House of Commons Hansard #424 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was energy.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
There are 57 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-97. Motions Nos. 1 to 57 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 57 to the House.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 198.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 199.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 200.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 201.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 202.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 203.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 204.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 205.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 206.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 207.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 208.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 209.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 210.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 211.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 212.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 213.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 270.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 271.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 272.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 273.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 274.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 275.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 276.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 277.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 278.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 279.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 301.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 302.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 303.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 304.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 305.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 306.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 307.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 308.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
, seconded by the member for Joliette, moved:
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 308.1.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 309.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 310.
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
moved:
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-97, in Clause 313, be amended by
(a) replacing the section 13 that is set out in it with the following:
13 There is to be a Federal Housing Advocate whose mandate is to
(a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness;
(b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines—and in achieving the desired outcomes—set out in the National Housing Strategy;
(c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers faced by persons referred to in paragraph (a);
(d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions—respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction—that affect the housing system;
(e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations with respect to systemic housing issues;
(f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues;
(g) provide advice to the Minister;
(h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings and any recommendations to take measures respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, to further the housing policy, including the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing, and the National Housing Strategy; and
(i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member.
13.1 (1) The Federal Housing Advocate may conduct a review of any systemic housing issue that is raised in a submission received under paragraph 13(f).
(2) The Federal Housing Advocate may request that the National Housing Council establish a review panel to hold a hearing to review any systemic housing issue within the jurisdiction of Parliament that is raised in a submission received under paragraph 13(f).
(3) The Federal Housing Advocate must inform the person or group that presented the submission whether or not any action will be taken under subsection (1) or (2).
(4) If the Federal Housing Advocate conducts a review of the systemic housing issue, he or she must, at the conclusion of the review, provide the Minister and the person or group that presented the submission with a report setting out the Advocate’s opinion on the issue and any recommendation to take measures — respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction — to further the housing policy, including the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing, or the National Housing Strategy.
13.2 (1) If the Federal Housing Advocate, at any time, identifies a systemic housing issue that is within the jurisdiction of Parliament and that is not the subject of a submission, he or she may request that the National Housing Council establish a review panel to hold a hearing to review the issue.
(2) The Federal Housing Advocate must provide a review panel with a summary of the information that formed the Advocate’s basis for identifying the systemic housing issue.
(b) adding, after the section 16 that is set out in it, the following:
Review Panels
16.1 The National Housing Council must establish a review panel if requested to do so by the Federal Housing Advocate.
16.2 (1) A review panel is to consist of three members of the National Housing Council, other than ex officio members, to be appointed by the National Housing Council.
(2) In appointing members to a review panel, the National Housing Council is to take into consideration the importance of representation on the review panel of
(a) persons who are members of vulnerable groups;
(b) persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness; and
(c) persons who have expertise in human rights.
16.3 A review panel must
(a) hold a hearing to review the systemic housing issue in respect of which it was established;
(b) hold the hearing in a manner that offers the public, particularly members of communities that are affected by the issue and groups that have expertise in human rights and housing, an opportunity to participate;
(c) prepare a report that sets out the panel’s opinion on the issue and any recommendation to take measures—respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction—to address the issue; and
(d) submit the report to the Minister.
16.4 The Federal Housing Advocate is entitled to make representations and present proposals for recommendations to a review panel and may, for the purpose of doing so, work with communities that are affected by the issue that is before the review panel and with experts.
(c) adding, after the section 17 that is set out in it, the following:
17.1 The Minister must respond to each report provided by the Federal Housing Advocate under paragraph 13(h) and subsection 13.1(4) within 120 days after the day on which it is received.
17.2 (1) The Minister must respond to a report submitted by a review panel under paragraph 16.3(d) within 120 days after the day on which it is received.
(2) The Minister must cause the response to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days after the day on which it is provided to the review panel or, if either House is not sitting on the last day of that period, on any of the first 15 days on which that House of Parliament is sitting.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
, seconded by the member for Joliette, moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 334.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 335.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today and begin my remarks only hours after the terrible news of our flatlined economic growth in Canada. For the second quarter in a row, Canada's annualized growth has been 0.4%. On a quarter over quarter basis, it is 0.1%.
