House of Commons Hansard #181 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offence.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, no matter, Ms. Meilleur is too close to the Liberals. She spent 13 years in partisan politics with Ontario's Liberal party. She has donated to not just the Liberal Party of Canada, but to the Prime Minister himself. She admitted having met with the Prime Minister's closest advisors to obtain this position.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage continue to defend this process, which has resulted in the selection of a longstanding Liberal?
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, when searching for the best candidate for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, we wanted to ensure that they were chosen on the basis of their expertise and experience. That is exactly what we did. We used a rigorous, open, merit-based process, which identified Madeleine Meilleur as the most qualified candidate because she has all the expertise to be an excellent Commissioner of Official Languages.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, the lengths these Liberals will go to help out their friends: A lifelong Liberal and donor to the Prime Minister's own leadership campaign is their surprise choice for an independent commissioner.
This Prime Minister has been under more investigations than any other prime minister in Canadian history, including Harper, Chrétien, and even Brian Mulroney somehow.
Yesterday, Madam Meilleur admitted that she may have to recuse herself from investigating the Prime Minister because of these donations. Imagine, a commissioner who cannot investigate.
Was this the Liberal plan all along, or just some happy coincidence?
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, when we started this process, we were looking for the right candidate, because that candidate had to have the qualifications, the expertise, the experience to be the Commissioner of Official Languages in this country.
It is not surprising that the two opposition parties are not contesting the qualifications of Madeleine Meilleur, not at all. Even the leader of the second opposition has clearly stated that she has the expertise and the experience for this important position.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, we also learned yesterday that the Prime Minister's closest adviser and long-time friend, Gerry Butts, met with Meilleur before she was even nominated. She admitted that this was an unfair advantage. I guess it is still who you know in the PMO.
Officers of Parliament do not work for the Prime Minister, and they certainly do not work for the Prime Minister's Office. They work for all members of Parliament on behalf of Canadians. A watchdog cannot do their job with a cloud of patronage and partisanship hanging over their head.
Out of respect for this position, will the Liberals do the right thing and withdraw her name from consideration?
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking forward to this important position being filled. Canadians believe in the importance of official languages. They want somebody who has the expertise and experience to hold this important position.
I am really surprised to see how much my colleagues support the expertise and experience of Mrs. Meilleur. Therefore, I do not understand why they are not supportive of this important candidacy, because this important position must be fulfilled by an important—
Government AppointmentsOral Questions
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I again want to remind members of the opposition to please ensure they respect the decorum that should be kept in the House.
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, the Liberal carbon tax is a game of hide-and-go-seek. The cost of the carbon tax is hidden in the price of groceries transported by truck or gasoline that people put in their vehicles, or the cost of heating their homes to stay alive. All of those things are hidden. When we seek the real cost, we find it is again hidden under a mountain of black ink in finance department documents.
Yesterday the Liberals released a 26-page technical document on their new carbon tax, but, once again, hidden was the cost to Canadian families. Will they end their game of hide-and-go-seek today and tell average Canadian families what the carbon tax will cost them?
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, Canadians know that polluting is not free. We see the costs of droughts, floods, extreme weather events, but also the effects on our health. Canadians expect polluters to pay, because it is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren.
Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians already live in jurisdictions in Canada that either have a price on carbon pollution or are in the process of putting that into place. The federal plan announced yesterday applies only in jurisdictions that have not moved there themselves.
The pricing of carbon pollution will reduce pollution, it creates incentives for companies to innovate, to develop clean solutions, and create—
The EnvironmentOral Questions
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, the Liberals say that this is really a simple way to reduce pollution. Let me quote the document.
If a Registered Fuel Importer imports fuel for delivery to a Registered Fuel Distributor, the levy will not become payable by the Registered Fuel Importer. The levy will become payable by the Registered Fuel Distributor when it uses the fuel or delivers it to another person in the backstop jurisdiction, unless that other person is also a Registered Fuel Distributor.
See, it is simple.
How much will it cost small businesses for the red tape of this new scheme and how much will it cost taxpayers for the new bureaucracy needed to implement it?
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, addressing climate change is one of the critical issues of our time. This government is committed to creating a more innovative economy that reduces emissions, while creating good middle-class jobs. If the hon. member would actually take the time to read the backstop paper, he would see that those figures are in that document.
This government has been actively working with all provinces and territories, including the Government of Saskatchewan. I was there this week for conversations with large companies. We are working to build a plan that will allow us to move forward in a credible way to reduce carbon emissions and to grow a clean-growth economy.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
That is precisely why I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary actually read all the documents himself. Every single document released yesterday by the Minister of Environment bears the title of Liberal carbon tax. There are a bunch of numbers and words in there no one can make heads or tails of. As the member for Carleton said so well, there is one number that is missing. How much will this cost Canadian workers?
