Debates of Sept. 18th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard for several hours now from the Liberal bench, the NDP and the Bloc how Bill C-48 is going to be an answer to improving community safety from coast to coast. As a former practising Crown attorney who has run thousands of bail hearings dealing with the individuals who we have read about and seen on television committing heinous crimes across this country who are already facing reverse onus scenarios and still getting released, how on earth does the member reconcile Bill C-48 by adding four new reverse onus provisions? How is that, in the face of what happens day in and day out in our courts, going to make Canada safer?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that it would, because there was a gap and through consultation and through the agreements across all the provinces and territories and all the chiefs of police we agreed that this is the logical next step to take. Is this the end solution to all the crimes? It is absolutely not, but this is a good step forward, and I am sure that as we roll out the new bill, Bill C-48, it will highlight other opportunities for us to be able to enhance and strengthen the bill. I look forward to working with all members of this House to further strengthen any bills that come to this House that protect Canadians and their trust in their government.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brantford—Brant. I will keep my remarks somewhat short so that I can hear all that he has to say, which I always appreciate.

First of all, I want to welcome everybody back to the House as we continue our role in supporting our constituents. I am especially proud to be able to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Red Deer—Mountain View, many of whom I have had the privilege of reconnecting with this summer.

This summer, we all heard messages regarding things like housing affordability, but one of the other main messages that resonated with Canadians has been the message of safety. On this first day back in this fall session, we finally have a bill in front of us that speaks, even though in a somewhat fleeting fashion, to the issue of bail reform. The concept of bail reform is important. The reality is that there is much more to do in the reformation of our criminal justice system if Canadians are to truly feel safe in their homes and within their communities.

As we have heard multiple times today, the fact that 40 criminals in Vancouver have been charged 6,000 times baffles the minds of Canadians. Not only does this make a mockery of the bail system, but it ties up precious resources of both the courts and our law enforcement agencies. This precious time and money could truly be used to expedite trials, put more officers on the street to protect the public and, if these offenders were actually put in jail, make our streets safer, not just for the general public but for the unfortunate people living on our streets who also deserve our full attention. I also believe it is high time that governments respect the job that our law enforcement officers do and then ensure that those arrested are dealt with swiftly, that their hearings are done in a timely fashion and that appropriate penalties are meted out.

The Conservative leader has a strong message as to how we should work toward making our communities safer. “Jail not bail” is more than a catchphrase. It speaks to taking violent repeat offenders off the streets. It speaks to the enforcement of the rampant gun smuggling that has made many cities a war zone and it speaks to recognizing that these criminals have one thing in common: They hurt our fellow Canadians.

To this end, the Liberal government has introduced legislation that mirrors our concerns about serious repeat offenders. The question is: Can it be trusted to see this through to its logical conclusion? There must be more than just comforting words if this legislation is to have any meaning.

In conclusion, the point is that if we deal early with the real bad actors and mete out the appropriate punishment as required by the Canadian Criminal Code, two things are accomplished. First, it keeps criminals off the streets and disrupts those who organize to terrorize our communities and, second, it tells other would-be hooligans that we will not be tolerating this type of behaviour and their unruly actions will have consequences.

We have given the Liberals that opportunity by unanimous consent on Bill C-48, and I am hopeful that this legislation can make a real difference for the safety of all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the House come together and recognize the valuable contributions that Bill C-48 would make to Canadians. It would make our communities safer places to be. We know that because of the types of support at the many different levels that I referenced earlier. I would like to emphasize that law enforcement officers are also in support of the legislation.

Would the member across the way not agree that by working with law enforcement agencies and provincial and territorial jurisdictions, we have before us sound legislation that would, in fact, make our communities safer?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservative caucus had done back in 2017 was have a rural crime task force talk to thousands of Albertans through multiple meetings. Then the report that it had developed was brought to the House of Commons. We managed to get it into Motion No. 167, which was introduced by the member for Lakeland, which called on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study the issue of rural crime in Canada.