To put this into perspective, U.S. economic growth in the most recent quarter was 3.2%. Canada's economic growth in the same period was 0.4%. Our economic growth is now declining on a per capita basis. That is to say, our economy is growing more slowly than our population. The result is that more people are sharing in a smaller pie. That means per person, Canadians are now falling behind.
It just became known that Canada suffered the biggest decline in its ranking for competitiveness on the world stage. This should not surprise us. As the government has become more and more costly, the productive sectors of our economy are bearing a bigger and bigger burden.
The problem in the Liberal mindset is that the Liberals as politicians do not realize that whatever they add to the economy, they must first subtract.
Let us start with the deficit.
The government is taking about $20 billion a year out of the economy through government borrowing, and $20 billion of borrowed money does not come out of thin year. It is often a fallacy of thinking that politicians add to economic activity when they borrow cash out of the economy by simply throwing it back into the economy where they got it from.
In reality what they do when they borrow that money out of the economy is subtract it from otherwise productive investments that individuals and businesses would have made in the open and private sector economy, but instead were able to earn interest on by lending to the government. This is called the crowding out effect. It is nothing new. It is well known and it is based on general reasoning.
If we accept that government is able to fashion cash out of thin air, and it is not, then we must also accept that the money the government borrows out of the economy subtracts from economic growth. For the government members, who I see are in a haze of bewilderment at the poor economic numbers with which they are just now becoming acquainted, I will explain to them why their deficits are failing to generate economic growth.
The reason is that the Liberals are subtracting before they are adding. They are taking away before they are giving back. The transaction that happens when one takes away only to give back engenders a whole series of inefficiencies, where instead of dollars being allocated by consumers and investors, they are allocated by incompetent politicians. That is the nature of government directed economics.
Then there is taxation. The government has raised taxes on workers and businesses since taking office.
Let us start with workers. The average Canadian middle-class family is paying $800 more in income tax than it was before the government took office. That is in addition to the increase in fuel taxes through the carbon tax and payroll taxes through increased CPP premiums. All of those tax increases compound to squeeze the average Canadian family's ability to buy and invest in the private and productive economy.
Businesses are also facing increased costs. The government has increased taxes on small family businesses, and four different tax increases come to mind.
First, there are new tax penalties for family-owned businesses that share the work and earnings of their companies with family members.
Second, there are new penalties for small businesses that save within their companies. They risk losing their small business tax deduction if they have more than $50,000 a year in investment income. Naturally, this penalty causes small business owners to withdraw their investments for fear that they will be punished for earning too much return on those investments.
Third, Canada pension plan premiums have gone up, which increase the cost to the entrepreneur of hiring and employing workers. As a result, businesses have already made it clear that they are going to have to either lay people off or cut wages to compensate for the increased governmental taxation costs.
Finally, the carbon tax has made it more expensive for small businesses to operate. Heat, transportation and the functioning of factories all become more expensive as the price of fuels go up. Our farmers face new costs for all the off-farm transportation energy costs they consume. Those costs are not exempt from the carbon tax and therefore our farmers pay more.
All these costs compound on the backs of entrepreneurs and workers and are part of the reason our economy is grinding to a halt.
The government believes that it can tax and borrow its way to prosperity. Churchill examined the logic of that when he compared those who believed they could tax and borrow to prosperity to a man who believed he could fly if he got inside a bucket and pulled up as hard as possible on the handle to lift himself into the sky. What government forgets is that as much as it pulls up on the handle, it is pressing down twice as hard with its feet. In other words, the downward pressure is much more powerful than the upward pull, and that is what we are witnessing today.
The government will try, along with help from Liberal-minded commentators, to suggest that the fact our economy is no longer growing is not the Prime Minister's fault; it is part of a global phenomenon. Unfortunately, that does not bear out with the facts. Right next door, in the United States, the growth is 3.2%, a spectacular growth rate. The Americans are our biggest trading partner, responsible for 75% of our exports. If import and export are combined, the United States is equal to about 40% of our GDP. We have a $2-trillion economy and an $800-billion trading relationship with the U.S.
