House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 381
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 381
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Selected United States and European Union Trade-Related Measures: Some Impacts on Canada’s Fishing Sector”.
This report is timely, given the very issues that we are contemplating and discussing today, and so I am pleased to be able to present the report.
Environment and Sustainable Development
Madam Speaker, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, October 30, 2023, be concurred in.
It is always an honour to rise in this place, and today's matter is about transparency and common-sense ideas. This report contains a few common-sense recommendations that, unfortunately, the Liberal government and its radical Minister of Environment have simply chosen to ignore. Members should make no mistake: There has never been a more ideologically driven Minister of Environment than the one we have today.
Even if we set aside the previous arrests and the utter disdain for Canada's energy sector, I truly believe that, at some point in the not too distant future, we will all come to realize that we have never had such an incompetent and ineffective Minister of Environment for Canada. Not only have Canada's climate outcomes failed to improve, but Canada's performance is also the worst in the G7, despite claims that the government may make all the time. The minister has imposed a crippling carbon tax that punishes seniors trying to heat their homes during our cold winters. I can tell members that the rumours are true: It does get cold in Manitoba. Seniors deserve to have heat and quality of life. The minister targets moms and dads who are struggling to fill their tanks to take their kids to school, to hockey practice, to soccer practice, to music lessons or anything else, if they can still afford to put their kids in such important programs.
The minister has done more damage to Canada's economy than almost any other minister of the Crown in our nation's history. He has forced us to pay for his carbon tax, and for what? The Liberals may not want to admit it, at least publicly, but they are nowhere near meeting their emissions targets. Simply put, they are failing because their climate plan was never about the climate; it was always about taxes. Their carbon tax is a major contributor to the inflation that is driving up the cost of everything. This is causing millions of Canadians to visit food banks every year just to put something in their stomachs; they do not know where their next meal is going to come from. In Canada, we now have a resurgence of scurvy because people cannot afford enough fruits and vegetables. This is insane and embarrassing. The fact that the Prime Minister's legacy will be a country where people cannot buy enough nutritious food to keep them healthy is something that I imagine he will be very ashamed of when his tenure comes to an end.
While Canadians are being forced to pay for the Liberal carbon tax, most people I talk to recognize that, sadly, we are in a cost of living crisis. We are threatened by tariffs from our largest trading partner; our GDP per capita is declining steadily. Millions of Canadians are just $200 away from insolvency, and household debt has reached new record highs. The vast majority of young people that I talk to cannot afford to buy a home; frankly, they have lost all hope and given up the idea of even trying to ever have that happen in their lives. Meanwhile, the minister is on a mission, for some strange reason, to continue down this path of quadrupling the carbon tax and, if given the chance, probably more. He gave a very unclear answer at our environment committee just last week, and he still thinks everything is fine. It is not fine for millions of people in this country.
I have never met anyone more out of touch, more disconnected from the realities faced by Canadian families, students, seniors and everybody else. The minister has no understanding of the pain and suffering that he is causing right now, and it certainly does not appear that he even cares about it. He thinks we should all just shut up and pay his carbon tax because he knows what is best for people. He has lost the plot. He has climbed so far up his ivory tower that he has lost all sense of reality.
I will also mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.
This brings me to the second recommendation within the report, one that the minister and the Prime Minister surely did not read. This recommendation is that the government must direct its incentives to technologies that actually reduce emissions, and what a reasonable idea that is. Thank goodness for the commissioner of the environment, who has put a glaring spotlight on the Liberals' net-zero accelerator initiative. It is as though the Liberal ministers are playing poker: “I see the green slush fund, and I raise a net-zero accelerator fund.” It is an $8-billion Liberal boondoggle in the making. Eight billion dollars is handed over to large multinational corporations while the Minister of Environment taxes seniors, students, families and anybody else whose pockets he can get his hands into.
The findings of the environment commissioner's report regarding the $8-billion initiative are terrifying, to say the least. This program, touted as one of the cornerstones of the Liberal government's climate efforts, has been nothing but a complete failure. The Liberals have mismanaged this fund to the point of negligence, as they have done with many other things they have gotten their hands on. The department failed to track whether the initiative was delivering real value for money and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Using value-for-money audits is a reasonable idea. The Liberal government has failed to do that. Simply put, taxpayers have no idea whether their hard-earned tax dollars are going to reduce emissions, as the government claims they are.
Let us talk numbers. The report shows that five corporations made a commitment to reduce emissions in their contracts, and the cost to taxpayers to reduce just one tonne of greenhouse gases was $143. That might sound like a lot, but it gets much worse. For the other 12 projects, funded with that same $8 billion, there are no signed commitments to reduce emissions whatsoever; the commissioner's audit found that, because these projects did not have any signed commitments, the overall cost is $523 per tonne of emissions reduced under this program.
The Liberals, as they always do, promised results; once again, they failed to deliver on yet another promise. They have just simply delivered another wasteful program. It is not one that can measure results. That is not how to develop a program for anything. They have squandered billions of dollars with no real targets, no clear outcomes and no clear plans on how to achieve anything. This is not a climate action plan; it is a taxpayer-funded boondoggle.
The environment committee did the responsible thing and passed a motion demanding full access to the contracts the Liberals signed with these massive corporations. The common-sense Conservative team led the charge because we believe taxpayers should know where their money is being spent and whether it is being spent in a useful manner. However, here is the kicker: The Liberals completely disregarded the committee's motion, stonewalling us for months. Once they did hand over the documents, kind of, they pulled out hundreds that we simply could not see and redacted so much that it made them largely irrelevant.
They simply do not want members of Parliament or Canadians to know where the $8 billion is going. They do not want us to know how many jobs may or may not be maintained or ever created. They do not want us to know by how much emissions will be reduced through spending on any of these programs. It is ridiculous, to say the least. It is insane how far the Prime Minister and his radical Minister of Environment will go to hide the truth. Exhibit A is the ongoing green slush fund debate in the House of Commons.
They do not care about outcomes. They care about announcements, press releases and press conferences. They care about being seen to be doing something but not about actually doing anything. It is virtue signalling on the taxpayer's dime. It is lazy environmental policy, and it is simply no way to run a government. They are failing miserably.
Members of Parliament simply need to see how these tax dollars are being spent. We deserve to know whether the net-zero accelerator is accomplishing its stated goals. While the Liberal MPs on the committee gave every lame excuse they could not to learn the truth, it was the Conservatives that got them to vote in favour of the motion we passed at committee. The motion partly reads:
Given that the government has failed to provide the committee with the following documents and information relating to their 8-billion-dollar Net Zero Accelerator fund:
all complete contributions agreements signed, to date, for the Net Zero Accelerator;
the government's complete tracker tool used to measure the Net Zero Accelerator's progress and results; and
all internal Net Zero Accelerator targets set by the government, including the government's Net Zero Accelerator emission reduction target.
...
It was a reasonable motion passed at committee, but can we guess what? The Liberals are doing what they always do and trying to defy Parliament once again. They refuse to abide by this motion, and today is just the beginning of the Conservatives' mission to discover how rotten this net-zero accelerator fund truly is. We deserve to know results because Canadians deserve to know results. We represent the people who pay their taxes to fund these sorts of programs, and it is ridiculous that the Liberals are continuing to try to hide the truth. The environment committee has much more work to do in order to get to the bottom of this boondoggle and find solutions that can actually deliver results for taxpayers; Canadians deserve nothing less.
Madam Speaker, I found the speech to be a fascinating exposition in avoiding actual facts. Right now, emissions in Canada are at the lowest they have been in almost three decades, and that is actually verified by independent reports. When the member opposite keeps talking about everything he believes we should do to stop fighting climate change, I am fascinated, because what we are doing is actually working.
Economists across Canada have said that the most efficient way to fight climate change is the price on carbon pollution. If the Conservatives want to remove it, what is their plan?
Madam Speaker, I wish my hon. colleague had listened to my speech, because what I was talking about was how the Liberals need to stop wasting money without achieving any results. In fact, thanks to the work of the environment commissioner highlighting that the Liberal government is not on track in any way to meet its stated emissions reduction goals, we know that the government is failing in its objectives.
There is also a report showing that Canada is in 62nd place of 67 in the world. We are last in the G7. If this is achieving something, I do not know what Liberals think they are trying to accomplish. They are failing. In terms of the carbon tax, I would invite the member to come to my riding, talk to my constituents and see whether they think they are better off under the carbon tax.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, recommendation 2 of the report we are currently studying requires the government to demonstrate the effectiveness of technologies before implementing them. The first example that comes to mind is carbon storage. The Conservatives talk about it all the time. However, we know it has been tested elsewhere, and it does not work.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Does he not think we should first get proof that it works elsewhere before investing colossal sums in it, so that it does not blow up in our faces in 15 years?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member understands the need to actually focus on results for taxpayer dollars. In terms of carbon capture and storage, yes, it seems like a promising lead and a way to actually reduce emissions. The good news is that the private sector is leading the way in this; it is the one trying to make investments and reduce its emissions.
While the technology is promising, I think there is so much more, because we are innovative. If we had a government that stopped stifling, through regulation and legislation, the innovators and entrepreneurs in this country, we would more rapidly, through technology, not taxes, achieve the emissions reduction goals this country has aimed for. Under a Conservative government, we will.
Madam Speaker, the member did not completely answer my colleague's question, which was about whether the Conservatives are going to hand over public money to private companies for an unproven technology that is being used in other areas to produce more oil and to raise emissions. Carbon capture and storage, as the IPCC has said, is one of the most expensive and least proven at scale technologies to meet our net-zero goals.
The government has given over $5.8 billion to profitable oil and gas companies, when the private sector could be doing the investing. Will the member commit to pushing for private investment into carbon capture and storage, if private investors so choose, but to no longer putting public money into unproven technology?
Madam Speaker, CCUS is one example. What I am focused on, which will be the first principle when the new common-sense Conservative government steps in, is to review programs like it to see where money has been wasted and where it has been successful. Thanks to the work of the environment commissioner, we now know that it is a failed project.
Once again, I am more than proud to say that we are going to unleash Canada's energy potential, stop the strangulation of our energy sector and let it do the investing both in terms of emissions reduction and, yes, creating wealth for Canadians once again in this country.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the standing committee on environment, I am honoured to speak about the work of our committee. I was fortunate to work on the committee's 10th report on clean technologies. The report proved that technology, not taxes, should be the foundation of an environment policy. Unfortunately the Liberal government is hell-bent on plowing ahead with its failed carbon tax without getting any environmental results.
There is an old saying that “only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.” With multiple reports published recently, it is clear that the Liberals have been swimming naked in the waters of environmentalism for years. Last month, Canada's independent, non-partisan environment commissioner released a damning audit that revealed that the Liberals will not meet their own emissions reduction targets, despite plowing ahead with their plan to quadruple the carbon tax.
The commissioner revealed that under the Prime Minister, Canada has the worst record for emissions reductions in the entire G7. In fact according to the 2025 climate change performance index, which was just released, Canada now ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in environmental performance under the environment minister.
The ranking is four places lower than it was two years ago, despite multiple carbon tax hikes on Canadians. With such an embarrassing ranking, it is no wonder the environment minister is trying to discredit the report by saying it is some random international assessment that does not reflect Canada's policies and reality. No, it is a report that does not reflect his imaginary fantasy that he wants it to.
Unsurprisingly, dozens of countries around the world that do not punish their people with a carbon tax are significantly outperforming Canada on the environmental index. This is why I asked the independent environment commissioner whether Canada could achieve its targets without a carbon tax. He said yes. For nine years, the Liberals falsely claimed that the carbon tax was the only way to meet their environmental targets. They were once again proven wrong.
It is for these reasons that Canadians are rejecting the failed so-called environmental policies of the government. Canadians understand that the Prime Minister and his radical environment minister are inflicting a lot of economic pain with no environmental gain.
It is not just the carbon tax that the environment committee has exposed; it seems as though at every committee meeting a new Liberal scandal or cover-up is exposed. The Liberal government's $8-billion net zero accelerator fund may win the top prize for the government's most expensive environmental scam yet.
Most Canadians tuning in have probably never heard of the government's $8-billion net zero accelerator fund. I find this surprising for three reasons. First, Canadian taxpayers are literally being charged $8 billion for the program. Second, the government usually brags about how much money it is spending. Third, the Liberals claim the $8-billion net zero accelerator would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead the Liberals have gone incognito on their $8-billion net zero accelerator fund. I wonder why that is.
When I asked the commissioner how many emissions have been reduced by the $8-billion program, he stated, “I can't say”. It gets better. At the public accounts committee, I asked the environment minister's top official, the deputy minister, how many emissions were reduced; he stated that he did not know. It was such an outrageous misuse of taxpayer's funds that all parties except for the Liberals called an emergency meeting of the environment committee. When the Bloc Québécois MP for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert found out about the $8-billion fund, he stated:
This whole thing is kind of uncomfortable....
I would remind everyone that the net zero accelerator has $8 billion in funding. Everyone here represents constituents who expect us to do our job, which is to hold the government to account for the money it spends.
I agree with the Bloc member. It is more than embarrassing, though; it is corrupt. I can guarantee that Canadians want to know why they are paying $8 billion for the failed and fraudulent slush fund. Conservatives on the environment committee called on Liberals to release the funding details of their $8-billion net zero accelerator fund to the public, but the government refused. This is why the environment committee ordered the government to hand over all contracts to the committee so we could find out the truth.
Instead of handing over the contract to parliamentarians, the Liberals locked the contracts in a room and put a gag order on every MP who viewed them. Any MP who read the eight billion dollars' worth of contracts was forced to lock up their phone and not take any notes, and was prevented from discussing what they saw. I was one of those MPs, and I understand why the Liberals have gagged me. I was absolutely shocked by what I saw.
As I said, the government has placed me and all the members of the environment committee under a gag order to prevent us from disclosing the truth. Over 65 pages of net zero accelerator contracts were redacted and over 360 pages were completely ripped out of the contracts. Someone in the Liberal government ordered over 360 pages of the net zero accelerator contracts to be ripped out to prevent parliamentarians from seeing what $8 billion was spent on. This sounds borderline criminal.
Did the Minister of Environment order it to be done? Did the Prime Minister order it to be done? Who ripped out the pages of the net zero accelerator contracts to hide the truth? Who poured black ink on the contracts to cover up the lines? Who will be accountable for the $8-billion scam?
The Liberal government defied the will of Parliament by failing to hand over the contracts of its $8-billion net zero accelerator funds. It is very clear it is hiding something. The environment commissioner caught the Liberals giving away billions of tax dollars to large multinational companies without any commitment to reduce emissions. This could very well be the government's most expensive scandal yet.
If the NDP were truly opposed to corporate handouts, its members would be outraged. If the Bloc truly cared about the environment, its members would be outraged. If any member of Parliament cared about accountability, they would be outraged. I can promise that Canadians are outraged. Canadians deserve answers on the Liberal government's fake, failed and fraudulent $8-billion net zero accelerator fund. They deserve to know what companies received eight billion dollars' worth of taxpayers' money and what the money was spent on.
I therefore move the following amendment, seconded by my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, on behalf of Canadians paying for the $8-billion scam: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, October 30, 2023, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, with a view to studying the implementation of the net zero accelerator initiative, and, to support the committee with this study, an order of the House do issue for: (a) copies of all signed contribution agreements and term sheets, including schedules of work for each contract, for the net zero Accelerator initiative; (b) a copy of the government’s tracker tool used to measure the net zero accelerator initiative’s progress and results; and (c) copies of documents which describe all internal net zero accelerator initiative targets set by the government, including the government’s net zero accelerator initiative emissions reduction target, provided that these documents shall be laid upon the table, in both official languages and in a complete and unredacted form, within two weeks of the adoption of this order, following which they shall stand referred to the committee.”
I thank the hon. member for introducing the amendment. We will take it under advisement and return to the House.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservative Party is moving a concurrence report on the environment. I listened to the member for Portage—Lisgar and, to some extent, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa as well. I did not hear a whole lot about what the Conservative Party actually stands for in relation to environmental plans.
This government is the first in Canadian history to actually reduce GHG emissions and grow the economy at the same time. It is very interesting to have the Conservatives throw darts. They have very little actual, tangible plans. However, I do have a very precise question for the hon. member.
When he was working for the Grain Growers of Canada, the member for Portage—Lisgar used to lobby me about the importance of the clean fuel standards. The hon. member has a lot of grain farmers in his neck of the woods. The clean fuel standard is helping to drive demand in their sector and helping drive down emissions.
Would that member stand and support the clean fuel standards if he were in government and support that for the Conservative Party, or would they scrap that and hurt grain farmers too?
Madam Speaker, I just gave a speech on an $8-billion fraud that was run by the government. Over 70% of the contracts gave no commitment to reduce emissions. The whole idea behind the $8 billion was to reduce emissions. That member cannot be taken seriously and neither can the government.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this matter to the House today. There is something interesting about the fact that the Conservatives are focusing on sustainable development issues. That being said, I am nonetheless concerned about happens in the future. I want to highlight recommendation 10:
That the Government of Canada integrate its support for clean technology within all existing federal strategies, such as the Critical Minerals Strategy, the National Housing Strategy and the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, prioritizing the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering the development of sustainable jobs.
I want to talk about strategic critical minerals, because I think they are the key to successful transportation electrification, and I am very concerned about the Canadian strategy. We see what is happening with the U.S. There is one active lithium mine in Canada, and it is in my riding. How are we supposed to develop our products and potentially sell them to the U.S. unless we speed up the creation of lithium mines or mines to extract other clean technology minerals?
Most importantly, we must encourage local processing, close to the mines, in order to help our resource regions. To me, that is part of a real strategy. Do the Conservatives support that?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I will bring this back to reducing emissions and what this accelerator fund was all about. The commissioner testified at committee on this scandal, and he stated:
We also found that the department did not always know to what extent GHG emissions had been reduced by those companies that took part in the [net zero accelerator] initiative, or whether the funding provided would lead to reduced emissions.
There were $8 billion, and our environment commissioner could not find a shred of evidence on over 70% of those contracts of whether they were reducing emissions. It is absolutely absurd.
Madam Speaker, I would hope that all members can agree that the environment commissioner's report on the net zero accelerator fund is deeply concerning. As members of Parliament, as we look at the documents that we have been provided, it is hard to get a sense of what is going on because of the redactions and the missing pages. However, we do have the environment commissioner's report, which really outlines, clearly, that something is amiss when a government hands out billions of dollars and does not link that to emissions reductions.
The member is correct in presenting this, but what he needs to answer is that Canadians right now are looking at this and wondering how the Conservatives cannot even agree if climate change is real. In the past, when Harper was in power, they handed out billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies in the form of fossil fuel subsidies.
Would the member commit to stopping the handouts to profitable oil and gas companies and pushing the government to do the same?
Madam Speaker, I understand what my NDP colleagues are up against. They have been basically duped by the Liberal government. All of this time, for the last nine years, it has been telling us that it is going to reduce emissions, with $8 billion of taxpayer dollars going to the heaviest emitters and, I might add, to oil and gas companies as well. The NDP should be outraged about this finding, and it should be supporting us on getting this back to committee.
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to speak to yet another concurrence report. Interestingly enough, the Conservatives are, in fact, continuing with the game they began a number of weeks ago, and that is the reason we have a concurrence report.
Before I get into a number of my concerns, let me amplify why all members, all parliamentarians in the House of Commons, should be concerned with what we consistently seeing from the Conservative Party. When the Conservatives bring in a concurrence report, they also bring in amendments to it. The amendments are instructions. What they are doing is sending the reports back to standing committees. In some cases, they are asking us to call other individuals to come before committee to answer questions.
I would argue that the leader of the Conservative Party, in his drive to control every aspect of members of Parliament, is trying to say that the Conservative caucus wants to dictate what standing committees should be studying and who we should be calling before them, which is far more than any other government has seen in recent history. We all should be concerned about that, because yet again, we have another concurrence report where we are telling a standing committee what to do. We are telling it that the report it sent us is not good enough, that we are sending it back and we want X, Y and Z.
That is consistent with the leader of the Conservative Party. It is borderline contempt, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons through a multi-million dollar, self-serving filibuster, or what we are witnessing now, which is his desire to fill the space of standing committees. We should not be surprised, because the Conservative leader took his training from Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper was held in contempt of Parliament for not producing documents along with other things, his parliamentary secretary, his point person on the issue, was the current leader of the Conservative Party.
We have yet another concurrence report today. This time the Conservatives have chosen to deal with the environment.
An hon. member: Wow, how dare us.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Many would say, “How dare you.”
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not really recognize climate change, yet they want to talk about the environment. The reason they want to talk about the environment is to downplay the role the government can play in protecting the environment.
I will get into that shortly, but not before I amplify how abusive the leader of the Conservative Party is toward democracy and the functionality of the House of Commons. This is a very serious issue of which all Canadians need to be aware. This is only a hint of the type of grab for power and his thrive. It shows the degree to which he is prepared to sacrifice the interests of Canadians because of his own personal self-interest.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise specifically in relation to the fact that you have taken the amendment to the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, under advisement. I would like to add a little context as to it being within the scope of the discussion. The report does, in fact, talk about the net zero accelerator and therefore makes this amendment relevant.
Concurrence motions and amendments to them have been used time and again to structure a committee's follow-up study, including, and I would list a number of examples, deadlines for reports, topics to study, new recommendations to be made and witnesses to hear from, and that includes witnesses being ordered to appear. Therefore, it follows that the House can support a committee by ordering documents to be reviewed as part of that study.
Therefore, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the amendment my colleague moved is not only relevant but pertinent and follows the precedent that has been set in this place. I would further note, and I know the parliamentary secretary is not very happy about having to debate these sorts of things, it appears that Conservatives have a better grasp and control of the House than the governing party does.
Madam Speaker, that is somewhat humorous. If I were given a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler high, Maples, St. John's, R. B. Russell and Children of the Earth, I could cause the same sort of commotion that the Conservatives have day in, day out for the last number of weeks. In fact, I suspect I could even get half of them to go without written speech material.
At the end of the day, I was highlighting how we have a leader of the Conservative Party who is abusive in terms of the procedures and what takes place on the floor of the House or in our standing committees. His history does not reflect well on how he would handle the House of Commons or the institution of Parliament, if he were ever given the power of being in government. We should be concerned about that.
As an example, for many weeks now we have been in a filibuster on a Conservative motion that says that an issue should be transferred to a standing committee. The Conservatives have now put up well over 200 speakers on that, at a great and substantial cost to the House not being able to deal with a wide variety of issue. A majority of the members in the chamber would like the Conservatives to stop the filibustering and allow the Conservative motion to be voted on and sent to committee.
On the environment—
I must interrupt the hon. member again.
Earlier today, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa presented an amendment to the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The Chair took it under advisement. After consideration, the Chair finds that the amendment introduces a new concept that should be presented as a separate substantive motion.
As mentioned in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 541:
...it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice);
As a result, I rule the amendment out of order.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Madam Speaker, what is really difficult, when the Conservatives want to talk about the environment, is that we have now had two speakers stand up to try to play down the importance of the price on pollution.
It is really quite unfortunate because it is not only on the floor of the House of Commons that they spread misinformation, but also, sadly, through social media, in particular, and emails. In all likelihood, they send out literally millions of emails. I am one of the recipients of their emails, and they are so misleading.
Let us talk about the price on pollution. There are two components: the rebate portion and the tax portion. It has been well established that over 80% of Canadians receive more money back than they pay for a price on pollution.
Canada is not the only jurisdiction in the world that uses a price on pollution. There are even some American states that use a price on pollution. The arguments that the Conservatives use, depending on the day, do not hold water. They are like a strainer. At the end of the day, what we are seeing is a Conservative Party that is more concerned with trying to give a false impression than truly caring about our environment, and ultimately, taxation and supporting Canadians by increasing their disposable income. I will expand on that.
First and foremost, every member of the Conservative caucus, with the exception of those who were elected in a by-election, campaigned on a price on pollution, including the leader of the Conservative Party. Then they changed their position, and it is not the first or the second time that they have changed their position. They changed their position with the current leader, who made the initial flip-flop, so they now oppose it.
When the Conservatives say that they oppose it, they are trying to give the impression that the rebate is less than the tax, which is not true for over 80% of the people who receive the backstop. If we take a look at it, we will find that it is having a positive impact in our communities. That is why we even have some provincial jurisdictions that have their own programs. They realize that putting a price on pollution is an effective way of dealing with emissions, amongst other things.
I would suggest that it is not unique to see the Conservatives flip-flopping and completely disregarding their election platform. Members can remember that last week, we had a vote on an actual tax break, a GST holiday for Canadians. Every one of the Conservatives voted against it, yet every one of them campaigned in favour of a GST holiday break in the last federal election.
What does that say about the Conservative platform, those major policy announcements that come out during an election, such as the Conservatives saying that they were in support of a price on pollution and giving a tax break with a GST holiday, when it comes down to voting, that they actually vote against them? They voted against a price on pollution, and they voted against a GST tax break for the holiday season.
The irony of it all is that we have Conservatives going across the country saying they are going to axe the tax. Let us look at what they are telling Canadians and what they are doing. In Winnipeg North, the Conservatives would get rid of the carbon rebate. That would mean a whole lot of money would be coming out of the pockets of at least 80% of the constituents I represent. Plus, when we factor in the rebate compared to the tax the Conservatives say they would be axing, it means the disposable income based on the election commitment under that leader would see less disposable income because of their so-called axe the tax. That is not a net gain for 80% of the constituents I represent.
The Conservatives do not have a problem with misleading Canadians. They are telling people that they are going to be better off because of their proposal, when they know for a fact that is not the case. They know that, and then, when it comes time to do something to provide tax relief for Canadians, again, the Conservatives are doubling down. They are voting against one other issue that they said that they would give to Canadians, a GST holiday during the season.
It makes no sense unless, of course, we listen to the leader of the Conservative Party and think of his ambitions. That is why there was a very interesting article that made the national news last week. It talked about a lot of the Conservatives on the inside. Members of Parliament were concerned about the leadership of the Conservative Party, and I can appreciate why. They went to the doors and said, “We are going to give a tax holiday during the holiday season”, and now they are being forced to vote against the tax holiday for the Christmas season. The Conservatives went to the doors in the last election and said, “I support a price on pollution”, and now they are voting against the price on pollution.
It is not like Conservative members were given a choice. They were told to bring this forward. It is interesting that it was two Manitoba members of Parliament who brought forward this motion. In the last budget, or I think it was the previous one, we saw a major commitment to the province of Manitoba. Canada's national Water Agency will be located in Manitoba's capital city of Winnipeg. The premier, the mayor and many different stakeholders are very happy to see a national government that recognizes the importance of having a water strategy, and that the national office will be located in the city of Winnipeg.
When I talk about the environment, and the many things that are taking place, I could provide a list of things I have noted, whether they are the banning of single-use plastics, making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, the serious cut on emissions or the expansion of 44 national wildlife areas and three national parks. Canada's emissions are tracking downward, which is so encouraging to see. There are so many things, such as the greener homes program.
I figure the national story that we heard last week about how the leader of the Conservative Party has absolute and total control of his caucus members is something Canadians should be very much aware of. I would like to quote from the story, which reads:
After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.
The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada the “freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members....
Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no.
This means they cannot come over to talk to me. The article continues, “Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences.” We can talk to the member for Abbotsford to get a sense of the consequences.
An hon. member: That's awkward.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: It is a bit awkward, but it is true.
Madam Speaker, the story continues, “If the leader invents a new slogan, 'we know we'll have to use it'”. Remember, these are Conservatives who are saying this. Allow me to express some freedom on their behalf. “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded”, according to the story. That is where we get the gold star thing. We all know how many times they stand up to repeat the same slogans, the bumper sticker slogans. They get a gold star for that. If they talk to the member for Kingston and the Islands, for example, they get a star taken away from them. That is the way it is.
The real tragedy is, and we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and what Conservatives are saying about their own leader, which is, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself.... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.”
Madam Speaker, I am certainly being entertained by the member's theatrics, and he is very good, but he is completely off topic. I wonder if the Speaker could steer him back around.
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I just want to make sure the member for Provencher received approval from his leader before raising that point of order.
The member knows that is definitely not a point of order.
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Kingston and the Islands is one of the 24 who signed the letter.
The hon. member knows that is not a point of order. I am not going to entertain more points of order.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Madam Speaker, we can see how sensitive Conservatives are on the issue, but it is true. If they would like, they could come on over, and I could share the story with them, but they would lose a gold star. Otherwise, they could just do a Google search. It was in the national media just last week. Having said that, I do not want to get too carried away with the degree to which the leader of the official opposition likes to dominate, in a very real and tangible sense, within his Conservative caucus.
At this point in time, I move:
That the question be now put.
Madam Speaker, I find interesting that the parliamentary secretary seems to be fantasizing about the fact that Conservatives actually like their leader, while that is certainly not the case for many within the Liberal Party and its leader, the current Prime Minister.
Quite recently, it was reported that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had some issue with the recent proposed tax trick. Since the parliamentary secretary spent so much time in his speech talking about control, I would ask if, first of all, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is okay, because we certainly have not seen him since he shared some criticism about the Liberal government over the proposed $250 giveaway. He tweeted, “It's incomprehensible to me that our government can create an affordability package that leaves out some of our most vulnerable in society. On Sat evening I advised the govt that I cannot support an affordability package that does not include support for seniors & people with disabilities.”
It certainly seems that, when it comes to control, it is the Prime Minister who does not have it. He certainly does not the support of his own caucus, and maybe it is time for an election so Canadians can pick who actually runs the country.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure we are ready for a little dictator yet.
Let me read a quote from the same story: “Seventeen Conservative MPs who pleaded with the government to ensure that cities in their ridings received their share of a federal housing fund were publicly rebuffed by the leader's office.” It goes on to say, “If you stray too far from the message, you get told pretty quickly”. I am sure members opposite know there are individuals within the leader's office watching what they are doing, and saying, “If you are not holding the line, you are in trouble.” That is what the leader of the Conservative Party—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the debate back to the report we are considering. I think it is funny that the committee's main witness was Mr. Noseworthy, the assistant deputy minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Coincidentally, he appeared before our committee just last week. He was the one sitting in on all the Sustainable Development Technology Canada board meetings. He was their representative. He was the government's eyes and ears. This gentleman was right there at the table with the board. He did not witness just one, or five, or 20 conflicts of interest. No, 90 conflicts of interest came up on his watch, and yet he said nothing and did nothing. When will the government start cleaning up its departments?
[English]
Madam Speaker, what we should be concerned about are the tactics being used by the Conservative Party in trying to take control of standing committees by passing motions in the House that dictate the type of agenda they should have. It is a very serious issue. It is a good example of the way the leader of the Conservative Party likes to have absolute and total control of everything that takes place in Parliament, whether on the floor of the House of Commons or in standing committees. More and more concurrence reports are being sent back to committee, with the Conservatives saying what they want the standing committee to vote on. Then they look for other opposition parties to come onside and say they cannot necessarily disagree, so they send it back to the standing committee.
Whatever happened to the ability of standing committees to determine what they would like to study and not have report after report sent back to them because the leader of the Conservative Party has a self-interested political agenda?
Madam Speaker, the member's speech was kind of all over the place, but at the heart of it, we are supposed to be debating technological solutions to the climate crisis. One of the favourite solutions the Conservatives and Liberals like to put forward is carbon capture, utilization and storage, CCUS, despite the fact that long-term data from the United States and statements from the IPCC say this does not work and is the most inefficient, expensive way to tackle the climate crisis. The government still considers it a climate-friendly solution and proposes billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits and should be paying for these solutions themselves.
I am wondering how the member can defend that policy.
Madam Speaker, there are interim and long-term solutions that need to be brought to play, and this is one of them. At the end of the day, my concern, as I responded to the Bloc's question, is that we do not fall prey to what the leader of the Conservative Party wants us to do, which is, I would suggest, to disrespect the potential that our standing committees have by, not once or twice but on numerous occasions, trying to dictate what they should be saying by trying to amplify an issue in the House and then sending it back to committee.
All of us, minus a number of Conservatives, I would suggest, are concerned about the environment. A lot of us would love to be able to talk about it, but I would also like to deal with the government's legislative agenda, private members' bills and so forth. Those are critically important. Many important issues are not being debated because of the filibuster by the Conservatives.
Madam Speaker, I took in with great interest the article the member read from the CBC, in particular when he quoted what Conservatives had to say about how they are subject to always echoing the leader's comments and slogans. It makes a lot of sense because when we are in the chamber, we hear those slogans over and over again. Now we learn that when Conservatives go to caucus meetings on Wednesday, they are celebrated. Those who have done it the most are recognized and probably paraded around the room for everyone to acknowledge.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give his thoughts on how disturbing it is to see so many people blindly follow one individual.
Madam Speaker, the member is fairly accurate, except maybe a little exaggerated in terms of parading around the room. However, he is right on; they are actually rewarded. They come into the chamber, they have about a dozen slogans and bumper stickers, they have their favourite four, and we see them. No matter what is being debated, they will say the slogans because they have someone in the back room, that person in the background, with one, two, three stars, oh, four stars. If they talk to us, then minus a star. They are actually evaluated in terms of their performance inside the chamber and, sadly, outside the chamber. They have to be good for the leader.
Madam Speaker, the member was talking about being held back and people having influence. However, the government and the Prime Minister actually put a gag order on every Liberal MP in the House, and that is what he should be absolutely shocked about. On the net-zero accelerator, for $8 billion of taxpayers' money that was supposed to be spent on reducing emissions, they put a gag order on every MP in the House. The Prime Minister did that. Why?
Madam Speaker, I would question that. I have had the opportunity to speak inside the House on several occasions. I can tell members that, with the possible exception of a point of order where I have to read a detailed thing, I have never been provided speeches. I am not told, “Here, go read this in the chamber.” These are my thoughts and they are generated through my experience and observations of opposition members and listening to what others have to say.
We very much have an open concept in our caucus, unlike the Conservatives, apparently, which is very much a closed thing. Everyone is obligated to follow the leader, literally follow the leader, and if they do not do that, they are in a lot of trouble. I say that maybe with a little bit of sarcasm, but it is not just me saying it; Conservative MPs are also saying it and that is really what really takes the cake.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I should note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière.
I will take a completely different angle from this morning's discussion, but I will stick to the report. I will be examining it from the labour point of view, which is not surprising since I was once a union president. I will be talking about Quebec, naturally. Again, I do not think that will come as a surprise to anyone.
Let us talk about employment. When the committee report discusses switching from one technology to another, it talks about a just transition. This phrase is recognized the world over, except here in Canada. The legislation that was passed in the spring is called the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act”. However, the internationally recognized phrase is “just transition”, so that is what we should really be focusing on. What is a just transition? It is a concept rooted in social justice, the idea being that the transition needs to be just to ensure that workers affected by the necessary shift away from oil and gas will not have to bear the full brunt of this transition. They must receive all the help they need to train for new jobs in other sectors.
The report has this to say:
Information provided by NRCan indicated that there were approximately 210,000 direct jobs in the clean tech sector in Canada in 2020, and that these jobs paid an average of $80,834, which was higher than the Canadian economy-wide average annual salary of $68,678...
This shows that the sustainable employment sector is not insignificant.
...however, women in the clean tech sector in 2020 earned 82% of what men earned.
There is still work to be done.
By comparison, there were 178,500 jobs in the oil and gas sector in that year.... In order for Canadian workers to take full advantage of clean technology opportunities, and to ensure there are enough skilled workers available to implement clean technologies, witnesses from a variety of sectors emphasized the need for technical training and applied research through colleges and polytechnics.
For example, Daniel Breton, one of the witnesses we heard from in committee, reminded us that:
We need to make that transition for workers who work in industries in decline to come and work in the electric mobility sector....
With respect to that topic in particular, the conclusion of the report states:
[Particular emphasis should be placed on the] need for support in the later phases of technology development: demonstration, early adoption, and commercialization. Better support during these later phases should help promising innovations bridge the gap between research and development and market success. It was made clear that Canadian clean tech growth stands to benefit the economy and workers through the creation of well-paying skilled jobs, including some to which workers in declining industries could transition.
They need support. Let us talk about our neighbour to the south. When asked about the Trump administration's intentions with regard to developing the clean technology sector, executives from Quebec's renewable energy sector stated that the economic spinoffs that the clean energy sector generates for the U.S. economy are far too significant for Trump to risk jeopardizing them. According to the head of Boralex, the Trump administration would be at risk of losing factories, jobs, and tax and export revenues if it scraps the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, Trump's election is unlikely to impede the growth of the clean energy sector, so we should not let ourselves get too carried away.
However, I must emphasize that the people who are affected must also have a say in decisions that will have a bearing on their future. In Quebec, social licence is key, and the Alliance de l'énergie de l'Est is an example of this. Two of the alliance's new projects, totalling nearly 500 megawatts, were approved by Hydro-Québec in late January. The alliance represents 209 communities from the Montmagny RCM to the Magdalen Islands. It emphasizes social licence and maximizing economic spinoffs. As for Quebec jobs, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, a board of labour market partners that was created over 20 years ago, prioritizes balance and worker participation. There are committees in every region that help identify needs. There are committees where employers, worker representatives and organizations in this field collaborate with the Quebec departments of labour and education. Is this not a fine example?
We need skilled workers, yes, but training them is Quebec's role. This brings me to recommendation 16: “That the Government of Canada collaborate with provinces and territories to invest more in skills training, including skills upgrading and requalification programs”. We have certain reservations about this recommendation, namely whether it can be implemented while respecting jurisdictional boundaries and the cutting-edge initiatives Quebec has already rolled out.
Let us consider a non-Quebec example. One tangible risk for investment in the clean energy sector is Alberta's moratorium on renewable energy. From Canada's standpoint, Alberta's seven-month moratorium on renewable energy projects and the dozens of projects that have been cancelled as a result have discouraged investors in this sector. While Alberta is hitting the brakes on clean energy development, other provinces are forging ahead and developing their renewable energy production capabilities. In Quebec, clean technology development is already well under way. To help Quebec decarbonize, Hydro‑Québec is counting on renewable energy sources to deliver more energy capacity. It plans to add 10,000 megawatts of new wind capacity to its grid by 2035.
As for coordination among different levels of government and recommendation 8, which reads, “That the Government of Canada coordinate energy retrofit programs with provincial programs to facilitate access to Canadians”, Quebec introduced a number of energy efficiency programs years ago, including EcoPerformance, Roulez vert, Technoclimat and Éconologis. In terms of collaboration, there is no problem. Quebec has proven that it is open to coordinating its provincial programs with federal ones, such as the Quebec government's Rénoclimat program and Ottawa's Canada Greener Homes Loan program, both of which deal with energy efficiency retrofits.
In conclusion, in the fight against climate change, we must not put all of our eggs in one basket. Technology is not a magic pill that will solve all our problems. It is just one of several tools that we must use to protect our health and the health of the environment.
Madam Speaker, I really liked everything I heard. There were a lot of good ideas. I agree that technology alone will not solve all our climate change problems. The Conservative Party here in the House has no plan for fighting climate change. Could my colleague suggest a few ideas about how to convince the Conservatives that this is important for our economy, our country and our children?
Madam Speaker, in my speech, I did try to convince the Conservative Party and the official opposition by providing figures on employment and pay. They are not even my figures, they are the ones that were given to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during a study proposed by the Conservative Party itself. I hope that, instead of seeing green technologies as something that is good only for a few people, the Conservatives will see that they are good for everyone. It is a good employment sector that is growing, and we need to prioritize it for the sake of our health and the health of the environment, as I said in my conclusion.
Madam Speaker, I will have the opportunity to delve into the points my colleague raised concerning my party and, of course, green energy. I think that she will be very happy to hear that.
I would like to mention that the member was elected nine years ago, at the same time as me. She has announced that she will not be running for re-election. I would like to thank her for her work and for representing her constituents so effectively for the past nine years. Maybe she will go back to her union roots. Maybe we will have a chance to see each other again. I would like to commend this colleague for her co-operative spirit and hard work. She was voted the most collegial MP five or six years ago, if I remember correctly.
Anyway, we are here to do a job as MPs. She mentioned recommendation 16 regarding federal-provincial collaboration. Having sat in the House for nine years and seen what the government is doing, does she still trust the federal Liberal government to coordinate and collaborate with the provinces, or would she say that this government has in fact constantly interfered in the provinces' jurisdictions over the past nine years?
Madam Speaker, I have to say that the Liberal government has struggled with respect for jurisdiction, even though, not that long ago, at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Minister of Environment again saw fit to lecture me about respecting jurisdiction. That is not okay. I was talking about greenhouse gases. The federal government is responsible for pipes and pipelines. It is also responsible for offshore development. When the federal government allows offshore drilling, that is within its jurisdiction. I am happy to provide that little primer on how the Constitution works. The idea is to ensure due regard for our jurisdiction.
That is why people eventually come to the realization that, if we had our own country, maybe we could handle our own affairs.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I, too, enjoy sitting on the environment committee with the hon. member. She is going to be dearly missed in the House.
She raised the point of the environment minister lecturing her about jurisdiction. It was in the context of Bay du Nord. The government has approved not only the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is going to cost taxpayers $35 billion, threaten our west coast and increase emissions around the globe, but also Bay du Nord.
Can the member speak about the hypocrisy, the contradictions, in an environment minister, and a government, that claims to be a climate leader but then approves these kinds of projects and buys a pipeline?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, let us take another look at what happened at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last week.
The federal government is responsible for pipes. It is responsible for pipelines and offshore drilling, while the provinces are responsible for natural resources. In other words, the government has decided to drill in restricted areas where there should be no drilling because they are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces.
That, to me, is an ungovernable country.
Madam Speaker, I too want to take a few seconds as well to salute my colleague from Repentigny who, unfortunately, will not be with us for the next election. In our caucus, we affectionately call her our eco-warrior, or Momo, which is shorter and simpler. I salute her because she is an inspiration to many colleagues.
Today, we are talking about support for clean technologies. An article published in this morning's newspapers states that partisan politics is basically the biggest obstacle to our decarbonization efforts. As it happens, that answer came from someone I admire a lot, Normand Mousseau, the scientific director of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier. He gave that answer to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who asked him why Canada's decarbonization performance has been so disappointing. I will read Mr. Mousseau's statement, because it is worth noting.
There's a consistency problem at the federal level, because it's very hard to move projects forward with parties that are so far apart on the very objective of [decarbonization]....
That is part of why there is such a big problem. Why is Canada, in particular, having so much trouble holding its own when it comes to clean technologies? It is because different parties are taking completely different positions. Business people are reluctant to invest in major projects if there is no predictability.
The signal that the Leader of the Opposition regularly sends is that he does not believe in global warming. Most of the Conservatives' opposition days have been devoted to eliminating the carbon tax, which is probably one of the key tools for transitioning to clean energy, so the only possible conclusion we can draw is that he does not believe in global warming.
Just last week, when we had the emergency debate on U.S. tariffs, the Leader of the Opposition repeated that he believes Canada needs more oil and gas pipelines and needs to export more energy. If I were a clean energy investor, knowing full well that the next government will probably be Conservative, I do not think I would be willing to invest much of my money in clean energy projects. That is what Professor Mousseau was saying this morning. I do not think that Professor Mousseau is particularly partisan. He is the scientific director of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier, a top expert on energy matters. This is the typical dynamic when the federal government is dealing with the energy file. Why are opinions so polarized? It is because Canada is under the thumb of the oil and gas industry.
As proof, consider the Trans Mountain fiasco. Let me make an evocative comparison. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that we put $4.6 billion into Trans Mountain that we will never get back. The government will never get that money back. It threw $4.6 billion out the window, and the project itself cost $34 billion.
Let me remind members that the federal government announced in 2023 that its ambitious plan to electrify and decarbonize the Canadian economy would cost $40 billion, yet a single fossil fuel project cost $34 billion. The most ambitious plan in the history of government, according to our Liberal colleagues, was going to cost $40 billion. That is just awful. This comparison shows how awful it is.
Why should anyone consider investing in clean technologies when the federal government is basically saying that, if we want the pipeline to be profitable, we will have to be slaves to oil for the next 40 years? Not only that, but if we want the pipeline to be profitable, we need to pick up the pace and produce even more barrels of oil. According to the figures provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that is totally inconsistent. According to the IPCC, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to reduce our oil consumption by 62%. Moreover, if we do not have a carbon capture and sequestration strategy, which is a mere pipe dream, as I will demonstrate later, we will have to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 70%. That is if we want to stick to a 1.5-degree-Celsius increase in global temperatures.
What we are doing, however, is investing $34 billion in infrastructure so as to maximize oil consumption. If that is not inconsistent, then I honestly do not know what is.
I will get back to this insanity now. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, if we want to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we have to reduce our oil consumption by 62%, and that is with with carbon capture and sequestration strategies. Speaking of this carbon capture and sequestration nonsense, not too long ago Suncor CEO Rich Kruger came out and said, “We have a bit of a disproportionate emphasis on the longer-term energy transition”.
Suncor's Rich Kruger wondered why so much energy had to be dedicated to these new technologies. He said that the focus should instead be on the commercial interest, the oil sands. We do not have to agree with him, but at least he was being frank. This is indicative of what we see in the oil and gas sector.
