Evidence of meeting #99 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ-5 is a consequential amendment, a bit like amendment BQ-1 was, which removed the word “including”.
This is a way to counterbalance ministerial power, a proposal made by a number of organizations, some of which advocate for the protection of civil liberties.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
We will be voting against this amendment and also withdrawing our CPC-8, which is similar.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'll just quickly reiterate that I think we agree with the intention, in the sense that we want to create some oversight and accountability, but we worry that this language could add unforeseen delays in the ability to act quickly. We are hopeful that our amendment later—which is G-5.1, I think—will address some of the ability to have that oversight and review, but in a national security context.
We can't support this, given the timelines and delay, but we do understand the intention.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
I thought it was a consequential amendment to remove the word “including”, but rather it is a consequential amendment regarding what I previously proposed—a review by the Federal Court.
Since we already voted against this before, I understand the government's position.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any other discussion?
Shall BQ-5 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm not in the room, so I miss a lot of the nuances of what's going on. It would be most helpful to me to follow along with the many papers I have here if you would recite back the outcome of a vote on a particular amendment or subamendment.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is similar to G-2, which the committee already voted on and accepted. G-2 looked at the non-exhaustive list of factors the GIC should consider. G-5 is adding a non-exhaustive list of factors the minister must consider prior to issuing an order. The list of factors would include the financial impact on TSPs, the operational impact on TSPs, the delivery of services to consumers, and anything else the minister may deem relevant.
This was raised by civil liberties associations.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any other discussion?
Shall G-5 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
After this one, I'll suspend for 10-15 minutes, so everybody can get a bite and use the washroom, if that's okay.
On NDP-6, we have Mr. Julian.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is similar to NDP-3. This would replace line 19 on page 4. We've already had this discussion, and the coalition was very clear about ensuring there is transparency around this legislation. One of the ways to do that is to ensure the orders actually appear in the Canada Gazette. This would oblige the minister to publish in the Canada Gazette within 90 days of the day an order is made.
In the interest of transparency, I move NDP-6.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall NDP-6 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to suspend for 15 minutes.
March 18th, 2024 / 6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks, Chair.
I appreciate this opportunity, and I'm glad we've been able to have a productive meeting thus far. I would, however, like to take just a brief few minutes to move the motion that I gave notice of this past Friday.
I'll read the motion and move it here shortly, but I will simply say, for the context of it, that one of the conversations that I, my Conservative colleagues and, I would suggest, my colleagues from other parties are having is in relation to the very live conversation about the carbon tax.
The reason I am moving this motion today is that in about a week and a half—12 or so days—there will be a 23% increase to the Liberal-NDP carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of everything across our country. It's costing Canadians significantly, both in terms of the tax they pay directly and in terms of the significant impact the carbon tax has across the entire supply chain. From the farmer who grows the food to the trucker who ships the food to every single person who does almost anything in the economy, everyone is impacted by the carbon tax.
What has been so frustrating—I heard this when I did a series of town halls across my constituency and spoke to some folks across the country, including some Canadians from constituencies that are represented by members from other political parties—is that the carbon tax is truly having a devastating impact on Canadians' ability to make ends meet.
The specifics of the motion that I'm going to read into the record here shortly, in relation to that 23%, talk about some of the additional costs that Canadians ultimately pay. I think that's a key part of the discussion, which we do not hear an acknowledgement of from the government and those who support the carbon tax. One specific cost associated with the carbon tax is the budgets of the RCMP and other police forces across the country.
Canada is a cold country. It was snowing here in Ottawa today. I know there's snow forecast in Alberta tonight and tomorrow. While we will certainly enjoy and appreciate the moisture that snow brings, those freezing temperatures require everything to be heated. That includes the many local detachments, whether they be the many RCMP detachments in the rural and remote communities I represent, which the RCMP is working diligently to patrol, or those of the Camrose Police Service, which is the only municipal police force I have in my constituency, outside of bylaw enforcement. The impacts of the carbon tax mean increased costs associated with the ability of this essential service in our country to do its work.
That's not to mention that Canada is a big country. When it comes to the RCMP's work of policing rural Alberta.... The French acronym for the RCMP is GRC. Local Mounties have joked with me that it's short for “gravel road cop”. The reason I bring that up is that many Canadians see, and I'm sure many have experienced, the police forces behind the wheel of their cruisers.
The impact of that tax is substantial when it comes to the costs our police forces have to pay. It is tax revenue that goes to the government, and it is not going to other public safety measures, especially as crime and chaos seem to rule our streets. I have certainly heard a lot about that over the last number of weeks back in my constituency. There is also an unwillingness to acknowledge that this ultimately has an impact on affordability for Canadians.
I hope we can find support to get answers, which is the first part of this motion, and ensure that Canadians know that their parliamentarians—I would hope from all parties, although I have my doubts.... Let's ensure we get answers first. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax to bring home lower prices for everybody.
Mr. Chair, I will move the motion that I gave notice of on March 15, which has been distributed to committee members in both official languages. It reads as follows:
That given the April 1st Carbon Tax hike, the committee call on the Minister of Public Safety and Minister of Environment to provide a report to the committee in 30 days on the additional costs the carbon tax adds to the RCMP budgets and police forces across the country, and to work with their provincial counterparts to secure this information, and report to the house its recommendation to spike the hike, and axe the tax.
I look forward to what I hope will be unanimous support for a common-sense motion brought forward today from Canada's Conservatives on this committee.
Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the debate do now adjourn.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal