- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Mar/21/24 12:50:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to the exact details that the former environment minister was speaking to, but I can say that I do not support subsidizing the oil and gas sector. I know that we phased-out direct subsidies. I also know that there are other things that, unfortunately, we have to take care of, such as abandoned orphan oil wells.
I find it amazing that the Premier of Alberta suddenly wants to get people to pay up front for the disposal of solar panels and wind turbines down the road. However, for some reason, if people dig an oil well, they do not have to worry about this, that society will deal with it later. Unfortunately, we do have to participate in that, because companies gone by did not have to deal with them. We will do the right thing for society and the right thing for our environment.
However, to the member's point about direct and indirect subsidies or whatever it is, I encourage Bloc members to bring forward an opposition motion on removing any subsidies to the oil and gas sector. I will personally vote in favour of that.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:09:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member is concerned about homelessness and initiatives this government has put forward, I would encourage him to not be tempted into voting against all the opposed items the Conservatives will be putting up. As I indicated, two of them, the Reaching Home program to address homelessness and the Canada housing benefit, are on the chopping block as a result of the opposed items the Leader of the Opposition has put forward.
The reality of the situation is that, while he says we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, we have phased out the fossil fuel subsidies. The only way we continue to subsidize, in any way, the fossil fuel industry is to help to deal with abandoned orphan oil wells. That member might that think that it is not our problem, because they were companies from 50 years ago. We should leave the wells there, and that would be the end of that. Unfortunately, governments at the time did not think it was good to ensure that the proper money was in place to deal with those wells later on, so now society has to pick up the tab. That is the unfortunate reality. However, it is something that we have to do in our environmental interests.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, toward the end of her intervention, the member commented on fossil fuel subsidies and government investment. I would like to remind the member that, over the time of the current Liberal government, we have seen those go down significantly. They are on track to be completely removed, I believe it is by the end of this year or next year.
The problem is that there are still certain investments that have to occur in the oil and gas sector, such as cleaning up orphaned oil wells, for example. Unfortunately, the programs were not in place 30 or 40 years, or more, ago, when these wells were created, to ensure that there was a fund to deal with them afterwards. We cannot just totally turn our back on that now. I see, every once in a while, the conflation of government investment with doing the right thing, in my opinion, which is to deal with the orphaned wells, because we allowed people to get away with leaving them like that, but it is a reality of the situation. In terms of investing and providing fossil fuel subsidies that direct investments to those companies, that is certainly almost completely eliminated at this point, and it will be within the next year or so.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 5:26:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
I will start where that last question left off. I find it very unfortunate to hear that the Leader of the Opposition would make such a claim when it comes to co-operative housing. As I indicated in my question, co-operative housing, at least from the limited experience that I have had in seeing the operations of it, is clearly one of the best ways of delivering affordable housing.
If my Conservative friends need some education on it, I welcome them to come and tour Kingston Co-operative Homes in Kingston with me. We have different individuals living together. Some are paying market rent. Some are paying below market rent. Some are contributing in hours toward the co-operative.
For the co-operative to be successful, it genuinely needs people contributing to it in different manners. We need people paying market rent. We need people who are contributing in other ways, like through the hours being contributed to the co-op. It is wildly popular, at least from my perspective, as a form of delivering affordable housing.
I heard the member who spoke before me make the comment that the federal government is not advancing co-operative housing. That is incorrect. I took some time, after I first heard her make that comment earlier, to look into this, and the truth of the matter is that this government is making the largest investment to promote and expand co-operative housing in over 30 years, with $1.5 billion to expand and promote co-ops. Included in this investment is the launch of the new co-operative housing development program. Not only are we putting money into this, but we are developing a program for co-operative housing specifically.
It truly is one of the best forms of affordable housing, from my perspective. My first introduction into politics, before I was even a city councillor, was when the City of Kingston put together an affordable housing development committee. Ironically enough, that was set up as a result of the provincial government in Ontario having to go it alone in supporting housing and building affordable housing because at the time, the Harper Conservative government had completely abandoned any investment there.
