Debates of Nov. 5th, 2024

Public Accounts

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

I was talking about things that matter to all of my constituents and that matter to Canadians, and right now, the behaviour of the Conservatives is something that most Canadians should be very concerned about. It is not just about what they are doing in the House and the personal attacks, but about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition will not get a security clearance. I believe “ignorance is bliss” is their basic motto right now. They try to put their heads in the sand and just ignore what is happening—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a conversation about personal attacks. The member across the way has a problem with personal attacks, as she should, and she proceeded to make a personal attack on our leader. I am not sure of the inconsistency with personal attacks. We either have them or we do not. I wish the member would be consistent in what she is doing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Again, I will give the warning that when we fall into these discussions, if we are talking about one another, we are not talking about the things that are important to Canadians. I just want to make sure that as we make rulings as chair occupants, we are consistent across the aisles. Hopefully everyone will take that for what it is worth.

The hon. member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two comments, and I would seek clarification from you.

First, I would like clarification on retractions versus apologies. I have seen them in this House within my short time. I know other members have been here a long time, but I do not believe they are the same. I would like clarification on that.

Second, I thought it was a bit concerning when the member for Kingston and the Islands was referred to by his first name. In this chamber, we do not do that. I can see that a bit of control is being lost in the House. The Chair has no problem calling me out on a regular basis, and I am just asking for equality and equity in this place so that we can all do our jobs and represent our constituents.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I apologize for my slip of the tongue. I normally try to represent the hon. members' ridings.

When it comes to retractions and apologies, the Chair accepts whichever one comes first so we can move on to the debate of the day. We will accept either-or in every case.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill has the floor.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I just want to reiterate that I was not making a personal attack; I was stating a fact that should be of concern to Canadians, which is that the member, the Leader of the Opposition, has failed to get security clearance. This means that they are not apprised of what is happening within their own party. If it sounded like a personal attack, perhaps the member should be talking to their leader about what he is doing.

I will go on to what I was talking about, which is that the Conservative Party does understand and I hope they believe, otherwise ignorance is bliss, that global inflation was not caused by the price on pollution program. It was caused by the COVID pandemic, supply chain problems, conflicts and the post-COVID economy. It was global.

As I said earlier, before I was interrupted, although I would hope all countries around the world would have some kind of price on pollution program to join us, only 40 countries around the world do. Therefore the global inflation experienced in other countries, which was many times greater than the inflation we experienced, could not have been caused by a price on pollution program. Nevertheless, the Conservatives sit here and use as proof that it was caused by us the fact that Canada had high inflation at the same time as it had a price on pollution program.

I would really appreciate some more attention being paid to facts. I know that slogans are easy and catchy, but they are not reality. We have to look at something even worse that is happening. The Conservatives have put forward the misinformation that not only was inflation caused by a price on pollution but also that all of the issues will be automatically solved, including inflation and high interest rates.

Inflation and interest rates are coming down only because of the concerted efforts our government has made. It has nothing to do with the price on pollution, which continues. In fact the price on pollution increased at the same time as interest rates and inflation fell. If high interest rates and inflation are caused by the price on pollution, I would like the Conservatives to explain how it works in the inverse.

There is no science, math, or proof behind what the Conservatives are saying. When they say that everything will be solved by their simple slogan of axing the tax, they are misleading and deceiving Canadians. In fact, we know that eight out of 10 households in Canada on a current basis, cash in, cash out per month, get more back than they pay. The only households that do not are those of the wealthier, who can pay more and are actually consuming more fossil fuels because they have bigger homes, more cars and perhaps a cottage or a boat. Those people can pay more and should be paying more because they are doing more damage to our environment.

The other argument is that the price on pollution has done no good. That is not true. Emissions are down 8% from the 2015 level. When our government took over in 2015, the projection for what the emissions would be in 2030 was twice as high as they are now.

What if there had been a government like the current Conservative Party in office, continuing inaction on climate change, muzzling scientists, not letting people talk to the press about what was happening and clearly preferring to let the oil and gas industry run rampant? That is just what the Conservative Party is doing, with its leader meeting with oil and gas executives behind closed doors to take maximum contributions for its fundraising efforts. This kind of behaviour shows that Conservatives are not really concerned with what concerns most Canadians, which is pollution and the future of our planet. Our young people need us to stand up for them.

