SoVote

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

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

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/21/24 4:27:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I consider the member for Calgary Forest Lawn a friend, and I understand where he is coming from, but I humbly disagree with him, of course. In the province of Ontario, an average family of four will receive $1,120. The rural top-up will be 20%. From the Statistics Canada material that I have seen, and from what I have heard from some fellow economists, on average, that would ensure that eight out of 10 families will be better off in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Canada. We understand that we need to put in place effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we build a strong and inclusive economy. As many individuals would state, putting a price on pollution is really the most effective way of doing it and will account for about one-third of the emissions reductions by 2030.

149 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Mar/21/24 4:28:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and I wonder if he is as confused as I am about this Conservative motion calling for a carbon tax election. Clearly, the carbon tax is not popular with a lot of Canadians, but they recognize that it is a better idea than doing nothing about climate change. In the last three elections, a majority of Canadians voted for parties that supported the tax. If we have a carbon tax election, why do the Conservatives think Canadians would suddenly change their minds and vote for a party that opposes doing something about climate change?

106 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/21/24 4:29:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do. There are obviously different policy measures and instruments that we could put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reason we have a price on pollution is that it is a federal backstop. When some provinces, I would argue, abdicate their responsibility for a cleaner environment and a stronger economy, that is when the federal backstop kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that is a correct method to proceed. I agree with the hon. member from British Columbia that we have had three elections where the price on pollution was part of the ballot for Canadians, and Canadians overwhelmingly chose a healthier environment and a stronger economy.

122 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Mar/21/24 4:30:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated what the member had to say. I find it really interesting. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney was lying in state. His body has now been moved to Montreal, and the funeral will take place on Saturday. This was a leader during a time when Progressive Conservatives existed, when people recognized the importance of trade, fiscally responsible policies and the need to take action on the environment. I remember being in elementary school and hearing there was a hole in the ozone layer. People around me were saying I did not need to worry about what to do in the future because we would probably not have a planet, and here we are. I hear Conservatives chirping across the way. One of the members said that we should call an election, and I said that elections cost money. There was one time when the “C” in the Conservative Party stood for conservatism. Today, it stands for “cocky” and “chirping”. Do we need to be concerned about the environment? Should we be concerned about future generations? Does the Government of Canada have a role to play, or do we just need slogans and gimmicks, which are the only things that Conservatives offer?

210 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/21/24 4:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo for her insight. If we look at history, one U.S. president, Theodore Roosevelt, and one Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, may he rest in peace, were two of the greenest individuals to ever be president and prime minister. One was a Republican and one was a Progressive Conservative. It is really sad to see the state of affairs the Conservative movement is in, where it cannot offer up a real plan for the environment and can only do slogans, as Conservatives are doing. That is not leadership; that is abdication of leadership.

105 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/24 4:32:18 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, International Development; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.

