House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was targets.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member will have eight minutes to continue his speech when we next return to the reading of this bill.
The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime MinisterPrivilegePrivate Members' Business
Honoré-Mercier Québec
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised on April 28, 2021, concerning statements the Prime Minister made in this House respecting the allegations of misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff. The member for Portage—Lisgar asserted that the Prime Minister, in denying he was aware of the nature of the allegations against General Vance in 2018, deliberately misled the House.
This response will be quite long, but it is necessary, as this is an extremely serious and important issue, and it is important the government fully responds to the intervention from the member.
I want to begin by repeating what the Prime Minister said on March 11, 2021. He said:
...supporting the women and men who choose to serve in the armed forces is a priority for this government, as it has been for all governments. We have moved forward in significantly strengthening measures to support survivors of sexual assault and to create more processes so that armed forces members do not have to face sexual assault in their workplace or in their service.
I will address the points made by the member for Portage—Lisgar, and I will offer a point-by-point rebuttal that will demonstrate her conclusions can only be reached by a scrambling of the chronology of events and by presenting evidence out of context. In addition to that, the member also provides false information to the House about the date of a statement from the Prime Minister's Office and uses this misleading and incorrect chronology to try to make her case, in what can only be seen as an attempt to mislead the House.
The member is entitled to her own opinions, but she is not entitled to her own facts. Her misleading statements to the House are very serious. From the outset, I would like to state that the Prime Minister never misled the House, deliberately or otherwise. The Prime Minister has been consistent at all times in the information he has provided to the House on this issue. There are some key points I would like to make before I address the specifics raised by the members.
First, the member for Portage—Lisgar is absolutely incorrect in her assertion that the Prime Minister knew in 2018 that the allegations against General Vance were a matter of a #MeToo complaint. We know this from a statement he made in the House on February 24, 2021, when he stated, “Mr. Speaker, every person deserves a safe work environment. I first learned of allegations against General Vance in Global News reporting.”
Secondly, the member states that the Prime Minister's Office was aware of the nature or the details of the allegations against General Vance in 2018. Statements in the House and evidence at committee will show this to be false.
Thirdly, the member states that the Privy Council Office, a separate body, independent from the Prime Minister's Office, was aware of the nature or the details of the allegations against General Vance in 2018. Statements in the House and evidence at committee will show this to be false.
Fourthly, the member states that the Minister of National Defence and his office were aware of the nature or the details of the allegations against General Vance. Statements in the House and evidence at committee will show this to be false.
Fifthly, the member states that the Clerk of the Privy Council was aware of the nature or the details of the allegations against General Vance. Statements in the House and evidence at committee will show this to be false.
The member for Portage—Lisgar is trying to show that her argument passes the three-point test to determine if there is a prima facie question of privilege. The evidence will show that the first of the three criteria has not been met, which makes the second and third ones impossible to meet.
The evidence will demonstrate that only by scrambling the chronology and providing information out of context could the member for Portage—Lisgar come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister misled the House. The evidence provided before the House in committees will clearly demonstrate that the Prime Minister did not mislead the House in any way.
I would now like to address the points made by the member, point by point. The member points to responses that the Prime Minister gave to questions from the Leader of the Opposition on April 27. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister the following questions in the House:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was aware of allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance in 2018. The Clerk of the Privy Council knew. The Prime Minister's senior advisor knew. The Prime Minister's chief of staff knew. Did the Prime Minister know?
Another question:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was aware of sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance in 2018. The Clerk of the Privy Council was aware. The senior adviser, Mr. Marques, to the Prime Minister was aware. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister was aware in 2018. Was the Prime Minister aware of sexual misconduct allegations in 2018?
Let us take a look at both the questions and the answers. First, the assertions in the questions are false. This is backed up by testimony before a standing committee of the House. Let us start with the Minister of National Defence. The minister states very clearly, at the Standing Committee on National Defence on March 12, that he was not aware of the nature or specific allegations against General Vance in 2018:
At the very end of this private conversation, Mr. Walbourne brought up concerns of misconduct involving the former chief of the defence staff. He did not give me any details. I did not allow him to give me any details. I very purposely respected the investigative process to ensure that it remained independent.
