Debates of Feb. 26th, 2024

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians are in suspense right now as well because they want to know what would happen if we have an election. I am prepared to listen to whatever the electorate says in that regard as well.

We are talking about three westerners from the Liberal Party. I hope that the member is one of them.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly extend my sympathies to the member for Red Deer—Mountain View on the passing of his close friend and brother-in-law Charlie Moore, whom he referenced in his speech.

I have gotten to know the member really well on the natural resources committee and I know he is a fierce advocate for his constituency of Red Deer—Mountain View, as well as for agriculture, but specifically as an advocate and defender of the world's most ethical energy, and that is Alberta oil and gas. I want to thank him for his advocacy.

True to Liberal form, this is another bill that seeks to divide Canadians. We have seen it over and over. Whether it is on social, economic, cultural or regional issues, the Liberal-NDP government has chosen to divide Canadians. Again in this bill, we see that federally regulated industries are captured in this bill, whereas federal employees are not. What is the fairness?

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

Mr. Speaker, part I of the Canada Labour Code “sets the rules for unionization, collective bargaining and labour disputes in federally regulated sectors. More specifically, Part I applies to” and it then goes through the list, “the federally regulated private sector, which includes key industries such as: banking; telecommunications and broadcasting; air, rail and maritime transportation; most Crown corporations (for example, Canada Post);...First Nations band councils”. It also applies to “all private sector businesses and municipal governments in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon”.

Therefore, the question becomes why we are taking certain groups and carving them out. From what I have heard in the last couple of days, there has really been no discussion about that. I think this is something that really deserves more of that thoughtfulness.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 6:30 p.m. so we could possibly begin the late show.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Taxation

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House virtually this evening and to pursue a matter I first raised in question period late last year, on October 27, 2023. It deals with an issue that is of concern to many Canadians, just at the time when Canadians are feeling pain at the pumps. While I know my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House think that it is due to the carbon tax, it is far more due to the excess profits being experienced by the oil and gas sector. A minuscule impact is from carbon pricing.

There is a pin on my jacket to show that we stand with Ukraine. Ever since Putin invaded Ukraine, that has had a very serious impact on fossil fuel prices globally. It has been to the benefit of large fossil fuel companies, and they are reaping extraordinary, record-breaking profits in the tens of billions of dollars every month all around the world. It would be fantastic if our sanctions against Russia bit deeply enough to mean that selling Russian oil would become off limits, but we know that many countries continue to buy Russian oil.

The modest proposal I raised in question period comes from the hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre, who has put forward Motion No. 92 to put an excess profits tax on oil and gas as is currently done for insurance companies and banks. It is a very reasonable proposal to apply the Canada recovery dividend to fossil fuel companies.

This particular proposal, Motion No. 92, has been reviewed, and the benefit to the Canadian treasury has been calculated by the Parliamentary Budget Office at over $4 billion. In other words, those are funds we could be receiving as a nation from excess profits. As Eric Reguly in the business pages of The Globe and Mail noted some time ago, these profits are not based on business acumen or sound planning or great management by the oil and gas sector; they are pure and simple war profiteering. That is what they are. The companies are making a lot of money as Ukrainians face the brutality of Putin's regime.

Other countries are applying excess profits tax at much higher levels than what is proposed by my colleague in Motion No. 92. In fact, Motion No. 92 itself points out that the United Kingdom is charging excess profits tax at a level of 25% and generating £5 billion; and Europe is charging excess profits tax at 21%. This modest proposal, using the same Canada recovery benefit that is currently being applied to banking and insurance, would be at 15%.

While I cannot say he answered my question, when the hon. Minister of Environment responded to it, he spoke of other things the government is doing. He did not speak of the finance question at all. Why are we not taxing the excess profits of the oil and gas sector at the very time that it is reaping extraordinary rewards in war profiteering? The oil and gas companies are also hiking prices at the pump and profiteering from price gouging.