59 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

Mar/21/24 4:32:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, which is an opposition day motion by the Conservative Party of Canada. I stand here today, first and foremost, to speak as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, the community that has given me the great honour to serve it in the House. As someone who knocks on doors often and speaks to his constituents, as many members in the House do, I can say that fighting climate change is the number one issue that I hear about when I am speaking to my constituents. In fact, I recently sent out a mailer to all my constituents. I am sure many members received it; many of them live in my riding when they are here working on behalf of their constituents. It was a pre-budget consultation document; I like to reach out to as many constituents as possible, asking them to share their thoughts on what should be included in the upcoming budget. I got thousands of responses back, both on paper and online. We just went through and analyzed the information that we received, and the number one issue that was highlighted was climate change. They wanted Parliament and the Government of Canada to do more to fight climate change to make sure we are reducing emissions and doing more for that. In that commentary, I did not hear issues around the price on pollution; I heard a request, need and demand to do more. I admit that affordability was also one of the issues recognized. Better health care was another issue that was part of the feedback received. However, climate change, and fighting climate change, was the number one issue. I am a very factual guy, and I want to discuss the issue around the price on pollution in a factual way. What we are debating right now, and Conservatives are entitled to oppose this system, is identifying that carbon is a pollutant that is causing global warming and that greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced in order to effectively fight climate change. Moreover, from an economics perspective, putting a price on pollution is the best way to help change people's behaviour and ensure people are not using products that cause pollution. That is basically what this scheme is. It is to ensure that the way we incentivize solutions that are less carbon intensive and cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions is by making the use of fossil fuels more expensive. Therefore, we have chosen a mechanism that puts a price on pollution. As we heard when the member for Vaughan-Woodbridge mentioned it earlier, the federal government's scheme is just a backstop. The provinces and territories are free to have their own mechanisms. In fact, someone mentioned the province of Ontario. I had the honour of serving at the provincial level when we brought in a cap and trade system in Ontario, putting a price on carbon that way. In fact, it was the same system that exists in Quebec and in California, and we actually engaged in a carbon trading mechanism. Premier Doug Ford, who is a Conservative, got rid of that system. However, if it were in place today, there would be no price on pollution in Ontario. The provincial system would have prevailed, as is the case in Quebec and in British Columbia. As such, this particular price on pollution mechanism exists as a backstop only for those provinces and territories where there is no price on pollution. That is point number one. The price on pollution is in place in order to help incentivize innovation, change people's behaviour and have them move away from using more carbon-intensive or fossil fuel-intensive products. We recognize that this price on pollution will cause some hardship for those who do not have that much disposal income and that the cost of certain things will go up as a result, as the transition is being made. However, this is why the second element of this program or this scheme is really important. That is the Canada carbon rebate. At the end of the day, Canadian families and the consumer are paying the price on pollution. The rebate makes sure that the money collected goes back to Canadians, so that they are not left behind. That aspect is really important. The Canada carbon rebate goes to 80% of Canadian families, and in my province of Ontario, a family of four receives $1,120 per year. That is about $280 every quarter that they are receiving in order to offset the cost that they may be paying in the price on pollution. We have thought through both of those elements in terms of how we can effectively reduce emissions by making pollutants, such as carbon, more expensive and, at the same time, making sure that the monies collected are then given back to Canadian consumers and Canadian families. Thus, they are not left behind and are able to make ends meet. From a public policy perspective, I think we all recognize the fact that climate change is real. However, in order for us to have a strong economy, meet the international obligations that we are part of through the Kyoto protocol and work with other countries that are also taking action on climate change, every political party that wants to govern needs to have a credible plan to deal with this. What I find baffling in this debate is that we only hear slogans from those in the Conservative Party. There is nothing about a plan; they have just created a tag line and a bumper sticker. Perhaps they are entitled to do that, but before they ask for another election, they need to be able to come with a credible plan or acknowledge the fact, which is perhaps what they believe, that climate change is something they do not want to address. There will be another election. Welcome to democracy, Mr. Speaker; thankfully, that is a given. However, whatever the case, let us hear it; Conservatives should tell us their views on climate change. I can tell members that, in speaking to my constituents in Ottawa Centre, inaction is not a plan. They want real, concrete action by their government in order to address climate change. They do not want just a plan on the back of a napkin, but a credible plan that would actually make a difference. However, as I think the member for Waterloo said, this is not a new idea. Mr. Mulroney has been mentioned a few times; he championed the Montreal Protocol, which resulted in stopping the depletion of the ozone layer. Aside from that, one of his biggest legacies was to put an end to acid rain, which was caused in the eastern part of the country by sulphur dioxide emissions. Yes, it was a cap and trade system. However, what was the cap and trade? It was a price put on sulphur to make it more expensive to emit sulphur dioxide, which resulted in the elimination of acid rain. The point is, we can look at different kinds of mechanisms, and that is what we are trying to do. However, we need to hear a credible plan from the Conservatives. This is a plan that is making an impact, and we are starting to see a reduction in emissions in Canada because of our action.