Let us go back and talk for a second about that, because I find it very interesting. Usually when a concurrence motion comes forward, I speak at great length as to why Conservatives do that. We know why they are doing it. They are trying to delay the government's agenda. Even my NDP colleague pointed that out earlier. It is a matter of fact. If members want to hear why, they can review one of my previous speeches on this to get all of the details.
I will focus my comments more specifically on this particular committee report. The mover of the motion, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, was very critical of the government. He was very critical of the government investing in affordable housing, but a number of projects have already happened in his riding. I will tell members about those projects again: $23 million from the national housing co-investment fund, $3.6 million from the on-reserve shelter enhancement program, $2.6 million from the the second stream of the rapid housing initiative, $6.7 million from the SIF and legacy programs and $2.7 million through the various different subsidies going into his riding. A lot of money has been spent in Parry Sound—Muskoka.
I cannot help but wonder how the Conservatives invested in his riding when they were around. Of course, Tony Clement pops into my mind. One of the most notorious things about Tony Clement, for all of his contributions to the House, is that unfortunately part of his legacy is the building of a gazebo. That gazebo was from redirected money. According to the Auditor General, he had misled the House in indicating where that money was coming from.
The other one was a fund set up regarding what was the G8 at the time. It was a $50 million fund that was intended to go toward projects that had to do with the G8, which was taking place in Canada at the time. Somehow, Parry Sound—Muskoka ended up building a gazebo in the member's riding with money that was not intended to go to that. I do not know if the G8 leaders went and sat around the gazebo, and that was one of the events, but it clearly was not a project that was intended. That is not to say that Stephen Harper did not invest in infrastructure in the riding of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka; he certainly did. He invested in gazebos, which were apparently more important than actually building affordable housing.
As we look to and specifically talk about the work we are doing, the government has put forward policy and real money behind building housing and expanding housing opportunities throughout the country. There is no doubt that there is more work to be done. That is obvious, and it is something that continually gets brought up in the House.
The concurrence motion we have, which was sent to the Minister of Housing, received a reply from the minister. I read the reply while we were entering into this debate. If they took the time to read the reply, members would probably not be surprised to see that there are a number of initiatives the report had identified that the minister and the government agreed with. Specifically, these relate to supporting vulnerable populations. The minister agreed with the committee on the critical importance of prioritizing the needs of vulnerable populations through the national housing strategy's program.
He indicated:
Though the [national housing strategy] addresses needs across the housing spectrum—including the need for more housing supply overall—housing for those in greatest need is identified as one of the priority areas for action of the NHS. When it launched in 2017, one of the NHS goals was to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28. Budget 2022 went further and committed to ending chronic homelessness by 2030. This will require an all of government approach. Much of this work is undertaken in partnership with the provinces and territories ... through bilateral agreements under the Housing Partnership Framework....
When we talk about housing and solutions, as I have heard from some of my Conservative colleagues during this debate, it is not just about the federal government but also about how we work with the various different partners and municipalities specifically. We would love to work with provinces, but at least in my province, we know that there is very little interest from Doug Ford's government in doing that. That is why we are seeing the government actually going right into communities. This is the federal government dealing directly with mayors and city councillors, talking about how we reduce the Nimbyism, as was mentioned earlier by one of my Conservative colleagues, and deal with the fact that there is too much red tape in the process of building more housing. Ultimately, we see real agreements coming forward and real action being taken directly with municipalities. We have seen where a number of municipalities are coming to the table. Most recently, last week, there was Brampton, but there were a number before that as well,
Conservatives offer nothing in this regard. As a matter of fact, all they are doing is taking the housing accelerator program that I just announced as a partnership with municipalities and trying to rebrand it as though it is something they would do. It is literally something we are already doing. The idea here is that the municipalities will deal directly with the federal government, which will reduce red tape, encourage growth and encourage more housing. As a result, the federal government will help them to make sure the process can happen even quicker and faster through various different monetary incentives.
I really hope that, after we get to the end of this debate and vote on this, we can get back to the government legislation we were supposed to debate today before the concurrence motion was brought forward.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:18:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an interesting point that NDP members always bring up. They say we are investing in fossil fuel subsidies. However, no, the subsidies have actually been going down. What we have been investing in, which makes it look like they have been going up, is dealing with things like orphan wells.
