House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was countries.

Topics

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to applying the vote and votes yes.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to applying the vote and votes in favour of the motion.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees and is also voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #32

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-2.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt votes for clarification, but I thought we were voting on Bill C-6. However, I heard you call Bill C-2 and I do not want to vote the wrong way. I just want a clarification.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

It is Bill C-2 and if I said Bill C-6, I apologize, but I do not think so. The vote is on Bill C-2.

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House. This is the first time in quite a long time that I have had an adjournment proceeding. Therefore, I will enjoy the opportunity.

I see that the parliamentary secretary is here. I know we will have a vigorous and interesting exchange for the next few minutes.

I will not take up my full four minutes this evening. I just have a few follow-up points that I would like to touch on since my original question a few weeks back.

As members know, in western Canada the issue around the construction of pipelines is still of great importance. We know that the energy sector is still suffering. There are forces that are beyond our control here in Canada with respect to the price of oil, and that is having a negative effect all over Alberta and Saskatchewan.

However, there are a few things that the government could do to help stimulate that sector of the economy, and indeed stimulate the economy as a whole all across the country. One of those things is the energy east pipeline. It is a shovel-ready infrastructure project that would not require a cent of taxpayer dollars but would get thousands of people back to work and provide a better price for western Canadian energy products. Sadly, the Liberals are ideologically opposed to it and have put additional hurdles in the way. In addition, they have also announced their intention to bring in a carbon tax to force every jurisdiction in Canada to comply with the federal government's vision of making Canadians pay more.

In Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall has wisely refused to do this. He has resisted the groupthink that has emerged among politicians on the left that this is some kind of a solution to the problem. I am certainly not aware of a jurisdiction in Canada that has seen a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that can at all be attributed to a carbon tax. It is a revenue source for the government. It is a way for it to fund its agenda, but it does not do anything for the economy.

What I would like to find out from my hon. friend tonight is this: will the Liberals apply their same failed logic to other aspects of the Canadian economy?

We know that pipelines are the safest, most environmentally friendly way to transport oil in our country. However, the Liberals have said in their new NEB program that they will calculate upstream greenhouse gas emissions as part of the overall analysis of any pipeline application. Are they planning to do that with respect to other areas? If there are any investments with respect to ports, will they calculate upstream and perhaps even downstream GHG emissions from port construction? If there are any federal infrastructure investments in rail, will they do that same calculation? Will they calculate the greenhouse gas emissions that may be attributed to those projects to determine if it would have an effect on the overall application?

We know that the Liberals are seriously contemplating a bailout of Bombardier while blocking private sector solutions, such as the expansion of the Toronto island airport or lifting the foreign investment cap in the aerospace sector. Will they also look at the greenhouse gas emissions that would go into the construction of airplanes and jets in our aerospace industry? Fundamentally, will they treat the energy and pipeline sectors fairly? Will they apply those same standards to other federal investments and infrastructure projects around the country?

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, I share some common background with the hon. member. I grew up in Saskatchewan. I spent my formative years there. Other than my home province, it is a province that I know well and love very much.

Canadians, in particular western Canadians, know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will make our economy more competitive, not less competitive. Our government knows that growing the economy and protecting our environment go hand in hand. Combatting climate change represents an enormous economic opportunity, one that other countries are already taking advantage of.

The growth rate for the global clean-tech sector over the past several years has been in excess of 10% per year. However, Canada's share of the clean-tech market has fallen considerably due to the decade of inaction and obfuscation on the part of the previous federal government.

Our government is providing national leadership, by working with the provinces and territories to take action on climate change, including putting a price on carbon. We strongly believe in the power of market-based solutions, such as carbon pricing, to deliver meaningful results in reducing our emissions, while growing our economy.

To create jobs in industries of the future, our government will make investments in green innovation, clean technology, and sustainable infrastructure.