1243 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues are talking a lot today about the legacy of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. We are all proud of his record as one of the most environmentally friendly leaders in the western world, but they keep talking about what he achieved in terms of addressing the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain. These were incredible successes for a Conservative prime minister. My colleague talked about cap and trade, but it was a cap and trade on the emitters. I would ask him: When Prime Minister Mulroney was the prime minister, how high was the carbon tax to resolve the ozone layer and the acid rain? What was the cost of the carbon tax?

120 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:42:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point, because cap and trade is actually a price on pollution. That is exactly the point. In the case of Quebec, they do have a cap and trade system. In the case of Ontario, until 2018, we introduced a plan that was a cap and trade system. The mechanism is the same, which is to put a price on pollution. He could speak to any economist; in fact the economists were probably advising the member and telling him that it is the most efficient way, the most effective way to actually reduce the use of a pollutant. They need to come up with a credible plan and not campaign on slogans. It is not going to work.

124 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Mar/21/24 4:43:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives are constantly raising the costs, my question is whether the hon. members have had the same experience I have had. I have had constituents come to me and say that they have been quoted a 100% increase in their fire insurance. They have come to me and said that they cannot get flood insurance and that the insurance companies say it is because of climate change. While we talk about the carbon tax as increasing costs, I find that my constituents are facing far higher costs as a result of climate change than anything that is going on with the carbon tax. Of course, there is no rebate when insurance premiums go up by 100% or people cannot get flood insurance at all.

128 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:44:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member, and I thank him for raising the point. As I was saying earlier, inaction is not a plan. We can decide to make very short-term decisions right now, burying our heads in the sand and letting future generations be responsible for themselves, or we can take our responsibilities as parliamentarians seriously and make sure that we are making decisions today that are going to impact the lives of future generations. That is our role. We are here, not to make decisions for ourselves today, but to make sure that Canada and Canadians prosper. I have an 11-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter, and the way they speak about climate change is very different from how I spoke about issues like that when I was their age, or from how we do now. This is a real threat for the prosperity of our country, and it is incumbent upon us, all of us, to be serious about this and to come up with a credible plan. I would ask the members opposite to do the same.

187 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Mar/21/24 4:45:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to share how uncomfortable I am with the debate we are having today, and that we also had on Tuesday, about the carbon tax. As a Quebecker who, like most Quebeckers, believes in the fight against climate change, I find this all rather embarrassing. The Grits have been in power for eight years and are not doing anything to fight climate change. Canada ranks near the bottom when it comes to nearly every quantitative measure of climate change performance. Its allies on the Canadian left get all worked up about climate change but still always vote with the government in power. On Tuesday and Thursday, the Tories moved motions saying that the Grits and the Dippers are no good and that Canada is broken, but they themselves want to do even less for the climate. I want to ask my colleague a simple question. Is he really proud of his government's climate record?

158 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:46:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I agree with the member. We need to do more, absolutely. We have a good foundation. I really do believe that we have a good starting point. For once, Canada has a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are starting to see that happen. The way to move forward is not with slogans. We need to build on this. Climate change is not going to get solved in just one day or overnight. That is why inaction is not a plan. We need to strengthen what we are doing in terms of fighting climate change, and we need to do more to ensure that Canada remains a leader when it comes to building a better and prosperous future.