The time is certainly overdue to ensure that we bring in the profits from the oil and gas industry, through proper taxation, to national revenues so that they could be used on such things as the disability tax credit. Then, the poorest of the poor in this country could receive additional financial support in this time when we are all feeling the pinch from the affordability crisis. I hope the parliamentary secretary will provide a better answer than the minister did.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed having exchanges with the leader of the Green Party. I know she gives a great deal of thought to her presentations and, ultimately, her questions. I think some questions are a little easier to answer than others.

We have a Prime Minister and through the Prime Minister a Minister of Finance, our Deputy Prime Minister, who have taken the issue very seriously. I do not need to tell the House, because everyone knows, of the ethnic heritage of our Minister of Finance and how she really does have an appreciation of what is taking place in Ukraine today and the impact that oil is having in supporting Russia.

I do agree with the leader of the Green Party when she talks about the misconception of the price on pollution as being the sole source of the exorbitant prices that people are having to pay for gas. It is something that is not necessarily new. She put a great deal of emphasis on, today in particular, the war. There is no doubt that it has had a significant impact.

I would suggest that excess profits is something that has been ongoing. Governments in the past have tried to deal with it, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. We have seen regulations in different provinces, both in Atlantic Canada and out west, where there have been attempts to deal with some of the excess profits. At the national level, standing committees have attempted to deal with it.

I understand that the leader of the Green Party is saying to just have an excess profits tax imposed. I do not fully understand how that works, to be honest. What I do know is that the Minister of Finance has been very open in terms of listening to arguments, in particular those that have come out of the pandemic, with regard to the huge amount of profits in different sectors.

I am thinking of the financial area, where we have put in some specific taxes on companies where there was extreme wealth. I do not know to what degree there is a willingness to do something today on that front. I do believe that there is a great deal of discussion taking place. I think that we also have to factor in other elements of the debates. At the end of the day, I do not think anything is off the table, per se. Some might take a little longer to move forward.

The cost of fossil fuels, as I indicated, has been a frustration of mine for many years. In fact, shortly after getting elected in 2010, I had a presser that talked about the price of gas and the collusion that was taking place that led to excess profits. Maybe one of the ways we can deal with that is to enhance competition or boycott one particular station until it lowers the price of a litre of gasoline to a certain level. I think that consumers are frustrated. I am really encouraged that in Winnipeg we have a new gas company, 204 Fuel's, which has provided a great deal of competition. I can say that where that gas station exists, the price of gas has actually been going down; its price is consistently lower than everyone else's.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we will see the Minister of Finance move to tax the windfall profits of the oil and gas sector. We do know how to do it. It is not complicated. The Minister of Finance is already doing it in applying it to the excess profits that have been occurring in the banking and insurance sector.

Surely we can align our policies to move away from fossil fuels and ensure that we get support to Canadians without going deeper in debt, without expanding the deficit, by bringing in more revenues. That is how one balances the budget. Bring in more revenues from excess profit taxes and from wealth taxes on what is going to offshore tax havens, making sure that we deliver for Canadians affordability on a planet on which we can survive and on which our children will survive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the government is very much aware, particularly the Minister of Finance, of the many hardships that many Canadians are having to endure. Not that long ago, we had inflation rates that were close to 8%, I think in June 2022, and we are finally getting inflation rates under control.

The cost of providing fuel for transportation does have an impact through the gouging that we all have seen. Is there a policy alternative? I can assure the member that the Minister of Finance is looking at a wide spectrum of options. The idea is to support all Canadians and have their backs.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize an eastern Ontario legend, George Tackaberry. George has recently won the Lifetime Business Achievement Award from the Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce, and that is supported by the 1000 Islands Community Development Corporation.

To call George Tackaberry a legend is a bit of an understatement. He is a decades-long community leader, a philanthropist and a very successful business owner. Starting in 1957, G. Tackaberry & Sons Construction has grown from a humble family business to a thriving operation throughout eastern Ontario, employing 100 full-time workers and 200 seasonal workers.