This is an area of the economy I know well, having spent almost 20 years as a senior executive in the clean-tech sector. With the development and implementation of an effective clean-tech strategy, this can be a source of enormous economic opportunity for Canada and Canadians.

Our government intends to leverage carbon pricing, in combination with these investments in green infrastructure and clean technologies, to position Canada as a leader in green technologies.

Carbon pricing policies help to minimize the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They provide a continuous incentive for technological innovation. They achieve significant emission reductions and they provide consumers and industry with certainty and flexibility. This is particularly important in western Canada, where energy producing firms are looking to government to provide them with a clear and consistent framework.

Energy companies in western Canada have already acknowledged this, and many are already utilizing a price on carbon in their investment decisions. For example, Suncor CEO Steve Williams recently said, “We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

Our government is working to ensure that Canada takes effective action on climate change, including carbon pricing. Earlier this month in Vancouver the Prime Minister, the premiers and territorial leaders met and agreed to work together on carbon pricing mechanisms suited to provincial and territorial economies across Canada. I should note that already 80% of Canadians live in jurisdictions that have or will soon have an effective price on carbon.

The momentum behind carbon pricing is now being echoed by many thoughtful leaders across Canada, including many prominent Conservatives. The Leader of the Ontario Conservative Party recently stated, “Climate change is a fact. It is a threat. It is manmade...we have to do something about it, and that something includes putting a price on carbon.”

Mark Cameron, a former policy adviser to Prime Minister Harper, also underlined the power of carbon pricing in a free market, saying “As most free-market economists recognize, the most effective way to reduce emissions is to price them.”

It is clear that the failed approach of the previous government, which did its best to ignore climate change, did not work for the Canadian economy or for the environment.

Our government knows that a steady transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy is necessary for our collective prosperity, and economic growth. Taking smart and effective action today is essential to building a sustainable economy in western Canada and in Canada overall.

Implementing an effective climate change strategy, including carbon pricing, will put Canada, and Canadian companies, at the forefront of the global clean growth economy. It will result in new technology innovation, open up access to new markets, reduce emissions and will generate good paying, long-term jobs for Canadians.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of follow-ups on the member's answer.

He mentioned that he was an executive in the clean-tech sector. Could he tell the House how much money his company got from public subsidies? We know in Ontario that the Kathleen Wynne example is that lots of high-tech executives got very rich off the taxpayers dollars without doing a thing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

He talked about how 80% of Canadians lived in jurisdictions with a carbon tax. That is no reason to make the other 20% do it. When I was a child, if I said that most of my friends were jumping off a bridge, my mom would not to tell me to jump off a bridge with them. She would tell me to stay dry, and that is what we are saying over here.

Let us free those 80%. Let us work together to free those people trapped in our country under a provincial government that has a carbon tax. There is no reason to impose on the common sense people of Saskatchewan who have time and time again called on their elected officials to reject this kind of new tax. There is no reason to force them to do it.

It is not a market mechanism. It is not a market solution. Where is the market demanding an extra tax? I do not get phone calls from people in the market asking for more taxes. They want taxes lowered in our country.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC

Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments and questions raised by the hon. member, I would simply say that one of the fundamental divides that exist in this House is that there is a party over here that actually believes that climate change is an issue and it needs to be addressed; and on that side of the House we have a party that actually does not believe that climate change is a problem.

This government has developed a comprehensive strategy, one that actually would allow us to grow the economy by addressing our global responsibilities to address climate change in a constructive way.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to further inquire into the long wait times to process family reunification applications.

First, I would like to ask the government this. When does IRCC start counting processing time for a parent-grandparent sponsorship case?

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her concern about immigration processing times.

IRCC looks at the processing times from the outset of when the application is actually filed. It is important to track that, because this is something that has been identified by the minister as a serious issue that he is devoting his priorities and his time to addressing. He described this in the House in his original response to my friend's question a few months back as a “mess” that was left as the legacy of the previous government, because it basically depleted the resources of the department, allowing waiting times to mushroom and balloon such that we are now in a situation where they have ballooned to the point where families are being unjustly treated. What we are trying to do is bring down those waiting times, and we are doing that in a number of respects.

