Yvonne Jones

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague, but it would take me the rest of the afternoon to answer it in terms of telling him how I really feel.

What I will say is that the money in this budget is not by accident when it comes to responding to housing needs in Canada. We know they are there. We know what Canadians have been saying. We have been listening and we are responding. I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and his support toward these investments for Canadians.

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand where my colleague is coming from. I know that he recognizes a problem that has been challenging for many Canadians with regard to homelessness. He will be happy to know that in this budget we are investing over $8 billion in housing and homelessness across Canada. It is the first housing strategy ever in the country, and I look forward to his voting for the budget and supporting that initiative.

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I sit on the natural resources committee with my colleague, but for a few years we were Arctic parliamentarians together and he has certainly been a tremendous support for communities across the Arctic as well.

I want to say a couple of things. First of all, members cannot get up one moment and in one sentence criticize the fact that the Government of Canada is investing in Canadians and then in the same breath say it is spending too much money on Canadians. It is one way or the other. As a government, we have invested in housing. We have invested in housing for urban centres, for rural centres, for indigenous people and for low-income families. We have invested in housing for women and for women fleeing violence. We have invested in housing for the homeless and for many groups and developers who want to provide co-development housing. We have invested to make it more accessible and affordable for homeowners to buy.

My question for the member is this. What suggestions do you have that we have not done to make the programs stronger and more affordable for Canadians?

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today. I want to first thank and acknowledge my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for that fantastic speech he gave this morning, but also for all the work he does inside of our government, lobbying on so many issues that affect his riding and other Canadians.

I listened to a lot of debate around this budget in the last few days, and I know that some days, when we get up and everything is doom and gloom and all we see is negativity, it is really hard to see the positive impact that is happening for so many in their lives across this country. However, I live in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I can tell members that in my riding of Labrador we will be supporting this budget wholeheartedly, and I want to tell members the reasons.

It is because not only are we recognizing that there are sectors in this country that deserve to be lifted up and singled out in terms of investments, but we are also responding to critical needs of people who have been ignored for far too long in this country. I am an MP from a northern region of Canada. I represent a strong indigenous population of Inu and Inuit people. I have many rural and remote communities across my riding, and I can honestly tell members that we have never seen investments in our northern communities before in our history like we are seeing today.

When we look at Newfoundland and Labrador in general, we have the federal government that renewed the Atlantic accord agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador at a time in its history when it needed the financial revenues and the assistance. The investment of $2.5 billion under the Atlantic accord is allowing that province to share in the royalties it has over the years and continues to foster, develop, produce and remit to the Government of Canada. We made investments in rate mitigation of $5.2 billion. That, again, was an agreement we made with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a shareholder, Canada has drawn down taxes and benefits from our province for many years through the oil and gas industry. No other government, including those of the members opposite, ever agreed to do what was fair in giving back some of that revenue to the province at a time when it needed it the most. Ours is the first government to do that.

The members opposite talk about our not supporting industry or jobs. We have invested more in economic and resource development than any other government before us. We have bought pipelines; we have set up critical mineral developments; we have invested in infrastructure to support major resource development projects in Canada; and when the people of Alberta needed assistance through COVID, when the oil and gas industry was reaching the bottom of the barrel, who stepped up? It was our government, because we recognized that workers should always come first and that families should always come first.

Members stand up and they criticize the money that was spent in COVID. They criticize the fact that 40% of businesses that employ people in Canada received a wage subsidy. Do members think these workers should not have received that and that they should have been sent home with no income? They would have lost their homes; they would have lost their cars; their kids would have had to leave universities and colleges. Is that what they are suggesting? That is not what we believe.

Do members know that in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, 49,000 jobs were maintained as a result of the wage subsidy? That is 49,000 income earners who were able to pay their mortgages on their homes through COVID because of the response of our government. That is something I will never apologize for.

It is easy to be a naysayer. It is a lot more difficult to devise a plan that responds to the real needs of Canadians. That is where the challenge is. We talk about health care. There is no issue more important to the constituents I represent in this Parliament than health care, whether it be care for mental health and supports for suicide prevention, or addiction services, surgeries, physician access or nursing access. All of these things are critical. They are important, not only for the constituents I represent in the House of Commons, but for all Canadians.