The minister also makes clear, at an earlier appearance before the national defence committee on February 19, that he only learned of the nature and specifics of the allegations against General Vance in early 2021, stating:
I was as shocked as everyone else at the allegations that were made public two weeks ago.
The former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, in testimony before the national defence committee on April 6, stated the following:
I learned of the specific allegations earlier this year in the media reports....I was not aware of the specifics of the allegation. I became aware of them this year.
Mr. Wernick also states:
There had not been an investigation. The only person who knew about the seriousness of the allegations at the time was Mr. Walbourne.
On the issue of the former senior adviser to the Prime Minister, Elder Marques, who was tasked with following up on allegations against General Vance, here is what he said before the national defence committee on April 19:
I believe I was told that the issue was an issue of personal misconduct. ...I think my presumption was certainly that it could be of a sexual nature, but I don't think I was actually given that information specifically.
On the issue of what the Prime Minister knew, Mr. Marques said the following:
I did not brief the Prime Minister on this issue, and I'm not aware of any briefings of the Prime Minister on this issue.
On why he took the information to the Privy Council Office, Mr. Marques said:
The reason for going to the Clerk of the Privy Council is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is responsible for the apparatus that now needs to do its best with the resources that it has to respond. At this stage, there is not anything that the Prime Minister is supposed to do in relation to this information, and I would suggest in fact it would have been problematic had the Prime Minister or other members of cabinet or other political staff tried to insert themselves at that point.
At that point, PCO is fully engaged. They have advisers who are engaged. No one was not appreciating the seriousness of the issue. I think any involvement at that stage could risk being counterproductive, even if it's in good faith and just trying to ensure things are moving along.
My reason for going to the clerk is that the clerk now had responsibility and he had work to do to make sure that everything that can be done in, frankly, quite unusual circumstances is done and that we hopefully get to a point where there is a proper investigation where we can find out what occurred. That then may lead to the involvement of others who may need to make decisions as a result of that.
We're not anywhere near that.
Mr. Marques was clear he was not aware of the nature or the specifics of the complaint. Mr. Marques brought this information to the independent officials at the Privy Council Office. The government followed the proper process. This is, might I add, the same process the previous government followed.
It is useful for context here to point out the current leader of the official opposition was made aware of misconduct rumours in 2015. It was serious enough that he asked his staff to notify the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who then took it to the Privy Council Office for review. In other words, they took the same steps the government followed. I have a hard time taking the Leader of the Opposition seriously when he criticizes the exact process he and his government followed.
Regarding the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Prime Minister was clear in the House on March 10 that his office knew of unspecified allegations against General Vance in 2018 but was unaware of the nature of specifics of the allegations. He said:
Mr. Speaker, my office was aware of the minister's direction to the ombudsman to follow up with appropriate authorities, but my office and I learned of the details of the allegations over the past months only.
The Prime Minister told the House that he was not aware of the allegations against General Vance.
Testimony at a House standing committee demonstrated that the Minister of National Defence was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations against General Vance in 2018.
Testimony at a House standing committee demonstrated that the Prime Minister's senior adviser was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations against General Vance in 2018.
The Prime Minister has told the House that his office, including the chief of staff, was aware of unspecified allegations in 2018 but was not aware of the nature or specifics of these allegations.
Furthermore, testimony at a House standing committee demonstrated that the Clerk of the Privy Council was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations.
Let us take a look at the replies the Prime Minister gave to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition. This is how the Prime Minister replied to the first question:
Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying for some time now, yes, there was a complaint against General Vance. Nobody in my office or in the Minister of National Defence's office knew the nature of the complaint.
We clearly have to improve the process. We have to make sure we create an environment in which people who want to bring forward allegations feel supported. That is the kind of situation and the kind of system we are creating.
