Debates of Oct. 29th, 2018

By-Elections

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Outremont has been without an MP for over two months, and the ridings of Burnaby South and York—Simcoe have gone without representation in the House for over one month.

The Prime Minister, however, has called just one byelection, in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, but only because he had no choice.

This is only the second time in 20 years that a prime minister has called one by-election while leaving other ridings vacant.

What are the political motives behind the Prime Minister's decision to leave more than 300,000 Canadians across the country without representation in the House?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to announce that the by-election in the riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes would be held on December 3, 2018. By-elections will be announced for the recently vacated ridings as required under the Canada Elections Act.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a weak and insipid response. The people in these ridings deserve better. Three hundred thousand Canadians are being denied their right to representation in Parliament. There is simply no excuse for this kind of petty manipulation. The Prime Minister recognized that last year when he called the by-elections and did not play with the dates.

Canadians living in Burnaby South, Outremont and York Simcoe have the right to make their voices heard. Why is the Prime Minister denying the rights of these Canadians to elect their representatives?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it has been mere weeks since those seats were vacated. We will call those elections in due course, as is required under the Canada Elections Act.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these by-elections do not belong to the Prime Minister. They do not belong to me. They do not belong to anyone in the House. They belong to the people of Burnaby South, York Simcoe and Outremont and these citizens have the right to choose their representatives now.

We are living through the worst housing, environmental and family debt crises in our nation's history and the people of these ridings have the right to judge the government in all of these cases. Is that not the real reason for this petty act? The Prime Minister is scared of the reaction of the voters. Will he show some courage and call the by-elections now?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it has been mere weeks since those particular seats were vacated. Questions might be asked about the fact that electors elected people to serve four terms for them and did not get to have the whole four terms of the people they elected and sent to this House, for various reasons, which is their choice. However, the sanctimony from the NDP on this is, as always, amusing.

Those seats were vacated mere weeks ago. They will be filled under elections law in due course through by-elections.

Carbon Pricing

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Halloween must be here but it is a trick because there is no treat from the environment minister. She promised that her carbon tax would reduce emissions and leave Canadians better off.

Canadians will not be tricked by an election gimmick. Canadians know that the Liberals cannot be trusted to keep their promises.

When will the Liberals acknowledge that this carbon tax will do nothing for the environment but leave Canadians worse off?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a commitment to grow the economy, support the middle class and protect the environment at the same time. We are moving forward with a plan to put a price on pollution, which I know even Stephen Harper's former director of policy has indicated will leave families better off. That was confirmed when the Prime Minister made the announcement just last week.

I know that we are in the spirit of Halloween jokes, but no matter how much the opposition want to dress up like defenders of the middle class, Canadians will not be tricked.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we see more tricks from the Liberals. The Prime Minister has told Canadians that it is a good thing for gasoline prices to go up. He actually said that. However, he does not want them to worry about carbon taxes. He claims that raising taxes on Canadians leaves us all better off. Usually when a stranger tells people to send money with promises that they will get even more money back, they know it is an email scam.

When will this tax-raising, deficit-running Liberal government stop trying to trick Canadians into believing that higher taxes will leave them better off?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, if we actually look at the facts and look at the numbers from last week's announcement, we can actually confirm that middle-class families can expect to be better off in every jurisdiction where the federal backstop applies. The reason for this is very simple. Businesses and industry are paying into this fund as well and the rebate is going to go to Canadian families. They are going to have more money to deal with the cost of living. No matter how much the opposition raises concern about this, we cannot mask the fact that families will be better off.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I encourage the members for Richmond Centre and Edmonton Manning not to interrupt when someone else has the floor.

The hon member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member now claims that businesses will pay into this fund, but we all know that large industrial emitters actually get an exemption from the carbon tax. Last week when I asked the environment minister why this was, she said that it was necessary to exempt them in order to keep good jobs here in Canada, which confirms that a full carbon tax applied to a business would drive jobs out of Canada.

This begs the question that if carbon taxes drive jobs out of the country, why is the government imposing that same tax on our small businesses?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we have lowered the small business tax rate for small businesses in Canada and we set aside $1.4 billion for small businesses in jurisdictions where the federal backstop applies.

I have been watching members on the opposite side of this House distort the facts for weeks. The fact is that big emitters are going to pay under our plan, no ifs, ands or buts. That is an important feature of our plan. We are moving forward with a plan that is going to actually protect competitiveness.