The oil and gas industry contributes more than 30% of emissions in this country, pollution, and less than 6% to our GDP. It is also mostly foreign-owned. Why is the Conservative Party continuing to support it and put it ahead of Canadians?

The other thing going on right now is the filibuster. I understand to some extent why the Conservatives are doing it: They want to have an election right now. They know that the further they go and the longer they speak, the less popular their leader becomes. People see what he is really about, what he is saying and doing and what the party is doing; therefore they want to have an election and do not want it to go any longer.

Ignorance is bliss, but if people begin to wake up and start to understand that what the Conservatives are saying is not true, they may actually realize that the best bet for the future of this country is a continuation of our government, which is what we all need. What really confuses me is the NDP and the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Victoria. Why is she supporting this?

We agree that there is an important piece of legislation, Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, which needs to move forward. It is the proposed sister act to our Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. We need it to move forward as well, yet NDP members are persisting in supporting the opposition in the filibuster, which is keeping us from doing the real work that Canadians need us to do.

I would just say that we need to move on. The filibuster needs to stop. There is real work to do, and continuously repeating empty slogans and blocking the work of this place will not get us there. We on this side continue to work for Canadians, ensuring that we are ready to move forward with important legislation when the filibuster ends. We are always going to put Canadians first.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague that we have a lot of work to do.

Recently, the member and I attended an event in the riding at Yellow Brick House, which is a safe home for women and children who are victims of violence. One of the things that was loud and clear after speaking to the victims and listening to their stories was that the Liberals' catch-and-release policy is not working. Why will they not listen to women and children so we can ensure their protection?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to see my hon. colleague at the event. However, it is interesting, because I do not believe that victims actually spoke about that at all. I spoke to many victims and to the executive director, Lorris Herenda, who does an amazing job.

It is true that people are getting released, but when I spoke to York Regional Police members who were there, they told me that the problem is actually that there are not enough Crown attorneys, that there are not enough detention spaces for people and that criminals are being released not because of any legislation that is in place. In fact they supported the bail reform we put in place.

What the Conservatives are trying to do is blame our government, say that it is our fault, when we are supporting women with the first national action plan to combat gender-based violence, which the current government put in place, and with stronger bail reform laws that not only the police but also women's organizations support. Stop the misinformation, please.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well because she and I serve together on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I know that she cares a lot about the issue of climate change and the impact that climate change is having on people.

My colleague from Terrebonne carefully analyzed the report that is before us today. It said, that rather than subsidizing polluting oil companies, the government could use that money to help our communities adapt to climate change. It talked about how municipalities need to upgrade their infrastructure. My colleague from Terrebonne also mentioned shoreline erosion. My colleague knows that this is an issue that I am working hard on. I think it is a great injustice. The St. Lawrence Seaway brings in billions of dollars a year, and yet there is no money to help the people living along the river.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Does she agree that we should stop giving money to oil companies and give it to real people instead, so that they can adapt to climate change, which, unfortunately, is not going to go away overnight?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague across the way on committee, and I know that he is a great advocate for the environment.

I would say that we need to do both, and we are doing both. The reality is that the need for oil and gas is not going to disappear overnight, and the need to fight climate change and to fight pollution is urgent. Therefore we have to do everything we can. Helping oil and gas companies reduce emissions and methane; putting a cap on pollution, which we are doing; and continuing to make sure that we are doing everything we can in Canada to bring emissions down are incredibly important. At the same time, we are investing in infrastructure. We have a green infrastructure fund. We have put a lot of money into trying to help communities.

Could we do more of both? We would love to, but we know that there are fiscal realities and we are trying to stay within the guidelines to keep our economy on track.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be focused on the NDP and the filibuster. I do agree it is a little bizarre that the Conservatives are blocking their own motion, but the Liberals just have to hand over the documents. She is so concerned about ending the filibuster, so I am wondering when her government will be handing over the documents it is required to hand over.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that it is rather odd that Conservatives are actually fighting against their own motion at this point. We are in agreement with the recommendation that was put forward by the Speaker. We are ready to send the documents, the issue, to PROC to be considered. There are a lot of considerations with what has been asked, and the RCMP and the Auditor General have expressed their concern about handing the documents over to them.