Oil companies know full well that carbon capture and sequestration strategies cost a fortune and that the pipe dream of producing net-zero oil makes about as much sense as making diet poutine. It will never happen.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mario Simard: Madam Speaker, I got a Liberal member to react by talking about poutine. That is good.
Business people are no dummies. What these big oil companies are saying is that Ottawa should be assuming the risks. If we want low-carbon oil, it will not be the greedy oil and gas sector that will take on the risks, it will be the federal government. Taxpayers are the ones who will have to assume the risks on behalf of the oil companies, which have been raking in record profits since the end of the pandemic. It that is not indecent, I do not know what is.
What we know about carbon capture and sequestration strategies is that their effectiveness remains unproven. However, there is a consortium of corporations known as the Pathways Alliance. Many have probably heard of it already. It is a consortium comprising all the big oil companies. In fact, in a moment of rare lucidity the Leader of the Opposition said that these people were harmful and served no purpose. For once, I had to agree with the leader of the official opposition. I hope he keeps repeating that message.
The Pathways Alliance is an oil consortium that was investigated by the Competition Bureau for false advertising. It even had to remove from its website statements claiming that it was able to make the oil sands carbon neutral. The Pathways Alliance, whose greenwashing practices were revealed in 2024 and which was forced to remove false statements from its website, wants almost $16 billion in funding from the federal government for carbon capture and sequestration projects.
The government would bear the costs. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance announced their intention to reach an agreement with the consortium by 2024 through the Canada growth fund, or CGF. The CGF falls outside Ottawa's accounting purview. We have no control over it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General can do nothing. In addition to the CGF, the government would use tax credits available only to oil-producing provinces to achieve its goals.
In my opinion, this amounts to throwing public funds out the window. There are, however, interesting critical minerals initiatives. I am thinking in particular about phosphate. The government agreed to put phosphate on the list of critical minerals, but without the associated tax credits. What is the point? I will not even mention hydrogen. The federal government was forced to lower its projections on hydrogen by 80%.
I am ready to answer my colleagues' questions. I will end my speech by saying, “turlututu, chapeau pointu”, what absolute nonsense.
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague, who often shows up at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and makes a great contribution to the committee.
I would like to address the Conservatives' discourse on climate change. Everything appears to revolve around a single solution, namely, spending government money to develop green technologies. That is a one-dimensional strategy that would break the federal budget.
Does the member agree that we need a portfolio of measures, including carbon pricing and investments in natural spaces that would absorb greenhouse gases? Does he really think it is wise to put all our eggs in one basket?
Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Conservatives will put all their eggs in one basket. I think that they are simply going to do away with any and all measures intended to support the implementation of clean energies.
As I see it, Conservatives are Liberals with very few scruples. They know full well that oil pollutes, but are they prepared to put measures such as emissions caps in place?
They will simply do away with emissions caps. Companies with clean energy projects will find themselves defunded. That is the concern of many stakeholders in the energy sector and, in my opinion, they are right to be concerned.
Madam Speaker, I am not without scruples, but above all I am certainly no Liberal. I know my colleague was joking when he said it, but I will remember Momo and “turlututu”.
I agree with one thing the member brought up. Yesterday, in fact, in parliamentary committee, I did not necessarily make a big deal of it, but I did jump on the fact that this Liberal government, which loves to lecture everyone, spent nearly $40 billion of taxpayers money on a pipeline project that was private, and not even for sale. The government bought it, built it and it cost six times more than expected. Only the Liberals could get something that wrong.
I would remind the member, however, that he is in a region where a lot of people get around by truck, pick-up or snowmobile. The season is about to start, if I am not mistaken. I think that the Monts-Valin mountains are in his riding. A lot of people will be driving around there on snowmobiles and chances are they will need to use fuel.
What does he have to say to these millions of Quebeckers who, according to the latest figures, have used nearly 19 billion litres of oil? There has been a 7% increase in oil consumption in Quebec. What do we tell these people? Do we tell them they have to buy their oil abroad or can we be self-sufficient here in Canada?
Madam Speaker, I come right out and tell these people to be patient, because transportation electrification is making rapid progress. I am seeing more and more electric F-150 trucks in my region. The best part is that when we plug in our EVs at home, our money does not go to Alberta but to Hydro‑Québec. That will, in turn, enable us to develop these upcoming technologies.
What I tell these people is that they should ask for more and more electric transportation options. When they buy these vehicles, they will come out the winners. The people in my region seem to be listening, because I am seeing more and more electric vehicles. This is beneficial for Quebec. What surprises me is to see a member from Quebec defending Alberta's interests instead of those of his own province.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he believes, and I think most Canadians believe, the Conservatives would scrap investments in climate solutions. We also know they would cut essential bodies that keep us on track and would muzzle scientists. In 2012, the Harper government cut funding to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It meant we had no way to track the impacts of forest fires and climate devastation.
Can the member speak to how scary it is to think about another government that would crack down on scientists, that would muzzle the essential voices we need when we are facing a climate emergency, especially given nine years of Liberal inaction?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I tend to agree with my colleague. The Leader of the Opposition already does not allow his members to speak freely, so I am sure that he will try to apply the same logic to scientists in Canada who do not agree with his political aspirations.
These are dark days for the planet, but it will be smooth sailing for the oil sector in the years ahead.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
When I speak to young people in my riding, they ask me a heartbreaking question: “Why are elected leaders not doing more?” These are kids who are growing up seeing the devastating impacts of the climate emergency: each summer, more intense wildfires; people choking on smoke; the rising costs from climate devastation; and hundreds of lives lost in heat domes. They are looking to the House and to every member here and asking us, “Please, do not steal our futures.”
We are facing a climate emergency. Every scientific report underscores this truth and we have a rapidly closing window to act. Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Liberal government, and the Conservative government before it, are missed targets, empty promises and actions that prioritize the profits of rich CEOs of wealthy oil and gas companies over the survival of our planet.
I want to talk a bit about the Conservatives because they cannot even agree if climate change is real. They claim to care about affordability while denying the climate crisis itself. While they oppose measures to reduce emissions, they also oppose affordability measures. They continue to vote against ensuring low- and middle-income families could access heat pumps to bring down their energy bills, against GST breaks. They also offer no credible plan to address the rising costs of climate disasters. Hurricanes, floods and droughts are not abstract threats or things that are going to happen sometime in the future. They are happening here and now and are impacting communities from coast to coast to coast. Conservative denial and inaction leaves Canadians to pay the price, both in dollars and in lives.
The Liberals seem to want to be Conservative lite. They acknowledge the climate crisis is real, but their actions fall woefully short of what is needed to address the climate crisis. They say they are climate leaders, but Canada is ranked 62 out of 67 on the climate change performance index. I will let that sink in: 62 out of 67. We are in the bottom tier. The environment minister keeps saying it is okay because we are on track to meet our 2030 targets, but his own watchdog, the environment commissioner, has come to committee and said time and time again and has made it very clear that we are not on track.
The government is not on track. It continues to prop up oil and gas companies with billions of dollars in subsidies. These are the same companies that are raking in record profits even as the UN Secretary-General calls fossil fuel expansion “moral and economic madness.” How can the Liberals justify the billions of dollars they continue to hand to big oil and gas companies in public financing for fossil fuels while they claim to fight for a net-zero future?
The commissioner of the environment's reports also have laid bare the consequences of Liberal mismanagement. The net-zero accelerator initiative the Liberals have touted as a key pillar of Canada's climate strategy is a cautionary tale of inefficiency. Only two of the 55 largest industrial emitters in Canada have committed to the goals. The average cost to taxpayers for each ton of emissions reduced by the net-zero accelerator is as high as $523. This is not the pathway to a climate-safe future. Critical accountability mechanisms need to be involved in every climate solution we put forward. Unfortunately, the government continues to show it is not a climate leader. This is failure by design.
Young people and workers across the country deserve better. They are demanding action. They are demanding justice. That starts with listening to the communities that are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. Indigenous nations, low-income families and rural Canadians feel abandoned by Ottawa. These communities are not just victims of the climate crisis. They are also leaders in the solutions that we need. Renewable energy projects, conservation initiatives, sustainable agriculture, and indigenous and local knowledge must be at the heart of our climate response.
What should we be doing? The solutions are clear. They are within our grasp. Let us stop handing out billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas companies that are fuelling the climate crisis. Let us redirect those funds into workers and into the clean economy. Let us implement an excess profits tax and invest that money in retrofitting homes, bringing down home heating costs, expanding public transit and creating good, family-sustaining jobs in the low-carbon economy. This will make life more affordable and curb the pollution that is driving up emissions.
I want to take a moment to speak directly to the young people who are worried about the climate and to the workers who are fighting to build a better future. We see them, we hear them and we will not stop fighting for bold, urgent action that matches the scale of this crisis. This moment calls for courage. It calls for leaders who will stop pretending they are on track, stop listening to oil and gas CEOs, and start listening to Canadians, to science and to their own environment commissioner. It calls for policies that put people over profits, that confront the greed of fossil fuel executives, and that deliver the justice and hope Canadians deserve.
Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the speech. I agree that climate change is one of the biggest fights for our country and our world. It is a matter of our next generations and the future of our planet. It is also about our economic future. Economists from across our country are saying that carbon pricing is the single most efficient way for us to fight climate change in our country, and it is helping to reduce our emissions as we speak, because they are now the lowest they have been in three decades.
Can the member opposite explain why the NDP has chosen not to support carbon pricing?
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Liberals continue to want to spread misinformation. We expect that from the Conservatives, but it is always disappointing that every time I raise ending fossil fuel subsidies, implementing an excess profits tax or investing in climate solutions, the answer from the Liberal government is, what about the carbon tax? We support carbon pricing and we want industrial emitters to pay more.
For some reason, the Liberals think their carbon pricing scheme is the be-all and end-all of climate policy. Guess what? Consumer carbon pricing is 8% to 14%, and industrial carbon pricing makes up about 40% of our emissions reduction plan. That is huge. We need to bolster the industrial carbon price. It is unfortunate that the Liberals seem to think consumer carbon pricing is a silver bullet.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the net-zero accelerator fund, the environment commissioner, in their report, was actually quite clear on the shady nature of what the Liberals are up to. The target for the fund is not public. The formula they are using to measure the success of the fund is not public. They are not letting the public know what they are up to when it comes to this fund, yet they spent $8 billion on the net-zero accelerator fund without the public knowing the intended goal of it.
Does the member believe that the Liberals should be accountable? If they are going to set targets, they should let the public know what the goal is and how they are going to achieve those emissions reductions.
Madam Speaker, it is so disappointing to me that policies that could benefit Canadians and drive down our emissions are designed so poorly by the Liberal government that now we have Conservatives up in arms. Really, the Liberals are giving Conservatives ammunition to attack climate policy. We need strong, robust climate policy in Canada that drives down our emissions and creates good, sustainable jobs in every community across our country. Unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to fail by design.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on recommendation 14. Of course, I will read it. I do not want her to have to guess as to what I am talking about.
That the Government of Canada conduct a gap analysis of the incentives in place for clean technology in Canada and the United States, to study differences and understand policy gaps within the specific regional and national context to inform future policy decisions.
The recent election of Donald Trump puts us in a particularly interesting situation. Canada needs to take a strong position. Instead of reacting to Donald Trump's threats, Canada should promote its clean energy. Exporting electricity comes to mind. Producing strategic critical minerals that the Americans will need is another example that comes to mind. We also have the softwood lumber crisis and need to consider all the biomass that can be produced as a result. In short, Canadian energy policies need to be promoted in the U.S., since they could really make a difference in the North American context.
Could my colleague comment on that? How can we promote our Canadian economy given that someone like Donald Trump was elected president?
[English]
Madam Speaker, this is an important question right now. We saw that, under Biden, we had the Inflation Reduction Act, something bold, something that really highlighted how ineffective Canada's climate policies have been and how we really need to step up. However, now, we are facing a whole new context where a Trump presidency means probably the undermining of climate policy in the United States and potentially around the world. It is even more important right now for Canada to put forward bold climate solutions and to steer away from those climate solutions we know are unproven, risky and expensive, things like carbon capture and storage, which this government continues to funnel billions of taxpayer money into. Profitable oil and gas companies could be funding that themselves.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Victoria. She has a very powerful voice when it comes to climate change and Canada's role in addressing that reality.
I could not agree with her more about how the Conservatives are denying the very existence of climate change. I will come back to that in a few moments.
When the Conservatives were in office, they simply denied the existence of climate change, which was irresponsible. As we will see later on, the result is that people have died and communities have disappeared because of the Conservatives' irresponsibility. Then, the Liberals took office. They are well aware that climate change exists, but they have done little or nothing to combat it. The whole climate change file has been a disaster for the past 20 years.
However, there has been no shortage of resources. The Harper government and the current government provided a combined $1 trillion to boost the cash flow of Canada's big banks in order to sweeten their profits, executive bonuses and dividends. Together, both governments doled out $1 trillion. They also let a total $500 billion go to tax havens. The Conservatives set that up and the Liberals kept it going.
As my colleague just said, the two governments combined have paid out a total of $100 billion in subsidies to oil company executives. The Liberals, in a panic, set up a form of funding to finance Trans Mountain when the private sector refused to have anything to do with it. That cost us $35 billion. It took 24 hours for the Liberals to decide to invest $35 billion in a pipeline construction project that would never turn a profit, as we know all too well. The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that it would never make a profit. Moreover, the environmental impacts are well known.
For the past 20 years, neither party has taken the environment and climate change seriously, and there is no doubt we are now seeing the result of that. Their policies have had real consequences. In a moment, I will talk about the repercussions in my province, British Columbia, but we have seen repercussions across Canada. Forestry communities are in crisis. There have been record-breaking numbers of forest fires. There have been floods across the country. There have been intense heat waves. There have been all kinds of weather-related crises, many of which catch people off guard. The Conservatives deny that it is real. The Liberals say it is real, but they do not want to do anything about it.
[English]
What is the reality when we see 20 years of complete inaction on the environment and climate change, yet there are massive subsidies for other things? Between the Liberals and the Conservatives together, $1 trillion was given in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks, half a trillion dollars was given to overseas tax savings, and $100 billion was given to oil and gas CEOs to subsidize what are massive profits to begin with. Of course, the Liberals are aware of this. There was $35 billion given, with a 24-hour turnaround, when they realized the private sector was bowing out of Trans Mountain.
That is the reality of what we have seen over the last 20 years. That is why so many people are saying it is time to push aside the Liberals and the Conservatives and elect a government that actually understands the importance of taking action on climate change and the opportunity that comes from this.
The reality is that the Joe Biden administration in the United States has put in place infrastructure that we have seen for clean energy across the U.S. Those investments have made a huge difference. A number of American cities and states are asking for clean energy, and if Canada actually stepped up, the market and the job creation coming from that would be enormous.
We have not seen that imagination and foresight from either Conservatives, who are climate change deniers, or the Liberal government, which pays lip service to climate change. It does nothing to actually put in place the infrastructure that would lead to those substantial investments and the kinds of clean energy jobs of tomorrow that we want to see. We know what the opposite impacts are. Canada could lead the world in clean energy investments. We have virtually unlimited ability and capacity, when we talk about climate change and combatting it with clean energy investments in wind, solar and tidal, as well as unlimited potential for clean energy production. However, the Liberals have not stepped forward to put in place the infrastructure or to make those investments.
We have seen the opposite impacts, and my colleague from Victoria spoke very eloquently about this. When the heat dome hit in my region of British Columbia, when it descended on the Lower Mainland, what happened was an incredible overloading of our emergency services. Firefighters and ambulance paramedics will tell us about how they simply were not able to keep up with the emergency demands over those days. Therefore, people slowly succumbed in low-level apartments that did not have air conditioning and that were not equipped for the size and scope of the heat dome.
Emergency services were so overwhelmed that the system was at the point of breaking. Fortunately, this time, the heat dome finally broke. The result was that over 600 residents of the Lower Mainland died in that tragedy. In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, seniors, people with disabilities and shut-ins died quietly because of the intense heat. This happened particularly on the west side of New Westminster, where there are a lot of older low-rise apartments with no access to air conditioning. Dozens died in my riding. Hundreds died across the Lower Mainland.
Members will recall as well that we have seen a number of communities. I spoke about forest fires and the impacts. We have seen entire communities simply disappear in North America because of the climate crisis. We are seeing record levels of flooding, and in British Columbia, just in the last few years, we have had two atmospheric rivers and such torrential rains that we have been cut off from the rest of Canada. These tragedies are all preventable if we take action to combat climate change.
Younger Canadians see the impacts and see successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, that do little to nothing to actually combat the climate crisis, to prepare us for what is to come, to mitigate the impacts of climate change or to ensure that Canada and communities are protected. Seniors, shut-ins and people with disabilities are in apartments that are not built for the profound impacts of climate change. We must put in place measures so that, when a heat dome comes again, they can actually survive such a tremendous, terrible impact. It is a question of when, not if.
We have had successive governments, both Conservative and Liberal, that have done nothing as we have become more and more aware of climate change. What members are hearing from the New Democrats today is that New Democrats believe in making those investments, combatting climate change and fighting that fight as if we intend to win it.
Madam Speaker, Mark Jaccard, Canada's leading resource economist, evaluated the 2021 election platforms. According to a CBC article, he found, “The Liberals have the most effective, least costly climate change policy of the...federal parties”. The NDP was not even second. The Conservatives were second because they promised a price on carbon. In 2019, Professor Jaccard said, “In climate policy, experts agree that Canada is finally a global leader. I wonder if enough climate-concerned Canadians will recognize this, before it is too late.”
Why do the hon. member and his party not recognize this reality?
Madam Speaker, it is true that, on paper, Liberals have great plans. For 30 years, they planned to put pharmacare in place. For decades, in every election, they promised to put dental care in place. They always have great plans at election time; once the election is over, they simply tear up their platform. Their platform was very good, but they never implemented it. That is the problem; that is the difference. That is the hypocrisy of the Liberal government: They simply do not put it in place.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Madam Speaker, at least the Liberals arguably recognize climate change. Conservatives are heckling over there, but Conservatives have no lessons to give to anybody, because they do not even believe in the reality of climate change. I would suggest that Conservative MPs actually talk to their constituents, particularly younger constituents, because they certainly understand the impacts of climate change. They want to see action. They do not want to see the “ostrich stuck in the sand” attitude of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Madam Speaker, as far as my colleague's intervention, I just wonder what NDP members really believe in. With the way they are acting and supporting the Liberal government, I do not know if they believe in climate change. However, they have a chance right now to prove the Liberal government wrong, to distance themselves and to prove that the Liberals are actually fake environmentalists.
Will they support our motion to bring all the unredacted net-zero accelerator program documents to the forefront so that we can see them?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are fake environmentalists, but the Conservatives hate environmentalists. I would at least go with the people who attempt to understand the environment compared with those members from the Conservative Party who actually want to destroy the environment with impunity and have proven that every time they have been in power.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to return to recommendation 3, “That the Government of Canada promote innovation and support the electrification of marine and aviation transport as a means of reducing emissions.”
It was the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers that made me realize the importance of investing in a national aerospace policy, which would allow companies like Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Airbus and all the others thanks to whom we have an ecosystem in Montreal to build aircraft from nose to tail. While that is absolutely fantastic, building planes obviously costs billions of dollars. The necessary money will be there in 15 years. A national aerospace policy would make transportation electrification possible.
I would like to hear my NDP colleague's opinion. Is this one of the solutions that must be put in place for the government to invest where it should in the Quebec economy?
Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely.
I am grateful to my colleague for having asked this question.
[English]
Madam Speaker, when I speak to people in my riding of Elmwood—Transcona, they tell me they need help. The Conservatives claim to care about affordability, but they just voted against giving Canadians breaks on essentials. Last year, they voted against taking the GST off home heating. We know that they do not believe in climate change, and it seems that they also do not believe in their own slogans.
Can the member for New Westminster—Burnaby talk about how it would have affected Canadians today if these subsidies had not been given?
Madam Speaker, I would point out that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is an incredibly dynamic, well-spoken member of the House who began asking questions immediately after being elected. She represents her constituents very well, and she is absolutely right to point out that we need to be making investments that have a benefit in such places as Elmwood—Transcona.
The Conservatives and the Liberals ignored the riding, but the NDP is fighting for the people of Elmwood—Transcona, and the member has done a magnificent job in just a few weeks.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Kings—Hants.
[English]
Nine years ago, under the Conservative Party, Canada used to be one of the worst performers. Organizations such as Climate Action Tracker now recognize that Canada's plan is credible and transparent. The latest UNEP gap report says that Canada has the first comprehensive road map for how to achieve the 2030 target. This was unthinkable nine years ago. Our government has put forward very ambitious measures.
International groups have noted that, at the end of 2022, Canada followed through on our commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels; in addition, we have put forward some of the most ambitious regulations, with the goal of reducing oil and gas methane emissions by at least 75% from 2012 levels by 2030. Building on the actions of millions of Canadians, our government continues to take action to reduce emissions and to fight climate change while strengthening our economy with good jobs and clean industrial growth, making a healthy environment for all Canadians.
First, let us talk about progress. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, since 2005, Canada's emissions have dropped by 8%. Canada's emissions are at their lowest point in 25 years, and we are on track to meet our 2026 interim goal and our 2030 goal. At the same time, our economy is growing, inflation and interest rates are all coming down, and we continue to put forward some of the most ambitious climate regulations in the world.
We are capping pollution, not production, for the oil and gas sector, which is a critical step toward fighting climate change while requiring investments in decarbonization. Estimates show that, if we still had the previous Conservative government, Canada's emissions would have been 41% higher by 2030. That is the equivalent, in terms of pollution, of adding another 69 million cars to our roads in Canada. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada wants to slash legislation protecting our environment. He wants to allow Canada's largest polluters to pollute without limits and drive up the costs of climate change. We cannot let that happen. No sector is deserving of unlimited pollution.
First, let us talk about Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. It is a sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach our emissions target of 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The plan was introduced in 2022, and it reflects input from over 30,000 Canadians, provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry and Canada's independent net-zero advisory body.
[Translation]
Since 2016 our government has been continuing to make historic investments in clean growth and climate action.
[English]
Pricing pollution is an integral part of Canada's climate plan; it is a carbon pollution policy that makes life more affordable while growing a clean economy by providing money up front to families. The Conservative Party of Canada does not want to talk about the fact that the carbon price is attracting new investments and creating jobs right across Canada. As a direct result of our climate action, Dow Chemicals is creating over 8,000 jobs and investing $11 billion in Canada to build a manufacturing plant. The president of Dow Chemicals said, “Canada has market-based carbon pricing.... That was an essential piece for us to decide to invest [there]”.