It is clear that throughout George's life, he has made it his mission to enrich the lives of people in our community through his philanthropic endeavours. Brockville General Hospital, the Gord Brown Memorial outdoor rink, the United Way Leeds and Grenville, dozens of charities, youth athletic teams, service clubs, parks, community gardens and schools have all benefited from the great generosity of the Tackaberry family.

The Brockville Airport was able to extend its runway to 4,500 feet because of George's donation of materials, time and money. More recently, and near and dear to my heart and everyone in our community, George and his family donated $500,000 to Maple View Landings redevelopment project that will see the Maple View long-term care home greatly expanded and retooled to become a shining example of care for our seniors and the vulnerable in Ontario.

George has a big heart for our community and he has a big heart for all of his passions, and that includes Tack's Toys, his extensive collection of vehicles and equipment, and among them is a limousine of a former prime minister and a former president. What does George do with Tack's Toys? He makes them available for tours for a donation to support local causes.

I congratulate George on the award and lifetime of exemplary service and dedication to our community. Our entire community, our province and truly our country are so much better because of all that he has done.

I want to hearken us back to the first time that I put this question to the government. The number that we were dealing with was different. Since then, we have had an Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has told us that the cost of the arrive scam is at least $60 million, not the $54 million we were talking about before.

Common-sense Conservatives, on the one hand, have said that we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. On the other hand, we have a Liberal government that is lining the pockets of insiders, while Canadians are lining up at food banks.

For the NDP members' part in the costly coalition, they are doing everything that they can to help them, including voting eight times to continue shovelling money out the door to insiders, including GC Strategies, a two-person firm working out of a basement that received $20 million but did no IT work.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is very straightforward. The Liberals voted against the Auditor General conducting an audit. Will the parliamentary secretary ensure the government's full co-operation and waive any cabinet confidences for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when it investigates?

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

Mr. Speaker, just to start off, I have a very brief comment. What the member highlights is a success story that many of us could easily relate to within our own constituencies or jurisdictions.

We often talk about individuals, but we do not talk enough about small- and medium-sized businesses and the profound, positive impact they have in our communities. I am very respectful of and admire the work of those entrepreneurs, those small businesses that invest their time and resources. Ultimately, they take a substantial chance in terms of creating opportunities for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

I just want to tip my hat to the many entrepreneurs and business people in our communities. That principle applies in every region, where we get them coming to the plate, helping to build a healthier and stronger community.

Having said that, I know that the member opposite and others have been very concerned with regard to the whole ArriveCAN issue and what has been taking place with it. Interestingly enough, I would suggest to the member that it does not really matter what side of the House one sits on; all members are very concerned. I do not think there is a member inside the House who does not have a question or two, in terms of what has actually taken place.

We have to put things into the proper perspective. At the time when this was occurring, the federal government was literally spending billions of dollars during a worldwide pandemic. There were a number of demands on a wide variety of different departments.

That does not justify any sort of abuse, in any fashion whatsoever. Unfortunately, when that kind of money is spent, when those types of programs are created, there are going to be mistakes. This was a very big mistake.

The Government of Canada has recognized that and has taken the actions necessary to ensure that there is some justice at the end of the day. The Government of Canada values the tax dollar just as much as the Conservative Party does. We want to get to the bottom of this issue, and we will do so.

After all, the ministers responsible, either directly or indirectly, have been wanting to see results, both internally and externally. At the end of the day, we expect the procurement process to be followed properly. When that does not take place, we have to ensure that there is an appropriate consequence. This has been, and always will be, the case.

This is not the first government where we have seen some things go wrong at times within procurement. What is important is how the government reacts when something does go wrong. The government has reacted very positively and quickly on the issue, whether it is through those internal reviews that we see taking place or the comments in the standing committees.

We will continue to ensure that there is a consequence to any sort of inappropriate behaviour in this whole issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, a two-person firm working out of a basement in suburban Ottawa was getting $258 million in contracts from the Liberal government, starting mere weeks after it was elected. This has been reported in La Presse and elsewhere. On the arrive scam, of course, this same company got $20 million.