We are ready. We do not understand why the NDP will not align with us and let the issue go to PROC, where it should be considered, as has been recommended by the Speaker of the House, and move on to the really important issues we need to be considering here.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to talk about this important issue, a concurrence motion tabled by the Conservatives. I suspect that the only reason they have tabled another concurrence motion is because they are starting to run out of speakers to filibuster the other item they have in the House, which was talked about just moments ago.

When it comes to the environment and our climate policy, it is working. The evidence and the data is now coming out to show exactly how it is working. This is the first time since the Industrial Revolution that Canada has seen a decline in carbon emissions while at the same time experiencing economic growth, an increase in economic output. That is because of a number of policies that we brought forward. The one that has been talked about a lot today is the price on pollution, and I will touch on this.

It is not surprising to me that the Conservatives maintain their same position, at least the position they have had since the last election. During the last election, they ran on pricing pollution, in a very similar but very complicated way of earning aero points, so to speak, to get purchases from a catalogue, but they have flip-flopped completely since then. Therefore, I am not surprised.

However, I am most surprised about my NDP colleagues. The NDP members of Parliament, who we have been able to work with over the last number of years, have always been in favour of pricing pollution. They voted in favour of it 24 times, as the Conservatives point out. I have endless quotes on my laptop of NDP members in the House getting up and supporting pricing pollution time and time again.

I was absolutely floored today when I heard the member for Edmonton Griesbach say that the New Democrats thought that the way it was done was not the best way, that it should have been done a different way and that the Prime Minister failed Canadians because he did not do it differently. Meanwhile, the member offered no solutions of what that other way might be. He never once mentioned this before today, or at least since the leader of the NDP made this big reveal toward the end of August.

The New Democrats were always squarely in focus, knowing that eight out of 10 Canadians got back more than they paid, in particular 94% of the households that earn less than $50,000 a year definitely got back more.

Therefore, let us be absolutely clear. When the NDP abandoned its position on pricing pollution, it did not just abandon the idea of collecting money and understanding and agreeing with 300 Canadian economists, and countless professionals and economists throughout the entire world. It did not just abandon that principle as the right way to decrease emissions. It also abandoned the principle of knowing that more of the money collected through pricing pollution would be going back to those who needed it the most. That is the choice the New Democrats made, and they made it for a very good reason. They understood the politics of this to be worse than the potential benefit from a policy perspective.

I will be the first one to admit that we did not have a good communication plan. We did not inform Canadians, and we let the Conservatives take the narrative on the carbon tax. However, when I am older and look back on my time in Parliament, I would much rather be on the side of good policy than great slogans. I will be very proud to have stood up for good policy, even when Conservatives know that it is good policy because they have run on it several times in the past.

I also know that unlike the NDP, I did not cave to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not look for my own political opportunity over the slogans and the way that the Leader of the Opposition took great policy and weaponized it, regardless of what comes from that program in the future.

This whole idea of hypocrisy and flip-flopping is completely in line with what we see from Conservatives lately. The parliamentary secretary to the House leader brought this up and I will do it again.

We have Conservatives who, on a daily basis, have been jumping up in the House time and again demanding that more be done for their constituencies with respect to housing. The Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward proposals and slashing the programs that we have put in place. We then end up with Conservatives getting up and reciting his talking points. They talk about how the Liberals have done nothing good, that we cannot bring about any change for housing and that we need to help communities.

Then we find out what has happened behind the Leader of the Opposition's back, most likely without him knowing. I read what the member for St. Albert—Edmonton wrote to the Minister of Housing. Rest assured that there is no way the Leader of the Opposition would have allowed the member to send this letter to the Minister of Housing had he known what he wrote in it. However, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton did, because, at the end of the day, he knew his community was more important than his party. He may go along with all the slogans and the three-word phrases the Conservatives come up with, but when push comes to shove and he really needs to get things done, he will ensure the minister knows how he really feels about the Liberal programs.

This is what the member for St. Albert—Edmonton said in his letter, “The requested federal funding is critical to making this needed development a reality — a development that will help address the significant shortage of affordable housing options in the community.” That is exactly what the member for St. Albert—Edmonton had to say about the housing accelerator fund, after many times getting up in the House and lambasting the government for doing nothing.

The member for Fundy Royal said that the housing accelerator fund “will provide much needed housing in this area.”