I will not go into all of the details, but that was an opportunity we had when we spoke to law enforcement to try to make changes to the judicial system. Some of those also dealt with things that needed to be done as far as bail was concerned.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One thing my colleague has highlighted is the vast nature of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to crime. Whether it be Bill C-5 or Bill C-75 in the former Parliament, the Liberals have really made a mess of the situation. When I think of Bill C-5 and other ways the Liberals have dropped the ball here, I am thinking about sex offenders who are able to serve their sentences on house arrest and serious firearms offenders who, again, can get house arrest. I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us where he thinks we should go next, especially when we think about how much work there is to be done.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose, going back to the study we had done on rural crime, there was a recognition that there are three levels of government that have to deal with the issues of criminality in communities. I think that is the important part. We saw that with the premiers and territorial leaders just pleading with the government to finally have some action, which I think is the critical part. However, we hear it in our communities as well from municipal leaders. Of course, as federal representatives, this is something we are always seized with. Therefore, it is important we have that communication with all of the leaders in the country and that we engage with law enforcement in order to make sure we can manage this properly.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. In particular, it is very meaningful to me to have this opportunity to opine and provide some thoughts with respect to Bill C-48. In light of the UC motion that was passed, much of my commentary is now moot.

The time I have available provides an opportunity for me to share with this House that Bill C-48 is not the be-all and end-all to addressing the concerns that Canadians, premiers of provinces and territories, police chiefs and presidents of police unions have had for years. The escalating crime rate is out of control, and serious repeat violent offenders have ruled our streets. Bill C-48 is a step, but it is a small step on the path to pure bail reform.

I want to correct a misnomer. I have listened for several hours to several of my colleagues who have the view that the legislation itself is tabled as bail reform. This is not bail reform. This is a legislative amendment to the Criminal Code as it relates to the provisions regarding bail hearings. It takes four additional offences that put the onus on the Crown to prove to the court why detention should be necessary and reverses that onto the accused.

That may sound like a good idea. In fact, it is a good idea. However, it is small comfort, and I will tell the House why. I posed a question to my colleague a few minutes ago about the vast majority of the offenders we have heard about, read about, watched on television and heard about anecdotally from a number of people. They are creating chaos and havoc, killing officers, killing innocent bystanders, killing innocent people and maiming and wounding innocent people who were simply trying to catch a bus or a train, were walking a child to school or were going for lunch. These are individuals who are already subject to reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code.

I want to explain very briefly that just because there is a reverse onus provision does not mean it is difficult in practical terms to discharge. The whole goal of a bail hearing presided over by a judge or a justice of the peace is to have an assessment of risk, whether it is the Crown trying to establish detention or suggest appropriate terms of release to alleviate that risk, or it is up to the accused and their lawyer to discharge the onus by saying they have a risk but the risk could be mitigated by this particular plan. That is the test.

If the judge or the justice of the peace, after hearing the evidence and submissions, determines that the plan of release proffered by the accused through their defence counsel is reasonable and could satisfy the test within the Criminal Code under section 515, a release is fashioned. That is what has been happening for years. It has allowed serious repeat violent offenders to get arrested and, within hours of being released, commit the same type of crime or other serious crimes, continually getting arrested and released. All of this has its genesis, its origin, in the Liberal soft-on-crime approach. I am not going to get into those details, because I have very limited time.

I also want to address another false narrative that I have heard from the government: that it has heeded to the calls of the premiers of provinces and territories and police chiefs. The government has to a certain degree. Those officers and those premiers did want reverse onus provisions for those four criminal charges. However, they wanted more.

For instance, the Liberals have still not answered the call from all premiers and territories asking for the federal government to conduct a thorough review of Canada's bail system. I have not heard anything from that side of the House. Second, they have ignored calls from law enforcement agencies who are pleading for a Criminal Code definition of a violent repeat offender and a serious prolific offender, and for improvements to the bail hearing process so that serious violent offences are dealt with, with the urgency they require, without bogging down the rest of the court system.