129 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:47:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Foothills. In exactly one hour, a vote will be held here in the House. It is a very important vote that millions of Canadians and even millions of Quebeckers have been waiting for. I will read the motion to clearly indicate what we are calling for today and what the vote will be about. 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. That is today's motion, and it is clear. People are expecting a motion that calls for the dissolution of Parliament so that we can have an election. Today's motion is about the carbon tax. My Bloc Québécois colleagues keep saying that it does not apply in Quebec. We understand that the federal carbon tax does not apply directly, but it does apply indirectly and has a major impact on all the things that make food more expensive. The Union des producteurs agricoles is complaining about it. Everyone is complaining about this federal tax, which has an indirect impact in Quebec. What is more important is that, today, we have an opportunity for a non-confidence vote. Since 2019, the Bloc Québécois has had 219 opportunities to take part in confidence votes, such as votes on budgetary allocations. On 201 occasions, or 92% of the time, it has voted in such a way as to support the Liberal government and its Prime Minister. Today, the Bloc has a chance to get its act together. That is where we are at. Everyone is asking for this. Everyone, except those who still vote Liberal, is saying enough is enough, this government has to go and an election has to be called. Conservatives do not have confidence in this government, and we will vote for the Prime Minister to resign so that an election can be called. After eight years, life has never been so expensive. To make matters worse, on April 1, the Prime Minister is going to play an April Fool's joke on Canadians by raising the carbon tax again, this time by 23%, on gas, home heating and groceries. Seventy per cent of provincial premiers and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's April Fool's Day tax hike. As I said earlier, the carbon tax has an impact on Quebec. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois insists on saying the opposite. Every cost incurred outside Quebec has an impact on the consumer price of goods sold and transported in Quebec, so it is not true that there are no repercussions. Bloc members really believe that taxing people, making people pay more fees, will have a positive impact on the environment. We just do not see eye to eye on this. That said, of course we want to do things for the environment. However, the tax is not working. The proof is that Canada ranks at the bottom of the list of countries with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is not what is going to help the environment. Other things will, but not if we if keep supporting this government. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois keeps saying that the Liberals are doing nothing. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert just said that the Grits have done nothing for eight years. Why is he keeping them in power if they are no good? We are talking about the environment here, but every day, public finances and health transfers give the Bloc Québécois good reason to complain about the government here in the House of Commons. I often agree with it because we complain about this government too. We have been complaining about the Liberals for eight years for a number of reasons. There are other things besides the tax, which is the centrepiece of today's motion and has a major impact on the country. Incidentally, if the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, why do the Bloc members vote on issues that have do with the carbon tax? They could just abstain. Anyone voting remotely can use a feature in the app to abstain from voting. They do not have to vote for or against. If something does not concern Quebec, they should ignore it and let the other members from the rest of the country vote on behalf of their constituents, who are suffering more because of the Liberal government's taxes. As I was saying, the tax is one element, but there is a very long list of things. I have a few pages of reasons we have had enough of this government. That is why this confidence vote is so important. We have reached the point where it is clear that this is a confidence vote. The vote will take place in 45 minutes. I know the NDP does not want to vote against the government, which we do not understand. The NDP is something else altogether. Their little alliance with the government is a bit strange. Today, the Bloc Québécois has an opportunity to vote with us to at least show that enough is enough, that the government is not doing its job and that we want a change. Let us think back on all the things that the Prime Minister has done over the past eight years. There was the Aga Khan scandal. The Ethics Commissioner formally reprimanded the Prime Minister. There was also the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould held her ground and she was pushed out. She resigned. She left. Today, we know that she was right. I was telling my colleagues that there are all kinds of scandals like those. Some lasted a few weeks and others a few months. Eventually, people forget. Then a new scandal comes to light. When we look at everything that has been done, it starts to add up to a lot. It never ends. There are many scandals that we never got to the bottom of. The opposition parties did their utmost in committee and elsewhere. At some point, things trickle off, but then, a few years later, they come back. This morning, we moved a motion in committee. The Bloc Québécois supported us. I thank them. The NDP, however, said no. It did not want to shed light on the current scandal involving former justice minister David Lametti, who interfered in a situation concerning former Justice Delisle. We are doing our utmost to get to the bottom of matters like these, but at the end of the day, people forget. Our job is to remind them of these events. That is what we are doing today. We are reminding people. The price tag for WE Charity was $912 million. It was an unbelievable scandal. We dug it all up, but it ended up going nowhere, even though $912 million had gone into this scandal. Then there was the infamous trip to India that the Prime Minister and his family took, in costume. It was more of an image problem. The whole world was laughing at us. Then there was Queen Elizabeth II's funeral. It was not enough for him to attend the funeral. The Prime Minister stayed in a room that cost 4,800 pounds sterling. Some might say that is not so bad. Let us not forget that a Conservative minister once stepped down over a $17 glass of orange juice. With the Prime Minister, we are talking about millions of dollars. Now the Winnipeg lab story is back. It took four years to get the documents, and now we have a 300-page stack. We have learned a lot. Remember, an election was called to hide this scandal. The Prime Minister used the 2021 election to hide the Winnipeg lab scandal. During the pandemic, there were important measures that had to be taken. We agreed. However, what is still hidden or unknown is that, of the additional $500 billion spent on top of the operating budget during the two years of the pandemic, $300 billion was used for the pandemic, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer still cannot explain where the remaining $200 billion went. In addition to the $300 billion, we have learned that $60 million was spent on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000. There are scandals everywhere, and there are more to come. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It never ends. The government did get organized with the Emergencies Act. There was a little investigation, and the judge said things were fine. Recently, the Federal Court found that it was unreasonable. Why did the government use it? Let us not forget that they made a show of it. They tried to demonstrate their power. We proved that here in the House. Of the 14 criteria, 13 did not pass the test. We already knew that, and the court confirmed it. Actually, the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert, who is still with them, made a statement that got a lot of press. He said that the government had decided to impose restrictions and divide and stigmatize people during the pandemic. The member for Louis-Hébert could not believe how his government used the pandemic. There are also all those stories about vaccination and public servants, stories that were used to divide the population. I could go on for another half hour recapping all this for the Canadians watching us now—or, as the Minister of Industry would say, the millions of Canadians watching us. I want to remind everyone why it is important to vote in favour of the Conservative Party motion, in favour of a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal government. We need a federal election so Canadians can weigh in on whether they want a new Conservative majority government.