However, they are not the only two members. A number of other Conservative MPs have sent letters to the minister as well, encouraging the same thing: the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, the member for Simcoe North and the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Today we just learned of another member, who always likes to get up in the House. He is very good at this and I applaud him for it. At the beginning of him speaking, he always says, “It is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.” I want his constituents to know that not only does he takes that pride when he gets up in the House, but he also takes that pride on their behalf when he sends a letter to the minister asking for housing accelerator funding for his community. He extends that outside of the House, but we would never, ever know that he was actually supportive of it by the way the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo engages in the House.

We have a great—

[An hon. member]

More, more.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want more.

I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to give me an extra 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is beholden upon the Conservatives to start doing the right thing for Canadians, and that is not parroting the lines of their leader. That is standing up to the leader and telling him that before he goes talking about slashing the housing accelerator fund, maybe they should consider keeping the fund because it has really helped their communities. That is how members would be properly serving their leader, their caucus and their constituents.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as always, that was an entertaining speech from my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, although he did not talk much about the environment.

I asked the member for Winnipeg North a question, and I will ask the same question of the member for Kingston and the Islands. What is the environmental impact of allowing Montreal to dump raw sewage into St. Lawrence? About two or three years ago, in an ominous budget bill, the ability to dump raw sewage in the St. Lawrence River was extended for another 15 or 20 years.

What is the environmental impact of that? Also, could the member give us an update on the two billion trees that the government was supposed to plant?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the environmental impact is not good. I am not going to stand here and try to justify it.

However, I can also inform the member, if he does not understand how a sewage holding tank works, that the tank has a limit and when it gets to the limit, something is going to happen. It overflows. That happens in many cases in older municipalities because they are still relying on infrastructure where their storm water and sewers are not separated yet.

In municipalities like Kingston, a 300-year-old municipality, we have done extensive work to ensure that we can separate the sewer from the storm water. As a result, when 30 to 40 years ago we used to overflow into Lake Ontario 50 to 55 days a year, now the city of Kingston maybe has to do it one or two days a year now.

The idea is that we move forward and that we help build the infrastructure the communities need to deal with these problems.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in the House for the past few weeks, but I did watch the debates remotely. I could not help but notice a conspicuous absence, not of a person I am not allowed to name, but of the public interest. There seemed to be no place for the public interest in the debates.

I have tremendous respect for my colleague opposite, but here is what I want to know. Is he not ashamed of his paradoxical attitude of saying one thing and doing another? On the surface, he is promoting environmental causes, but, at the same time, he is financing pipelines. In the name of the public interest, which is it? It has to be one or the other.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit, I do not fully understand the question.

I am talking about the environmental impacts of the programs that we have brought in. I spoke to those very clearly for the first five to six minutes of my speech. We can do a lot more when it comes to protecting our environment. I know that pricing pollution is a very good model. I know that Quebec prices pollution through cap-and-trade and through the Western Alliance initiative with California and other states, and it used to be Ontario.

There is so much more we could do. I do not understand the member. I must have missed the question when he was asking about a paradox between what I am saying and what we are doing. We are on the right course to do what we need to do. As I indicated when I opened my speech, this is the first time since the Industrial Revolution that we are seeing a decline in emissions while at the same time seeing economic growth. This means that at least some the policies are working.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for what is oftentimes a very partisan speech. I do appreciate it, though, because we get insight into the many logical fallacies that exist within the Liberal Party's framework when it comes to preventing some of the worst disasters in our country.

In particular, I think about last summer when we had a severe wildfire season. First nations, the Auditor General and the Environmental Commissioner published this report and were very confident in their assumption, statement and recommendation that more needed to be done to support first nations in the prevention of some of these major disasters. Worst of all is the fact that the government knew there was flooding of a particular set of communities, which continues annually.

What is the member's message to first nations leaders who are going to be witnessing this debate, and the obvious absence of commentary from the member and the fact that there is a historic underfunding for emergency services for these communities that has been decades in the making?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was a partisan speech. This is a political chamber. Show me a house of commons in the world that does not engage in partisan speeches. That is the whole point of being here.

To answer the member's question, he kind of answered the question in his question. He talked about more that needs to be done. Yes, more needs to be done, not rolling back and not trying to cancel programs that we already have, which is what the NDP is talking about when it comes to pricing pollution and the carbon rebate.