Since the parliamentary secretary just chided us for not reading the document, can he tell us what is the most important number for Canadians in the document? How much is your Liberal carbon tax going to cost?
The EnvironmentOral Questions
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I would like to remind the member to address his questions through the Chair and not to the government or any individual member.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, I would once again invite my hon. colleagues to read the document. All of the relevant information is contained in that document. I would be happy to actually show the hon. member after question period is over.
The net cost to Canadians obviously depends, in significant measure, on what provinces that have implemented these systems choose to do with the revenues. Alberta has returned those through rebates, British Columbia has a carbon-neutral tax and returns the funds through income tax reductions.
We have a thoughtful plan. Those of us on this side of the House believe climate change is a real issue. We are planning to address that in a thoughtful way.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, again and again, the Liberals rise with no clear answer, no number, no money, always through a cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
There is another problem. We know that the government always takes pride in stating that the Liberals collaborate with the provinces. Is that so? Three provinces have implemented a carbon lottery, a system that has sadly not worked for Quebec since 2013. Yesterday, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that if it does not work, then the Liberals would impose the Liberal carbon tax on the provinces.
Can someone in this government tell us today whether or not the Liberals are going to impose the Liberal carbon tax on all Canadian provinces?
Jonathan Wilkinson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that 97% of Canadians live in jurisdictions that have either put into place a plan to price carbon pollution or are in the process of working to have that in place by the beginning of 2018. We have worked collaboratively with the provinces. This was a central part of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change to which almost all of the provinces subscribed.
We are working to ensure this is done in a thoughtful way. We intend to ensure we are addressing climate change and carbon emissions, but doing so in a manner that will help us to grow an innovative and clean-growth economy for the future.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Madam Speaker, let us talk about the impact of this thoughtful way. In Alberta, foreclosure rates are rising at alarming rates, in fact, more than 25% in the last two years alone. Dismantling the NEB, politicizing infrastructure decisions, and implementing the carbon tax are all Liberal policies that are stifling any ability for Alberta's economic recovery. Canada needs the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Will the Prime Minister go to B.C. and champion this vital pipeline project, or will he continue on his quest of eliminating the oil sands and killing jobs in Alberta and the rest of Canada?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity for me to stand and provide a very clear statement. The assertion from the member opposite is categorically false. We took action to create good middle-class jobs for Alberta by approving two pipelines, getting done what the Conservatives could not get done in 10 years.
We will continue to support Alberta as an energy hub of Canada.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, Calgary has been the beating heart of the energy sector for decades. Professionals in Calgary have immense knowledge and experience in pipeline safety, oil and gas exploration, and environmental reclamation. Moving the NEB from Calgary to an ivory tower in Ottawa is not the answer.
Will the Liberals commit to keeping the NEB decision making in Calgary, or will they finally admit they do not want the oil and gas energy industry to thrive?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the NEB expert panel for its hard work in drafting this report.
Our government is committed to developing our resources and getting them to market in a responsible way. This requires a regulatory process in which Canadians can have confidence. Modernizing the NEB is part of our government's process to build a better system that is fair, robust, respects the rights of indigenous peoples, is based on scientific evidence, and protects our environment for generations to come. We will review the report in depth, along with other environmental regulatory reviews, and determine next steps.
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Madam Speaker, when people who have been victims of domestic violence apply for the CRA child tax benefit, they are burdened with an onerous and impossible requirement. CRA expects the victims to return to the abusers to obtain a signature for the application. This is an outrageous and even dangerous requirement for domestic abuse survivors who are trying to build a better, safer life for their families.
Will the Liberals do the right thing, drop this unreasonable demand, and support survivors rather than empowering their abusers?
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Madam Speaker, our government's commitment on two fronts is unparalleled in this parliamentary history. One is on the child benefit and the other is on support for victims of violence fleeing and seeking better shelter and protection.
On the issue that has been raised, it is a significant issue and I assure the member we will get a specific answer to the specific issues around tax and point of return. That is an issue which has just been raised today and I am happy to sit with the member and get the proper results.
On the child benefit, we are raising kids out of poverty. On victims of violence, we are supporting them. We need to make sure those two programs work in concert.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the government for that, but it has to be done very quickly.
Under the current rules, the Canada Revenue Agency tells domestic abuse survivors that they have to contact their attacker to fill out a form if they want to get the child tax benefit. That is preposterous, not to mention dangerous. This CRA requirement needs to be removed.
Will the Minister of National Revenue resolve this matter immediately and apologize to victims of domestic abuse?