The parliamentary secretary talks about taking action. What happened to ministerial accountability? Who is in charge over there? Conservatives have put forward a very clear plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

While the Liberals are firefighting on the other side of the House, they are not tending to the most basic responsibility to Canadians, which is their fiduciary responsibility. Canadians are lined up at food banks, struggling to get by, and the Liberals are lining the pockets of insiders. Their friends in the cover-up coalition, the NDP, are voting with them every step of the way.

Canadians want to know this: Why will the Liberal government not put Canadians first instead of its own friends?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. There is no conspiracy out there whereby we are seeing all these public dollars being funnelled to one community, whether it is a political community or another community. That does not exist. It is in the minds of some members in the opposition who like to try to tie the word “scandal” to everything that takes place, believing that if they continue to say it time and time again, whether in social media or inside the House, they will be able to successfully fool Canadians. I would suggest that Canadians are a lot smarter than that.

If we take a look at the budgetary and legislative actions that we have taken over the last number of years, the proof is in the pudding. It was right from day one that we saw substantial tax breaks for Canada's middle class, the enhancement of child benefit programs and supporting our seniors. The proof is in the pudding, and we will continue to be there for Canadians.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a housing crisis. There is not one part of this country that has not been negatively impacted after eight years of this Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal record. Housing prices have doubled; rents have doubled, and at a time when we need to build more houses, five million homes in the coming years just to meet demand, we are actually seeing housing starts and construction starts drop in Canada year over year. It is a very dangerous trend to begin with, and the numbers ahead only look worse.

One of the worst problems we have in this country is with gatekeepers, and I am going to make the argument that the Liberal government, over the course of eight years, has been one of the worst gatekeepers at both a macro and a micro level. At a macro level, we have the Liberals being gatekeepers because they have doubled our national debt, which has resulted in 40-year-high inflation, and now we are seeing interest rates unlike any we have seen in decades. To build a new home in my part of eastern Ontario, whether it be in the united counties of SDG or the city of Cornwall, the cost to build and the cost of a mortgage for any family that desperately needs a place to live are becoming more and more out of reach, not easier. However, the micro level, where the Liberal government is gatekeeping and blocking new homes and units from being built is right in the city of Cornwall by the Liberals' own transport minister and department.

Here is a bit of background. For the last eight years, Liberal candidates locally, and numerous ones after that in the Liberal government, have promised to divest a bunch of waterfront lands in Cornwall, and the City of Cornwall and Akwesasne want to return those to local say and local control. For eight years, they have dithered, delayed, done these vague consultations and over and over again spun their wheels, with bureaucrats contradicting each other. It has been an absolute mess.

The record is very clear. The Liberals have had eight years, and they have not even moved any of these parcels of land forward an inch to progress. Now it is getting bad, because there is one small parcel, Parcel 6, at the intersection of Water and Brookdale, where the City of Cornwall is reviewing an application to build a private-developer building of 506 units in two towers on Brookdale Avenue, which is a significant investment that is desperately needed to increase supply. We need more places to live, and this gets 506 in the right direction.

However, Transport Canada, with lawyers and bureaucrats and back-and-forth, are still dithering and delaying even on getting this one parcel transferred to local control between the City of Cornwall and the Federal Bridge Corporation just south of it, to allow council to know that they own that intersection, that they can put the entrance into it so that the developer can get it under way and council can approve it once it has all the information. Months and months later, the mayor and Akwesasne Grand Chief Abram Benedict are all on record saying that they want to see this parcel transferred. They want to see it come to local ownership so that council has all the tools and information to try to finalize the site plan and approval for this project. However, Transport Canada and the Liberal government are blocking it.

I asked my original question on this topic a couple of weeks ago, but I did not get even a semblance of an answer about Cornwall and this project specifically. Now that the Liberal government has had it and knew that I was coming here for this debate tonight on this topic, what is the update from the Liberals on finally getting even this one parcel intersection transferred, so that we can make a decision and try to get more units built in the city of Cornwall?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say.