We should not be in a position where previous companies that have gone out of business left wells behind for society to deal with, but the reality is that those wells are there and we have to deal with them. When the NDP talks about our increase in subsidies, they are adding into that calculation money used for dealing with orphan wells, and I would submit that it is not a subsidy. This is something that we need to do as a society because, as a society, we allowed companies to not deal with them effectively themselves when they should have.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 1:19:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking for a little clarification and perhaps the member could help.
The very first clause in the motion says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” When I asked the New Democrats about this, they said that this referred to oil subsidies. However, what I heard the Leader of the Opposition and the finance critic say this morning was that more and more government employees were being hired and that was what they were being critical of.
I want to ensure that the NDP knows what it is voting for here. With respect to the first clause in the motion, could the member confirm whether we are talking about oil subsidies or are we talking about the hiring more and more federal employees?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to bring up an issue the member talked about. I have also heard quite a bit about it from the NDP over the last several months, and it is with respect to fossil fuel subsidies. I do not disagree with the NDP. I do not disagree with the member. In my personal opinion, I would love to see fossil fuel subsidies end tomorrow.
I am on the same page, but I have a problem with their narrative when they start saying that fossil fuel subsidies have increased. This information comes from the federal government deciding to invest money into dealing with abandoned orphan wells during the pandemic. That is what the money went to. These are wells that have been abandoned because either provincial regulations were not there to deal with them or the companies no longer exist. The federal government stepped in and said we will take some of the responsibility of dealing with these wells.
I know it plays the narrative the NDP like to purport in the House of the subsidies going up, but does the member really think that spending money on dealing with abandoned orphan wells, which is incredibly important environmentally, is really a subsidy for the oil sector?
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:24:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, about two weeks ago, I voted in favour of the NDP motion to eliminate the oil subsidies. I am not sure if this particular member did.
I would totally agree with him. I do not disagree with him. There are other companies out there that have seen windfalls and huge profits during the last two years and that, quite frankly, through the proper policy, should be contributing more, in particular to assist those who are on the other end of the spectrum.
We have to remember that what the pandemic has really done to our society and the fabric of our society is that it has driven the wedge between the haves and the have-nots further. I think we need to work on addressing that, instead of working on addressing how we get a GST cut for members of Parliament and everybody out there, in particular those who do not need it.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, because of the noise I did not hear the entire question, but I think the member was getting at oil subsidies versus renewable subsidies. The problem with talking about oil subsidies, which is unfortunately what the members of the NDP do quite a bit, is that they build into the subsidies the money that is to go toward dealing with orphaned wells.
There are a lot of orphaned wells out there, which the federal government has chosen to take a part in solving the long-term implications of, and I believe it is very important for it to do that. However, if we are going to lump that in as part of a subsidy, then I would suggest it is more about making sure we deliver on our commitment to the environment.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/22 4:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, I have heard NDP members say that oil and gas subsidies have gone up. I will be honest. The first time I heard that I started to look into it because I was personally concerned about it.
The only evidence I could find of oil and gas subsidies going up is with respect to money that has been designated specifically for dealing with orphan oil wells. In my opinion, that is not really a subsidy. That is more about making sure that we take care of the environmental consequences oil wells have contributed to over the years.
I have a very simple question for the member, because I could be wrong. I am willing to accept that, and if that is the case, I want to hear that. Is it true that, when the member says the oil and gas subsidies have gone up, he is really referring to the fact that more money has been put towards dealing with those orphan wells?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is an interesting thing about this question, and I am so glad I was asked it. The problem is that NDP members will say that we have not reduced oil subsidies as much as we have, but the reality is that when they are making those calculations, they are including the money being used to deal with orphaned wells. The government put in a significant amount of money, right at the beginning of the pandemic, to help deal with the orphaned wells out there. The calculation the member is using is including that. If we look at the traditional subsidies in oil and gas, they have been reduced quite significantly and are on track to being eliminated by 2025 or sooner.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