In the first instance, we have a government that has tabled our immigration levels and we are responding to the levels by beefing up the number of family class applicants that can come in. It used to be at a 5,000-applicant level, and we have increased that to 10,000 applicants per year. That is particularly for parents and grandparents. It goes to some of the concerns that have been expressed by the opposition critic for the NDP, because it relates to the need to address family reunification as an important priority.

In that regard, we understand that families need to be reunified, because it is morally correct but also because it is an economic imperative. That is why we made that commitment during the campaign, and we have upheld that commitment already. We realize that people who come in as part of the family-reunification category both represent caregivers to children who might exist in those families and also represent a means of economic liberation for other people who are within those families. In providing care, a grandparent allows the mother or father in a family unit to, for example, seek work on his or her own. We also recognize that people who come in under family reunification, and come in quickly, are able to participate in the workforce themselves.

We recognize this, as a government. Groups around the country, including people and agencies in the member's riding of Vancouver East, recognize this. People in my riding of Parkdale—High Park recognize this. People like those at the Polycultural Immigrant and Community Services, at Kababayan Multicultural Centre, and at the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society on Bloor Street West are all working hard to get people here quicker in terms of family reunification, and to integrate them once they have arrived. It is a very important objective.

On another front, we are addressing the need for family reunification and the processing times, by addressing the need for further work permits. There is a pilot project that has been in place to allow open work permits for all eligible applicants under the spousal category. We have renewed that pilot project, again recognizing that not only do we need spouses to be here, but we need to give them a vehicle for working.

The last point is that we are also working on citizenship applications and the processing times that relate there too. We are committing to new applications. New applications are currently being processed within a 12-month time frame. That is because our view of citizenship is that we should facilitate it, rather than create obstacles toward citizenship.

It is a complete divergence of views from the previous government, because we believe the ultimate integration and success of newcomers, including the family members of those newcomers, is signalled by their attainment of citizenship. It produces better economic outcomes and better health outcomes, is better for the newcomers, and is better for Canada.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the processing time for such applications is counted from the time the local embassies receive the transfer application rather than from the time the application is received in Canada at the Mississauga case processing centre. On that basis, it takes, on average, five years from the time the application is submitted to the time the application is transferred to a local embassy. In total, the application actually takes about 10 years for it to be processed.

The Prime Minister said during the campaign that the wait time now to bring parents and grandparents to Canada was almost four years on average. If their family lives in China, Pakistan, the Philippines, or Indian, they can expect to wait five, or six years or more. In actuality, the processing time for such applications is much longer, so it is deceptive.

I wonder if the government will actually correct the processing time so people know the true number to that. As well, for inland spousal applications, will the government commit to reducing the application time to six months for those applications so they do not have to wait for such a long time to be reunited with their family members?

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Madam Speaker, in response again to my colleague's question, and I appreciate her passion on this issue and her sincerity in trying to address family reunification and the processing times in particular, there are definitely concerns with certain processing posts abroad. Certain parts of the world have slower processing times than others. The minister, the ministry, myself, and the government are working on correcting this. The minister himself will be taking a trip in the latter part of this year to visit places like the processing centres in India, China, and the Philippines to try to address some of those inequities.

In terms of the processing times abroad, they are in the area of approximately four years, and inland, they are in the area of approximately two years. We have committed before, we are committing again to addressing processing times for family reunification. It is vitally important for this government, it is vitally important for Canadians, and it is vitally important for the families of newcomers. Spouses should be reunited, and parents and grandparents should be reunited with their children and grandchildren. That is what we are working toward. With the member opposite's help, that is what we will achieve.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, I rose in the House on February 2, 2016, in order to ask the minister what he planned to do to fix the internal errors made by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. I asked my question in response to the Auditor General's report, which was released that same day. Although the minister said that he was going to do whatever it took to fix the problem, the Auditor General's report indicates that there are numerous internal deficiencies.

