Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #106 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #106 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
If you want to work on this collaboratively, then I invite you to move on from the political games. If you have more of these types of aggressive, partisan motions, then we're going to have more of these types of days where we're debating what I hear at the doors in my riding. When I go to the door, the people are fed up with the government and would like to see an election. They want to have their say, and their say is a carbon tax election. That's what they're saying to me. I'd say that it's the primary issue. Probably now for over 50% of the people I connect with at the door, this is a driving issue connected to the cost of living. They want to see this.
We'll have a non-confidence vote next week on Wednesday, hopefully one of many to come and be repeated. Ours will be simple. It's 12 words. I think we all agree on 12 words as we go forward on it. The carbon tax election will come. If this committee were to accept my subamendment, that might actually expedite it even faster.
It would be great to see it happen even more quickly if we need to use the committee process to move non-confidence in the government in order to submit ourselves as public servants to the people's judgment. They have a right to judge the quality of our work. You don't get votes; you earn votes and you earn them repeatedly. It is difficult, because it's your work. It's your political party's work. It's your political movements. There are provincial parties as well. You have political leadership as well that you have to defend when you want to. You don't have to defend them. I mean that, especially on the other side. You don't have to defend your political leadership. At a certain point, self-preservation should kick in, and you should be listening to the people in your ridings.
With Bjorkquist specifically, this court ruling that is the linchpin of why now we have Bill C-71, and this claim that we need to rush, the government can always return to the court and ask for another delay, if it comes to that. I don't think it will come to that. The government side has a working majority, effectively.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I respect my colleague and I certainly do not want to interrupt, but I think we said we would suspend the meeting at 1 p.m. It is now 1 p.m. We can keep going, but I think that is what we said.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I will tell you what the speaking list is, and then I will make a decision.
With regard to the speaking list right now, Mr. Kmiec still has the floor. If we suspend, he will have the floor next time. We then have Mr. El-Khoury, Mr. McLean, Mr. Maguire and Mr. Redekopp.
Taking into consideration that there are quite a few speakers, I think it's in the best interest of all members and the support staff that we suspend now. I will suspend the meeting.
[The meeting was suspended at 1:00 p.m., Thursday, September 19]
[The meeting resumed at 3:41 p.m., Monday, September 23]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call this meeting to order.
We are meeting in public.
Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.
Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or by Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thank you all for your co-operation.
I would like to welcome a few guest members here today who are replacing the regular members. First, I would love to welcome Mr. Arnold to the immigration committee. On the Liberal side, we have Mr. Ken McDonald. And, of course, we have Anju Dhillon online.
Anju, welcome.
With this, we are discussing the subamendment of Mr. Kmiec to the amendment of Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe on the motion of Mr. Chiang. At the time of suspension on Thursday, September 19, Mr. Kmiec had the floor.
The following were on the list to debate the subamendment after Mr. Kmiec: MP El-Khoury, MP McLean, MP Maguire and MP Redekopp. Instead of MP McLean, Mr. Arnold, you will take that spot if you wish.
Mr. Kmiec, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was just wanting to ask a question about ministerial appearances.
We have, by my math, about six ministers' appearances that are on the schedule, so I was curious as to whether you've had any communications with the minister's office in terms of when he might be planning to come back to the committee.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Can we raise a point of order to ask the chair a question, since filibustering is going on at the same time?
It seems to me that if we want to talk about a specific subject, a point of order is not valid. I may be mistaken, but I would like some clarification from the chair or the clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'm going to pass it on to....
We do not have any information from the minister.
We'll continue with the debate.
Mr. Kmiec, carry on, please.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I left off with a promise that I was going to continue, so that I could read into the public record a letter I've received from the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, from President Dennis MacNeil.
I'm going to read the letter into the record. I'd be more than happy also to table the letter if there's consent from the committee.
This one is addressed to Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and reads as follows:
On behalf of the Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta, I would like to draw your attention to a pressing issue for your consideration.
As you are aware, public school divisions are funded entirely by tax dollars. School boards strive to manage these funds responsibly and effectively.
However, the introduction and subsequent increases of the Carbon Tax have significantly raised operational costs for Alberta public school boards. While we acknowledge our shared responsibility to reduce emissions and lower our carbon footprints, this tax has placed a substantial strain on the budgets, removing necessary dollars out of the classrooms and is essentially an unnecessary tax on tax. There are tens of millions of dollars each year that can not be used for the education of our students, in Alberta alone, never mind the hundreds of millions each year across Canada.
We request consideration for an exemption to organizations that operate on tax dollars, or at the very least, a carbon tax rebate similar to what is provided for private residences and small businesses. This would enhance our ability to invest in environmentally sustainable infrastructure and initiatives.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
It's signed, “Sincerely, Dennis MacNeil, President”.
He has copied all Alberta members of Parliament; the Minister of Education; the chief of staff to the Minister of Education; the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas, Rebecca Schulz; the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta members; and Troy Tait, the executive director and CEO of the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta.
