Debates of Nov. 25th, 2021

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons' “Report to Canadians 2021”.

Income Tax Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for seconding the bill.

Bill C-201 calls on the Government of Canada to increase the tax exemption for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue responders from $3,000 to $10,000 in the tax code. We know that search and rescue responders and firefighters are on the ground right now in British Columbia doing the important work, helping people at a time of need, which is when they always show up, in difficult crises, such as fires, floods and accidents in our local communities.

These volunteer firefighters account for 83% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. Approximately 8,000 essential search and rescue volunteers respond to thousands of incidents every year.

The tax code of Canada currently allows volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax credit if they have completed 200 hours of volunteer services in a calendar year. This works out to about $450 per year that we allow these essential volunteers to keep of their own income from their regular jobs, which is about $2.25 an hour. If they volunteer for more than 200 hours, which many do, this tax credit becomes even less.

These essential workers give their time, training and efforts to Canadians on a voluntary basis, often putting their lives at risk, allowing local governments to keep property taxes lower than if paid services were required. Increasing this tax credit would allow these essential volunteers to keep more of their hard-earned money, likely to be spent in the communities in which they live. Also, an increase in the tax benefit would result in increased volunteer recruitment and retention at a time when volunteerism is decreasing.

I hope all members in the House will show support for the bill and show respect for all those first responders and volunteer firefighters across Canada who put their lives at risk and put themselves behind all of us. We saw the work they did during COVID-19. They were there fo us.

I am thankful for the time to talk about this important bill, and I hope I will get the support of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reintroduce my bill to make coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence. This new offence would allow victims of coercive and controlling violence to get desperately needed help and would allow earlier interventions in problematic relationships rather than having to wait for physical violence to occur.

During this pandemic, we have heard reports from police and front-line service providers that domestic violence calls for assistance spiked by more than 30%, an alarming intensification of what was already a serious problem in the country.

In the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied this issue, and all-party support resulted in a unanimous report, calling on the House to take action within a year, either on my bill or a similar government bill.

I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for seconding the reintroduction of my bill today.

Addressing the issue of coercive and controlling violence is not a matter of partisanship. It is a necessary step toward addressing the shadow pandemic of domestic violence that has hit women and families so hard during this pandemic.

I urge all members to support quick action on this challenging problem that will literally save lives.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Inflation

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that I have received a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Carleton to rise and make a brief intervention.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising is the need for an emergency debate on the Liberal inflation tax. As the Speaker knows, half-a-trillion dollars of Liberal inflationary Liberal deficits mean more dollars chasing fewer goods leading to higher prices. It is a long-proven statistical correlation that when governments run huge deficits and print money to pay for it, prices rise for everything and everybody.

Academics, the media and Liberal politicians are trying to tie inflation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, that does not hold water. Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, England, Germany, China, India, Japan, Singapore, the other G7 countries and the eurozone are all grappling with the COVID-19 crisis, and yet inflation is not as high in those places.

Obviously, the cause of our inflation is the major increase in government spending, which is causing an increase in prices. More money and fewer goods mean higher prices.

We need to have a debate to protect the interests of consumers. Young people are unable to buy homes and often have to live in their parents' basement. Seniors are having a hard time buying groceries. The cost of gas in Canada is going up, partly because of the world price but also because of the stunning weakness of our dollar, which is linked to the fact we are printing money here in Canada.

Price hikes are taking their toll on poor people, those who are suffering, and those who do not have any financial or real estate investments to help them make money. These people need us.

I am therefore calling for an emergency debate to discuss the Liberals' inflationary tax.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention, but I find that his request does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 1, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the government House leader's argument yesterday, it was that in spite of rules around vaccination, around masking, around social distancing, as well as the possibility of testing, we still could not have an in-person Parliament because of the possibility that some members were immunocompromised.

I wonder if the government House leader or another government minister is willing to tell us how many ministers are immunocompromised and whether ministers who are able to be in the House will be in the House.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, first, what we do not know at this point in time is how many folks in this chamber are unvaccinated. This is an answer that will not be given right now.

Why does that matter to someone who is immunocompromised? Because that risks his or her health. The point is that when somebody who is unvaccinated gets in contact with somebody who has COVID-19, which, by the way, happened last week in the Conservative caucus, the person is supposed to go into isolation. That did not happen. Therefore, we do not know whether somebody is in here who is unvaccinated, who did not isolate. Maybe the person did isolate, but the Conservatives will not tell us any of this.

Here we are on the third day of Conservative obfuscation. We still have not gotten to the business of the nation. Instead we are debating whether or not the sky is blue. We are debating basic science, which is that in a workplace, can we work in person, yes, but also virtually. The member claims that he cannot work in person. Did he not read the motion? Did he not see he could come here every single day? Has he not heard my comments that said ministers would be in their seats and would answer his questions in this place?