Therefore, the biggest global influence on economic growth in Canada is from the U.S., and that economy is growing. In fact, its economy is roaring strong.
In other words, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to externalize his failures by blaming some global phenomenon. That global phenomenon does not seem to have affected our neighbours south of the border. In fact, the global economy over the last three years has been exceptionally strong, recovering for the first time since the great global recession of 2008-09. It is Canada that is falling behind the global trend with the appalling numbers we see today.
How do we get back on track? The answer is to get government off the backs and out of the way of Canadian workers and entrepreneurs; to lower the tax burden to make work pay so workers keep more of what they earn; to remove tax increases on small businesses that are the engine of our economy; and to clear the way for large multi-billion dollar energy resource projects to go ahead, financed by the private sector, without the obstruction of government.
That is the vision of the Conservative leader. He believes we should get the government out of the way so workers and entrepreneurs can invest, grow and get ahead. It has been done before and it can be done again. That is the Conservative plan. Now let us make it happen.
Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1Government Orders
Peterborough—Kawartha Ontario
Liberal
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, since we formed government, Canadians have created over one million jobs; over one million families have a safe and affordable roof over their heads; 825,000 Canadians are no longer going to bed hungry at night; child poverty rates have been cut by 40%; and taxes have been lowered on the middle class and increased on the 1%. Our plan is clearly working, because Canadians are working.
Why did my hon. colleague vote against every single measure we put forward to make a real difference in the lives of Canadians?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is because the difference made them worse off. Here are the facts. The average family is paying $800 more in tax; that is middle-class folks. It is true; I will be fair. The wealthiest Canadians are paying less than ever. The wealthiest 1% paid $4.6 billion less in income tax in the year after the government took office.
Members across the way yelled out “fake news”. I find it interesting that they would accuse the Canada Revenue Agency of fake news, because it is CRA that reported a $4.6-billion decline in the tax receipts from the wealthiest 1% in the first year after the government took office. They can deny their own governmental statistics if they want, but the rest of us will trust the data as it reads.
The reality is that the rich and well-connected are benefiting from handouts by government, but working-class Canadians have had flatline wages, our economy has ground to a halt and our deficit is out of control. Canadians want a change, and they will get one.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not limit his remarks to the report stage and proposed amendments, so neither will I.
The Conservative leader was recently asked multiple times what he was planning to cut to balance the budget. The Conservatives brought in austerity programs, determined to balance the budget at any price, no matter how much it cost taxpayers.
While the Conservative leader has now backed away from his promise to balance the budget, my colleague, the member for Carleton, keeps asking the government when the budget will be balanced. I should have checked exactly how many times he has asked the question, but I imagine it must be hundreds.
Now I have a question for my colleague. When will his leader balance the budget, if he has the good fortune and privilege of becoming prime minister? Is it the same answer, or are they going to revert to Conservative austerity, as they often promise and as we saw under Stephen Harper?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it will happen in about half a decade. We will have our platform out well before the election, with a precise timeline to phase out the deficit. That is an easy question.
How are we going to do it? We are going to cancel future spending increases that the Liberal government has promised that are unsustainable and have no source of funds.
The member across the way does not offer an alternative to that. What he offers is massive short-term deficits, which will, in the long run, subtract from what the government is able to do for its citizens through services and programs. The member's approach to economics has been tried. It has been tried in Venezuela, Greece and to lesser degrees in countries like France, and the result is massive unemployment, massive debt, declining wages, shortages for the basic necessities of life, and massive increases in poverty. The member might claim, as Churchill put it, that the “inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings [but] the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that he did not mention the track records of the successive provincial NDP governments running the provinces with the best financial performance in the country. The Department of Finance releases these data—
Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1Government Orders
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order. Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, apparently some of my colleagues are not well-acquainted with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and keep breaking the rules. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I was saying.
The Department of Finance releases provincial fiscal performance data. It is important to note that New Democratic provincial governments have the best fiscal performance in Canada, so I do not think my Conservative colleague is in any position to be giving me lessons on that subject, nor are my Liberal colleagues, to be sure.
