Matt Jeneroux

[Health, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we now have two confirmed cases of the coronavirus in Canada. There is still justifiable reason to be concerned about the current measures in place. Health officials stated that there is a likelihood of other cases in Canada.

Respectfully, I ask the minister this: What is the plan, knowing that more cases are likely, and how can Canadians be assured that this spread is being properly contained?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 11th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party, welcome to the Chair. It is great to see you take your seat.

I also congratulate my hon. colleague. Twenty years ago, I was not thinking about coming here, but the member has certainly spent some time in this place. I will admit that I have learned a few things from her by sitting together with her on the transport, infrastructure and communities committee.

Speaking of that committee, I hope that there is still some working relationship that will continue with my role as shadow minister for infrastructure and communities.

I am hoping the hon. member can answer a quick question for me. We heard time and time again about the failures of the Infrastructure Bank, that it was not helpful to rural communities and barely got any project built or off the ground. I am hoping she can commit here today in her seat to speak to the new minister and say that we need to put the Infrastructure Bank debacle behind us and move forward with infrastructure dollars flowing into communities that actually need it.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 11th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your role.

I congratulate my hon. friend across the way. We did get to spar a bit in the last Parliament, which was fun. However, I was a bit surprised at her speech. We did spar over science quite often. The Speech from the Throne did not mention a lot of science, other than the space-time continuum. We did not hear any science in the member's speech either.

A lot of viewers out there were probably curious as to what happened to science in the newest iteration of the government. Come to think of it, sport is not in there either. I do not know if she did the job so well in the last Parliament that the Liberals now no longer need those departments or they just decided that it was politically astute at the time and now it is maybe not so important. What happened to the science?

[Alberta, June 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Prime Minister forgot to mention Alberta in his Canada 150 speech. We were of course offended but did not think it was more than an innocent omission. However, the Prime Minister's actions have lived up to this omission, as it appears he wishes he could forget Alberta altogether.

His policies, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, are deliberate attempts to destroy our energy sector. Bill C-69 would impose onerous new regulations around pipeline construction. Bill C-48 would ban tankers from parts of B.C.'s coast. As a result of these bills, thousands of hard-working Canadians will continue to lose jobs in our province. The government also wants to impose a new carbon tax on Alberta on January 1. Talk about kicking us while we are down.

Approving the Trans Mountain expansion project is not enough. The Liberals must put forward a concrete plan to get the project built and tell Canadians when construction will start in Burnaby.

A Conservative government will stand up for Alberta, as a strong Alberta is a strong Canada.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities support the committee's report that was just tabled, as transportation corridors are integral to the safe and efficient flow of goods in and out of Canada. However, we felt it necessary to supply a complementary report as the main report does not include three important recommendations that we heard loud and clear.

Those recommendations are the following: that the government of Canada eliminate the federal carbon tax and work co-operatively with individual provinces on the carbon reduction plan; that the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-69, because it will create delays and uncertainty for proponents of projects related to transportation corridors; and that the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-48, because it will have a negative impact on Canada's reputation and is not based in science or navigation practices.

During our brief study, we heard testimony by witnesses from Quebec and the Maritimes on the negative impact these Liberal policies would have on Canada's transportation corridors.

I encourage the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to read our supplementary report, but if they do not have time for that, I hope they will simply adopt our recommendations. We believe that doing this will greatly support Canada's transportation system and our vitally important trade corridors.

[Canada Summer Jobs Program, June 14th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, this is a group that funded terrorism. Just revoke the grant.

The Prime Minister put a values test on the summer jobs program targeting groups that did not agree with him. Fast forward to this week, and we find out that the government gave $25,000 to an organization that funded terrorism overseas. Now he says that he is checking to see if the organization meets the terms and conditions of the summer jobs program. I think the government is the one that needs to check its values.

Again, just revoke the grant.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. This is from Cenovus Energy, a major employer in my home province of Alberta:

[Bill C-69] is a devastating blow to the future of the Canadian economy.

It's important to stress that our industry has never asked for a free or easy ride. We expect rigorous regulation and oversight. But when projects meet all reasonable regulatory requirements, proponents and their investors need a level of certainty that those projects will be built. Our industry undertook an unprecedented level of engagement with the government on Bill C-69. We are deeply disappointed that the changes we proposed in good faith, and were told were workable, were not accepted. The amendments we proposed were the bare minimum required for the Bill to be workable. And those recommendations were based on the input of Canadians, including many Indigenous leaders.