Here is how the Prime Minister replied to the second question:
Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is simply untrue. While there was awareness that there was a complaint against General Vance, there was no awareness that it was in fact a #MeToo complaint of a sexual nature. These are issues that we have continued to work on seriously as a government.
I need to highlight that the leader of the official opposition had heard a rumour of misconduct back in 2015. He told his staff, who then told PMO, which told the Privy Council Office. It is the exact same process that played out in 2015 under the previous Conservative government as played out in our government, but we have taken far more actions to change the culture for the better of our military.
Context is important here. The Prime Minister was answering questions about what his office and the office of the Minister of National Defence knew in 2018.
The Prime Minister told the House that he was not even aware that there were allegations in 2018 and did not learn about these allegations or the nature of these allegations before the beginning of 2021. The Prime Minister has consistently told the House that his office was aware of unspecified allegations but not of their specifics. The Minister of National Defence told the committee that he and his office were aware of unspecified allegations but not of the nature of these allegations.
All of this evidence demonstrates that the Prime Minister has been consistent in all of his statements in the House regarding what and when he knew, what and when his office knew, and what and when the Minister of National Defence and his office knew.
I want to address the issue that the member for Portage—Lisgar raises around emails from Janine Sherman, the deputy secretary to the cabinet responsible for Governor in Council appointments. Ms. Sherman sent a draft email that the Minister of National Defence could use to respond to Mr. Walbourne. While she does include the words “allegations of sexual harassment”, I can only speculate that she was making an assumption. This can be the only explanation due to her testimony before the national defence committee.
Ms. Sherman testified at the committee on March 26, where she stated, “I met with Mr. Walbourne on March 16. In my email exchanges and in my meeting with Mr. Walbourne, I did not receive information upon which to take further action.”
Ms. Sherman further testified that, “...based on my conversation with the former ombudsman, I did not have information about the nature of the complaint or specifics that would have enabled further action.”
Other emails also demonstrate that Ms. Sherman did not have any details about the nature of the unspecified allegation. An email to Mr. Walbourne, using the text provided by Ms. Sherman states, “Although the substance and details of the allegations were not discussed the Minister we want to ensure they are properly investigated.”
In a further email to Mr. Walbourne from Ms. Sherman, she states, “I understand that you have information concerning the conduct of a GIC appointee that the Minister has asked that you share with me.”
In Mr. Walbourne's testimony before the national defence committee on March 3, he states:
...I told her [Ms. Sherman] that I was surprised she knew about that. I had asked the minister to keep it in confidence, and I told her the same thing I said to this committee, that I wasn't going to give her the name of the complainant or the details of the allegation because the complainant had asked me to respect that confidentiality, and that's exactly what I did.
The information was never shared with Ms. Sherman by Mr. Walbourne. The term “sexual” appeared only once in an early draft email that Ms. Sherman prepared. Contrast this with her testimony before the committee where she was categorical that she did not know the nature of the unspecified allegation and it becomes clear that her early reference in the draft email was speculation. This is backed up by the fact that when this draft email was written, Ms. Sherman had only spoken to Mr. Marques about this issue and he has clearly testified that he was not aware that the allegations against General Vance were sexual in nature.
The member for Portage—Lisgar also points to Ms. Sherman's testimony at the national defence committee, portraying it in a fashion that deliberately attempts to muddy the waters, to try to demonstrate that the Prime Minister and his office knew the nature of the allegations against General Vance. Nothing could be further from the truth. The member points to earlier emails and conflates them as if they were the basis for later discussions with PMO staff. In fact, those discussions were subsequent to Ms. Sherman speaking to Mr. Walbourne.
Further, Ms. Sherman never stated in her testimony before the committee that she discussed the nature of the complaint with the PMO. The opposite is true. She testified that she was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations. If Ms. Sherman was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations, how can the member assert that the Prime Minister was aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations? How can the member assert that the PMO staff, or the Minister of National Defence and his staff, knew the nature or specifics of the allegations? It just does not make any sense.