Pollution pricing is estimated to contribute about a third of the emissions reductions achieved so far under Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. There is a reason that countries around the globe are implementing pollution pricing systems. That is because it works. I will give us a few examples. The entire EU has created a cap-and-trade system, which is working really well. Their credit prices are now at €70 a tonne, which is about $103 Canadian, and that is considerably higher than the $80 a tonne that we have it set at right now.
Many EU countries, including Finland, Switzerland and France, also have a separate price on pollution. South Africa has carbon pricing. New Zealand has cap and trade, with prices at $50 a tonne. Despite what the Conservatives say, some of the largest economies in the United States, such as California, New York and Washington state, have carbon pricing as well.
Our ERP includes over 140 programs, policies and regulations to help Canada bend the emissions curve. They include phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, adjusting the Canada carbon rebate amounts in line with the price on pollution, and ensuring that the rebate continues to reflect the projected proceeds in each province where the fuel charge applies. A 20% rural top-up is available for households in rural areas and smaller communities across Canada. They also include cleaner fuels to power our vehicles and industries, increasing the supply of zero-emission vehicles and energy so that more Canadians can make the switch to cleaner and cheaper vehicles to operate. We are also adding more clean and reliable electricity to help our economy remain competitive. In addition, we are releasing Canada's methane strategy to cut emissions right across the economy.
While reducing our emissions is important for our environment, it is also very important for our health. I would like to highlight the very good work of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I met with them for the first time a couple of years ago, when I was parliamentary secretary for health, and they highlighted a really incredible program called PaRx, as in park prescriptions.
Physicians, in association with the BC Parks Foundation, gave out prescriptions for time outside as a method of improving people's health. They were also doing some advocacy about fossil fuel regulations. However, when we started talking about this incredible intervention to get more people outside, it sparked my interest. I love going outside, and as parliamentary secretary for health, it was really incredible.
Just yesterday, after about a year of work and meetings, I introduced all of these groups. BC Parks Foundation, my local conservation authority, Conservation Halton and Halton Healthcare were there and we announced that Halton Healthcare would be the first hospital consortium in Canada that had PaRx prescriptions available. The healing power of nature is available to constituents across Halton Region now because of the great work of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the BC Parks Foundation.
I want to thank all parties involved.
Next, I would like to talk about the investments for the clean renewable pathways program. That includes $50 million for the Bekevar Wind Farm in Saskatchewan, which will generate enough clean electricity to power over 100,000 homes. There are $50 million for the Oneida energy storage project in Ontario, which will help reduce Ontario's emissions by 1.2 million tonnes. There are over $12 million for the Enterprise solar project in Alberta, which is in construction and will create over 900 jobs. There are also $2.5 million for the Lac-Mégantic in Quebec to help support its net-zero microgrid.
Canada has now beaten China, and we are now the first in the world with respect to the most promising EV battery manufacturing economy. Our investments in the clean economy and our environmental plan will add an additional 400,000 jobs to the clean economy, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. Also, $48 billion are added to our economy with 250,000 jobs in the EV supply chain alone, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. In Ontario, Volkswagen is building its largest EV battery facility ever, creating over 30,000 new jobs, an incredible number for that community.
In Alberta, Air Products is investing $1 billion to build a hydrogen facility, creating 200 new jobs. In Newfoundland, Braya Renewable Fuels is converting Come By Chance's oil refinery into a renewable diesel facility, creating 200 full-time jobs and 800 during its construction phase. In addition to that, the Awasis solar project is a 10-megawatt solar power project receiving $18.5 million in funding. It is creating clean power and good jobs near Regina, Saskatchewan.
All parts of the economy have important roles to play in meeting Canada's 2030 climate targets, from transportation to the oil and gas sector to heavy industry, construction and buildings. Everyone must do their part. As I said earlier, no sector across Canada's economy should be entitled to unlimited pollution.
Measures like the proposed pollution cap are crucial in addressing emissions from Canada's highest-polluting sectors. It also encourages sectors to reinvest in clean energy products that will cut pollution and create new jobs in Canada. Canada has shown that we can reduce our emissions while growing our economy and supporting Canadians by creating new and sustainable jobs in emerging sectors, driving innovation and environmental protection, providing economic opportunities for Canadian businesses right across the economic spectrum and increasing investments in clean energy projects.
All of these investments are skating to where the puck is going, not to where the puck has been. That is why we are strong progressives. That is why we believe in taking action and meeting the moment in Canada and across the world. We cannot stop now. We need to continue to push forward for our environment, our future, our kids and grandchildren and future generations of Canadians. Earthlings are counting on us.
Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund, in which over 70% of contracts gave no commitment to reduce emissions. Upon review of the documents, which we have been put under a gag order, 360 pages were ripped out of them. Does the member know who ripped those pages out?
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to talk about the net-zero accelerator fund, because one of the largest emitters in southwestern Ontario is our critical steel sector. We know that steel is an important product for various things right across the country, from automotive to construction and many other practical applications, but, until now, it has always required thermal coal for its production. Thanks to the net-zero accelerator fund, we are bringing in electric arc technology for the steel refineries in the Hamilton area. When I went to McMaster University, I used to work in the steel industry.
It is great news not just for our collective health and economy but also driving the steel industry forward. That is thanks, as my colleague opposite just mentioned, to the net-zero accelerator fund.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, as we know, my colleague from Milton is often tasked by the Liberal government to defend the indefensible.
He mentioned that there was a lot of investment in Ontario, in particular in Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda. These factories will be operational in three or four years.
The problem is that Canada does not produce lithium. Right now, there is a mine in my riding that produces lithium, but it is not processed. The Canadian critical minerals strategy should ensure that ore is processed near the mine, but that is not what is happening.
In three or four years, we will have to put lithium in those batteries. Where will we get it from? China? How will we make sure that it complies with a policy that is as close to net zero as possible?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his question.
We are committed to building the future by shifting our economy toward electricity and greener energies. There have been a lot of investments in Quebec as well. I spoke about the investments in Ontario because that is where I live, but there is a lot of green and sustainable investment in Quebec, particularly in the critical minerals sector.
I know that my colleague believes in the fight against climate change and in the importance of a green future for our country and the generations to come.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the House needs to hear this again, that some 600 people died during the heat dome in British Columbia, some of them in Vancouver East. Some of my constituents lived in a SRO, where the air is absolutely stifling, and they were forced to become unhoused. There are now encampments as a result of that.
Now we have the Liberal government and the Prime Minister who, during a climate crisis, bought a pipeline. Over and over again, the NDP has been calling for the Liberals to end the subsidy for big oil, yet they will not do it. They say they support Canadians with a half measure on the GST. The NDP is saying that they should in fact ensure that the elimination of the GST applies for home heating and for essentials, and make that a permanent program.
Will the Liberals do it and end the subsidies for big oil to pay for it?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her climate advocacy. It is absolutely horrid to imagine all the devastation that has occurred in Canada. We know that Canada is warming at three or four times the average rate of the rest of the world due to climate change, and it is indeed a crisis.
However, I am very proud of the fact that Canada is not only the oil and gas-producing nation to bring forward a cap on emissions, but we have also ended all those fossil fuel subsidies ahead of schedule. It is also important not to paint them all with the same brush, because we still have some northern indigenous communities that require those subsidies for their power systems.
It is disappointing to see the NDP continually point to carbon pricing as something that should not be part of a responsible climate plan. It is part of our climate plan, and it is disappointing that the New Democrats have turned their backs on that.
Madam Speaker, today, we are here to talk about the 10th report of the environment committee, because the Conservatives have once again moved a concurrence motion in the House.
It is important for us to explain to Canadians, who may be watching the proceedings of the House of Commons and asking themselves why we are still sitting in this situation two months later. It bears repeating a little of why we are here.
First, the question is around privilege and documents that the Conservatives constantly say the government is not providing. What they fail to recognize is that the government has provided the documents to Parliament. The question is whether unredacted documents that are derived from a parliamentary order, from a majority of the House of Commons, should be passed off to the RCMP.
The good news is that we have information from the RCMP. It has come out and said, “No thanks, Parliament.” It is fine with using the existing ways to gather evidence for any type of criminal prosecution. By the way, the government recognizes that the Auditor General's report on SDTC is a serious matter. A third-party investigation has been launched. The government has provided the documents.
The Conservatives have moved a motion to let this entire question around whether Parliament should allow documents to be sent to the RCMP, unredacted, which could infringe on charter rights of any defendants, be moved to PROC. However, for two straight months now, the Conservatives have continually stood in this place to move amendments to their own motion, when every party in the House agrees that this matter should go to PROC.
The record has to be set and understood, because we are wasting parliamentary time in this place. I do think it is important for my colleagues in the other opposition parties to ask themselves at what point would they support a closure motion on this question, so it can go to PROC. They bear some responsibility in the question about what they want to get for their constituents in this place, and what we can do to work together.
The Bloc Québécois and the NDP should ask themselves, at what point, when the government has provided the documents to Parliament—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have been enduring the debates on the Conservatives' motion for a month and a half now. Right now, we have an opportunity to talk about something else for five minutes, but my colleague is still talking about the Conservatives' motion. Can we talk about the topic at hand?
There is a bit of latitude during debate, but the members' interventions must relate to the topic at hand. I am certain that the hon. member will make a connection with the motion currently before the House.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it has only been three minutes, but what I would say is that it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to ask themselves that question. Getting back to this motion, the Conservatives continue to use this as a delay tactic, not allowing other important questions to come before Parliament. When they go home tonight, I would encourage opposition members in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to ask themselves what they want to get accomplished with the time we have remaining in this Parliament.
On the motion for concurrence on the 10th report, I have read the 10th report. I do not sit on the environment committee, but this did give me a good opportunity to go through the report and look at the recommendations. When the member for Portage—Lisgar stood up this morning to move the motion, it was ironic that he did not talk about the Conservatives' environmental plan or what they would do at all. In fact, an amendment in relation to the net zero accelerator fund was moved and that was turned down by the Speaker. It was ruled out of order. Again, the Conservatives want to use this place to get up on talking points instead of getting work done, instead of actually being able to focus.
If we want to talk about the environment and investments in critical minerals and Canada's clean tech advantage, I will use my remaining six minutes to talk about that. However, I want to highlight the fact that it is remarkable to me that the Conservatives want to get up and talk about an environmental report tabled by the environment committee. I have sat in this place for five years and I have not seen a genuine effort by the Conservative Party whatsoever to tackle the question of environment, to tackle the question of how Canada leverages its strategic assets to make those investments.
We have heard a slogan “technology, not taxes”. That is a great slogan with no substance behind how we get there. How are we going to leverage those opportunities we have in Canada? How are we going to fund them? That is the part about which the Conservatives do not finish their sentences. When they talk about these things, they are not straight and clear with Canadians about what the cost would be to reduce emissions and drive up Canadian competitiveness. They do not have a substantive plan.
I will give Erin O'Toole credit. In 2021, he started to go down this route. Of course, the backbench of his caucus wanted to pull him down for even mentioning the word carbon pricing. The Conservatives have not really given a genuine answer to this. I know right now that the question is around the pocketbook and affordability. It is around defence and international security. However, the environmental question plays into all of those things, and the Conservatives really do not have a serious answer on this.
Let us take an examination of the record of the Conservative Party when we do have legislation that directly relates to economic growth or affordability. I represent Kings—Hants in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. A lot of my constituents still use home heating oil in their homes. It is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It averages between double to four times the amount of those who have been able to transition off of home heating oil.
This government worked with the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Prince Edward Island, where the majority of households use home heating oil, to establish a program to help people make the transition off home heating oil, or certainly reduce their reliance on it. It saves thousands of dollars a month in home heating costs.
The member for Carleton said that the program did not exist. He said that it would not do any good. I have evidence in my riding, where energy bills have been reduced because of the efforts taken by this government. The Conservative Party has voted against it at every single turn. The Conservatives have not been there to help support these initiatives.
Let us talk about Bill C-49, which amended the Atlantic accords. This was simply legislation. It was not even necessarily an investment that the government had to make, or an expenditure, but just regulations to allow the possibility for offshore wind to help drive a decarbonization in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada, and create meaningful jobs in my home province. The Conservatives stood against it at every single turn.
What does the Conservative Party actually stand for? The Conservatives want to suggest that this government has done nothing on the environment. I would remind them that this is the only government in Canadian history, which is far from perfect, by the way, and I sit on the backbenches and do not suggest it is perfect, that has reduced emissions and grown the economy. No government in the history of our country has ever done that. I sit and listen in the House to the extremes from members like the member for Portage—Lisgar, who suggests the government has done nothing. What is he talking about? Although I would agree in some facets about the way the New Democrats present themselves in the House as being more credible, sometimes I hear little to nothing from them.
Have the New Democrats not seen the measures the government has taken? Should we do more? Absolutely. Is it our job as members of Parliament, as parliamentarians, to push the government and the executive, the Privy Council? Yes we should, but let us bring some air of reality to what we are actually dealing with here in this place, and to the complexities and the challenges.
I know that some of my colleagues, including on my side of the House, in my party, when we talk about Trans Mountain, and the NDP, suggest it is in the national interest. Would we rather move oil, gas and bitumen by railroad? The market still is calling for these things around the world. My message to the NDP members when they say we should not have invested in a national interest and a pipeline to move the bitumen that would otherwise be moving on rail cars, do they think that is not a safer way to do it? The government intends to sell the pipeline to indigenous stakeholders to be able to support this. These are some of the complexities and the nuances we do not hear in this place and that we do not actually get in to legitimate debate.
The government does have to continue to focus on the question of Canada's strategic advantage in critical minerals. This matters not only from an emission reduction perspective; I would say that, even more importantly in this context, it also matters for our economy and for defence and strategic interests with the United States. We spent a lot of time in the House talking about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship. The government needs to continue to highlight it.
All parliamentarians in this place should be focused on the question of how we can push the ability to reduce regulatory burdens that are not necessarily needed to advance the mining of critical minerals, but do so in a sustainable way. There is an ability to align processes, and I support some of the work the government has done in that place. We need to do more.
I think about things like nuclear energy, the agriculture sector and forestry. There is so much we can do in efforts that drive innovation in those traditional sectors, but also reduce emissions at the same time. We have to continue to focus on the question as one of innovation and of economic growth. Of course, at the end of the day, if it reduces emissions and drives environmental benefit, that is the triple bottom-line win we should be looking for.
I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues in this place.
Madam Speaker, some of what the member said was deeply concerning. When I questioned the environment minister about the Trans Mountain expansion project and asked him whether he, as someone who has spoken against pipeline expansions in the past, stood by his government's decision or thought it was a mistake, he could not answer.
However, the member seems to be championing the Trans Mountain expansion, something that cost $35 billion, taxpayer money poured into the pipeline that is actually tripling the capacity to export diluted bitumen to our coast. It is not just about the bitumen that would otherwise be shipped there; it is also about increasing capacity. It is about expanding the tar sands, the oil sands.
Does the member stand by his government's decision to waste taxpayer money on a pipeline that is an economic and environmental disaster?
Madam Speaker, I was concerned when the member for Victoria, who certainly purports herself in this place to be a strong environmental champion, had very little to say when the NDP backed away from the importance of carbon pricing as a credible plan to be able to move—
Madam Speaker, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 3, when members repeat inaccurate information again and again, the Speaker can rule that out of order. I have responded many a time to the issue, and the member knows full well that we support industrial carbon pricing, that carbon pricing is an important part of our—
That is more of a point of debate. The hon. member can rise on it afterwards.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.
Madam Speaker, I guess what I would say is similar to the member's question. Sometimes members of Parliament, even within the same party, have different views. I am glad to know she supports a consumer carbon price and will continue to push the leader of the NDP to change and reverse his policies as the environmental critic.
With respect to the point around Trans Mountain, the member will remember a podcast we did with Althia Raj five years ago in my office, where I said that at the end of the day, the government has a responsibility to look at the national interest. We are providing a safer way to move the bitumen that is already going to move, by the way.
The question the government had is whether we should move bitumen by railroad or whether we should build a pipeline, which is a safer way to do it; should be able to sell the pipeline back to indigenous partners; and should be able to drive economic interests that matter in this country. I believe that the government and the Liberal party have a level of nuance on this. I would encourage the member opposite to certainly ask questions in her own house about where the NDP stands on its own plans around the environment.
Madam Speaker, the member talked about a few particular energy projects for which I want to take a moment here.
The finance minister came to committee and said she thought the government could get back more money than it has spent on TMX, meaning that she thinks it can receive close to $37 billion on its pipeline. The PBO said that it would probably be lucky to get $27 billion; he does not think the government is going to be able to make up all of the money it has wasted on the pipeline. Why did the Liberals have to spend $34 billion on a pipeline? It was because of the regulatory uncertainty that chased away the private sector proponent that would have built it itself.
The Impact Assessment Act was unconstitutional then and still is now. That is important for the Atlantic accord, which impacts the member's region of the country.
When we look at what the government is doing, we see that it continues to mess things up all the time. How on earth is it ever going to get its money back on TMX?
Madam Speaker, I will respond very quickly, because my hon. colleague covered a lot.
First of all, the Atlantic accord is a joint jurisdiction, so while the Conservatives like to bring up the Impact Assessment Act, it does not apply in the context of the Atlantic accord. Therefore I will correct the record or certainly help educate the member on that particular point.
As it relates to the Conservatives, the irony of course, and the level of nuance, is that the government has to be mindful of the global transition that is happening on energy. We chose to make an investment. I will remind the hon. member that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party did nothing to actually expand access to our natural resource market with things like pipelines. That never happened.
Therefore we can have an honest and reasonable conversation about whether or not the government should have gotten involved or not. I believe that it made the right choice, that the costs associated with it will be recovered and that the investment it made is in the national interest. The member represents western Canada. One would think he would get up and support those types of decisions that have been made by the government.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a reasonable conversation. I would like to have a reasonable conversation with him. I heard him defend Trans Mountain and the $34 billion spent on a pipeline. I find that a little strange.
Now his government is about to invest billions of dollars in carbon capture, even though everyone knows, since it has been proven, that this technology is not working anywhere else.
Does my colleague not think this technology should be scientifically validated before we sink any public money into it? Is he not sick of seeing money being wasted on nothing?
Madam Speaker, regarding the importance of Canada's natural resources sector, the oil sector, which is primarily in western Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, is extremely important to Canada's economy, particularly considering the money that flows to the provinces.
This sector, with its investments and the revenue it generates, is extremely important for the economy in Quebec and Nova Scotia, particularly when it comes to the resources needed for social programs.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues today for debating concurrence in a committee report from the environment department on the path forward. In relation to this, one of the main things we come at in our dissenting report is that despite claiming that the cost of carbon tax would address climate change, the current Liberal government has failed to meet any carbon climate target. This is something that has to be brought forth here very specifically.
The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development Canada provided five reports to Parliament just a few weeks ago, in which he illustrated exactly what the government was not accomplishing with all of its efforts in this respect. When I say efforts, I mean up to 140 programs across government that are spending money and not reducing emissions at all.
I will go into a lot of the guts of the reports, particularly the report in which the commissioner talks about the net-zero transition and where we are with respect to getting towards net zero in our economy, because he makes some significant statements in this regard. He goes on about this, saying, “Missing and inconsistent information, delays in launching important measures, and a lack of reliability in projections hindered the credibility of the plan.”
Before I go any further, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Recognize that we are getting zero emissions at the end of the day out of all the programs. Tens of billions are being spent on climate changes, effectively, the latest one of course being the emissions cap, which is a pie-in-the-sky thing, and we are going to eliminate emissions without putting down production. The only way we are actually going to eliminate emissions in Canada at this stage is by undoing our economy.
Especially in our resource production, undoing our economy means that resources are being produced elsewhere, which would mean higher emissions, lower labour standards and less benefit for the world. Therefore we continue on the path of making sure the government is exposed for the folly of its approach to how they are trying to get at emissions, because the emissions are not appearing at the end of the day.
I will go on with another of the commissioner's reports. He said, “The recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate actions taken by governments but were instead because of revisions to the data or methods used in modelling.” For 20 years, the department of environment has had a model that is not transparent about how it is measuring emissions in the Canadian economy. As the environment commissioner has stated, the whole model is flawed. Nobody can see it; therefore, it is effectively flawed.
The only way to reduce emissions is to change the inputs in its own modelling. This does not reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; all it does is make the model look like we are accomplishing something when we are accomplishing next to nothing. What we are accomplishing is the shutdown of the most productive part of the Canadian economy, our resource industry. That is part of what the government's virtue signalling is all about: saying we are doing something, but changing the metrics of how we measure what we are doing. The Liberals are trying to fool the Canadian public. It is deceitful and has to be exposed at its highest level.
It is not the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre but the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who actually said very clearly that the Liberals are monkeying around with the numbers. The next monkeying around they will do of course is to include in the numbers the actual absorption of CO2 embedded in Canada's forests, to make it look like they have actually accomplished something although that was not part of the inputs from the get-go.
There are a whole bunch of quotes from the commissioner that are very important, and I am going to go through a few more of them. Here is one: “This issue of the lack of transparency in the modelling continues to be an ongoing concern, which can undermine the trust and credibility in the reported progress.” Did members hear that? The government has lost all kinds of trust with Canadians and has also lost credibility with anybody who is paying attention to emissions and to our energy production systems in Canada, which need to be sustained in order for us to continue with our prosperous economy and to continue as a world leader in emissions reduction.
Fully three-quarters of the amount of money spent by private enterprise in this country on climate emissions reductions is spent by the oil and gas industry in making sure it gets cleaner production. That production, specifically in the oil sands, on the emissions profile per barrel of oil produced has gone down by 26% in the last 20 years. That outperforms any other industry in Canada as far as reductions associated with technological advances. When my colleague across the way talks about technology not taxes, we have clear illustrations of how that works.
Businesses spending money on technology as opposed to spending money on taxes actually advance the science and advance the utilization of carbon-reducing emissions. This is what we are after at the end of the day. We want less carbon emissions per unit of production. We want to make sure we have a sustainable economy going forward. We want to replace carbon being produced around the world with more carbon-efficient and less-emitting options available here in Canada.
I will conclude with a quote from the commissioner of the environment: “This lack of transparency meant that accountabilities for reducing emissions remained unclear.” I beseech my colleagues on the other side of the House. It is not the opposition saying this; it is the government's own commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who is saying the Liberals are not getting anything done. The only thing they are accomplishing in numbers, and the numbers are down slightly from their peak pre-COVID, is not necessarily a result of anything the programs have designed; it is a result, significantly, of changes to the model.