What I wanted to share with the House is that this past July there was a meeting of the National Police Federation. Together with that federation, speakers met with a number of premiers in Winnipeg, Manitoba. They produced a paper called “Smart Bail Initiatives: A Progressive Approach to Canada's Bail System”, which makes a number of recommendations. I hope the Liberal government will listen very carefully to them in facilitation.

For instance, the paper reads, “Recommendation 1: The Government of Canada, in coordination with provincial and territorial governments, should establish a national standing committee on Canadian criminal justice system (CJS) data sharing, which would collect, analyze, and report on current trends, challenges and best practices.” The second recommendation is as follows: “The Government of Canada, provinces, and territories should invest in deploying technologies that are proven effective at monitoring bail condition compliance. This would include an in-depth review of all existing available post-release monitoring technologies, and potentially the development of new technologies.”

One recommendation I highly endorse is recommendation 3: “Any jurisdictions using a Justice of the Peace (JP) to preside at bail hearings should establish a standard qualification for those bail JP positions, which are based on education and legal background, such as a law degree and five years of legal practice experience.” The sad reality is that the vast majority of justices of the peace we have in Canada are not legally trained. They come from myriad backgrounds. When dealing with serious, prolific violent offenders, they need, in my respectful submission, to have a legal understanding. They need to understand all the nuances and to understand how to read and interpret case law to determine what the best practices are in terms of finding that balance between protecting the rights of the accused and protecting the victim and communities. Sadly, that is not done enough.

Recommendation 4 is that “The Government of Canada undertake a national, systematic study of the CJS bail system which examines the most effective bail provisions that promote public safety and meet the CJS' objectives, including ensuring future court appearances and preventing the commission of new offences while on bail.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 7 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C‑48, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to bail reform, is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in the House of Commons here, after the summer, to bring back what we have heard not only in our communities. I have had the honour and privilege of travelling and hearing the stories of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In sharing those stories not just from my riding in eastern Ontario, but from P.E.I., northern Ontario and the Lower Mainland in British Columbia, I have to say the conclusion of many Canadians, and a growing number of Canadians, is very clear: After eight years of the Liberal and NDP coalition, Canadians are hurting. They are struggling financially, and some of the statistics that have been coming out have proven exactly that. Nearly half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque because they cannot afford to make ends meet. The cost of living is at a 40-year high. Grocery bills for the average family are expected to go up over $1,000 per year this year alone. What they are seeing time and again from Liberal and NDP MPs is just how out of touch they are.

We have a carbon tax in this country that is hurting, not helping, the pocketbooks of Canadian families. We have a carbon tax that is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan, because emissions are going up. We have a government with a coalition partner in the NDP that is cancelling clean energy projects. A tidal energy company in Nova Scotia walked away from a clean energy project. Numerous projects like hydro-electric in Quebec are cancelled, which were lower emissions, and instead, we have this group of MPs saying not only that we need a carbon tax but that it needs to be increased. When all is said and done, in the coming years it will add 61¢ a litre to the price of fuel in this country. That is 41¢ in the first carbon tax. There is a second carbon tax coming on top of that of 17¢. Of course in typical Liberal and NDP fashion, the government taxes the tax, so when all is said and done, in the coming years, it is going to get worse at the pumps, it is going to get worse to heat people's homes and the cost of living will be going up because of these increased costs in carbon taxes.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in the province of Ontario alone, when the Liberals and New Democrats are done their carbon tax increases in the current round that they have in the coming years, it will cost Ontario families out of pocket $2,300 more per year. That is before any of these phony rebates that they say cover it. They say that people need not worry, but should just pay more carbon tax and that the Liberals and the New Democrats will just cut it back to them and that it is cost neutral for them, but it is not.

Here is the part that is most frustrating that the Liberals and New Democrats just do not get: Farmers, truckers and businesses get zero rebates in the first place and they are passing that along to consumers. I am thinking that in P.E.I. where I was this summer, where there are four Liberal MPs, I heard repeatedly, the 14¢ a litre increase that came to Islanders on July 1 was bad economic news for P.E.I. The worst is yet to come.