Let's return to the the matter before us, the report stage study of Bill C-97. We began by reading the many motions in amendment at report stage. Members may have noticed that I presented a few, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about those amendments.
Today we have no choice but to oppose Bill C-97 and call for the deletion of some totally unacceptable parts that have no business being in there and were harshly criticized by witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance, which held numerous meetings about this and spent many hours on it. The fact is, some of the bill's clauses are no good and must be taken out.
Three sections the NDP wants to remove have to do with privatizing the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, whose agents are doing an excellent job of keeping passengers safe in airports and on planes across the country. The government wants to privatize this agency, a Crown corporation, in the hope of improving the services, but, given what we heard in committee, this is not the right course of action. It would be better to fund the agency and give it all the tools it needs. All revenues from airline tickets should return to the agency in full so that it can do its work properly and address the very real concerns of Canada's airports and airlines, which are at times frustrated by the agency's work—and rightly so.
That is why we need to move forward with these changes but, above all, provide this agency with resources. Privatization is never the solution, as the witnesses said. We therefore need to remove this part of the bill today to prevent this privatization. There is no doubt that this is the beginning of a federal effort to privatize air transportation and airports.
Since it took office, the government has been saying that it does not intend to privatize airports. In the beginning, the Liberals said that they were looking into the issue and were open to ideas, but they seemed to have ruled out the possibility of privatization. However, we now have proof that the government is moving forward on privatization, starting with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Another amendment that we are proposing concerns the Hazardous Products Act. The Canadian Labour Congress has sounded the alarm in this regard, because these changes will relax the rules regarding the information available to workers about the hazardous products that they have to use every day as part of their jobs. The government kowtowed to the hazardous chemicals industry and decided to relax these rules, thereby endangering the safety of workers.
The Canadian Labour Congress was very clear in that regard, saying that the government should not move forward on this and that those rules should actually be strengthened to ensure workers across the country have access to the ingredient labels of the products they come in contact with. That would allow them to respond in the short term, in case of an accident, and in the long term, since these products could have health implications that may not be detected for years.
That is why it is important to have strict regulations to keep the list of ingredients of these products for as long as possible, so that we can properly respond to any potential health problems that may affect workers.
There is nothing surprising about the other change that we are proposing, which my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned many times. It has to do with the government's callous changes to refugee protection in Canada.
The government is pleased to have the support of one Faith Goldy. In fact, she supported the Liberals' bill that would make these changes. The Liberals criticized the Conservative leader because he was seen with her, but they are only to happy to get her approval. She applauded the government for its changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because it closes the door on refugees. With this bill, the government is creating two classes of refugees: those who entered through regular channels and those who entered irregularly. It is creating two parallel systems, which it says will do exactly the same thing. That raises questions.
The government tried to calm the waters in committee. It made amendments to this part of the bill to appease witnesses, who unanimously stated that it was a bad idea and that the government should simply withdraw this part of the bill. However, that is not enough, and only shows the amateurism of the Liberals on this issue. The government is catering to the extreme right in Canada with this measure but, in reality, what it will do is put in place a costly and useless process for doing what is already being done at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The department was even forced to admit that there would now be a process, known as a pre-removal risk assessment, for people who entered irregularly. The government is creating this type of hearing for refugees even though the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada already exists. The government and the department were forced to admit that there would indeed be two nearly identical processes for two types of refugees.
The government is therefore creating two classes of refugees: those who are entitled to the full process, with all the rights associated with it, such as the right to natural justice, and those who are subject to an inferior process and who will have fewer rights. This will be an expedited process that will will not always grant a hearing to asylum seekers, who have the right to be heard by an impartial person. The pre-removal risk assessment is very much a part of the immigration department and cannot be compared to the work of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is a quasi-judicial entity respected around the world.