Now, the Liberals can change their input models all they want, but in the end, the world is getting more carbon in the atmosphere. We have to actually get less carbon in the atmosphere, so we need to find some programs and find some technology that actually accomplishes that. However, the government seems strained on that because it is bent toward that whole regulation and control as opposed to innovation and market decisions, which are going to be part of the future and the solution.
I said to my constituents, “When you have dug a hole this deep, it is time to stop digging.” That is the main thing. The Liberals have gone down the rat hole, and making sure they are producing less emissions is no longer their goal. The goal is to push more money out the door, and I am particularly worried about this—
When the hon. member is turning his pages, it is hitting the microphones and causing a lot of distraction and difficulties for the interpreters. I would caution him on that. I know that he is as worried as I am about the interpreters.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Madam Speaker, it the first time I have heard that complaint. I apologize. I do have pages here, and I do have to flip them; we do go from significant preparation here. However, I will put this away and just go from what I know of the subject matter as opposed to the notes I have.
We have done a lot in this country. We have overspent tens of billions of dollars in this effort and gotten nowhere. Where has that money gone? I think Canadians need to know where that money has gone. It has gone into a bunch of self-serving organizations this government uses. I used these words before and I mean them very clearly: They are paid propagandists.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development is getting $30 million from the government to pursue efforts that are all over the map as far as what they are measuring, and it has no expertise in actually delivering. The Canadian Climate Institute was at one of our committee meetings not long ago. We can take a look at what it is actually delivering, and it was getting, at that point, $11 million going up to $30 million. It is actually giving advice to the Department of the Environment because the Department of the Environment has no advice of its own. It is now, effectively, a department captured by special interest groups that get paid a lot of money to be special interest groups and therefore spin that wheel. Canadian taxpayer dollars are going out the door, with all kinds of organizations and individuals getting rich, and I could name those organizations and individuals if we had more time.
To wrap up, we are not accomplishing anything in the environment. The government needs to acknowledge that. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has acknowledged it. I beseech my colleagues on the other side of the House and in the other two opposition parties to read the report that says we are accomplishing nothing. We are spending tens of billions of dollars and we are getting nowhere. What more clarity do the Liberals need to make it understandable that we need to focus on technologies that are reducing carbon emissions in Canada as a benefit for the whole world?
Madam Speaker, I do not expect the member to answer my question, because he never really does, but I will say this to counter some of the false narrative in there: He said our emissions are just slightly reduced since before COVID. The reality is that our emissions right now are at the same level they were at in 1998. What is the huge difference between now and then? Our economy was worth about $650 billion in 1998, and now it is worth $2 trillion. Our economy is three times the size it was in 1998, and we had the exact same emissions that we do now.
I would love for the member to reflect, perhaps, on the days when Stephen Harper was prime minister, when the economy was stagnant or even going down, yet emissions were continuing to rise. Although I appreciate the member's rhetoric, it is nothing more than that.
Madam Speaker, I do not know how to respond to the member, because I think I have answered every question he has ever asked in the House of Commons. I will say to him again, in direct response to what he said, that I do not know where he is getting his numbers, because the numbers I have seen very clearly, from his government's department, on emissions in Canada is that we are now around where we were in 2019, not 1998, and that is just pre-COVID. We are going down to where we were before the economy collapsed at this point, and then we rose back up. I do not know where he is getting 1998, but this is my answer to his question. I hope he appreciates the directness of the response.
There is no rhetoric in my speech at all. We are talking about spending tens of billions of dollars and accomplishing nothing. What Canadians need to see is where that tens of billions of dollars went, how we make sure we are getting results for the money we are spending and what we are doing for Canadians.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is beginning to look a lot like Christmas. We are drifting through some sort of surreal world. This is far from reality.
Earlier I heard my two Liberal Party colleagues boast about the Liberal record on the environment. To set the record straight, I have before me an article from La Presse, from November 7. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, Canada has the worst record in the G7.
Our Liberal friends boast about their record while the Conservatives propose to do even less when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases. None of this makes sense. We are truly in Christmas holiday mode. We are in some sort of fairy tale.
The International Monetary Fund led a study that found that, in 2022, Canada directly and indirectly gave $50 billion to the oil industry. It gave $50 billion of taxpayer money to an industry that earned $220 billion in profits in 2022.
Does my colleague not think that this money could have been better spent building social housing?
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see my colleague attacking the Liberals, who are not accomplishing anything on the environment. He is right about that. However, he continued by saying that the Canadian government gave $50 billion to the oil industry. That is a joke. The government gave almost nothing to the most productive sector in Canada. My colleague needs to take another look at the facts.
[English]
Madam Speaker, my colleague says Conservatives want to be prudent with money. The Harper regime was the most outrageous shoveller of money toward billionaires and banks in our country's history. I will just go through the numbers. There was $116 billion in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks with the Harper regime. We had the overseas tax havens that cost us $30 billion a year, according to the PBO, again, with the Harper regime. Shamefully, the Liberals have not ended that practice of $30 billion a year going to overseas tax havens and tens of billions of dollars going to oil and gas CEOs.
Conservatives shovel money off the back of a truck. If someone is a billionaire or a banker, they get that money, but what Conservatives did cut were all the programs on clean energy, including ecoENERGY, which Canadians stepped up to and the Harper government cruelly ended and shut down so many of those small businesses across the country.
How can the Conservatives possibly say they are credible when they did that?
Madam Speaker, I do not know where the member is getting his facts either because the government does not give any money to executives of petroleum companies across the country. It is a productive sector and when it is doing well, all the employees do well. When it is doing poorly, we can take a look at the employment losses over the last eight years while we were in Parliament. It has only bounced back in the very near past, the last two years. There is some significant misinformation that comes from the member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Greg McLean: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the member is referring to when he mentions a government a decade ago that had to deal with fiscal prudence, but I agree with him that the Conservatives are looking at where we need to spend money effectively in the economy because, frankly, the current government is going broke.
I would remind members if they want to have conversations while someone else has the floor, and this is on both sides, they should step out to do that or wait until their turn comes up to speak.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I feel as though your words were directed at me. That said, you are right, and I hope to make amends in the years to come.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I would like to remind members that, for more than two years now, I have had the privilege of sitting in the shadow cabinet as minister responsible for environment and climate change.
At our convention in Quebec City over a year ago, our Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition and member for Carleton, outlined the guiding principles of the Conservatives' approach to the environment. First, let me say that climate change is real. We need to face facts and adapt to it. We must continually reduce pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, choosing the right approach is where we differ. The ideological Liberal government is all about taxation and squandering money. The Conservative approach is much more pragmatic and focused on direct action. I will come back to that a little later in this speech.
This Liberal government has been in power for nine years, and here is this government's record on the environment: Canada has the worst record of any G7 country, ranking 62nd out of 67 countries. That is the reality after nine years of Liberal government. That is the result of their management.
Recently, two programs have provided the most glaring example of bad investments so far. The government implemented one program and continued to manage the other. Unfortunately, the government managed these programs the Liberal way, that is, haphazardly and with a whiff of corruption.
First of all, let us talk about the $8-billion net-zero accelerator initiative. That is a lot of money. Unfortunately, this program did not produce any results, and that is the problem. Yes, the government brags about its lofty principles and sets ambitious targets. The Liberals are always talking about their ambitious targets, but they are not getting results, and yet we are talking about $8 billion. The commissioner and the deputy minister responsible for this file stated in committee that they were unable to directly assess whether there had been a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. I am not making this up. We are talking about a net-zero accelerator, an accelerator to reduce emissions to zero, but we are unable to determine whether we actually managed to reduce emissions.
It gets worse. Let us talk about the testimony we heard in committee. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development appeared before the committee on May 2 and 9. When we asked him how all of this was done, here is what he said, and I quote:
We also found that the department did not always know to what extent GHG emissions had been reduced by those companies that took part in the [net-zero accelerator] initiative, or whether the funding provided would lead to reduced emissions.
It is called the net zero accelerator. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development told us there was no way to ensure that emissions would go down. After nine years of the Liberal government, there is no making this stuff up. Later on, in his testimony, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said, “The majority of the contribution agreements do not have a commitment for reduction”. In fact, 12 of the 17 companies did not have to commit to reducing emissions, even though it is called the net zero accelerator. We need to speed up progress to net zero, but 12 of the 17 companies have no target. What kind of management is that? It is how the Liberals have managed things for the past nine years.
We asked for access to those documents. The government vetoed that categorically. Parliamentarians can look at the documents, but it is important to point out that it is an eyes-only situation. They cannot take notes or photos or do anything with the documents. They can only look. We sincerely hope that the documents will be made public.
Obviously, I cannot talk about what I saw, and I am certainly not going to get myself in trouble. I cannot say what was in those documents, but I can say that everything I saw should be known to Canadians. It was disturbing. All members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have access to it. We sincerely hope that all MPs can get access to it. Conservative members have seen the documents, and that is why my message to all Canadians is that they deserve to know how that $8 billion—the $8 billion they contributed—was spent.
Let us now talk about another program introduced by this government over the past five years, the green fund for sustainable development technologies. This fund was not a Liberal Party creation. It was active under other governments and, as a fund intended to help companies reduce their emissions, it was doing well. After disclosures were made in various media outlets, the Auditor General of Canada was instructed to look into what had happened with the now-infamous green fund. The results were very troubling, not in our estimation, or in the Conservative Party's estimation, but in the opinion of the Auditor General. Of the $500 million allocated over the past five years, this Liberal government had spent $390 million, which means that close to 80% of the money in this fund was not properly managed. Board members were allocating taxpayers' money to their own companies, in violation of the rules of good management.
When people realized how much turnover there was on the board of directors due to conflicts of interest, it became clear that some board members should not be there. So much coming and going should always be a red flag. It seems to me that this should be a wake-up call for people to want to do things differently. That is not what happened, which is very unfortunate. That is also why, after nine years under this government, not only is Canada the worst country in the G7, but it ranks 62nd out of 67 countries, according to the most recent report released at COP29 just a few days ago. In fact, I asked to table that document, but the Liberals refused.
Clearly, those folks did not meet the targets. They did not achieve what they set out to do and, more importantly, they do not know how to manage investment funds when they have them. As Conservatives, our approach is positive, constructive, effective and, above all, not dogmatic. At our convention in Quebec City a little over a year ago, in September 2023, our leader defined the four pillars of our environmental action plan.
The first pillar is the tax incentives in research and development in new technologies to reduce emissions. This needs to be done responsibly and not to make cronies happy, as the Auditor General concluded with the green fund, nor by committing billions of dollars—$8 billion in the case of the Liberals—without any real reduction commitments. As the Ethics Commissioner concluded, 12 out of 17 businesses received billions of dollars without any clear goals. What is that all about? Conservatives want a tangible, realistic, responsible approach that is respectful of taxpayers' wallets.
The second pillar involves giving a green light to green energy. We need more wind, solar, hydroelectricity, geothermal and nuclear energy in Canada. Yes, decarbonization leads to green energy. That is why we need it. We do not have enough. We need more. We need to give the green light to green energy.
The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. In Canada, we have all the natural resources we need for decarbonization. Let us take lithium, for example. As the member for Carleton said when he became leader, we need Canadian lithium to electrify our electric cars. We want to give the green light to green energy and develop all the potential energy and natural resources that we have in Canada to make progress on this front.
The fourth pillar is working hand in hand with first nations. Too often in our history, when we arrived somewhere to pursue development and first nations were there, we signed a small cheque to make them go away because we were going to develop that area. That is not the right approach. We need an approach in which we create shared wealth, work as equals and become partners in prosperity.
The Conservatives are taking climate change seriously, and we plan to provide tax incentives for new technologies, give the green light to green energy, develop natural resources to their full potential to further decarbonization and work hand in hand with first nations. I am really looking forward to an election that will result in a responsible government for all Canadians.
[English]
Madam Speaker, as opposed to focusing attention on the concurrence report, I see the tactic of the Conservative opposition is to continue an ongoing filibuster. My question for the member opposite is related to why the Conservatives continue to move concurrence reports and then return reports back to the standing committees, thereby dictating more and more. We see this as a troubling pattern from the leader of the Conservative Party, who wants to send reports back to committees and instruct standing committees what to do.
Does the member have any concerns in terms of this power grab by the leader of the Conservative Party in trying to dictate the types of issues that committees are forced to talk about because he, as leader of the Conservative Party, wants that issue discussed and is instructing them to do so?
Madam Speaker, it was very sad to see, again, that the government refused to accept an order of the Chair. This is why we have no action in the House, because the government refused to move forward with a motion asking it to give some documents to the RCMP. The government refused
On the other hand, what I want to raise, also, is that he said that we are dictating what we want to say. Yes, I want to talk about climate change. I am very proud to defend our observations and the actions we will take if we are honoured by the people of Canada in the next election.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Privilege
Alleged Intimidation during Proceedings of the House
[Privilege]
Madam Speaker, as promised yesterday, I am rising to make a more structured intervention on the question of privilege raised by the NDP member for London—Fanshawe.
I agree wholeheartedly with all my Conservative colleagues who have already risen on this matter. There is no question of privilege here whatsoever concerning the behaviour of the official opposition. If anything, the actual contempt here was when the NDP deputy House leader stormed up the aisle in a very physically demonstrative and verbally aggressive fashion to confront the Chair. She was quickly joined by the NDP member for Edmonton Griesbach.
That was, of course, in plain view of anyone watching the television feed of Thursday evening's proceedings of the House. She also confessed to it in her intervention Friday afternoon when she said, “After we adjourned, I approached the Chair to ask how this could have been allowed.”
That is a very polite way of putting it. If we look at the tape, the camera was still running after the Speaker adjourned the House. We can see the member in question, the NDP member, walking up very aggressively, waving wildly, pointing fingers and basically yelling at and admonishing the Speaker.
Standing Order 16(4) instructs us that, “When the House adjourns, members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the chair.” That clearly did not happen. If anything, the NDP deputy House leader's conduct reminded me of the incident described at footnote 345 on page 645 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
Perhaps the worst scene in modern times occurred in 1980 when closure was moved on a motion to establish a committee to study a constitutional resolution. Several Members, angered by the closure motion, stormed the Chair, demanding to be heard. The resulting disorder on the floor of the House led to the entrance, behind the curtains, of members of the protective staff on the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms....
Thankfully, it did not quite get that far. We did not need armed police in here to address the NDP's chaos and disorder, but the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms did have to escort, physically, the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservative benches after her unprofessional, erratic and unhinged attack on several Conservative MPs who, in compliance with the standing order, had remained seated and remained calm.
Like I said, if anything gives rise to a contempt, it is the storming of the Chair by the NDP deputy House leader. Had Conservatives wanted to, we could have raised our own question of privilege, which I believe would have been a slam dunk for securing a prima facie ruling from the Chair, but Conservatives believe that questions of privilege should be raised to address serious violations of the authority and dignity of Parliament, not to score cheap political points to deflect from a given party's strategic errors.
That is what I believe is behind the NDP deputy House leader's question of privilege. If you will grant me a little bit of latitude, I do believe that motive and context matters in this.
The NDP is suffering. What we are seeing is the lashing out of emotions that its predicament has built up. For three years, the NDP was in a coalition arrangement with the Liberal Prime Minister, aiding and abetting his disastrous policies for Canada, which has Canadians suffering—
There is a question of privilege on the floor. We are going to allow this intervention to end, and then we will go to the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is rising on the same question of privilege, from what I can gather. If the hon. member is providing context particular to the event that happened, then that is acceptable. If it is other stuff that he wants to debate, then I would say that that is not admissible.
The hon. official opposition House leader.
Madam Speaker, out of respect for you, I will quickly move through this part.
I will just point out in the New Democrats' interventions on this, they had no problem using the House's time to come up with all kinds of wild theories and conjecture about motivations or even fabrications of what was going on. However, I will heed what you have said, Madam Speaker, and quickly just point out that clearly the New Democrats were frustrated that night.
I believe they saw an opportunity to deflect and distract from their decision to—
Some hon. members: Debate.
Hon. Andrew Scheer: No, this is what happened on Thursday night. They seized an opportunity to try to deflect from their own strategic error. That being said, Canadians are smart and recognize what they are seeing, and the NDP knows this.
All that happened during Thursday night's vote was that 100 or so Conservative MPs, proud to be here to vote on behalf of their constituents, were voicing their opinion about the NDP's voting. If the Speaker actually watches the video of the vote, she will see that the four or five NDP members who were voting physically in the House actually reacted in a playful and good-humoured way, like gesturing that they could not hear, jokingly, what the Conservative colleagues were saying, not that they could not hear the Chair or the vote callers. They were actually looking at our members, joking around and playing it up for the cameras.
In the moment, that is how those MPs interpreted the noise that was coming from down the hall. We can actually see the NDP member for Port Moody—Coquitlam jokingly asking Conservative members to speak up, because she was pretending that she could not hear them.
That was the flavour and that is visible on the cameras. That is without debate. That is not my opinion. That is what the Speaker will see if she looks at the video from that evening.
Now, I do believe that all that might have drawn a brief intervention from the Chair, and the House moved on, as it naturally would. It is the Speaker's job to enforce decorum, enforce the rules and apply them when he or she believes that it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Conservative members heeded the call of the Chair, and the House moved on, as it would.
As for specific allegations that were made, I have it on very good authority that we categorically reject the NDP's defamatory, spurious and completely unfounded allegations of anyone being intoxicated. If the Speaker really wants to take a look at the validity of those allegations, the two members who the NDP accused, in this chamber, that was again caught on video, are two members who are non-drinkers. This is not only insulting to them, but it is incredibly dangerous that somebody can use the parliamentary privilege like the NDP House leader has done to make these unfounded and baseless accusations, which now have gone out into social media and have really damaged members' reputations without any substantiation at all. That is really a problem.
If the Speaker looks at the behaviour of members that evening, if there is a question of who might have been intoxicated, it certainly was not Conservative members. Yesterday, the NDP House leader made an intervention where he asserted a number of those outrageous—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. Someone has the floor, and it is very inappropriate for others to be yelling out. There may be all kinds of interpretations, but the hon. member can just put his case forward. I think it is very difficult to interpret what somebody else was actually doing. Again, I ask the hon. member to please wrap it up.
The official opposition House leader.
Madam Speaker, I agree with you, but we find ourselves in this position because that is exactly what the NDP members have done with these outrageous and baseless accusations. I think it is only fair and just that, after making these kinds of allegations, the official opposition be allowed to not only defend ourselves and our integrity, but also put the actual facts of the matter before the Chair if the Chair is going to rule on this.
My NDP counterpart also claimed that pages were withdrawn from the opposition lobby because of what he alleged was the conduct of Conservative MPs. I was briefed by a representative of the House administration relating to the page program and was informed that the baseline issue that ultimately led to a decision being made happened earlier and was completely unrelated to behaviour in the lobby. It was an administrative issue within the page program itself.
I can also say that during the evening there were requests from one side to the other, from the NDP lobby, to turn the volume down on the television that was on. It is a request that was accommodated. This is in stark contrast to the actions of NDP members that evening.
I would also point out that I have been in this place a long time, and on both sides of the House. I have been in a situation where I have shared opposition lobbies with NDP members. They are often gathered together, having a jovial time, just as Conservatives were that evening. I have heard them playing guitars and leading each other in songs. That happens from time to time on late-night sittings. Both parties usually just accommodate each other when they are doing that. We have to share the same space. We try to stay out of each other's way.
This all has come as a complete shock to Conservative staff and Conservative MPs who viewed the events of that evening as exactly that. Our MPs in our corner of the lobby enjoying the evening, knowing that we were about to come in and vote on a confidence matter, having a playful time in the House of Commons, chirping the NDP members who were voting on another side of the issue, which they do all the time. They are now just being selectively sanctimonious.
That being said, let me talk a bit about the NDP member's conduct in the House. We saw unhinged conduct directed at the Conservative lobby coordinator by the NDP member for Vancouver East. Not once, but on two occasions on Thursday night, she used profane language and likened him to a certain body part. On the second occasion, an NDP staffer had to physically come between her and the staffer in question, much like how the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms had to direct the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservatives she was harassing, as seen on the video that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have witnessed so far.
That interaction between the NDP member and the Conservative staff was an exercise of a position of power, to assert authority over and to bully an employee. There are witnesses to this conduct, as well as, I understand, a video, which I expect will be viewed in other forums.
Earlier in the evening, the hon. Conservative member for St. Albert—Edmonton was attempting to record a message for his constituents and Canadians about his work as our democratic reform shadow minister on Bill C-65, which proposes to delay the fixed-date election by a week in order to secure the pensions of 28 Liberal and NDP MPs.
An hon. member: Debate.
Hon. Andrew Scheer: Let me get to the part that is relevant.
Madam Speaker, while attempting to record this video, the member for Edmonton Griesbach engaged in disruptive, harassing, obnoxious and nuisance behaviour directed toward my colleague and his work, trying to derail his ability to record the video. At the end of the night, another NDP MP delivered a bizarre and passive-aggressive rant to a second member of the Conservative staff for the simple courtesy of holding a door, which otherwise would have automatically closed in her face. It has not stopped there.
Yesterday, in the lobby, the former NDP whip gratuitously addressed a gross slur to my chief of staff. I raise this just as another example of the bizarre, weird and unhinged pattern of behaviour that NDP members of Parliament are exhibiting around the Parliamentary precinct. If we are going to ask why pages were asked to leave the lobby, let us look at the behaviour of the NDP MPs contributing to that feeling they might have had in their workspace.
What is unusual here is that the NDP deputy House leader, whose conduct Thursday night was shameful, as seen on ParlVU and in other videos published on social media, was trying to lead the charge for parliamentary civility and decorum.
In June, she wrote to all MPs, inviting us to sign a so-called pledge with four branches. Firstly, she wanted MPs to pledge to “Support each other and call out abuse and harassment when we see it or experience it.” That is exactly what we are doing now about the excessive toxic behaviour on open display by New Democrats. Secondly, MPs were asked to pledge to “Call on all our allies to stand with us to support women in office and call out all forms of abuse”—
The hon. member is going on about other stuff that is not related to the matter at hand or to the situation that happened. It is more debate. Before it can be a debate, the decision has to be made by the Speaker on it. I would just ask if the hon. member has any additional information he would like to put on record that has to do with that particular evening that has not already been raised in the House.
The hon. official opposition House leader.
Madam Speaker, I will sum up by saying the New Democrats have made baseless and false accusations that damage the reputations of individual members of Parliament. The old saying that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on is very appropriate here because they can make these allegations and, just by defending ourselves, we are contributing to the propagation of the falsehood. That puts all members in a very risky situation. Any one of us could get up at any time and make false accusations about who they saw in the parliamentary dining room bar and what one member said or did and not be held to account because the effect of the accusation plants the seed in people's minds.