Sometimes it is not a bad thing that the Government of Canada steps up when it is needed to step up. That is what we are doing. There is a backlog of surgeries in this country. I talked to a doctor in Quebec only last week, who told me that he cannot even get scheduled emergency room time. That is how much the ERs are blocked. That is how deep their backlog is.

I talked to doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the situation is no different. It exists across the country. When members stand and say they will not support this budget, they are saying they will not support the Government of Canada investing in surgeries and bringing the wait-list down for Canadians who need access to health care.

There is another thing we are doing. I am not the only member of a rural riding in the House of Commons, and I am not the only member of a northern riding in the House of Commons. I can say that the recruitment of doctors and nurses in rural and northern Canada has become a crisis. The only way to get a doctor or nurse is on a locum. It is temporary. There is no consistency in service. What we are doing as a government is providing an incentive for doctors and nurses to come and live in northern and rural communities across Canada, an incentive that will allow people to have good medical services no matter where they live.

The consistency of having a regular doctor or regular nurse could mean having diagnoses and treatments that will save people's lives early on. We can never forget that. Is that something we should be apologizing for as a government, that we are going to invest in a health care system that allows for that to happen?

I heard members today say it is not the federal government's responsibility and the provinces could be doing it. These are the same provinces that are asking us for more health care money. They are asking us to increase spending. They are telling us they cannot afford to continue down the path they are going down.

Therefore, we are stepping up, and we are stepping up in those areas, just like we are doing on dental care and just like we have done for many northern Inuit communities on a suicide strategy, to deal with what is becoming and has been a major crisis for many northern communities in Canada.

There is no other government in our history that has stepped up on reconciliation. We are the first. Not only have we built a relationship that respects and honours the rights of indigenous people in this country, but we have worked with them in partnership to build better homes, to build better infrastructure, to build a stronger economy and to build a future that they can grow and prosper in and one that they can control. Can anyone honestly say that is not the right direction for Canada? I can guarantee everyone that what we bring to indigenous Canada, they bring to the rest of us 10 times over.

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for Mississauga—Streetsville for that very powerful speech today on the budget and for all the advocacy that she does for women and families in this country for funding and stronger supports.

How does the member feel this budget will have a positive impact on women, especially women who are suffering through violent relationships in communities across Canada?

[The Budget, April 26th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the member's speech really goes to the heart of where many Canadians are. What she is hearing in her riding is very similar to what I have heard across my riding.

When we talk about affordability now, we know that it is increasingly harder for so many families and sectors in our society. I would ask the member to highlight for us some of the things in this budget that would make it easier for Canadians, seniors and families to be able to continue through what have been very trying times.

[Natural Resources, April 25th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will support the Bay du Nord project. I lobbied our government very hard given the benefit of that particular development, only because I knew the project would be one of the lowest emitters of oil and gas emissions in the country and it was necessary. Our dependency on oil and gas is going to be around for the next two decades at least, and for us to transition off oil and gas, we will need to produce low-carbon oil and gas.

In terms of the XL pipeline, that was a decision of the Government of the United States. That was never a decision of our government. I noticed that Senator Manchin, when he was in Alberta a while ago, spoke to this issue, and we will see what happens. However, as it is right now, that was not a decision of the Government of Canada.

I think we need to understand that we are the single largest supplier of energy to the United States, and we know that it is important to be competitive no matter what energy sector it is.

[Natural Resources, April 25th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that there is no better supplier of responsibly produced oil and gas than Canada during this transition to a net-zero future. Why is that? It is simply because we have one of the strongest and most comprehensive climate plans in the world, a plan that is leading the way for the oil-producing nations around the world and certainly right here in Canada. Our plan is bold and is working, and it is in partnership with the industry, as the member knows. In fact, it is industry partners that have talked about placing a cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector, and as a government we have agreed and are working with them to look at those outcomes.

