada and in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know my kids are depending on it, much like all our kids are depending on it in this most honourable House. We know that our price on pollution returns more money in the rebate to eight out of 10 families in Canada on average in all our ridings. We know that this price on pollution will account for approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions going into 2030. Those are the facts. We know that the mechanism that has been put in place is one that economists across the board, including myself, as an economist, prefer to undertake. I would ask the members of the party opposite where their plan is, where their beef is, because they need a strong environmental policy to have a strong economy. That is why we are seeing multi-billion investments in the Canadian auto sector, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Northvolt, LG, or any of the companies in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. They are investing in Canada because, as we like to say in economist talk, we have a comparative advantage. We have a very clean electrical grid. About 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is clean. We have been moving off of coal for many years, and we will continue to do so. Again, we need a plan. Our environmental plan builds upon many economic policies that we have put in place to, yes, build a stronger, more inclusive economy, but also strengthen and expand our social safety net. The Canada child benefit, which is delivered monthly, is tax-free and provides almost $30 billion a year annually to families. It has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The Canada workers benefit is another measure that I love and argued for, and one of the reasons I entered politics, as it lifts up hard-working Canadians, who are really trying to get ahead and get a hand up. It will be there for them. We have expanded it three times. With respect to the Canada dental care program, if there is one thing I have heard from my seniors since I have been in office for eight years, is that they need help on the dental side. We have come up with a means-tested program, run by Sun Life, which will help the over 20,000 seniors in my riding. To date, over 1.5 million seniors have been approved. That is another measure for affordability. On the economic front, when we think about the carbon pricing model, we know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, help Canadians, move our economy forward, and green our environment and our economy. The opposite side has not offered any plan. Again, I would go to the reference of the commercial, “Where's the beef?” There is no beef. We need to offer Canadians a plan to take our economy forward, to strengthen our families and communities, and that is what we continue to do. On the other side, we hear platitudes and half-truths, unfortunately. We need to make sure we make life more affordable for Canadians and, again, we grow our economy. On Tuesday, it was great to see the Canada inflation report from Statistics Canada. We have gone below 3%. There are big drops on cellular prices, on Internet. There are drops on food prices. All the while, we have these economic policies and environmental policies that continue to reduce GHG emissions and move our economy forward. I am a pro-business individual. In this honourable chamber, we know that businesses need certainty. They do not need slogans. Businesses need certainty. Again, they do not need slogans. For those auto companies investing in Canada for the EV transition, and the folks in the nuclear industry, where we have seen a renaissance in nuclear power with a $50-million investment and a partnership with Romania to build CANDU reactors there, we need to ensure that businesses have stability and certainty in the policies we put forward. That is important. It is highly irresponsible for the other side, who I would say are auditioning for something but not really, who should be responsible but are not, to introduce policy uncertainty in the environment we are in. We know the Inflation Reduction Act in the States has propelled the United States. We know Europe is investing in hydrogen. That reminds me, earlier this week, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was in Germany, something I like to see and was so glad to hear, to announce that Canada and Germany have a hydrogen accord, a further buildup of Canadian energy that would go to Europe to green their economy, and to move them off any sort of dependency on the dictatorship of the tyrannical regime of Putin. That is something really important. When I see the opposite side not offering a plan, it is so disappointing. It borders a little on irresponsibility and is a cowering from responsibility. Maybe that is too strong of a word, but they are ducking from their responsibilities to Canadians. We have just had one of the warmest winters on record, I believe. Here in Ottawa and in Toronto, there was no snow, and it was not very cold. Climate change is real. We need to deal with it. It would be irresponsible for any parliamentarian to not offer a plan to Canadians. We know that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are better off, and that is what we need to focus on, moving Canada ahead, and creating a brighter future for our kids and our families. With that, I think my time is up, and I look forward to questions and comments from hon. members on the other side.

1368 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:26:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the member on many of the falsehoods he stated, and not even with my own facts. The Prime Minister's own hand-picked Parliamentary Budget Officer said that more Canadians are worse off because of this carbon tax scam, and there is more and more proof. An average Alberta family will pay $2,900, but the rebate is only $2,000. In Ontario, where the member is from, an average family will pay $1,600 in this carbon tax scam and will only get $1,000 back. The PBO has debunked everything the member is saying, and I will remind the Liberals that it has not helped emissions come down. When 70% of Canadians and premiers, including the premier in the Liberal leader's province and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada, have asked the government to spike the hike because families cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, why is the Liberals' radical ideology about this carbon tax more important than those 70% of Canadians who are asking the government to spike the hike? Why do they not let Canadians decide, in a carbon tax election, whether they want to keep this carbon tax scam or scrap the Prime Minister and go with a common-sense Conservative plan?

216 words