Secondly, the behaviour by individual NDP MPs themselves was the cause for the breakdown of order in the House. The way they treated the Speaker, someone they have voted confidence in before, is absolutely shameful. They marched up the aisle, waving and hurling insults and abuse. It is clear that if anybody's privileges have been infringed, it is the Conservative MPs who are the subject of baseless allegations. If anybody's workplace was made toxic by behaviour, it was Conservative staff in the lobby because of NDP actions.
The proper thing to resolve this right now is for the New Democrats to withdraw their question of privilege, apologize to the Speaker for their behaviour, apologize to the Conservative MPs whose reputations they have slandered and put this matter to rest.
Order. This is exactly what we have been seeing over and over again when someone else has the floor.
The hon. member rose to speak on the question of privilege. I told him he had to wait until the previous speaker was done. I would ask members to please be respectful. Let us hear what the hon. member has to say so we can go on with the business of the day.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Madam Speaker, I was going to say that my colleague and friend has a great future as a fiction writer ahead of him once he retires from politics. He did not address the question of privilege—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Members have indicated falsehoods and that sort of thing. I would hope that all members are providing feedback, as they see it, but not implicating others. It is incumbent upon members in this House to be respectful of each other. They can put forward views of what may have transpired and the decision will be made by the Speaker.
At this point in time, I am going to allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to provide any other information he wishes to add to the question of privilege now before the House. Any other debate will be put aside until it is decided whether the question of privilege is a prima facie case.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Madam Speaker, I have three points to make.
First, the official opposition House leader rose on a point of order. He did not address the question of privilege. I think that is very relevant to the considerations of the Speaker.
Second, the Speaker apologized for his failure to recognize the member for London—Fanshawe, which is important. The official opposition House leader knows this, and that error and omission is part of his torquing of this question of privilege.
Third and finally, I am glad that Conservatives have finally recognized that the pages had to withdraw from the opposition lobby for safety reasons. That acknowledgement is important for the Speaker to consider on this question of privilege moving forward.
I will not take any more time and I certainly will not get into debate. I thank the Speaker for a full consideration of this question of privilege.
Madam Speaker, while my hon. colleague was speaking about the very thing that I too witnessed on Thursday while voting, which was the member for London—Fanshawe storming through this House and aggressively accosting many of the members, in the lobby, the member for London—Fanshawe just made a knifing motion toward Conservative staff, like she was going to knife us. I just wanted to—
The Speaker generally does not rule on what happens in the lobbies, and there are better ways to address those issues. As I indicated, it is best just to bring forward the issues that happened in the House of Commons, and then we will be able to better determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on the same question of privilege.
Madam Speaker, I am compelled to rise to share this additional information with you. With respect to the day of the vote, what happened was that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, walked up to the Speaker to register her concern for not being recognized and not being able to do her job because of the jeering and the loud noises that were coming from the Conservatives side.
This was orchestrated and premeditated to violate the rules of the House so that NDP members, when they got up to vote, could not hear their names being called. I could not hear my name being called or whether my vote has been registered. I know that was also the case for my NDP colleagues who were in the House that same day. As a result, my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, was not able to do her job.
Afterwards, in reference to the filming that occurred, it is true that there were, in total, five members in the House on the NDP side, and some of us did walk up to support my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe. We walked up there to support her because there were over a hundred Conservative members on that side jeering at her, calling her pathetic and shaming her.
As we were sitting here watching this, we thought we should go and stand with her. Yes, I did make a comment about the Conservatives deliberately violating the rules of the House concerning the standing order because they were instructed by their whip staff to interrupt the proceedings of the House during the voting process when the NDP members got up to vote. This is the sum of what had occurred—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Excuse me, the hon. member does not have the floor. He should be very respectful in the House and allow others to speak.
This is becoming additional information during a debate—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Excuse me, but if the hon. member does not want to respect what the Chair has ordered, then I would ask him to step out.
I will ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to wrap it up because, from what I can gather, this is additional information.
Concerning the hon. member, I appreciate that he has stepped out. It looks like he is having a hard time controlling himself.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
Madam Speaker, the member who just walked out of the House, the member you asked to respect the rules of the House, just made a gesture towards me in a threatening way. I want to note that so it is on the record.
I will just close with what happened on that night. When I was in the lobby, I thought the lobby smelled like a brewery. That is a fact. I hope the truth will prevail because I know there is a lot of spinning and twisting of the facts going on. As is always the case, the bullies always use an aggressive offence as a defence, and that is what we are seeing from the Conservative side.
I appreciate all of the interventions. Some of the testimonials provided for this question of privilege were more in the area of debate. I thank members for their additional information. We will take this into consideration as the deliberation is being made.
Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I will add my voice as a person who was standing right here, which as you can see, is just eight seats away from where—
As the member is adding her voice, I want to make sure that she will provide additional information and not a repeat of what has already been said.
Madam Speaker, if I am allowed to speak and continue, I will do that.
The unique thing would be my perspective, given that I was standing right here, eight seats away from where the incident happened. It is categorically false that there were hundreds of Conservative MPs here at that time. That is just not true.
Second of all, I was standing right here when the member stormed all the way down here. The poor guy holding the mace did not really know what to do. He was standing there wondering what was going on. I watched the member, this many feet away, storm all the way down here with a very confrontational and aggressive comportment.
I certainly would not be one to lecture others about decorum when I am in the course of doing my job as a member of Parliament, standing in my place as an advocate for my constituents, but that is certainly a major distinction from storming all the way down here, with an elevated voice toward the Speaker, all of the pages and everyone around them.
More and more Conservative MPs left the chamber while that was happening. There were Conservatives at the very back who were asking what was going on and saying that the House was adjourned, so let us be done. The NDP members then made accusatory and false accusations of our deputy leader. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes came over here and sat eight seats away from me, in his own seat. At that point, the member came back here and was joined by at least three members from over there. They rushed over the table, to my male colleague, who was sitting down, who had walked up and sat down, and they stood over him aggressively and physically, over the front of the desk and with their voices raised, pointed down at him.
I can be heard in the video footage that has gone around saying, “He's sitting down.” No one in their right mind and with seeing eyeballs can make the argument that the person who was being a bully and intimidating another was the person sitting in his seat with three or four others standing over top of him with their voices elevated, pointing down and yelling like that. There is just no one in their right mind, and this is shown in video footage, that would say this could be concluded or perceived to be anything other than those members of Parliament, who were on their feet, physically and verbally bending over and intimidating the member sitting in his seat. That is backed up by the comments of the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who sits right beside that member.
I cannot remember the name of her riding, and this is not her actual last name, but Ferrari—
Madam Speaker, I thought I was saying a different last name.
However, just like the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, I too have had many professional jobs before I was elected to this place almost a decade ago. This is somewhat like the incident where we all pretended that the Prime Minister did not do what he did in our first or second year of being elected here, when he stormed down to that end because he was mad about the length of time the vote was taking. Our then whip, Gord Brown, was frog-marched by him down here, but was too much of a gracious man to say anything. What happened—
The member is going into some past information. If the hon. member has anything else to add, I invite her to do so, because a lot of what she has indicated has already been raised. Also, the Speaker was here, so he saw what was going on. He experienced it, and I am sure he will be able to provide more context. We also have lots of video. I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up.
Madam Speaker, what I dearly hope is that we do not run into a situation where he experienced it differently and that we all pretend that what we cannot see with our functional brains and our seeing eyeballs is the opposite of what happened.
The members for Peterborough—Kawartha and Kelowna—Lake Country are tough women. None of us are shrinking violets. Many of us have gone through challenging things in our lives, including being in unsafe environments, and sometimes physically and verbally intimidating situations. I can speak for myself in that regard. It makes me allergic to bullies as an adult.
However, I share the comments they made. Never in my life have I been in a workplace where that kind of thing could happen and where there are no consequences. I really am looking to hear what the consequences are for members behaving in a way that is blindingly and obviously physically and verbally intimidating in a workplace.
Also, I will conclude by saying that this place is one of vigorous debate. It is one of where we have a duty to represent our constituents on the most important policy and political decisions that impact every day of their lives. These debates will get hot. These votes will be controversial. There will be lots of back-and-forth between all of us. That is the heat of the political frying pan we all volunteer to jump into. If people cannot take it, they should probably get out of it. I hope there will be—
This is really going into debate. The information was provided before and has already been submitted. I appreciate all of the additional input that members have provided, but for the most part, a lot of this has been debate. As I have said, the Speaker was here. We have lots of video to go through, and I am sure that a decision is forthcoming.
The House will now resume with the remaining business under Routine Proceedings.
The hon. member for Lakeland is again rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, the new thing, though, is my very close and direct perspective on everything, which is a unique perspective. The new thing I am really asking for is what the consequences will be.
We will hopefully see an answer to that, based on the decision that will be rendered. As we have just witnessed, members do get a little hot under the collar sometimes, and sometimes they do things that they may regret later or that are not acceptable in the House. Therefore, I would just ask members to please be respectful of each other.
Petitions
[Routine Proceedings]
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is from residents living here in Canada. They say that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truth, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong and hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine and thousands have died as a result.
Canadian lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific David Kilgour conducted an investigation in 2006 that concluded that the Chinese regime and its agencies throughout China have put to death a large number, in the tens of thousands, of Falun Gong practitioners of conscience. Their vital organs were seized involuntarily for sale at a high price. Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has received about 1.5 million petition signatures from over 50 countries and presented them to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, calling for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China and an end of the persecution of the Falun Gong.
The European Parliament passed a resolution condemning organ harvesting abuses in China and calls on the Government of China to immediately end the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners request the Canadian Parliament and government to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
Madam Speaker, I also have a petition which is indicating, first of all, that Louis Roy of the Quebec college of physicians recommended expanding euthanasia to babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes. The petitioners state that this proposal for the legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians and that infanticide is always wrong.
The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children.
Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of over 27,000 Canadians who are calling for tax relief for those living with celiac disease. Celiac disease affects one in every 100 Canadians, forcing them to live on a gluten-free diet that can be very expensive. The present medical exemption tax credit requires applicants to provide receipts, making it overly burdensome. Only one in five Canadians living with celiac have claimed the tax credit.
The petitioners therefore call for the creation of an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit for Canadians with celiac disease. I want to thank Celiac Canada and everyone who signed this petition. As a founding member of the all-party celiac caucus, I am proud to present it to the House.
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition. The petitioners call on the government and the Minister of Finance to scrap plans to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 66.6%. They note that increasing the capital gains inclusion rate will put Canada and Canadian business at a disadvantage. It is estimated that this change will have an impact on one in five Canadian businesses over the next decade. Finally, they note that a rise in capital gains taxes would strain health care resources, limit access to affordable housing options, exacerbate financial challenges for farmers and compromise retirement savings for Canadians.
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.
On behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, I rise for the 57th time to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is struggling with crime in the area. Statistics Canada reports that, after nine years of the Liberal government, violent crime has risen 50% and gang-related homicides have nearly doubled. Within the last five years, the crime severity index in Swan River has increased by over 50%. Over 18 months, four individuals in Swan River were responsible for 309 total offences, 53 of which were violent offences. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.
The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and community.
I support the good people of Swan River.
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is on behalf of the many Canadians who are concerned about the human rights protections in India. The petitioners state that, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies seeking to establish India as a Hindu state.
They state that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists, who are vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers and threatening or humiliating their congregations. They also state that crimes against the Dalit groups, including Dalit women and girls, are increasing. Moreover, they state that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence.
The petitioners are asking the Canadian government to ensure that all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists be sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful dialogue between Canada and India.
Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about human rights protections in Turkey, Pakistan and Bahrain.
The petitioners state that Turkish, Pakistani and Bahraini officials have committed gross human rights violations against thousands of Turks, including eight Turkish Canadians. They state that Turkish officials have killed hundreds, including Gökhan Açikkollu. They state that Turkish officials have wrongfully detained over 300,000 people without reason.
The petitioners state that multiple human rights organizations have confirmed the gross human rights violations in Turkey. They are asking the Government of Canada to closely monitor these human rights violations in Turkey and sanction the Turkish officials who committed violations against the eight Turkish Canadians. They call on the Turkish, Pakistani and Bahraini governments to end all human rights violations in their respective country.
Madam Speaker, the last petition I have to present today is from Canadians across the country who want to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the forced organ harvesting and persecution of the Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, in which torture and abuse are routine and thousands have died.
They also want to call the attention of the House the work of the late David Kilgour, who conducted an investigation in 2006. It was concluded that the Chinese regime and its agencies throughout China have put to death a large number of Falun Gong practitioners of conscience and that their vital organs were seized involuntarily for sale at a high price.
The petitioners note that 1.5 million people from over 50 countries have signed petitions and presented them to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, calling for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China and persecution of the Falun Gong. As such, they ask the Government of Canada to pass a resolution establishing measures to stop the systematic murdering of Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and to publicly call for the end of the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock had so many petitions, I was afraid I would not get a chance, but here we go. I have a few petitions to present to the House today.
The first raises concern about the government's extreme euthanasia agenda, already the most liberal regime in the world. We see continuing proposals for further radical expansion, including one that draws the ire of the petitioners. It is a proposal to expand euthanasia to include “babies from birth to one year of age”. This proposal was made by Louis Roy of the Collège des médecins du Québec before a parliamentary committee.
This proposal for the legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to the many Canadians who believe it is always wrong to kill or wish the death of a child. The petitioners call on the House to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children in Canada.
Madam Speaker, the next petition is regarding human rights in Russia. Some aspects of this petition are a little dated, but it raises concern about the serious domestic repression in Russia, including violence and other measures targeting those who are advocating for freedom and democracy within Russia. We have seen, while Russia has been invading Ukraine, an escalating repression of democracy activists in Russia.
The petitioners want the House to stand with the people of Russia by working with allies to pressure the Russian government to uphold democratic and human rights norms. They want to see additional Magnitsky-style sanctions imposed against those who are undermining democracy and human rights in Russia.
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting is in support of Bill S-210, a bill that seeks to bring about meaningful age verification for those accessing sexually explicit material online. Bill S-210 had the unanimous support of the Senate and the support of a majority of the House at second reading.
The petitioners note that a significant portion of the sexually explicit material accessed online is not protected by any effective age verification method. The average age of first exposure to pornography is very young. It is, in fact, 11 or 12 years of age, so many young children are consuming this material who should not be. In fact, exposing children to sexual material is a form of child abuse. The petitioners also note that there is a great deal of research on harms associated with this early exposure, including reinforcement of gender stereotypes. These harms also include the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and violence, especially towards women.
The petitioners also say that online age verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can effectively ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights in any way. Therefore, petitioners call on the House to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights the horrific ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China. Falun Gong practitioners practise a spiritual discipline that emphasizes meditation and moral teachings based on the virtues of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance, yet they have faced horrific violent repression by the government. That repression goes back 25 years, and it includes forced organ harvesting.
The petitioners want to see the House do more to combat the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
Madam Speaker, I suspect this will be my final petition because of time.
This petition draws the attention of the House to human rights abuses in Eritrea, as well as actions of the Eritrean government that constitute foreign interference. Eritrea has been called the “North Korea of Africa”. There is a complete lack of basic political freedoms, and many have gone into exile. However, many of those in exile continue to face various forms of foreign interference, and their family members may be targeted with extortion as a result of the fact that members of their family are in exile.
The petitioners also note that Eritrea's government is an ally of Vladimir Putin.
Therefore, they want to see the government engage Eritrean political and human rights activists and pro-democracy groups, take a leadership role against Eritrea's human rights abuses and foreign interference activities, and enforce Canada's asylum law to prevent those who are associated with hostile regimes from being able to come to Canada. They also want to see strengthened sanctions against human rights abusers, and they are advocating for the release of various imprisoned parliamentarians and journalists in Eritrea.
Questions on the Order Paper
Orders of the Day
[Privilege]
[English]
Privilege
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, we have a continuation of a multi-million dollar game. That is really what this is all about. It is quite unfortunate that the people paying for this are Canadians in all regions of the country. Why is that? It is because the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is more interested in himself than in Canadians. At a substantial cost, for weeks now, the Conservatives have been playing this game and denying the opportunity to have all other forms of debate, whether it is government legislation or private members' issues.
The leader needs to smarten up, do the honourable thing and allow the legislature to continue to work for Canadians, not for the Conservative Party of Canada. When is the member going to give his party's leader a shake and ask him to behave in a more responsible way? Quite frankly, he is in borderline contempt of Parliament.
Madam Speaker, I would observe that the Liberals are the ones holding up the work of Parliament. They are defying a clear and unambiguous order of the House to turn over all documents related to the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund to the parliamentary law clerk. The law clerk can then turn them over to the RCMP. The Liberals are hiding and obstructing that order in the face of one of the largest corruption scandals in modern Canadian history. Conservatives will continue to insist that those documents be turned over; it is up to the government if they want to continue this. We will continue to hold up debate until that happens.
Madam Speaker, Radio-Canada reported yesterday that, in the ongoing interference in the Conservative leadership race by the Modi government, the member for Calgary Nose Hill was approached by agents of the Indian government to step down from the Patrick Brown campaign. We do not know whether a deal was cut or whether she was intimidated, but we do know that CSIS has identified a number of names of individuals who were involved in allowing the member who lives in Stornoway to take the leadership through now-serious allegations of interference by a foreign government.
Why does the member who lives in Stornoway refuse to get security clearance and to name the names? Will this member tell us if the member for Calgary Nose Hill is one of those identified by CSIS as being compromised by foreign government interference?
I am not sure that the questions being posed are actually related to the question of privilege, but I see that the hon. member was standing up, so he may want to respond. Nonetheless, I would ask members to please direct or at least link their question to the question of privilege.
The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been very clear. He has called on the Prime Minister to release the names of all MPs who have wittingly collaborated with hostile foreign states. The Prime Minister refuses.
With respect to a security clearance, the Leader of the Opposition has also been clear. He will take the same briefings that the government provided The Washington Post and that the Prime Minister receives. However, he will not allow the Prime Minister to pick and choose which pieces of information the Leader of the Opposition is presented with and which other information might be withheld. In addition, he will not allow the Prime Minister to be the arbiter of whether he violated his oath of secrecy.
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments and the excellent speech that my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton gave when this was debated yesterday.
The Prime Minister has normalized constitutional crises. We are in unprecedented territory here. The fact that the Prime Minister and the Liberals, supported by the NDP, refuse to abide by an order that was given to the government from Parliament is unprecedented territory. This is the longest privilege debate that has taken place in Parliamentary history. Here we are with the Prime Minister normalizing a crisis in what, in our system of governance, is meant to be Parliament's unfettered access to documents. I am wondering if my colleague could expand a little on how unprecedented it truly is that the Liberals refuse to release the documents.
Madam Speaker, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is entirely right. This is unprecedented. It is unprecedented because of the degree to which and the lengths this government will go to obstruct a clear and unambiguous order of the House for the government to turn over the documents. However, this is part of a pattern, as the member alluded to, because there have been other bad precedents set by this government, also in the context of defying the will of Parliament.
This is a Prime Minister who went so far as to take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court to try to hide documents that Parliament and the Speaker had ordered with respect to the major national security breach at the Winnipeg lab. Yes, this is all the more reason why Thursday's opposition day motion cannot come soon enough, and why we need to vote non-confidence in this government and get on with a carbon tax election.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[Translation]
Historical Societies of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier
Madam Speaker, “he who does not know how to look back at where he came from will never get to his destination”.
Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has a rich history that is constantly being enriched by its many historical societies. We are currently producing an annual calendar highlighting 12 historical facts about the riding. I want to thank these historical societies for their co-operation and valuable contributions.
I want to thank the presidents and their teams: Michel Bertrand from Cap‑Santé; Louise Mercier from Deschambault‑Grondines; André Parent from Neuville; Jacques Matte from Pont‑Rouge; Pierre Gignac from Portneuf; Bertrand Juneau from Saint‑Augustin‑de‑Desmaures; Pierre Cantin from Saint‑Basile‑de‑Portneuf; Michel Tessier from Saint‑Casimir; Allen Dawson from Sainte‑Brigitte‑de‑Laval; Johanne Boucher from Sainte‑Catherine‑de‑la‑Jacques‑Cartier; Sylvain Gingras from Saint‑Raymond; Mike-James Noonan from Shannon; Réal Dufour from Stoneham‑Tewkesbury; and Debbie Chakour from Saint‑Gabriel‑de‑Valcartier.
The best way to predict the future is to study the past. I thank them for keeping our history alive.
To one and all, a very happy holiday season.
[English]
Giving Tuesday
Madam Speaker, today, December 3, we celebrate Giving Tuesday, a global generosity movement for giving and volunteering. It is a day when charities, companies, community leaders and residents join together to support their favourite cause by fundraising, donating, volunteering and spreading the word.
This Giving Tuesday across Canada, including in my hometown of Mississauga, volunteers and donors are helping organizations like Food Banks Mississauga make sure there is food on every table and the Luso Canadian Charitable Society make a difference in the lives of individuals living with disabilities, amongst many other great causes.
I encourage everyone to join millions of Canadians this Giving Tuesday as we unite to make a difference. Today and every day, let us celebrate Canadian organizations in communities across Canada, including CanadaHelps, which founded Giving Tuesday in 2013 in Canada along with several other founding partners.
[Translation]
Winter Tourism
Madam Speaker, on May 15, at Quebec's symposium on sustainable tourism, more than 100 stakeholders in Quebec's winter tourism sector sounded the alarm. Lack of snow is threatening to plunge winter tourism into an unprecedented crisis.
Last Saturday, that threat became a reality. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation, in conjunction with the resort, cancelled the Alpine Ski World Cup women's giant slalom that was scheduled to take place at Mont‑Tremblant, due to insufficient snow cover. This event is crucial to the local economy, but it will not take place this year due to climate change, despite the resort's extraordinary efforts.
This cancellation proves that climate change is disrupting our economy and our regions. However, the federal government is lagging behind in the face of this global challenge. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec are Quebeckers. They know how important Quebec's economy is.
When will they take action for Quebeckers?
[English]
Convention on International Civil Aviation
Mr. Speaker, on December 7, we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, a landmark agreement that has shaped a global vision in aviation.
This historic treaty laid the foundation for the development of a safe, efficient and interconnected air transport network, which has brought nations closer together in the spirit of co-operation and nurtured the growth of international travel and trade for the past eight decades.
[Translation]
At the heart of the convention is the International Civil Aviation Organization, a specialized UN agency that coordinates international standards for air navigation by promoting safety and ensuring the growth of air transportation.
[English]
ICAO plays a key role in fostering international co-operation and advancing the principles that keep our skies safe and accessible for everyone.
[Translation]
On this important anniversary, we celebrate not only the global impact of the convention, but also Montreal's enduring contribution to the advancement of international civil aviation.