All of that shows the following: The Prime Minister was not aware of any allegations, nor of the nature or specifics of any allegations in 2018. The Prime Minister's Office was aware of allegations but not of the nature or specifics of those allegations in 2018. The Minister of National Defence and his office were aware of allegations but not of the nature or specifics of those allegations in 2018.
All of that is completely consistent with what the Prime Minister said in the House.
I now want to move on to the statement from the Prime Minister on March 10, which the member for Portage—Lisgar referred to. This was in reference to a question from the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill who asked:
Is it the Prime Minister's position that no one made him aware of the allegations of misconduct against General Vance three years ago?
The Prime Minister replied, stating:
Mr. Speaker, my office was aware of the minister's direction to the ombudsman to follow up with appropriate authorities, but my office and I learned of the details of the allegations over the past months only.
Again, that statement is entirely consistent with the facts. The member for Portage—Lisgar referred to an exchange in question period from March 24, in which the Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, allegations of sexual misconduct or inappropriate behaviour need to be followed up by the appropriate authorities, and that is exactly what happened in this case. The ombudsperson was directed toward the right people in terms of following up on an investigation. The ombudsperson was not able to share further information with the investigators and, therefore, the investigation did not move forward.
We will continue to take very seriously any allegations that come forward, as we always have. We will continue to work to ensure that there is a change in the culture and better systems in place.
The member for Portage—Lisgar offered up this quote as an example that the Prime Minister, his staff, the Minister of National Defence and his staff had specific information about the nature of the allegations against General Vance in 2018. She stated that, “...the Prime Minister [was] speaking on March 24. I am going to repeat that. He even said, 'allegations of sexual misconduct' ”. That is simply not the case. That is yet another example of the member playing fast and loose with the chronology of events and trying to use information out of context. In this instance, the Prime Minister commented in March 2021 about a situation from 2018 with added context about the nature of the allegation he informed the House about on February 24, 2021, which he learned from media reports in early 2021.
The member for Portage—Lisgar completely misrepresented the Prime Minister's answer in the House on March 24.
As I stated earlier, the Prime Minister has been clear about when he first learned about the allegations against General Vance. He stated in the House on February 24 that, “Mr. Speaker, every person deserves a safe work environment. I first learned of allegations against General Vance in Global News reporting.” The member for Portage—Lisgar brings up the testimony of former national defence ombudsman Gary Walbourne as further proof that the Minister of National Defence knew the nature or specifics of the allegations against General Vance.
When asked about Mr. Walbourne's testimony in the House on March 8, the minister stated, “I disagree with the testimony that Mr. Walbourne provided to the committee, and look forward to setting the record straight when the opportunity comes to speak at the committee.” As I stated earlier, when the minister appeared before the national defence committee on March 12, he reinforced the point that he did not receive details about the nature or specifics of the unspecified allegations.
The Conservative House leader, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, acknowledged this very fact in the House on March 8, when he stated, “The minister even refused to look at the evidence presented.”
In his appearance before the national defence committee on March 3, Mr. Walbourne confirmed that the minister was not aware. Mr. Walbourne was asked by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, “Who else is aware of the information that you have and that you tried to present to [the Minister of National Defence]?” Mr. Walbourne replied, “As far as I know, the person who...made the allegation and I are the only two people who have seen that evidence. As I said, the minister didn't want to see the evidence.”
The minister did the right thing. He did not get involved in the investigation and he asked his office to transfer the non-specific complaint to the independent officials at the Privy Council Office. He followed the same process that was followed by the previous government.
The member for Portage—Lisgar is wrong. She is trying to prove that Mr. Walbourne's testimony undermines the statements made by the Prime Minister in the House on March 10 and 11. That is absolutely not the case. The Prime Minister continued to give consistent answers with regard to what he and his office knew and when.