Our Conservative plan is common sense. We would axe the carbon tax. We would focus on technology and not taxes. Canadians are hurting. They are struggling to pay the bills. We are seeing grocery bills stubbornly increase because Liberal and NDP MPs keep taxing our farmers, our truckers and our stores more. When will the Liberal and NDP coalition get what I know they have been hearing in every part of this country? Why will they not just axe the tax?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you here and to be here with my colleagues in the House this evening.

It is good to be back. It was a great summer. I had a nice time having conversations with my constituents as well, but it certainly is excellent to be back in the House representing our constituents. I am here with a new role, and it is a huge honour and privilege to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in addition to my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Sport.

Indeed, the fight against climate change is the most important battle of our generation, in my view, and in most people's views, and it is an honour and privilege to be serving in this capacity today because climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians and people globally. Impacts from climate change have affected our homes, the cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across Canada and in the world. Inaction on climate change is just not an option in 2023.

This summer, news was rampant across this country about the devastating wildfires and the impacts they are having on our communities. The air quality was an issue. People were fleeing their homes. People were evacuating as far north as Yellowknife. It is not an option to ignore the impacts of climate change. Putting a price on carbon pollution is an effective and essential part of any serious response to the global challenge of climate change, and our approach is designed with a focus on affordability. It is not just possible but incumbent on everybody in the House to care about more than one thing at a time.

I heard from my constituents over the course of the summer that affordability is a top concern. I also heard from people that fighting climate change is a top concern. Any serious government needs to have a plan to fight for both, and indeed we do.

Sadly, what we are fighting against in the House is this thinly diluted version of a Republican party, where evidence and facts just do not seem to matter anymore. All that seems to matter to these Conservatives is politics because that is their only path to power, so they repeat these cheesy slogans over and over again to try to shift the narrative away from important issues, such as climate change. This is despite the fact that good economists are producing evidence that suggests pricing pollution only has a 1% impact on prices going up on certain items and that it only adds a tenth of 1% to inflation.

It is dishonest and it is disheartening to see so-called progressive Conservatives, such as my friend and colleague opposite, who campaigned on a promise to price pollution, turn on their heels and run in the opposite direction when their new leader changes his mind. It is something they all campaigned on, and it is very disheartening to see. It is actually stark to recognize that there are members of the Conservative Party who campaigned on a promise to price carbon, and now they are going against their promise to those constituents. Many of those progressive Conservatives in those ridings indeed voted for those ideas.

In closing, I would like to read a quote. I call it the “good idea”. It reads:

The “good idea”...seeks to advance — and that I wholeheartedly support — is that for any economic activity, especially the production of energy, we should identify its negative environmental impacts, devise measures to avoid, mitigate or adapt to those impacts, and include the costs of those measures in the price of the product. It's the idea behind using carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, water pricing to conserve water, garbage pricing to deal with waste, and road pricing to reduce traffic congestion.

That quote is from Preston Manning, the idol, the Conservative mentor of the leader of the Conservative Party.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are using one part of their environmental platform that is working well. They are recycling the same failed ideas and talking points they had when they left here in June. In the months of our leader and our caucus travelling around the country, including into communities where we currently do not hold seats but where Canadians are desperate for a voice, we are hearing the need for change.

When we talk about affordability, I hear the message that it will change a little bit. They still support the carbon tax. They still support it being 61¢ a litre, tripling or quadrupling in the coming years, but at the same time now they are saying that it only adds a little bit. To the farmer who gets zero rebates, the trucker who gets zero rebates and the stores that get zero rebates, it is like a compound interest in tax on the pocketbooks of Canadians.