[English]
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to each and every person in my home riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. It has been an honour of a lifetime to be their member of Parliament for these past five years.
I also want to thank each and every one of them for their incredible support and dedication in helping me to achieve this dream. During this time I have travelled countless miles and enjoyed working alongside such talented and committed individuals, who have continuously inspired me and strengthened our shared goals. It has been a privilege to listen, bring feedback and build relationships throughout our many valued communities.
I will still be their member of Parliament until we can finally put an end to the incompetence and corruption of the NDP-Liberal government.
My constituents should know that I carry forward the invaluable memories and experiences we have shared. I thank them for everything. I look forward to earning the ability to continue to represent many of them in the new riding of Middlesex—London, following the next election.
Sustainable Finance
Mr. Speaker, last week, I was thrilled to welcome over 700 change-makers from across Canada and around the world to the third annual Sustainable Finance Forum in Ottawa. Innovators, industry leaders, investors, academics and non-profits spoke on building a clean and prosperous economy for the 21st century. We shared innovative strategies to align our financial system with sustainability goals, discussed the remaining barriers and explored how we can foster an inclusive and just economy for all.
Finance plays an integral role in addressing climate change, social inequality, economic resilience and some of the greatest challenges of our time. Competing globally for capital investment, creating good-paying jobs and enhancing productivity remain key to Canada's economic success and resilience. I look forward to building on this year's momentum and working toward shaping federal policy that aligns with these goals.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Together, we are bending that arc.
[Translation]
Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to welcome representatives of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, who are here in Ottawa to bring attention to key issues facing Canada's fire services.
[English]
Today and tomorrow, a record number of Canadian fire chiefs, 46 of them from across the country, are on the Hill to meet with parliamentarians about some of the main issues facing Canada's fire services, including issues involving equipment renewal, housing development, electric vehicles and explosives.
The chiefs will also be sharing the results of the “2024 Great Canadian Fire Census”, an invaluable tool that gives legislators and policy-makers a snapshot of the current state of the fire and emergency sector in Canada.
I urge all members of the House and the other place to avail themselves of this important opportunity to hear directly from these key representatives of Canada's 3,200 fire departments. I also invite everyone to join me tonight at the fire chiefs reception to show our support and, of course, to enjoy a little early holiday cheer.
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, I have shoulder-length blonde hair, a royal blue blazer and a black blouse. Today, we recognize the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
Twenty-seven per cent of Canadians have one or more disabilities that impact their daily lives, causing many to face significant disadvantages. The rising cost of living crisis in Canada has disproportionately affected many persons with disabilities, with one in six people with disabilities living in poverty in 2022, and 72% of persons with disabilities in Canada reported experiencing barriers to accessibility in their daily lives.
Canada must do better to work toward a barrier-free country. Let us recognize the contributions of persons with disabilities in our communities and to Canada, as well as recognize the many advocates and those who support and help care for persons with disabilities, who are the voices of some of the most vulnerable Canadians.
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This year's UN theme is “Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future”.
[Translation]
Our commitment to achieving the UN sustainable development goals remains strong.
[English]
Persons with disabilities play key roles in creating accessible and inclusive communities and workplaces.
[Translation]
We need to make sure that their leadership and contributions are recognized.
[English]
Rooted in the principle “Nothing without us”, we are taking concrete action to implement the Canada disability benefit. We are ensuring that Canadians with disabilities have the support and opportunities they deserve.
I want to thank all the advocates working within the disability community for making the disability benefit a reality.
Happy International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, as Christmas draws near, a sad reality is becoming clear in Quebec. Nearly one in four Quebeckers expects to have to cut back on their holiday meals. Food inflation is hitting hard, and many people are having to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.
The Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of $500 billion in Liberal inflationary spending. As a result, food aid, which was intended to be used as a temporary measure, has now become a permanent necessity under this Prime Minister. Instead of standing up for families, the Bloc Québécois is helping this out-of-touch government stay in power and continue overspending.
Quebeckers deserve better. With the Conservatives, they will have a government that cuts taxes, fights inflation and puts money back in the pockets of families.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal Minister of Public Safety who said that bolstering the power of the CBSA to secure our borders was “not a priority”. He said this despite U.S. threats of 25% tariffs, which, if put in place, would kill Canadian jobs and crush our economy.
Last week, in just four days and on three separate occasions, 16 people crossed from Quebec into the U.S. illegally. Six of them were pursued by authorities in a high-speed chase, putting many lives at risk. In addition, we have as many as 500,000 people who are in Canada illegally, 260,000 unprocessed refugee claims and over three million temporary residents who the Liberals expect to leave voluntarily. It is astonishingly incompetent, and it creates chaos and a total loss of control at our border.
However, help is on the way. The Conservatives have a plan to fix the Liberal disorder at the border. The Conservatives will put Canada first and ensure that we secure our border to protect our security and our economy. Call the election once and for all, so we can get to work.
Foreign Interference
Mr. Speaker, we all know that foreign interference is a very serious issue. We can talk about murder. We can talk about extortion. We can talk about political interference.
Yesterday, we found out that we had a member of Parliament in the Conservative Party who had, in fact, been in touch, either directly or indirectly, with foreign interference related to the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the same leadership in which the current leader was elected.
For weeks, I have been asking and challenging the leader of the official opposition to get the security clearance and he continues to hide. I have been saying he has something in his past that he does not want Canadians to know. This is not just it; there is more to it. However, what we do know is that his leadership is a fraud, quite frankly. We need to have a foreign interference investigation across the way.
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, December 3 is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. The theme for this year is amplifying disability leadership.
In my community, there are so many outstanding organizations like Kinsight, SHARE, Special Olympics and Community Living British Columbia that do that work every day.
This day also opens up an opportunity for the Liberal government to recommit to its obligations under article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by fixing the inadequate and inaccessible Canada disability benefit. It must increase the amount of the benefit and remove the inaccessible disability tax credit.
I have another solution for the Liberals, too. Yesterday, I introduced a bill that would protect the CDB from clawbacks to end the injustice people with disabilities face under the current household income-tested system. The Liberals need to act on my bill immediately and protect the Canada disability benefit from their cruel and callous clawbacks.
[Translation]
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, since today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I want to pay tribute to three organizations that are here on Parliament Hill today: the Comité d'action des personnes vivant des situations de handicap, the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec and the Environmental Health Association of Quebec. They have come here to call on the government to take meaningful action.
It has been 18 months since Parliament passed the bill creating the new disability benefit, a crucial measure for lifting thousands of people out of poverty. However, 18 months on, the regulations needed for paying out this benefit are still not in place.
In the meantime, persons with disabilities are poorer and poorer, trapped in a system that does not meet their most basic needs. How much longer do persons with disabilities have to wait before the government takes action to protect their dignity and their right to a decent life? The Bloc Québécois supports their fight.
[English]
Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as the ultimate test of who he is as a leader, the head of the NDP will soon be forced to vote on his own words. Does he mean what he said or is he a complete phony?
The leader said just before a recent by-election, “The fact is, the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people.” I may not agree with that Maserati Marxist on much, but I do agree with him on that. The question now is whether he agrees with himself, because he is the one keeping the Prime Minister in power.
Despite saying he ripped up the coalition agreement and even flip-flopping on his support for the carbon tax, despite voting for it 24 times, it is hard not to believe that this is not simply a self-serving ploy for him to qualify for his pension, while he continues to give confidence to the Liberals.
The question is simple. Will the leader of the NDP support Canadians, or is he only in it for his pension?
Foreign Interference
Mr. Speaker, last week, the public safety committee summoned 2022 Conservative leadership candidate Patrick Brown to appear to answer questions on foreign interference, a motion that Conservative members on the committee, unsurprisingly, voted against.
Yesterday morning, a bombshell news report came out that alleges agents of the Indian government interfered in Patrick Brown's leadership campaign. The interference, unsurprisingly again, was to the benefit of the current Leader of the Opposition. The reporting specifically alleges that Patrick Brown's national campaign co-chair, the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill, was pressured to withdraw her support for him in that race.
We need to get to the bottom of these allegations. Who exactly was in contact with the member for Calgary Nose Hill and what was said? Only then will we start to understand the true depths of the foreign interference that took place.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, no matter what we think of Mr. Trump's tariff threats, whether it is a negotiating tactic or a real plan, we should focus on what we can control. The Prime Minister has lost control. He has lost control of the borders. He has lost control of immigration. He has lost control of spending. Canadians are suffering in these difficult times.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his decisions to fix the damage he has done?
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke with President-elect Trump last week, I told him how well Canada and the United States work together to address the major challenges our citizens are facing, whether it is creating more economic growth, protecting our borders or protecting our citizens from the impact of fentanyl and other hard drugs. We are always going to be here to work together, and I have reassured the president of that.
As for us, here, we are going to continue to invest in Canadians, to be there to support people in difficult times, with measures like the tax break we are offering for the next few weeks, a tax break that the Conservatives voted against.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given President-elect Trump some big gifts. Tax hikes, the doubling of our debt, and the bureaucracy that is holding up our natural resources projects have sent $500 billion in net Canadian investments to the United States to create jobs for Americans. In the meantime, Canadians' personal income, which used to be on par with Americans', is now $20,000 lower.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his destructive policies to fix what he has broken?
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition were truly concerned about Canadians' well-being, he would not have voted against the tax break that we are offering to Canadians for the next couple of months. He would not have fought against the investment in the school food program for an additional 400,000 children across the country. He would not have voted against the dental care program, which has delivered services to more than one million Canadians so far.
On the contrary, the Leader of the Opposition just wants to exploit and capitalize on the challenges Canadians are facing, instead of solving them like we are doing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, whether one thinks that President-elect Trump's tariff threats are a negotiating tactic or a real plan, what we do know is what we can control, and the Prime Minister has lost control of everything. He has lost control of the borders, lost control of immigration, lost control of spending and the deficit, lost control of inflation and housing costs, and lost control of his own caucus. This has put Canada in an unbearably weak position.
Will the Prime Minister reverse all the damage he has done, or will he just call a carbon tax election so we can do it for him?
Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to reflect carefully on whether he really wants to amplify the erroneous narratives that the Americans are putting forward around, for example, our border, when less than 1% of migrants coming into the United States irregularly come from Canada; and where 0.2% of fentanyl coming into the United States comes from Canada. These are things that we would all do well to stand up and say that, yes, there are things we can and are working on together at our border. However, amplifying these broken narratives is simply not responsible leadership.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, breaking things is not responsible, and that is what the Prime Minister has been doing for nine years. My job is not to cover that up for him.
In fact, he has broken our economy. He has doubled the cost of housing, doubled the national debt and doubled trouble across our economy with higher taxes on working Canadians. He is in the process of raising taxes on investment and energy right now, while an American incoming president wants to take our jobs and businesses.
It is understandable why President-elect Trump wants Canadian jobs to go south, but why does the Prime Minister want to help him do it?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians are facing challenging moments, which is why we are stepping up to deliver for them, whether it is by delivering a tax break over the next few months that the Conservatives are totally opposed to, by delivering a national school food program that is already helping thousands of Canadians across the country and that the Conservatives oppose, or by delivering dental care that is making a real difference in the lives of over a million Canadians, which the Conservatives not only opposed but also did everything they could do to scuttle.
The Conservative leader just wants to exploit the challenges Canadians are facing, while we will solve them.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister created all of those problems. A food program that has not served a single meal or a temporary, tiny 10¢ tax cut on a bag of potato chips will not fix what he broke, especially considering that his next plan is to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre.
We can just picture President-elect Trump calling our businesses, encouraging them to leave Canada and set up south of the border where there is no carbon tax and where other taxes are falling.
Again, it is clear why the incoming American president wants to take our jobs. Why does the Prime Minister keep helping him do it?
Mr. Speaker, let me say it once again: The price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of the middle class across this country than it costs it. The Canada carbon rebate is a cheque that arrives four times a year and helps eight out of 10 Canadians, in jurisdictions where it arrives, with more money than they pay on the price of pollution.
The price on pollution is how we fight climate change and build a strong economy for the future while putting money in the pockets of Canadians. That is what we are doing while the Conservative leader wants to abandon not just the environment but the economy as well.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, with every passing day, we gain a better understanding of how the turbulent relationship with the Americans is evolving. It seems there was some confusion about the president's threats. Is this about trade or border security or drugs?
Now, after a long-delayed change of heart on immigration, the government is promising a detailed plan, which I hope will also be costed. When will we get that plan so we can offer assurances to the people of Quebec, Canada and, since we have to, the United States?
Mr. Speaker, we shared our immigration plan weeks ago.
We are investing to reduce the number of irregular migrants crossing our border. We have already made significant investments to hire more staff. We will continue to invest. Unlike the Conservatives, who cut staff at the border, we will invest to ensure the integrity of our border and keep protecting Canadians.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the sooner we get a real plan for the future, not for the past, the sooner we will be able to do something about the fact that the discussions are not focusing on real trade issues.
In addition to the threatened 25% tariffs, there are issues related to supply management, the cultural exemption, softwood lumber and aluminum. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there have been discussions about having a representative of Quebec, who is appointed by Quebec, participate in team Canada and in the future work of negotiating committees?
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, on Friday evening, we spoke with the president-elect not only about our borders, but also about trade, steel, aluminum, energy and softwood lumber. We talked about the issues we will be facing with the U.S. administration.
We went through this four years ago, so we know how to defend Canadian jobs, while demonstrating that doing so can benefit both sides of the border and while working together responsibly. That is what we will continue to do.
[English]
Canada Border Services Agency
Mr. Speaker, the last Conservative government fired 1,100 border officers. This allowed illegal guns and drugs to flow freely into our country. We are all paying the price of the callous Conservative cut.
I want the border officers rehired. I want thousands more recruited, and I want their mandate expanded so they can patrol the entire border. Will the Prime Minister do that?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is exactly right. Conservative cuts hurt Canadians. Conservative cuts hurt our border security. Conservative cuts just hurt the Canadian economy. That is why it is so bewildering that the Conservative leader continues to stand up on cuts for dental care and cuts on housing investments, cuts for the kinds of services and benefits Canadians need, whether it is a tax break for the next few months or school food programs.
The Conservatives only know how to cut. That is not how Canadians prosper.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's inaction allows the Conservative cuts to continue to hurt Canadians.
[Translation]
We need to hire thousands of border officers and save good Canadian jobs. Donald Trump has apparently said that he wants to use tariffs to balance his budget. He is going to destroy the lives of Canadians to cover a U.S. deficit. That is outrageous, and the Prime Minister has to be clear.
Why did the Prime Minister return from his dinner at Mar-a-Lago empty-handed?
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Conservative cuts that reduced the number of border officers have hurt Canada. That is why we are investing and why we will be there to invest even more to protect the integrity of our borders. We have already introduced many measures in recent years to reduce the number of immigrants and irregular arrivals and to stop U.S. guns and drugs from crossing the border into Canada.
We know that more remains to be done, and we are going to do it in partnership with the U.S. administration, since we share these security priorities.
[English]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, despite 25% tariffs threatening to kill Canadian jobs and crush the economy, the Liberals have created border disorder between Canada and the United States. Yesterday the Minister of Public Safety said that bolstering the power of CBSA to secure our borders is “not a priority.”
After nine years, the hands-off approach is no surprise. There are half a million people here in Canada illegally. Unprocessed asylum claims are up 2,500%, and Liberals think three million temporary residents are going to leave voluntarily when their visa expires.
Where is the Canada first plan to fix the border disorder?
Mr. Speaker, we have made clear, and the Prime Minister repeated it again just a few minutes ago, that we will continue to support the important work done by the women and men who work for the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We think it is unfortunate the previous Conservative government cut the money available for this important work.
We have also said that we are prepared to increase both human resources and technology and equipment to support the important work that CBSA and the RCMP do. We will do that in collaboration with our American partners, and we still have a lot of confidence in the work that is being done.
Mr. Speaker, here is further proof of the Liberals' border disorder: Today at committee, the Minister of Public Safety was asked whether more CBSA officers will be deployed on our border. The minister does not know. Will CBSA officers be authorized to patrol between border crossings? The minister does not know. Will RCMP officers be redeployed to patrol the border? The minister does not know. The only plan the Liberals have is the plan to have a plan. It is creating border disorder.
Where is the Canada first plan to fix what Liberals broke?
Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the only plan the Conservatives have is to think up silly new rhymes in question period. What we said at the committee that the member referred to a few moments ago is something we have said for many months: We will continue to invest additional resources in the important work of the CBSA and of the RCMP.
We are obviously looking at all ideas that would help strengthen the security posture at our border. We believe that the security of our border is currently ensured. We believe in the integrity of our borders. We believe in working with the Americans and in continuing to always look to do more.
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister said yesterday that bolstering CBSA powers to secure our borders is “not a priority.” Meanwhile, three million temporary resident visas are set to expire at the end of next year. Illegal border crossings are rising, and the newly elected U.S. president-elect is threatening a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods, which is an economic challenge we cannot ignore.
Where is the Canada first plan to end the border disorder?
Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: Do we trust the guy who renegotiated NAFTA with Mr. Trump, the guy who secured the border during the pandemic of the century and the guy who went down to President-elect Trump's playing field to fight for Canadians to secure the border, or do we trust the guy who spent 20 years making up interesting rhymes and spent 20 years securing one and only one thing, his own paycheque and a bloated pension?
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister's breaking the immigration system, do we trust the guy who did it? There are 260,000 unprocessed asylum claims right now, a record high. That is a 2,502% increase since 2015. There are around half a million people in Canada illegally, and there is a 630% increase in U.S. border control encounters of people illegally attempting to get into the United States. There are the longest wait times for many visas right now, and a backlog of two million applications.
When will the Liberals stop making up excuses and end the border disorder to help Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I guess “broken border” was too dumb to reuse today, so the Conservatives tried something else. One cannot make this up.
We proposed a set of asylum reforms in May as part of the last budgetary exercise while we were putting money into the Immigration and Refugee Board to increase processing. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.
It was the same thing last week when they voted against a tax break, the thing they have been harping about for well over a year. These guys, I will say again, are all flannel and no axe.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I am going to ask members, in particular the member for Dufferin—Caledon, to please not take the floor unless recognized by the Speaker.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Speaker, there has been chaos at the border since 2017. Hundreds of thousands of people have crossed our border following the Prime Minister's reckless invitation. Canada now has 500,000 people who entered illegally. That is on top of the three million people on temporary permits who may decide to stay here.
The Prime Minister has lost control of immigration and of the border. How does he plan to fix the problem?
Mr. Speaker, we introduced reforms to Canada's asylum system back in May. We know it is necessary.
What did the Conservatives do? They did absolutely nothing. They spend their time making up rhymes and puffing out their chests, trying to look tough. They are doing absolutely nothing. When it is time to take action, they do absolutely nothing. They just sit back and do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did, in 2017, was immediately criticize the Prime Minister's infamous tweets. Not only were they completely reckless, they made no sense whatsoever. We have been limited to criticizing for nine years, given that we are on this side of the House. When we are on the other side, we will deal with the problem.
In the meantime, what we are seeing is a loss of control at the border. Weapons, drugs and human beings are being trafficked. Criminals are taking advantage of our weakness to bring illegal weapons into Canada. Smugglers get paid thousands of dollars to bring migrants across the border, which creates an even bigger mess.
Does the Prime Minister have a real plan or do we call an election so that the Conservatives can deal with the problem?
Mr. Speaker, it is completely irresponsible to pretend that they can solve the problem by adding to the existing misinformation about the security of our border.
I would ask our colleague to be more responsible before repeating slogans that I am sure his head office has forced on him. That is not in the interest of Canadians or in the interest of the Canadian economy.
What is in our interest is to work with the Americans, to support Canadian law enforcement agencies and their American partners in maintaining a safe, secure border while preserving its integrity, as is the case now.
Innovation, Science and Industry
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the workers who are losing their jobs at Lion Electric. It is the eleventh hour for the Quebec flagship of electric transportation, and Ottawa needs to intervene.
Lion Electric believed the Prime Minister and his government when they came to its plant in 2021 and announced billions of dollars for the electrification of transportation in Canada. Lion Electric made massive investments to be ready, but the zero-emissions transit fund did not live up to the government's promises.
Will the government finally activate its program and keep its promises?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that all members of the House are concerned about the situation, particularly the plight of workers. Lion Electric is a flagship of Canada's electrification of transportation industry. We have been with Lion Electric every step of the way, having witnessed its creation and its evolution, as it grew.
Hundreds of electric buses will be built under the federal program. We will always be there for Lion Electric workers. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, Rassemblement pour la laïcité stands united with the Quebec government. Both are calling for the government to remove the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to spread hate speech without consequence.
The Liberals have said they are, and I quote, determined to find solutions that meet the needs of all Canadians. Luckily enough, the Bloc Québécois can help them out. Bill C‑373 does exactly that, and it is supported by 66% of Canadians and 75% of Quebeckers.
Will the government finally commit to supporting our bill?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising an issue that brings the House together. We all have the right, and I would even say the responsibility, to support all the initiatives that we can, as the Canadian government, in order to encourage inclusivity and growth in a great country where diversity has been our strength and pride for many years. We are working with the Quebec government at all levels and at all times.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to listen to that again. It did not seem to me like an answer to the question.
Hate speech is supposed to be a crime, period. Either we believe that or not. Quebec is asking that the religious exception protecting hate speech in section 319 of the Criminal Code be repealed. The timing is good, because the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑373 does exactly that. It is the only bill to do so. It conveys a clear principle that deserves clear support.
Will the government finally get behind the Bloc Québécois to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code and abolish the religious exemption?
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the Bloc Québécois's suggestion. This bill addresses a terrible situation in Canada, with hate and hate crimes on the rise across the country, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
To free up the House so that we can advance our debate on this bill, we would like the Bloc Québécois's help. I also want to point out that Bill C‑63 already addresses the aspects and sections of the Criminal Code targeted by this bill. If Bloc members are interested in co-operating with us on efforts to combat hate, we are all with them all the way.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's report card is in. Canadians have the highest consumer debt in the G7, per capita GDP has fallen for six consecutive quarters and Canadians now make $30,000 less than their American counterparts. This is a made-in-Canada per capita GDP recession, and in the face of global trade and economic uncertainty, the finance minister's plan is to increase taxes on energy, entrepreneurs, farmers and physicians.
Will the finance minister reverse her tax increases so Canadians can keep their jobs and investments at home?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem to have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the United States, but on this side of the house, we are proud to be Canadian. We are proud that the inflation rate in Canada has been within the Bank of Canada's target range all year; we are proud that we have the lowest debt and deficit in the G7, far lower than the United States; and we are proud of our universal single-payer health care system, which means Canadians live four years longer than our friends south of the border. We are proud to be Canadian. Conservatives should be, too.