The government is deciding to turn a blind eye. Instead of giving the board the resources it needs to do its job, the government is creating a parallel process. It was completely indifferent to what numerous experts said in committee. There were lawyers and representatives from international refugee protection organizations, among others. There was even a refugee, who crossed the border irregularly and lost the use of his hands in the extreme cold in Manitoba. He said that under the new rules in this bill, he would have been sent back to Ghana, where his life was in danger. This is the Liberal approach, which puts refugees in danger and sends them back to their countries of origin, as one witness pointed out. The government really missed the mark in many respects with Bill C-97.
This concludes my remarks on the report stage study of the bill, the committee's work, the testimony that was heard and the reasons I must oppose the bill today. At the very least, the most problematic parts of the bill should be taken out. We hope the government will see reason, because this is its last chance to remove the contentious provisions from this bill. I hope I have the support of all my colleagues to at least fix this awful bill.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on our growth of foreign direct investment into Canada, which The Globe and Mail reported last week has increased by an impressive 60%, from $32.2 billion to $51.3 billion. This happened while capital flows into developed economies elsewhere dropped by 40%, and it is 11% ahead of our 10-year average, due to a marginal effective tax rate of 13.8%, almost five full points below that of the U.S.A. and the lowest in the Group of Seven. We get to this point by trading with other nations, something the NDP has been clearly against.
Could the member comment on how important it is to develop trade to increase the revenue into our country, so that we can pay for social programs such as the ones he outlined in his speech today?
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea where my colleague got his information. He claims that the NDP is against free trade deals, but we actually supported certain free trade agreements, even during the last Parliament. I invite him to look into it.
The NDP supports free trade agreements that benefit Canadian workers, the Canadian economy and major Canadian industries. Signing deals that jeopardize entire sectors, like the dairy sector and all the supply-managed sectors, is a bad idea.
If my colleague cannot understand that, I do not know how he sees these issues. Supply-managed farmers in Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships are livid, because this is the third time that the government has sacrificed their sector and family farms to cater to the needs of Donald Trump and the Prime Minister, who is anxious to sign a deal with the U.S. and Mexico at all costs.
The only thing the government is doing is bowing down before the Americans, agreeing to all their demands and sacrificing major economic sectors like agriculture. Canadian farmers are furious with this government, and they will make that clear in October.
Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1Government Orders
Peterborough—Kawartha Ontario
Liberal
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, in my community over the last three and a half years, 1,432 families have been able to find a safe and affordable place to live as a direct result of our government's investments. The unemployment rate has been cut by nearly 50% in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Thousands of families with children are better off because of the Canada child benefit.
Our government has been investing in Canadians because we know our plan works. The NDP in the previous election maintained the Conservative line to balance the budget at all costs. That plan would not have worked.
Could my hon. colleague tell me if this year the NDP is going to change its position and invest back in Canadians?
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that my colleague asked me that question. It gives me an opportunity to explain things all over again to my Liberal colleague, who keeps repeating those lines ad nauseam like some kind of mantra.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party forgot to pay attention to the revenue side of the ledger, which is a pretty important part of a fiscal framework. Apparently the minister is forgetting to consider the fiscal framework part of a campaign platform.
We had the courage to say that the wealthiest Canadians must pay their fair share because that enables the government to support important social programs and invest in Canadians. My colleague does not want to do the politically courageous thing. She does not want to generate revenue by making Canadians pay their fair share and fighting tax havens. She does not want to reinvest that money in Canadians.
Our fiscal framework was sound. It included additional revenue sources to finance numerous initiatives such as child care and pharmacare. My colleague is so blinded by the expenditures column that she is forgetting to take the revenue column into account.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will let the hon. member know that there will only be about five minutes before we will need to interrupt her for other proceedings, but then she will have the remainder of her time when the House gets back to debate on the question.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, knowing that we have very little time left, I want to say it is unfortunate that deletions are necessary at this point. I want to again put on the record the deep unhappiness of many of us seeing, in Bill C-97, the use of an omnibus budget bill to bring in provisions such as the ones I am seeking to delete through this motion today.
I will sketch out that although I did submit a number of amendments, they were similar to some submitted by the New Democratic Party. I strongly support my amendments and those of the New Democratic Party that attempt to remove from this omnibus budget bill fundamental changes to how we treat immigrants and refugees.