At the same time they pretend to be proud of their climate change record, they are driving up taxes and the cost of living, while at the same time emissions are still going up. They are letting clean energy projects be cancelled in this country. Instead, they have no problem taxing the pocketbooks.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government's approach to carbon pricing pollution is working, and any reference to the contrary is false. Industries are encouraged to become more efficient, and they are using cleaner technologies. The member opposite says they are all for technology and not for pricing carbon, but they work hand in hand, and any economist worth their salt would say the exact same. Indeed, Preston Manning, a Conservative economist worth his salt, says the exact same thing.

Another prominent Conservative, who I am privileged to be able to use the name of in the House now, Erin O'Toole, campaigned just recently, back in 2021, on a promise to price pollution, just as every other Conservative on that side did. I recall when my colleague from eastern Ontario, my friend, campaigned alongside Erin O'Toole and was proud of his carbon pricing plan and was proud of the fact that a Conservative stood up and said it is important to fight climate change. We wish that more Conservatives would.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, in June I asked the Prime Minister if he understood the connection between the cost of energy and the price of food. In response, the Minister of Agriculture bragged about how hard the government was working to spread manure. As a long-serving member, I have heard some cow pies for answers in the House before, but never literally.

It should worry Canadians that, when pressed on food prices, this tired government can only answer with accomplishments on bovine excrement. It is sad to see these ministers forced to utter bull dung responses on behalf of a distracted, petulant, pouty Prime Minister. Unfortunately, for Canadians, the carbon tax was just a first blow in the Liberal Party's war on affordable food.

Canadians understand that it is the official policy of the Liberal Party to make energy more expensive. Now, it is officially in favour of making food more expensive. New food packaging regulations are going to reduce competition and drive up prices even higher. New food labelling regulations will make food more expensive, and now the Prime Minister is threatening to impose a new tax on grocery stores. Are our Liberal colleagues getting high on their own safe supply? Was the air cut off in the Liberal caucus room last week? That might explain why Liberals think a new tax on grocery stores would reduce food prices.

These Liberals claim that by taxing carbon, we will get less carbon. After all, they have seen that putting a tax on news links shared on social media results in news links disappearing. Now the Prime Minister wants to put on NDP orange face and join the socialists in bullying grocery chain stores. This type of far left, radical populism was fashionable in places like Venezuela and Argentina, until the day the consequences became clear. For many Canadians, that day has already arrived.

After eight years under this radical, far-left gang, life has become unaffordable for millions. The price of a house has doubled. The cost to rent has doubled. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Deaths of despair, whether from drug overdoses or state-sponsored suicide, are upsetting all-time records. This government's radical ideology is killing Canadians, and the Liberals' only solution is more of the same: more taxes, more bureaucrats, more regulations, more red tape and, if the Minister of Agriculture is to be believed, more cow manure.

Once upon a time, this country had powerful ministers of agriculture. They were often farmers with noses for BS. They would have seen it as their duty to stop radical environment ministers from pushing policies to make food more expensive. Instead, the last ag minister led the charge to make fertilizer more expensive. They just do not get it. It takes energy to manufacture fertilizer. It takes energy to ship fertilizer to the farmers. It takes energy to spread fertilizer. It takes energy to harvest crops. It takes energy to ship crops to processors. It takes energy to process crops into food. It takes energy to ship the food to stores.

The official policy of the Liberal Party is to increase the cost of energy. Now, it has an official policy to make food packaging more expensive. Yet these Liberals deny that their own policies are working exactly as intended. When will they come clean with Canadians about their policy to make life unaffordable?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for the opportunity to talk about our government's commitment to strong, profitable and sustainable farm businesses across this great country.

I would like to remind opposition members that the majority of the agricultural sector's emissions are not subject to carbon pricing. There are also exemptions for gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers for agricultural purposes. There is also a partial rebate for commercial greenhouse operations.

As well, we will be returning a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions through a refundable tax credit.

This may apply to farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.

We support our farmers, who are bearing the brunt of the effects of climate change. Over the past few years, we have all seen how difficult recent weather disasters in Canada have been for them.