1730 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/21/24 4:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just demonstrated that inflation is not just economic. It is verbal. The Conservatives are hearing the siren song of power. According to the polls, if there were an election tomorrow morning, they would get around 220 out of 338 seats in the House. No wonder they want to have an election immediately. They know full well that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition and that the vote on their motion is already sunk by the other side. Now they want to fob the problem off on Quebec by claiming that the Bloc Québécois is a bad party that does not stand up for Quebec's interests. I did not hear François Legault oppose the carbon tax, because it does not apply in Quebec. I did not hear the members of the Quebec National Assembly get worked up over this motion, saying that the House of Commons must adopt it and that they are in favour. The Conservatives want a free pass. They say they want to get rid of the carbon tax, but they are not proposing an alternative. They want to make this tax a campaign issue. What a vision for society.

203 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Mar/21/24 4:59:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was trying very hard to figure out where my colleague was going with all that. First of all, the carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. Second, my colleague from Montcalm just said that the government's official dance partner is the NDP. I mentioned in my speech that I do not understand why the NDP continues to support the government, but that is their problem. What I am saying, however, is that the Bloc Québécois, as an opposition party, can join the Conservatives. Bloc members complain about various government measures every day. Forget the carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois criticizes everything the Liberal government does. Why would the Bloc Québécois hesitate to take advantage of today's opportunity to pass a non-confidence motion by voting with us against this government, which is terrible for Quebeckers and Canada?

157 words

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

Mar/21/24 5:00:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague. He said that we need to remember things. Well, we need to remember the Harper regime, which was the worst government in our entire history. Back then, housing prices doubled. Lineups at food banks also doubled. We witnessed all that and it was awful. We cannot let ourselves forget the Harper regime. That said, we need to look at what we have to do now. Of course, the Liberals have done a little better than the Conservatives on fighting climate change. They did even more when the NDP forced them to implement measures like the dental care program. Of course, there are thousands of seniors in my colleague's riding who have signed on to the Canadian dental care program thanks to the NDP. I have a very simple question for my colleague. Has he asked his constituents if they want the dental care program to continue? Does my colleague understand that the Conservatives must support this program, and all the other programs that the NDP has put in place, to help the people in his riding?

183 words