Mr. Speaker, every day I turn around and there is another scandal coming from the government. We are proud to be Canadian, and we are going to fix it after the next election.
Since the finance minister does not like answering the complex question, let us start with an easy one. Last year, she made a commitment that the deficit would be no greater than $40.1 billion. This goes exactly to the finance minister's credibility. Will she confirm that last year's deficit was less than $40.1 billion, or has she broken yet another deficit promise?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Order, the hon. member for York—Simcoe, please.
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are so keen on supporting Canadians, as they like to claim every single day in the House, I have a great idea for them. Why do we not, together, give Canadians a tax break for the holidays? That is right. Why do we not lift the GST on prepared foods so a working mom can pick up a rotisserie chicken on the way home and make it easier for parents to buy toys for their kids for Christmas? If the Conservatives were honest and true to their professed ideals they would be supporting us in this measure.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the holidays are fast approaching, and inflation is forcing Quebeckers to tighten their belts. One in four people in Quebec say they are spending less this holiday season, which is a sign that the food inflation of the past nine years is still not under control.
The Bloc Québécois is complicit in this government's inflationary spending. On top of that, the Bloc has betrayed Quebeckers and is preventing an election from being called this fall.
Everyone has just one burning question. When will the election be called?
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member opposite is not looking at the economic figures, because the numbers show that inflation has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for the past 10 months. As a result of that success, the key interest rate has already been cut four times.
Still, we agree that Quebeckers need our support during the holidays. That is why we are going to give everyone a GST break.
The Conservatives need to help us do that.
Mr. Speaker, the best the Liberal Santa Claus and the Bloc Québécois elves can do for Canadians this Christmas is give them inflationary policies.
Canadians are struggling and will be spending less at the most wonderful time of the year because of this Liberal government's incompetence. The “Liberal Bloc” coalition is no gift.
When will Canadians no longer need a wish list? When will they get the best gift ever, a Conservative government?
Mr. Speaker, that is yet another completely incoherent question about the economy.
Nevertheless, I am very pleased that the Conservatives are talking about inflation, because we have good news for Canadians. For the past 10 months, inflation in Canada has been within the Bank of Canada's target range. That is why we can afford to give Canadians a real Christmas gift, a GST holiday.
The Conservatives need to help us do that.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, according to an investigation by the Ontario coroner's office, an additional 220 deaths occurred at Ontario residential schools, more than 50% higher than previously believed. This confirms what we already know. The Indian residential school system was a genocidal project, yet the government has not acted to protect survivors from rising residential school denialism, undermining truth and justice.
Will the Liberals support my bill to include in the Criminal Code the protection of survivors from denialists inciting hate?
Mr. Speaker, I think the more we find out about the residential schools, the more Canadians realize the horrific tragedies that occurred there. I can say, as a nephew of multiple aunts who went to residential school, we continue to focus on support and healing. That is why we have the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to continue to have these discussions and to open the minds of Canadians to the experience of many first nations who went to residential school, the Métis, the Inuit, but also their descendants. We are going to continue to be focused on that support for Canadians.
Youth
Mr. Speaker, today there are nearly one million Canadians under the age of 29 who are neither employed nor engaged in training. We have not seen a youth unemployment crisis this severe since the Conservatives were in power. According to Deloitte, this will cost our economy $18 billion over the next decade. Will the Liberals listen to New Democrats and set up a youth climate corps so young Canadians can gain the skills and experience they need while protecting our environment?
Mr. Speaker, it has been a tenet of our government to support young people and we have done that in so many ways. There are 70,000 young people who have benefited from the Canada summer jobs program. The Auditor General confirmed just this week that those young people who attend CSJ actually do better in the workforce after having done so. We have always supported young people and will continue to do so.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has introduced a GST tax break that will put money directly into the pockets of Canadians, especially for families who need it the most. In my constituency of Davenport, every penny counts and a temporary GST tax break for the holiday season and early new year is very welcome.
My question to the minister is simple. Can she explain why the Conservative leader and his party voted against this tax break, especially when the Conservatives claim to be champions of tax cuts and affordability?
Although the preamble of the member's question dealt with a government initiative, the question itself did not.
Colleagues, I will have more to say about this at the end of question period, in terms of questions. I will mention to the hon. member for Davenport that, unfortunately, that question does not deal with the administration of government. I am afraid the question is considered out of order and I will be moving on to the next question.
The hon. member for York—Simcoe.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has revealed that the NDP-Liberal government has paid out $3.5 billion in taxpayer funds to tens of thousands of people who were never entitled to receive it in the first place. The Prime Minister loves to spend Canadians' money and he does not care if it is wasted or misspent, just as long as he can pose for the photo. Will the Prime Minister admit he has lost control of spending and his only solution is to raise taxes on Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen many versions of the Conservative Party leader during his 20 years in Parliament, including the 2021 version that campaigned on the GST holiday. Unfortunately, this version has not supported small businesses.
Our government is giving Canadians a GST tax break starting December 14 that will benefit retailers across Canada. In fact, the Retail Council of Canada affirmed that our tax break will create major tax savings for Canadians, along with economic stimulus for our industry. Having more money overall in consumers' wallets should also benefit sellers of other goods not captured in the announcement.
Liberals will be there for small businesses and that will never change.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, every day there is a new scandal after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Now the Auditor General reports another billion-dollar boondoggle, as $3.5 billion in taxpayers' money was paid to 77,000 people who were not even eligible under the CEBA program. Liberals gave Accenture $313 million to run the program without even having to bid on the contract to hire workers in Brazil. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
When will the Prime Minister stop the incompetence and stand up for taxpayers for a change?
Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed this question. What Canadians really want to know is why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get his security clearance. Our leader has his security clearance. The NDP leader has his security clearance. The Bloc leader has his security clearance, and the Green Party leader has her security clearance. Two former CSIS directors have made it clear there is no substitute for clearance.
The Conservative leader owes his caucus and Canadians an explanation. Why does he not get his security clearance and what does he have to hide?
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, it is just more waste and mismanagement. The Auditor General's scathing report slammed the Prime Minister's treatment of seniors. The government broke the new horizons program. There are value for money concerns with nearly half of the approved projects. In one case, the government paid $23,000 for a door in a senior's residence that was never installed.
When will the Prime Minister actually start caring for seniors, end the waste and call an election?
Mr. Speaker, how dare the Conservative Party of Canada members stand up in the House and talk about the treatment of seniors. I will remind the member that her former leader, Stephen Harper, went to Davos for the World Economic Forum, instead of going to King—Vaughan, to announce to Canadians that henceforth, the retirement age would be moving to 67 from 65. We reversed that. That member should be ashamed of herself.
Also, we built the door.
[Translation]
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, nine years of this Liberal government means nine years of financial irresponsibility.
Yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada revealed that 77,000 ineligible businesses managed to get $3.5 billion from the Canada Emergency Business Account. This program was in part managed in Brazil.
Why does this Liberal government prefer to enrich foreign businesses and costly consultants instead of supporting our local businesses?
Mr. Speaker, our government helped nearly 900,000 small businesses through its CEBA loans, and more than 80% of them have paid back their loan and took advantage of the loan forgiveness program. We extended the deadline of the loan not once, but twice. We did what we had to do to help small businesses.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report proves that the Liberals do not know what they are talking about when they say that seniors are so rich, they do not deserve support. The Auditor General showed that Ottawa is not collecting any data about whether its programs, such as old age security, are really meeting seniors' needs, and so it does not have that information now, nor will it in the future.
In short, the Auditor General has proven that, when the Liberals say that seniors do not deserve a pension increase or a $250 cheque, it is strictly a political choice.
Why are the Liberals choosing to abandon retirees?
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about a political decision. Was it a political decision for the Bloc Québécois to vote against every increase to the guaranteed income supplement?
What did the Bloc Québécois do when it came time to support the Canadian dental care plan for the most vulnerable seniors in Quebec and Canada? It made a political choice to say no to dental care for seniors. That side of the House is where the political choices are being made.
On this side, we will always be there for seniors.
Mr. Speaker, again, according to the Auditor General, the federal government has no data it can use to determine whether its programs, like old age security, are meeting seniors' needs.
It seems to know for certain that $3 billion for increasing seniors' pensions is too much. At the same time, this same government is telling us that $6 billion in election goodies is just fine. No party agrees with these election goodies. However, all parties agree on increasing seniors' pensions.
Instead of improvising and thinking only of the next election, when will the government make the right choice and give Bill C-319 a royal recommendation?
Mr. Speaker, let us not get into the Bloc Québécois's political choices. It has made several political choices that are bad for the future of Quebec and for the future of seniors in Quebec.
On a different note, we have improved the Canada pension plan. Quebec adopted its own version to improve retirement pensions for future generations and future seniors. The Bloc Québécois was against that. We were for it.
Unlike the Bloc Québécois, we are there for the seniors of today and the seniors of tomorrow.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader put on a big phony show this summer on the eve of a by-election, pretending to rip up the coalition deal. Recently, he said, “[The Liberals] will always cave to corporate greed, and always step in to make sure the unions have no power.” We could not have said it better ourselves.
Conservatives have put forward a motion agreeing with the NDP leader. Canadians will soon find out whether or not the NDP leader means anything he ever says, or if he will sell out union brothers and sisters to keep this corrupt Liberal government in power just so he can keep his pension.
The question to the government is this: Have the Liberals put the coalition deal back together so that the Prime Minister keeps power and the NDP leader keeps his pension?
I will speak to this after question period, but that, again, was not about government business.
However, I do see that the hon. government House leader wants to answer.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you had afforded the same courtesy to the Minister of Finance, who also wanted to answer a question. I think it would be appropriate to make sure that we apply the same standard moving forward.
However, what I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition is that we gave him an opportunity to debate that, and instead of taking it, the Conservatives ran away afraid. I am surprised that the member is even bringing this up, because when we gave them an opportunity to hold that vote, they said “no”. That is just another pattern of their behaviour, where they say one thing and do another.
Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. They just got mixed up about what day the debate is going to be held. It is going to be held this Thursday. The vote will be on Monday, and all Canadians will be watching to see who is on the side of Canadian workers. The Prime Minister launched a brutal assault on workers. He devalued their paycheques with his inflation. He drove up prices with his carbon tax. He has doubled housing costs. He has hiked taxes, cancelled big projects that put union members back to work and issued edicts that undermine their collective bargaining rights.
Once again, my question to the government is this: Have they put the coalition deal back together so that the NDP leader will qualify for his pension while Canadian workers suffer?
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be referring to incidents last summer where, I might add, I consulted with the Conservative Party, which was urging me, as we did at the time, to come to the aid of farmers in Saskatchewan and throughout western Canada who were trying to get what was a bumper crop to the ports and international markets, which is the pride of Canada. We intervened to save Canadian farmers and to save Canadian union jobs. That is what we did. The Conservatives sat on the sidelines. We will always stand for Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader claims to have ripped up the deal with the Liberals, calling the government weak, selfish and beholden to corporate greed, yet he has voted over 24 times to hike the carbon tax, driving up the cost of everything. Meanwhile, two million Canadians visited food banks last month, and 18% of them were workers.
Will the leader of the NDP sell out Canadians again, or has the Prime Minister made another backroom deal with the leader of the NDP to secure his pension at the cost of Canadian workers?
Mr. Speaker, again, I am not sure that the question had anything to do with government business, but on this side of the House, when we do that, whether it was the member for Kingston and the Islands or the member for Davenport, our questions were taken away even though they were in regard to government business.
However, what I can say is that the Conservatives keep running scared. Whenever we give them an opportunity to do what they say, they vote against it. When it is cutting taxes and giving people a GST holiday, what do they do? They vote against it. When it is actually coming forward with a motion to vote confidence in the government, what do they do? They vote against it. They are too scared to actually act on their issues. They would rather provide slogans than solutions. On this side of the House we're acting for Canadians.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced a GST break that will put money directly into the pockets of Canadians, especially the families who need it most. Unfortunately, we know that the Conservatives voted against this measure and continue to vote against the affordability measures we are putting forward.
Can the minister explain how all of us in the House can support Canadians in these difficult times?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for her excellent question.
Indeed, the Conservative leader is very inconsistent. He says he wants to cut taxes, yet he voted against the tax break last week. He says he is against the Canadian dental care plan, which helps three million Canadians. The dental plan clearly exists, yet he says it does not. He is against social housing because he says it encourages Soviet-style living. He is against investing in building affordable housing in Quebec because he wants to stop construction, and he says that these units and projects also do not exist.
How much more inconsistent can the Conservative leader get?
[English]
New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister, Canadians cannot afford their rent or mortgages. The NDP leader has called the Liberals too weak, selfish and beholden to corporate interests to fight for Canadians, but it is the NDP leader who is keeping the Prime Minister in power. Conservatives have tabled a motion of confidence using the NDP leader's own words.
Will the NDP leader stand behind his words, or has the government made another spineless, backroom deal at the expense of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are really getting to be pretty ridiculous around here. They have an opportunity to ask real questions of the government, but instead they choose to play petty politics. Yesterday I introduced a motion that would give them the opportunity to do that. Remember, the Leader of the Opposition tweeted about that over the weekend?
However, when given the opportunity they said no. Why? They are too afraid and too weak to actually do what they say. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for Canadians and provide real affordability measures, even if they try to stand in our way.
Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is Canadians are struggling to feed, heat and house themselves while the NDP leader waits to get his pension. In a by-election stunt, he claimed to rip up his agreement with the Liberals, yet the NDP's actions prove the carbon tax coalition is driven by his pension and the Prime Minister's lust for power. Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition.
Will the NDP vote non-confidence or has the Prime Minister crafted yet another spineless backroom deal?
Mr. Speaker, it kind of boggles the mind that the Conservatives are talking about pensions for their members when the leader of the opposition has a $2-million pension from the House of Commons. It is unbelievable what they say. They say one thing, they do another. We cannot trust these Conservative members of Parliament with anything they say because pretty much what they are accusing others of is exactly what they do.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, Tara Desousa sexually assaulted a three-month-old baby. That baby needed reconstructive surgery. Tara Desousa is in a women's jail in B.C. This women's jail also has the mother-child program, which allows mothers to raise their children. I visited that jail and I saw exactly where Desousa was standing. There was a straight line that took me less than a minute from where Desousa was standing to the mother-child house, no large fences, a straight pathway.
What is this government doing allowing sex offenders near children in jail?
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of children who participate in the mother-child program is obviously a top priority for the Correctional Service of Canada. It is important to understand that this program has existed for decades, including during the time that Mr. Harper was prime minister of Canada. There are eligibility criteria and protocols to participate in this program. It includes child welfare screening done by competent provincial authorities. The member opposite should be careful before he tries to politicize such tragic circumstances and these most heinous crimes.
Families, Children and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, our plan for a national school food program is moving forward quickly. We know that access to healthy food can make all the difference in a child's day. Children deserve to be properly fed at school and the benefits to families are obvious. On Friday, we saw more great news.
To the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, what is happening on school food?
Mr. Speaker, last week, in P.E.I., we announced that 1,500 more children will receive lunch this school year, and 800 more kids will get breakfast or snacks at school. Because of this program, 184,000 more kids this school year will receive food at school, almost 1.5 million meals. Now, the leader of the Conservatives said even today that this does not exist. I challenge him to ask the 184,000 kids, and they will school him.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are letting seniors down. They do not even track the impact of the programs meant to support them. Seniors are falling through the cracks and the government has no plan to fix it. They excluded them from the recent $250 rebate. The Conservatives want to cut support for seniors altogether. Seniors have been saying for years that the OAS does not cut it. Cruel and callous GIS clawbacks are putting them even farther behind.
Why do the Liberals care so little about seniors?
Mr. Speaker, happily, the member and her party have supported the Liberal record of success in supporting seniors, on things like dental care, expanding old age security and topping up the guaranteed income supplement. We have managed to accomplish this in this Parliament and it is a great tribute to those members who have voted for those things.
Unfortunately, we have had to do so walking into the headwind across the aisle from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, who, systematically, every time, vote against seniors.
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, veterans with mental health conditions do not need more red tape to get help, like support with home care services, cleaning and mowing the lawn. They must prove their condition every year. This policy is discriminatory, sexist and completely unnecessary. The Liberals are letting veterans down just like the Conservatives did when they cut veterans' services.
Does the minister recognize the extra burden she is placing on MST survivors, veterans and their families?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have always been there to help support veterans. Since 2016, we have invested more than $11.5 billion in additional money to help support veterans and their families. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada that closed nine Veterans Affairs offices, on this side of the House, we opened them. We also hired additional staff to make sure that the appropriate assessments and adjudications were done in a timely fashion. When it comes to mental health benefits, we have made improvements to ensure that when veterans apply for benefits, they have access to them immediately.
On this side of the House, we will always be there to help support our veterans and their families, as they deserve it.
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
The precedent that had been set in this place is that even if a member asks a question that is not related to government business, if the minister gets up then the Speaker had recognized that minister to speak. I am just asking for some consistency and fairness in the practice so we all know, as members of Parliament, the frame of how these questions should be asked and whether an answer is respected or is given or not, as well as the consequences when a member from the opposition asks a question that is out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. While the government did ask its questions, you challenged them on their relevance to the administration of government, which is articulated very clearly throughout the course of our Standing Orders. When it comes to asking questions directly related to the confidence of the government, the coalition agreement and the fact that the fourth party continues to back the government in this place, this has direct relevance to the administration of governments. If a government cannot command the confidence of the House, it cannot administer the government.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. To add to the intervention of the House leader, I would like to submit the following to you. There seems to be a precedent developing that if a member is of the side of the government, they belong to the political party of the government, and their question will not be answered if you deem it not to be in line with government business. The problem with that is that the member for Davenport and I are not members of the government. We are not parliamentary secretaries and we are not in cabinet. Therefore, we are entitled to the exact same rights you afford to every other member of the House.
If you are deciding that a precedent will be set and that they will be able to have their questions answered, you must afford the exact same respect to our questions. Otherwise, I would argue that you are breaching our privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order, but it is related to the same question about when a member stands and poses a question that you find not to be within the proper frame of government business. If someone had stood and asked a question that used an inappropriate word, that member would be given an opportunity to rephrase the question and ask it again. In this instance, the hon. member for Davenport has lost that opportunity to ask a question forever. I wonder if you could see the latitude to see if a member can quickly reframe a question and make it within the proper framework of government business.
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if you look at the jurisprudence and the traditions of the House, you just have to point to references from decisions made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker of the House, when he determined that you were absolutely correct in cutting off a Liberal question that was not dealing with government business. You would be equally right in cutting every single one of those frivolous and vexatious questions coming from the Conservative Party. It is not as if its members do not know the rules; they just refuse to respect them. I would ask you to have them respect the rules; that if the question is not dealing with government business, you cut it off immediately and not let them finish, because that is what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle put in place in the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I have to admit I could not hear the last sentence he said, but I will read Hansard to inform myself as to what he said.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order. I am asking for an apology and retraction from the Minister of Labour in his use of unparliamentary language and ad hominem attack against the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He referred to him as a slimeball. I clearly heard it. Colleagues beside me heard it. I asked him about it. He doubled down. It was unparliamentary and unprofessional.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in the House when the honour of the members was to be presumed. The question that came from across was strongly intimating that the Minister of Public Safety willingly put children in danger. We do not do that in the House. We should not do that in the House. That is not cool and that is not correct.
That member should apologize to the Minister of Public Safety for impugning his character and raising such an absurd question in the House of Commons.
I withdraw that insult if those snowflakes cannot take it.
Order. It is perfectly clear to this Chair that members are certainly in need of returning to their homes for the holidays.
I am going to ask the hon. minister to withdraw that last comment as well, and I then will come back to the House on the rest.
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season where white stuff is indeed on the ground, if members take offence to being called a snowflake, then I certainly withdraw the snowflake comment that I said about the snowflake thing.
The Chair is going to come back to the House on this matter.
I see the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising. I hope the hon. member's comments will be germane.
Mr. Speaker, that is a member of His Majesty's cabinet. There is no place for that. Second, to address the substance of the point, I did not say that the minister is putting people in danger. There are facts and the government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I thank the hon. member. I am going to come back to the House on this matter.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I will address the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The only reason why I was getting to the point is because I made an engagement to members that on the issue that was raised by the member for Brantford—Brant, I would come back to the House on this matter.
I certainly will invite the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to get straight to the point, please.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government policy puts people in danger. Three-month-old babies with sex offenders—
That is clearly debate. The Chair will come back on this matter.
To the matter that was raised by the hon. government House leader, as well as the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Davenport as well as the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, it is really important to recall that during Oral Questions, questions are to be addressed, of course, to the government, meaning to the minister or to a parliamentary secretary, regarding matters of the administrative nature of any government. The only exceptions are questions addressed to committee chairs regarding the agenda of a committee or to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy. It is not in order to ask questions of members of opposition parties, nor to ask the government to answer for positions taken by opposition parties.
I would like to remind all members that when they are preparing their questions, they clearly should take that into account. Members have been very good about having some preambles, or perhaps, at the very end, putting in a hook that relates to the administrative matters of government, or to a committee or to the Board of Internal Economy, and those questions are considered in order.
However, there are occasions when questions are determined to be out of order, and I allow the minister to respond, especially in cases where, and I will be very careful about this, the question contains criticisms of the government and I want to afford the government an opportunity to respond.
In the cases where questions from members of the governing party contain criticisms of opposition parties, without it being under the responsibility of the government, then allowing a response from the minister would only seem to compound that criticism without giving the opportunity for the party that is being criticized to respond.
That is the reason why we have these rules. That is the reason why it has been brought forward. I brought this forward last fall in a ruling to members. I will come back with a more detailed version of this, but I want to give members a quick top-line view on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could you then please explain why the party that comes from the governing side even has three questions? The point is for us, as MPs who are not part of the government, to still hold the government accountable. That is the whole point. Therefore, you have to afford the exact same treatment to every member who is not a member of the government.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Indigenous and Northern Affairs
The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
It being 3:34 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton to the motion to concur in the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 905)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dance
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 325
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Nil
I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion, as amended, be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote. Liberal members will be voting in favour.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting in favour, along with the member for Manicouagan.
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 906)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dance
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 324
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Nil
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my vote was recorded as a nay on the vote on the amendment. I would just like to have that clarified and recorded as a yea and ensure that on the subsequent vote, which was applied, it would be counted as a yea as well.
[Translation]
[English]
Environment and Sustainable Development
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question to the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The hon. government whip.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting in favour.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 907)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zuberi
Total: -- 207
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 117
PAIRED
Nil[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 908)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zuberi
Total: -- 207
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wi