First, to answer specifically, the member tried to say that, for eight years, the Government of Canada has not done anything with the project. I can tell the member that there are numerous projects across the country the Government of Canada has moved forward on. It is not quite as simple as seeing a square block of land, clicking our heels and making it happen. Sometimes things take time.

The member opposite did not tell the House what some of the complications are. I suspect there are some complications, and he might even know of some of those complications, but he is being very selective in what he is saying. Rather, he wants to pass the blame.

He started off talking about how housing is in such a crisis. His current leader was the minister of housing under Stephen Harper and did absolutely nothing on housing. In the last 50 years, there has not been a government more proactive on the housing file than this government. We finally have a government that developed a housing strategy. We finally have a government that came out with new programs, such as the housing accelerator fund. We finally have a government that is working with other levels of government.

What does the Conservative Party do? It votes against every measure we have. We have had agreements with municipalities and so forth, far superior and in greater numbers than the Conservative Party could ever imagine, let alone put into place. At the end of the day, there is absolutely no consistency coming from the other side.

I can say that, as a national government, we have led very strongly on the housing file. It is not just the federal government alone that is responsible. It takes provinces and municipalities. The good news is that we are working not only with provinces and municipalities but also with non-profit organizations and other stakeholders because we recognize the need for and importance of housing, unlike the Conservative Party, which wants to try to paint a picture that is not complete.

The government will continue to work where it can to provide ongoing support for housing. Our actions to date have seen and will continue to see the development of tens of thousands of new housing units. However, every time we bring in some sort of initiative, the initial response from the Conservative Party is to criticize it. Then it wonders why it is that we are not co-operating or doing some of the projects it is identifying.

I can assure the member that the department is aware of the request and that there are discussions and dialogue in the Cornwall area on the issue. We waited for a while to try to get the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, a large parcel of land that involved a great deal of negotiations. It took several years to make it happen.

We know that the government, through its different departments, is looking at ways we can enhance housing opportunities. We are looking at ways we can work with municipalities. We can contrast that to what the Conservative Party is talking about or what it did when it was in office. I can tell members that it is literally night and day.

Therefore, it is a bit much to sit and listen to a member being critical of the government and trying to give a false impression that we are not doing enough on the housing file when I witnessed for a number of years, when I was in opposition, a government that did nothing. We can contrast that to a government that has made historic funding and has worked with other levels of government, unlike any other government in the last 50-plus years.

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight the Liberals knew that I was coming to ask a very specific question about the negotiations and transfer of a specific parcel that the federal government owns. People who live in the city of Cornwall, are on council, are staff members or are members of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne are getting caught up in red tape. They cannot get a straight answer. After eight years, they cannot even transfer one single piece of property. I do not think the member could even point Cornwall out on a map, let alone know the intersection or what we are talking about here.

The bar was so low for me to come here tonight to just get an update on the timeline and the plans to get this done. The City of Cornwall, Akwesasne and the Federal Bridge Corporation are all on board with the solution. No wonder housing prices have doubled. No wonder there are tent cities. No wonder the number of housing starts are dropping in this country. It was a low bar. I told the government I would come here tonight to ask about this and what the government's plan was. It could not even give a basic update.

I will ask one more time, and the government has known for weeks what the question is. What is the plan? What is the update on the specific piece of property and the plan to get it done?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows full well he is not far from the Minister of Housing or from the Minister of Transport, and he could cross over and ask those questions on the side. He could also check with the local municipality or write to the departments. I would be interested in seeing that correspondence.

I suspect the municipality and other groups, such as indigenous communities, have in fact been working hand in hand with the federal government to try to work this issue through. I applaud them on their actions. Sometimes there is no simple answer, or at least an answer that is going to satisfy the politics the member is trying to bring forward. I say that only because of the manner in which he started the discussion. He did not start the discussion by asking, “What about Cornwall?” It was more about being critical of the national government and the national government not doing enough on the whole housing file. That is how he started the discussion, and now, he wants to conclude it as if he is being a strong advocate for Cornwall.

This government will continue to work with the people of Cornwall and others to try to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.

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

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 6:28 p.m.)