It is extremely hypocritical for the hon. member to suggest we are not charging big emitters enough when his plan is to make sure that they do not pay at all.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, the government's own documents show that large industrial emitters get a 90% exemption from this carbon tax. All we are are asking for is that small businesses get an exemption from the tax as well.

So far, the government has not yet explained why a local corner store, a small construction company, a landscaper or others of the thousands of companies that create the majority of jobs in this country have to pay taxes on their fuel when large industrial emitters get an exemption. Why?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to small businesses, we are taking an approach of seeing their tax burden actually come down on the whole. We are also setting aside funds, $1.4 billion, in jurisdictions where the federal backstop applies, to help small businesses reduce their cost of consumption by greening their operations and dealing with the day-to-day cost of business.

When it comes to big industrial emitters in trade-exposed industries, to avoid having a mechanism like we have put in place could potentially have jobs leave and it will do nothing for emissions. The plan we are putting in place mirrors what we have seen in California, in Quebec, in Alberta and in the European Union that allows economies to grow, jobs to stay in Canada and emissions come down.

This is the responsible path forward and it is time those members got on board.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now the admission is even more explicit. He said that if the large emitters had to pay the same carbon tax as everyone else the jobs would leave the country and it would do nothing for emissions. That is exactly what we have been saying about the carbon tax all along.

It would raise the cost of doing business here in environmentally friendly Canada and drive jobs to places with lower environmental standards. That would drive up pollution worldwide and unemployment here at home. When will the government listen to its own rhetoric on the carbon tax?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the question. The justification he just put forward that formed the assumption under his question is the explicit reason why there is an output-based pricing system. The point is to keep jobs in Canada so that emitters do not pollute elsewhere.

We are moving forward with a plan that is going to help improve our environmental record and help create jobs in Canada. So far, our plan is working. We have seen the economy add over half a million jobs since the last election. Unemployment is at the lowest rate virtually since we started keeping statistics, and emissions are coming down.

No matter how much they cry foul when they know this is the right path forward, we will not be disturbed. We will move forward with the response—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they should be disturbed by their own answer because they are now admitting what we have said all along, that the carbon tax if applied would drive business and jobs out of the country into places with poorer environmental standards, where global emissions would actually go up.

They have just admitted three times in the House of Commons that is their justification for giving large industrial emitters an exemption. I have a simple question. Will they give the same exemption to our small business job creators?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I have now dealt with the same question a number of times in a row and given an explanation that I am completely satisfied with.

Despite the fact that he has had a number of faulty assumptions underlying the questions he has asked already, the thing I have not seen in any one of his questions is a suggestion that the Conservatives have any kind of a plan at all. For 10 years, they had no plan to deal with emissions and they failed on the environment. For 10 years, they had no plan for the economy and saw the worst record of growth since the Great Depression. Where the Conservatives failed twice, we will succeed. We are moving forward with a plan that is helping grow the economy and protect the environment, and we know we are on the right track.

Foreign Affairs

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister said he is suspending further arms export permits to Saudi Arabia and reviewing existing ones. What merits reviewing? Canadians want to know because they do know that Saudi Arabia crushes dissidents and has been accused of war crimes in Yemen. They know that Jamal Khashoggi is only the latest in a horrific series of abuses. Canadians do not want to be complicit with these atrocities. Will the government guarantee no more Canadian arms will reach Saudi Arabia?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we condemn the horrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi and are deeply concerned by reports on the participation of Saudi officials. We strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports are used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system. Of course, that is why we acceeded to the Arms Trade Treaty. As the Prime Minister said, we are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to expect that the arms will not be misused. It is necessary to ensure they will not be misused.

The war in Yemen has created the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet, to say nothing of the Saudi regime's treatment of women, dissidents and minorities. We already know that Canadian weapons have been used against civilians in eastern Saudi Arabia. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is just one more atrocity to be laid to the Saudis' account.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to suspend not only future permits, but existing permits as well?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the options with our allies. We are currently reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia. All exports must comply with the conditions set out in the permits. We have frozen arms export permits in the past and will not hesitate to do so again.

Carbon Pricing

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Landmark Transfer is a family-owned trucking company that serves southeastern Manitoba. The Liberal carbon tax is going to hit them hard. Margins are already thin, and another tax will add to their burden and increase costs for their customers.

Last week, the environmental minister admitted she gave major exemptions to large companies to avoid significant job losses. Will the Liberals give the same exemption to smaller companies, like Landmark Transfer, to ensure that jobs are not lost there either?