Literally in the letter—to the point that Mr. El-Khoury made about this non-existent federal school food program that has fed exactly zero kids—here we have an example from the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, telling the Government of Canada, telling the Liberals, telling the environment minister, that he is costing them millions of dollars in operating funds that could be used to educate children, that could go to school food programs, and that are instead going to pay the carbon tax. It's literally on paper.
This is August 8, 2024. It's not an old letter. It's a very recent letter, sent over the summer as the school boards were required to do their budgets. When even the school boards are saying you're wrong and that you should have a carbon tax election, then you should just listen to the school boards. You should actually do what they're telling you to do.
The fact is that there are Liberal MPs on this distribution list who have received this, and there's been no action whatsoever that I have seen offering them any type of relief. This means that there are schools in Alberta—those that do have school food programs—that may be shutting them down. They can't afford them because of the high cost of the carbon tax.
It's not just my province. I'm sure there are other provinces where with the high cost of the carbon tax—which keeps going up $15 a carbon tonne every single April 1—they're going to be shutting down programs, removing after-school activities, and shutting down school food programs and school food lunches because of your carbon tax.
When I say that people are fed up with it and they want a carbon tax election—which is why the subamendment is so timely to a hyperpartisan motion—that's why. When I get letters like this from school boards, which I would say are not the typical groups that would reach out to Conservative members of Parliament, or any parliamentarians usually, because education is a provincial area of jurisdiction.... Right there in the middle of the letter it says “There are tens of millions of dollars each year” that can't be used for the education of our students. It's tens of millions of dollars.
I'll note, Mr. McDonald, that you were one of those brave Liberal MPs who one time voted against the carbon tax in the chamber. People back home really liked that, too.
I want to give you that chance. I know you're not intending to stay with us for another round, and maybe you'll be another MHA provincially in Newfoundland and Labrador, but hopefully you'll remember, too, that the carbon tax hurts our people back home for no gain whatsoever.
The school boards in my province have made it perfectly clear where they stand on a carbon tax election. It is taking money directly out of schools for no benefit whatsoever. They recognize that they have a shared responsibility to reduce their carbon emission, and schools are doing it.
The public school boards all across my province are now officially asking for relief. I note that President Dennis MacNeil rightly calls it exactly what it is: It's a tax on tax. He doesn't call it an environmental plan. He doesn't say that there's some type of benefit to the environment or that it will directly address climate change; he says in his letter it's a tax on tax. That's effectively what it is.
It's a tax on school boards and all the schools that have property and buildings that they operate year-round. They have heating and electricity costs. Some of them have shops—many in my riding provide shop classes. There are extra costs being imposed on them because of the carbon tax that your government insists on imposing on everyone, punishing them, which is why there are now so many people calling for a carbon tax election.
I had the opportunity while we were away, back in our ridings, to meet with our constituents, like I did on the weekend. I got to do the Calgary food drive, which is organized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. About half a million pounds of food was collected in just one day. They shared with me the true, intense cost of the carbon tax on food and how many families they're sharing.... The president of the Stake drive informed me there are close to 200 families now that rely on the church to help them, just in making ends meet, because food has become so expensive because of the carbon tax.
The fact that inflation came back to something stable doesn't undo all the inflation and food costs that were imposed over the last three to four years: That's an accumulation. People haven't seen an increase of 20% in their salaries. Their wages haven't gone up 20%, but the cost of food, in many cases, has gone up that high. I wanted to make that point.
While I was back home in my riding in Calgary I heard, directly at the doors as I picked up food out of vehicles and put it in bins for the Calgary food drive, that people are really hurting out there. A carbon tax election is not an inconvenience for Canadians in my riding: The residents want to make it happen. That's why the subamendment is so critically important.
I quoted a few provincial politicians...about the need for a carbon tax election. I went through the effort of going through some more articles. I can offer up some more quotes that agree with the subamendment that we do nothing until that carbon tax election is called, particularly on this subject.
As I mentioned before, I quoted Sarah Hoffman, who announced her bid for the leadership of the NDP—that's now resolved—back on February 11, 2024. This was way before today, and even back then she said that a carbon levy was dead. When talking about the federal carbon tax, she was quoted as saying it was “dead”—and that was in quotation marks right in the headline. Here is one of those direct quotes:
I think the consumer carbon tax is dead. It died provincially in the last election. The feds took it over. Justin Trudeau played dirty politics with it and picked winners and losers. If you don't have public support, you can't carry on with something like that.
She went on, and then it quotes a few other provincial members of the New Democratic Party. As I mentioned before, Rakhi Pancholi, a two-term legislature member, also said that the carbon tax was among the most pressing issues for Albertans. At the time, she was still running for leadership as well before she dropped out.
I quote this one because it's from a former provincial cabinet minister for the New Democratic Party:
Ganley, a Calgary legislature member and the first to put her name in the leadership race on Monday, wouldn't address carbon pricing directly when asked about it.