Nevertheless, there is one problem that really stands out, and that is the mismanagement of the Social Security Tribunal. According to the Auditor General's report, wait times at the tribunal have reached 900 days. That is nearly three years. That is twice as long as the wait times identified in the Auditor General's 2015 report. I would like to remind members that the Social Security Tribunal was created to make the appeal process faster and more efficient. How ironic. The reality is quite the opposite with wait times of three years.

The tribunal is making things more complicated and difficult for people. I hear the same comments every week in my riding. Since the Social Security Tribunal was created, unemployed workers in my region have been forced to jump through many hoops. It is not uncommon for people to have to wait several months before their case is heard before the general division of the Social Security Tribunal. If the tribunal does not rule in their favour, the process begins again. Unemployed workers have to file an appeal before the tribunal's appeal division, and we are once again talking about a wait time of several months before their case is heard, and that is the best-case scenario.

The wait times are long, much too long. Meanwhile, unemployed workers are not getting any employment insurance benefits. None. How can people in my riding and other ridings across the country feed their families under such circumstances? It is impossible and even unthinkable.

However, the Social Security Tribunal is not the only one at fault. The department is to blame too. The bureaucracy within the tribunal is massive. Applications are needlessly complex and can take months to complete. As a result, people keep waiting and waiting. People who are disabled or seriously ill and in urgent need of financial help are kept waiting while their files are processed. Once again, administrative and management problems are having a negative impact on society's most vulnerable people.

This is an alarming crisis for the federal government. Many Quebeckers and Canadians suffer every day because of this. People are tired and fed up, and they simply no longer trust the federal government. The government must find a solution to regain the trust of Quebeckers and Canadians. The Social Security Tribunal is a major fiasco.

Although the Prime Minister announced a new approach for appointments, for the time being, we have no guarantee that service standards will be met in the future. I remind members that during the election campaign, the current Prime Minister promised to expand access and lower premiums if he was elected, and he said that workers would pay more than they did under the previous government but would receive more services in return. That is not what we are seeing. We are calling on this government to quickly process Canadians' applications.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot regarding her concern for Canadians appealing decisions through the Social Security Tribunal, especially those waiting for disability benefits. I share her concern.

The recent report from the Auditor General highlighted some challenges with the Social Security Tribunal and the appeals process for some of our most vulnerable Canadians. Let me be clear. We are extremely concerned with the findings and we are working hard to improve the process, both for those currently appealing decisions and for future appellants.

My colleague the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has already stated that we are working closely with the Social Security Tribunal to do so. He has already asked his department to implement an action plan that would address all of the recommendations of the AG's report. It is critical that we get this right for the people who need it most. It is our responsibility as Canadians to offer support when it is most needed.

The Canada pension plan disability program and employment insurance were created to support Canadians facing a difficult time in life. We need to make sure they can get the benefits they are entitled to when they need them.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister wants to implement all of the recommendations in the Auditor General's report, but we are talking about vulnerable people who are currently waiting for months.

How can these people be helped now? I am rather sick of hearing that the government will help them. That is what the government keeps telling me, but what I want to know is how these people who are waiting will be helped tomorrow.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that we on this side of the House share the hon. member's concern. We know we have work to do to improve the process for appealing benefit decisions.

No Canadian should be left hanging without a decision about the benefits to which they are entitled. That is why we are working closely with the Social Security Tribunal to implement changes to the system to make it easier for both current and future appellants.

We take the Auditor General's findings very seriously. We have already begun the work to simplify and improve the way benefit decisions are made. Canadians should be able to get the support they need, and we will ensure that they do.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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

(The House adjourned at 7:52 p.m.)