[Government Policies, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, as shadow minister for infrastructure, I have been travelling across the country. I recently visited the ridings of Malpeque, Charlottetown, South Shore—St. Margarets, Halifax and St. John's East. Many people have told me how much Canada needs a Conservative government. They are not happy with how the current government and its MPs have performed and the many 2015 campaign promises they have broken. People are seeing delays in getting infrastructure built. They are seeing less money in their pockets at the end of the month, and their government representatives are missing in action. Actually, a number of them told me how their member of Parliament will not even return their phone calls.

A lot of the people I spoke with are excited for the Conservatives' vision for Canada, which includes working with local communities to develop infrastructure programs that give them more autonomy. Under a Conservative government, east coasters and all Canadians will finally see their priorities reflected in their government because the current government is not as advertised.

[Carbon Pricing, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, of course we support the child care benefit, because we created the child care benefit on this side of the House. We remember the Liberals' day care plan that never came to fruition. Now they are adopting our plan, at the end of the day.

I thank the member opposite for his answer, but it does not get to the crux of the issue. Under the current government, more and more people are finding it harder to make ends meet. They cannot afford another tax. This does not mean they do not care about the environment, far from it. We know that even with the carbon tax Canada will not achieve its emissions reductions targets under the Paris accord.

This is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. Can the Liberals tell us why they are continuing with this scheme that unfairly targets suburban and rural Canadians?

[Carbon Pricing, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and ask this question.

The original question I asked was on carbon and the reasons we on this side of the House oppose the carbon tax. However, the answer I got back was a lot more of the same empty rhetoric saying that we do not have a plan. We are highly anticipating announcing our plan. I do not know who is more excited, those of us who have been able to be part of feeding into the plan in our caucus or the hon. member who answered my question. I am sure he will be glued to his TV when that plan comes forward.

The carbon tax will raise the cost of living for all Canadians, from gas prices to our groceries. The Liberals say that they will give some Canadians back more than they spend on a carbon tax through a tax rebate, but a one-time payout will not make up for higher bills, groceries or other expenses.

At the same time as Canadians tell the government they cannot afford this tax, the government is considering a plastic tax. That demonstrates how out of touch the Liberals are. Plastic is found in almost everything. Introducing a plastic tax would, like the carbon tax, increase the cost of everything we buy. This comes at a time when more and more Canadians are finding it harder to get by and bankruptcies are increasing.

Instituting this tax is not going to make a dent in the world's emissions, either. Even with a carbon tax, Canada will not achieve its emissions targets under the Paris accord.

It unfairly targets average families and lets big emitters off the hook. The Parliamentary Budget Office found, in its analysis of the carbon tax, that big polluters will pay only 8% of the total revenue collected by the Liberals' carbon tax, leaving the remaining 92% to be paid by families and small businesses. They will also pay these costs through higher gas prices, groceries and home heating costs.

Gas prices have already gone up since April 1. In most provinces, it now costs more than $1.30 a litre to fill up with gas, and this is only going up. The Liberals say these prices are what they want, because it will encourage people to change their behaviour. They want people to think more seriously about the environment before filling up their gas tanks. However, most Canadians do not have other options.

Rural Canadians do not have any public transit. If they go from point A to point B, they have to drive. With different work schedules, most families cannot go down to one car. That does not mean that these people just do not care about the environment. These people are realistic about what they can and cannot do.

Commuters from our suburbs may have more options, but in most cases, public transit is not efficient enough to meet their needs, and they have no choice but to drive into cities for work. Driving to work or school allows them more time with their families. If the Liberals want commuters to use public transit rather than passenger vehicles, they need to develop more efficient and user-friendly services in our cities.

At the same time, this plan will not achieve Canada's emissions reductions under the Paris accord. That is probably why the Liberals plan to hike the carbon tax to $300 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, up from the current price of $20 a tonne. The Liberals are trying to convince Canadians that they will get back more than they pay in carbon tax.

Can the Liberals tell us how they plan to help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet under their government's carbon tax scheme?