“We'll have a lot of policies to release and a lot of things to say. What I think is I am in favour of policies that result in decarbonization,” she said.
“My preference is to do that in a way that creates the most possible economic growth for the province. There's a lot of ways to achieve that goal.”
If you read between the lines, she's basically saying the federal carbon tax makes no sense. Even during the NDP's provincial leadership campaign, they talked about it as if it were an electoral issue that required an election, which is why I have this subamendment at the committee that puts a condition on when we will consider the main motion. I have thoughts on the main motion, Chair, but I'll save that until the moment that we get to it.
I also wanted to let you know, Chair, that I will be putting a notice of motion verbally. It's about the Immigration and Refugee Board. I have it written down—I don't want to worry the clerk—so I'll give it to him afterwards and he can take a look at it.
I want to continue with the NDP references that I want to make. Don Braid is a very well-known journalist in Edmonton. He is very well respected. He has written for the Herald and the Edmonton Journal. This is his headline: “Braid: An NDP leadership candidate's startling opener—axe the carbon tax”.
That is not my leader speaking. That is the headline about an NDP member of the Legislative Assembly, a two-termer, starting with “axe the carbon tax”, which implies that in an election they would run on axing the carbon tax as well. That was her opener, and this is the way it reads, right at the beginning:
Rakhi Pancholi doesn’t enter the NDP leadership race with a routine splash. Her opener is more like a cannonball from the high tower.
The Edmonton MLA says it’s time to dump the consumer carbon tax.
You are not hallucinating, she said what no NDP caucus member has said publicly before.
I agree. I remember when she made these comments. It was the talk of the town. We were all thinking that perhaps the New Democrats provincially had seen the light. There was definitely something going on. While door knocking, while talking to the residents, they realized that residents were very upset with all levels of government for imposing high costs that were impossible to meet. When the price of food is going up by double-digit percentage points and you're seeing milk at eight or nine dollars, and when meat and fruit and vegetables are expensive, you're really seeing the effects of the carbon tax directly.
In the article, Don Braid offers the following quote from her:
I’ve been having many conversations with leading climate activists in our province, experts in this area, and we need to continue those conversations to say, what would that climate plan look like without a consumer carbon price.
Again, she's saying that we need to move beyond the carbon tax. It simply makes no sense, and it isn't worth continuing.
I have another one here from Mr. McDonald's province now, because I wanted to quote all parties in this debate:
Stung by byelection loss, Furey has strong words for Trudeau and carbon tax
Premier says Trudeau has tried to “bait me” with name-calling
That seems awfully familiar. In fact, as I remember it, during question period today about name-calling, our Bloc colleague was reminding the Minister of Immigration that he name-calls and baits people into having a back-and-forth that's not about policy but is about personalities.
I'll go back to the clip, in which the premier says the Prime Minister had tried to bait him with name-calling over his carbon tax views. It goes on to explain that despite the by-election loss they experienced in their province, the carbon tax is the primary issue. It quotes the premier:
“On the carbon tax in particular, the prime minister has tried to bait me at times with certain ad hominems and name-calling, almost. But look, we have a very different opinion on the carbon tax. It's not right for the people of the province right now,” he said.
“I wish the prime minister would understand that. He's being very sclerotic in his approach on this ideologic marriage that he has to this principle. That's not to say that we don't believe in fighting climate change. We certainly do, but this policy is wrong.”
Hence the need for my subamendment—to wait until we can have a carbon tax election so that the public can decide whether this government deserves to stay or whether there's a new group of people who will earn the right to govern and do right by the public.
I think Premier Furey might be the last Liberal premier in this country. I'm not quite sure.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
You're saying that, yes, he is, Mr. MacDonald.
Leave it to the islanders on the rock to have the last Liberal government. Maybe that will change in the next provincial election for the MHAs and there will be a new one. It's the last Liberal provincial government left standing. That's unusual. I don't think there's even a Liberal Party of Alberta left anymore in my home province. I wanted to draw attention to that.
I did say that I had a notice of motion to give. I wanted to do it verbally, because I wanted to make sure that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Mr. Kmiec, I think we should focus on this one. That's what my understanding is.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Yes. That's why I'm giving a verbal notice of motion. I'm not going to be debating it. I wanted to make sure that the Immigration and Refugee Board and their chair were aware that she has violated the law. I'll just give my notice of motion and then continue debate on my subamendment.
This is my motion:
That the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), order the production of all documents and records to all members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, related to access to information and privacy, or ATIP, requests A-2022-02100, A-2022-02101, A-2022-02102, A-2022-02103 and A-2022-02104—
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
To facilitate our interpreters’ work, could we provide the document? That would be easier, wouldn’t it, unless it is not very long?
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Could you speak just a little more softly for the interpreter?
Thank you, that’s nice.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you for the reminder. I will slow down for the interpreters, pardon me.
Liberal
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
I just called for a point of clarification.
Is he moving a motion or just putting it on notice?