The right of a refugee to come to Canada is enshrined in our international obligations. There has been so much said that constitutes misunderstanding about the nature of refugees. The language started cropping up under the previous government that people who showed up here with just the clothes on their backs were somehow “jumping the queue”. I remember having debates on this point with the current premier of Alberta when he was Minister of Immigration.
I used to do work in refugee and immigration law in Halifax. My clientele were such that I might have been described as specializing in ship-jumpers. In those days, the U.S.S.R. still existed. Young sailors from Soviet bloc countries would get to Halifax, literally walk off the ship and somehow find our law office.
Nowadays, as in those days, everyone is assessed. If they claim to be a refugee, they have to prove they have a legitimate fear of returning to their country. We can be critical of how long it takes for people to be assessed, but we cannot assert there is something wrong with people who come to this country and claim to be refugees. They have a right to be assessed fairly and to know what their situation is.
With respect to some of my ship-jumpers, I note parenthetically that I was so happy when, about a year ago, I got a call in my office from one of the young men I had helped. He had raised his family in Ontario and started his own business. He had done extremely well for himself. He wondered if I still remembered him. Well, I remembered Nicola. I am so thrilled that within a week of jumping ship, he had a job washing dishes in Halifax. He was provided housing. It was not great housing, but it was enough for him to find his feet.
The idea now is that we turn people away because of the safe third country agreement, which did not exist at the time. The idea that the United States is still a safe third country for many refugees does not hold water. It does not make sense to stop people who are coming to Canada with just the clothes on their backs. Most of the people who come across the New York-Quebec border have been women with children. People do not know this; people do not necessarily see in the news who is coming here looking for our help.
There are people who really need our help. We have seen children die in detention is U.S. holding camps. We have seen an attitude of the U.S. president that is the opposite of the words on the Statue of Liberty, to send forward “the homeless” and “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... I lift my lamp”. In contrast, “I will build a...wall” is what the current president says. He does not want “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”, although these words on the Statue of Liberty are not exactly perfect for refugees.
Setting that aside, the spirit of these words makes clear that this country, our best friend and neighbour, used to be a welcoming place. The U.S. is a country of refugees and immigrants, as are we in Canada, being on indigenous territory. We are a country of immigrants.
We should not sneak restrictive provisions into an omnibus budget bill, claiming there is a loophole, but should instead get rid of them and the safe third country agreement. We should be saying that we no longer regard the U.S. as a safe country. We should not have a safe country agreement with a country that is capable of rejecting people for all manner of reasons.
As my time is almost up, I want to turn to the second package of amendments I submitted. They were were not shared by any other party or MP. They come from my personal experience. I will return to this whenever we come back to debate on Bill C-97.
Provisions that I think others may have missed, in clauses 334 and 335, relate to the Parks Canada Agency.
When I worked in Environment Canada in the 1980s, there was no Parks Canada Agency. It was a branch of Environment Canada, like any other branch of Environment Canada and it was treated as part of the department.
The Parks Canada civil service of the day was sold the idea that it would be better off as an agency. One of the main reasons used was that it would be able to keep money that would otherwise lapse. If it were an agency, the argument was that it could hang on to more of its budget and could build more forward planning.
I do not think the Parks Canada Agency was a good idea. It has not served the interest of making it easier or more integrated in how we treat Parks Canada and its ecological integrity. After all these years, the rationale for making it an agency will disappear if we do not pass my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will have four minutes remaining for her speech and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments following that.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on what is called Standing Order 31, and Standing Order 31, as we all know, is also known as members' statements. The topic of my member's statement today is members' statements.
We had a very interesting discussion yesterday at PROC on procedures and House affairs. The theme of the discussion related to question period and to a package of amendments and changes, prepared by members from a number of parties, that we hope will be considered by the House before it adjourns.
One of the things that grabbed our attention yesterday was the question of control of members' statements by party whips. This 60-second message, now down to 10 seconds, is the moment for members to say what is on their minds and what is happening in their constituencies. We need to end the practice of leaving the allocation of these statements to party whips.