Companies representing a full 90% of Canada's oil sands production have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It is our job to work with the industry to get there, but it is also our job to help diversify our dependency on the oil and gas industry and look at different options that are more respectful of the climate and of the place we are developing and shaping together.

The member talked about our relationship with the United States. The fact is that there are no two countries in this world that share a highly integrated energy and economic relationship that is stronger than the one we have with the United States. We have more than 70 pipelines and nearly three dozen transmission lines that cross the borders between our two countries. That network helps make America our largest energy customer, with $100 billion in energy trade each year. There are always going to be projects that we may not agree on, and there are going to be moments when we will disagree in any relationship. However, at the end of the day, never undervalue the relationship we share as a country with the United States when it comes to the energy sector.

In saying all this, I also want to point out to the member that any transition we do in oil and gas in this country will include the protection of jobs and the protection of communities. We can transition to a safe and sustainable future for our children and as a country, and we can do so as a world leader. We can also do so while protecting the people who depend on those jobs, ensuring that they have skills and have a strong future in the country.

In terms of the affordability of gas, we all share that concern. I share it in my own riding and right across the north, an area that I represent in the House. It is a huge concern. However, the member knows that we are coming off a COVID crisis and we are in the middle of a Russian-Ukrainian war. The nature of the world has changed. It is the global picture and global impacts that are shaping the price of fuel at the pumps today, not anything that is directly happening in our Parliament.

[Natural Resources, April 25th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some of the things that we are already doing.

Since 2016, we have pledged more than $10 billion towards decarbonizing homes and buildings, and encouraging energy efficient retrofits. We have also signalled to the auto industry and Canadians that, starting in 2035, all light-duty vehicles must be zero-emission. We are investing across Canada in charging stations. We are investing to fund charging infrastructure in suburban and remote communities.

In Vancouver, the TransLink has used the federal gas tax fund to help add 15 new battery-powered buses to its fleet. In Guelph, Ontario, we have invested $40 million to help the city replace diesel buses with electric ones. In Prince Edward Island, we are helping the province replace its 300 school buses with electric alternatives.

We are stepping up, and we are doing it aggressively.

[Natural Resources, April 25th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the crisis in Europe and what that means to all of us. I know that Russia's brutal and illegal assault on Ukraine has affected her, as it has affected myself and many throughout our country. It is truly heartbreaking, and I think we have all felt that over the last number of days and weeks.

I want to highlight two matters that have been raised that led to tonight's discussion. She noted that one party in this chamber has been focusing very heavily on its belief for the need for more oil and gas production. Indeed, the official opposition seems to be implying that our government should respond to the crisis by abandoning large parts of our climate plan, a plan which is recognized as one of the most comprehensive in the world.

However, the member opposite is also focusing heavily on a specific part of the democratic world's response to Russian aggression. I am referring to her focus on the International Energy Agency's call for Europe to reduce its dependency on Russian gas by reducing demand. Though actions such as improved public transit, a more aggressive focus on energy efficiency and the expanded use of electric vehicles are all necessary and need to happen, the fact is we need a comprehensive approach.

First and foremost, we have to counter Putin's aggression by working with our allies to punish Russia with sweeping sanctions to provide Ukraine's heroic defenders with lethal and non-lethal military equipment, and to do everything we can to ease Europe's worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War.

We also need to do our part to deal with energy security, because right now Putin's war machine is being funded with profits from the sale of petroleum products to the European nations that depend upon them, especially for gas to heat their homes. Diversity is necessary. The energy agency's 10-point plan, which the member refers to, urges Europe to find new energy suppliers in order to reduce and ultimately end this dependency.

Canadian producers have responded by agreeing to increase production this year by up to 200,000 barrels of oil, and the equivalent of up to 100,000 barrels of gas. We will do this without compromising Canada's climate plan. We also support the agency's call for quicker action on reducing demand and finding alternative energy sources.

We encourage this, and in fact our government has a strategy that we hope will eventually make Canada an important hydrogen supplier to Europe. We also agree with the member that we have to act in the areas she has mentioned, and we have been doing just that by making large scale investments since 2016.

We are on the right track, and we will continue on that path.