What does he have a problem with?

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

Madam Speaker, time allocation measures are never something that should be used arbitrarily, but we are in a situation where we have had the consensus of all parties and all members of Parliament for the last year and a half to ensure that we were putting in place the appropriate public health measures, including having the social distancing that comes with using the hybrid Parliament tools.

We have seen the Conservatives and the Bloc reverse that position suddenly and arbitrarily, and not agree to something that should have been passed unanimously on Tuesday. It is disturbing to me that we have parties not thinking of public health measures, first and foremost, the protection of our employees, the protection of the public and the protection of people who are immunocompromised and may be in the families of members of Parliament.

Why have the Conservatives and the Bloc steadfastly refused to renew the public health measures that we have been taking now for a year and a half?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague poses a good question. The reality is that we all worked very well, and I will go back to that. I hope that maybe by taking a step back we can remember how together, at the Board of Internal Economy, though at the time I was a whip dealing with the other House leaders, we dealt with finding consensus and agreement about what had to be done in the global pandemic. With the administration of the House, we were able to create a system that worked, that allowed members to work remotely and safely and be in this place in person, and we were able to do so with unanimity.

My problem today is that we are still in a global pandemic, during which 30,000 Canadians have died and five million have died globally. There is no reason we cannot have the flexibility in our workplace to ensure that people can be here in person and have the opportunity to work virtually. I am saddened that we are now taking two days of House time on this. I will come back to this, because I have a sense that I will have that opportunity, but we are blocking the priorities this Parliament needs to get done.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to reassure my NDP colleague that we do not agree with the Conservative Party's position.

The Bloc Québécois listens to science. Our intention is to be present in the House. Democracy only works when it is out in the open.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Would you please be quiet?

Madam Speaker, during the last parliamentary session, there was one single person on the other side. Science tells us that, if we are all properly vaccinated and we follow the guidelines by wearing our masks, being here in the House is perfectly fine.

I do not want to be associated with what is going on in the Conservative Party, where people doubt vaccine efficacy and the leader's lack of leadership is putting us in the position we are in today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind hon. members and the House that everyone must respect the person who has the floor. Members sitting close by should refrain from speaking to each other and causing a disturbance.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The Bloc Québécois has been quite reasonable and continues to be reasonable. All the conversations we have had with Bloc members have been based on science.

I understand why the Bloc Québécois is asking us about the number of ministers who will be here. However, the current situation is different from previous situations. When the pandemic was hitting us a lot harder, we obviously could not have as many people present here in the House.

The situation is less acute at the moment, so we can now have people in the House. I can say with confidence that the ministers will be present in person to answer questions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again.

Since my colleague is talking about safety on the Hill, I was wondering if he could comment about his role in steering an allegation of sexual misconduct against former MP Raj Saini to mediation as opposed to a formal complaint, and then trying to ensure that process did not see the light of day.

I was wondering if he would take this opportunity to apologize to the victim, who has suffered greatly from this, and commit to ensuring his party is not a deep, dark hole of continued sexual misconduct. If we are really talking about safety on the Hill, he needs to deal with that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question that is before the House has nothing to do with the actual debate currently before the House.

I see the government House leader has risen. I am wondering if he wants to speak to that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, when any allegations are placed against any member or any individual, they should have the opportunity to furnish evidence in their defence and should have the opportunity to be heard. This is not a place where a member uses their privilege to hide, to make allegations and say things as if they are fact.

Let me be very clear about what the process was in every single instance when I was whip. In every single instance that an allegation came forward, we would ensure there was a rigorous process to look at whether the complaint had validity. In the instance a complaint had validity, obviously it was going to be acted upon. In the instances where the 360, the environmental assessments, determined it did not, then that was a different story. Those things are not to be adjudicated on the floor of the House of Commons.

All members of Parliament may from time to time find themselves involved in allegations against them. I could list members from the Conservative Party or other parties who have faced this. The place to adjudicate those matters is not on the floor of the House of Commons, which I say is a matter of principle. The place to adjudicate those matters is in an HR forum, where it is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to take this time to remind members they need to have their masks on unless they are speaking.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate my colleague. During the last Parliament we had the opportunity to work together as whips.

I have a simple question. I would genuinely like to understand the reasons behind this decision to have a hybrid Parliament until June 23, 2022.

As the government House leader knows, the House Administration and the technical support people would be able to reinstate the hybrid system with the push of a button if that is what we unanimously decide we want.

Given the current health situation, there is no need to decide today that we should be in a hybrid Parliament until June 23. That is something we should decide month to month, or every two months, depending on how the situation evolves.

Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons explain why the government, together with the NDP, is imposing a hybrid Parliament until June 23, 2022?