We need only look at the severe drought and wildfires in western Canada and the flooding in Atlantic Canada this past year.

Marco Corbin of La Halte des Pèlerins in Sherbrooke testified about the enormous amount of work he had to do around the clock during last spring's late frosts to save his harvest. By helping producers like Mr. Corbin get back on their feet, we are also helping them be more resilient to extreme weather conditions, which are becoming more and more frequent.

In Alberta, for instance, our on-farm climate action fund has already helped more than 1,200 farmers with $10 million in funding to adopt practices on one million acres in the province, including cover crops, nitrogen management and rotational grazing. An additional $18 million or so has been allocated to Alberta this year.

We are also responding to help farmers cover costs such as soil testing, soil mapping, organic amendments and seeds.

What I am trying to say is that farm families across the country can rest assured. We will stand by them and support their growth, resilience and viability. Several agricultural sectors in Canada have already committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. I am thinking in particular of dairy and beef producers. This demonstrates the willingness and commitment of agricultural producers to transition to a low-carbon economy, while continuing to work to put food on the table for Canadians.

Just as importantly, some of these practices may generate positive economic benefits. It is a win for farmers and a win for the environment.

Once again, I thank the hon. member for the question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is living in denial, but Canadians know the truth. It is the Liberals who have been in power for the last eight years. Liberal policies are driving up prices and Liberal spending is fuelling inflation, yet the Liberals still try to gaslight Canadians. When the price of energy shot up in Atlantic Canada this summer, the radical Minister of Environment claimed this was all the fault of the companies and not his carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. It is another example of Liberal gaslighting. Here is what the Minister of Environment's own clean fuel regulations state: “it is estimated that provinces in Atlantic Canada will be more negatively affected by the Regulations.”

It is clear from the comments of the unnamed Liberal MPs recently published on CBC that the government has been gaslighting its own caucus. The environment minister has known for years that his energy regulations would hammer Atlantic Canadians and he pushed them through anyhow.

It is time for the Liberals to fire their leader and reverse their policies of making life more expensive for everyone.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that many factors affect food prices, including, of course, climate change.

That is why we are helping farmers to take action on climate change through popular programs such as the on-farm climate action fund.

We also fully recognize that the rising cost of food is putting tremendous pressure on families. In Canada, food insecurity is directly linked to inadequate household income. That is why we launched the grocery rebate in July to provide $2.5 billion in financial assistance to low-income households.

As part of our government's first food policy for Canada, we invested $70 million over five years to support community initiatives to improve access to healthy, nutritious, diverse food. Provided through the local food infrastructure fund, this money has enabled organizations such as Moisson Estrie—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians continue to struggle with basic affordability, like being able to feed themselves and being able to heat their homes as they get their first propane or oil delivery, and as the cold weather starts to set in and folks start receiving natural gas bills, many folks cannot even find a home because of the price of mortgage payments and the price of down payments. The price of rent has doubled under the government.

Canadians are still picking up massive tabs for the jet-setting, vacationing lifestyle of the Prime Minister. Six figures is what it costs when the Prime Minister wants to take a holiday, even though Canadians already keep up an official holiday residence for the Prime Minister, which has seen massive multi-million dollar upgrades during his time in office. His recent trip to Jamaica saw taxpayers pick up another six-figure tab. What is interesting here is that his host is a very recent donor to the Trudeau Foundation and is also the godson of the Prime Minister's late father.

No one disagrees that politicians, public servants and prime ministers are entitled to time away. A prime minister needs security and there are some costs that go along with that, but what is reasonable?

The common-sense approach would tell us that the regular cost we would incur if we were not a public office holder we would pay anyway. The price to stay at this particular locale is $9,000 a night. Who picked up the tab for that at a time when Canadians cannot afford the basics? Their grocery bags get lighter and lighter every week because they cannot afford food, and they have seen the inflationary policies of the government drive up the cost of everything. Its carbon tax on everything is driving up the cost of these essentials. Are they expected to pick up a tab for $9,000 a night for time off? That does not sound like a Sunwing or discount vacation to me, or a prime minister who is particularly engaged with the struggles that everyday Canadians are facing.

Canadians had questions about this and they put those questions to members of Parliament. We have not had an ethics commissioner for six months, and the government has just finally appointed an interim commissioner without conversation or co-operation with opposition parties. Canadians need to have confidence that, first of all, the rules are being followed, but also that the government realizes the realities they are facing every single day. The Liberal Prime Minister continues to drive up costs while also asking Canadians to pick up the tab for his expensive holidays.

When we asked for details from the government, it was quite indignant and was not prepared to offer an answer. However, I hope that with hindsight, time and the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in now, the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide clarity to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago, when I was in opposition, I saw then prime minister Stephen Harper in front of the Parliament buildings, and I noticed there was an exceptional number of security staff around the prime minister.

I had given that some serious thought, recognizing Canada and the role that it plays in the world today and that with the threats that are out there around the world it was a good thing that then prime minister Harper had the type of security force that was there to protect him. It was not Stephen Harper per se, it was the Prime Minister of Canada.

Where we could agree is that when one is a leader of a country like Canada, as Prime Minister, sadly, it is true that they become a target. That means there has to be a commitment to support our Prime Minister.

The term the member used was jet-setting. It is not like the Prime Minister could hop on an Air Canada flight to fly outside Canada for a holiday by himself. It does not work that way. It did not work that way for Stephen Harper. There is a security detail. It is not quite as simple as the Conservatives often try to give the impression. I would suggest that is a false impression.

I remember when I was in opposition. If members want to talk about abuse, what always came to my mind is when the former prime minister Stephen Harper went to India. We were talking about India earlier today. It is hard to believe, but his car was actually flown to India. It cost the taxpayers over $1 million. That would be a lot of nights at a hotel. They do have vehicles in India.

We should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I would suggest that the member needs to be reminded not to throw rocks at glass houses. At the end of the day, the member made reference to the Ethics Commissioner. I am not too sure if Canada had an Ethics Commissioner when that incident took place, because having an Ethics Commissioner is relatively new to Canada. The position was not there when Stephen Harper was first elected. I suspect that if it had been, and there is always a learning curve that takes place, there might have been some thoughts in regard to a number of issues. One could think of the Senate, for example, and some of the things that have taken place in the Senate.

We need to focus on the real issues that Canadians are facing today, issues such as inflation. That is one of the reasons why we met and called for the big grocery giants to come to Ottawa, so we could state our concerns and indicate that we would take action. We are upset with the degree to which grocery stores are making record profit, while at the same time we are seeing grocery inflation.

That is not to mention the announcement of investing in ensuring that we get more homes built. Those are the issues that are really important to Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talks about glass houses while millions of Canadians are struggling to just realize the dream of having a house. They cannot because of, and it is exactly as the member said, the inflationary policies of the Liberal government.

When Canadians are asked to pick up the tab for luxury vacations for the Prime Minister, such as $9,000 a night for Jamaica and $6,000 a night in London, my goodness, the Prime Minister has not found a dollar that he is not willing to tax out of Canadians' pockets and spend on his own luxury and excess.

Canadians want policies from the government that would see that Liberals stop their reckless spending, their reckless inflationary policies and focus on the needs of Canadians. The Liberals could start doing that by axing their carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of everything.

Is the parliamentary secretary willing to do the right thing and commit today for the government to stop driving up the cost of everything, including home heating?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I hope the Conservatives would understand and appreciate, from the last seven or eight years, that their sole focus has been to be critical and make character assassinations, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers within the government. They should take that same force, that desire to make politics look as ugly as possible, and turn it into something more positive, such as dealing with inflation or housing.

Never before have we seen a government that has invested more in housing. In fact, during the nineties, political parties here in Ottawa were pulling out of their housing commitments. This government and this Prime Minister have made commitments and continue to work with other jurisdictions across Canada so that we can have more homes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)