The evidence showed that the Minister of National Defence told the House and the committee that he did not agree with Mr. Walbourne's testimony to the effect that Mr. Walbourne had shared the nature and specifics of the complaints against General Vance with him. The evidence also shows that Mr. Walbourne testified that only he and the complainant were aware of the evidence. Nothing about Mr. Walbourne's testimony changes the fact that the Prime Minister has been consistent in the information he has provided to the House since day one.
In response to the member for Portage—Lisgar's claims about Mr. Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council, the evidence provided earlier indicates that he testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence and that it was not until earlier this year that he learned the nature and specifics of the allegations through the media. The member quoted Mr. Wernick's testimony in committee where, in trying to answer a question, he speculated on the content of emails from three years earlier, emails that he was not copied on and that he did not have access to during his appearance at committee.
This does not prove that the Prime Minister knew about the unspecified allegations against General Vance or the nature and specifics of those allegations in 2018.
This does not prove that his employees or the Minister of National Defence and his employees knew.
On the contrary, Mr. Wernick himself said that he was not aware of the nature or specifics of the allegations until earlier this year.
I want to turn to a very important issue that has been completely misrepresented by the member for Portage—Lisgar. The member tried to portray that the Prime Minister's statements about what his office knew extend to the Privy Council's Office, as if they were one and the same. This is simply not the case.
Janine Sherman, in her testimony before the national defence committee on March 26, made the point about the independence of the Privy Council Office when she stated:
...our role is to be a non-partisan, professional public service. We are able to provide advice impartially and based on principles of good governance to the government of the day.
The member of Parliament for Mississauga—Lakeshore asked Ms. Sherman the following question:
...why is it so important in Canadian public administrative thought and practice that a minister or other elected officials do [not] drive, do not taint and are in no way involved in investigations of the kind we're discussing today?
Ms. Sherman replied:
That is an important principle of Westminster government. The elected representatives do not carry out investigations, and manage the details of those kinds of things, because they are elected. The separation of their role from the independent and non-partisan public service is important in ensuring independence and fairness. All of those principles are necessary in terms of ensuring fair outcomes, and procedural fairness for individuals through processes, such as investigations.
Ray Novak, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, made the same point when he appeared before the committee on March 22, stating:
The member knows that the Prime Minister's Office is not an investigative body. Senior officials in the Privy Council Office are the ones responsible for interacting with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to this matter.
The Minister of National Defence, in his appearance before the national defence committee on March 12, stated, “Investigations into complaints like this should start with proper investigative authority, not with an elected official. To provide Mr. Walbourne with additional support, senior officials in the Privy Council Office were informed of the complaint regarding the former chief of the defence staff.” The minister further stated:
As I stated, me, the Prime Minister or any politician should not get involved in an investigation. What we needed to do—and we did—was to make sure the information got to the Privy Council Office, who are responsible for governor in council appointments...
In addition to these statements before the committee, the Prime Minister addressed this issue before the House on March 10, when he stated:
We take all allegations seriously and ensure they are followed up on by the appropriate independent authorities. That is exactly what happened in this situation.
After the defence ombudsman received a complaint, the minister directed him to independent officials who could investigate. My office was aware of the minister's direction to the ombudsman. Those officials never received further information, so were unable to move forward with an investigation.
On April 27, the Prime Minister said this in the House:
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have consistently stood up for survivors. We have stood up against harassment and intimidation in federal workplaces across the country, and indeed in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have made significant investments in improving systems and accountability, and we will continue to do that.
In 2018, when a complaint came forward, we forwarded it to the Privy Council Office so it could do the follow-up necessary, but unfortunately the ombudsman was not able to reveal the full extent because he did not have permission. We need to create a system in which people feel supported to come forward.
It is clear that when the Prime Minister was talking about his office, this was his ministerial office and not the Privy Council Office. The Prime Minister, when speaking of the Privy Council Office, has referred to it by name or as an independent official and not as “my office”. The fact that any investigation of Governor in Council appointments happens independently of politicians through the independent official Privy Council Office is a clear demonstration of this separation.
The facts speak for themselves. The Prime Minister himself was not aware that there was an unspecified allegation in 2018, much less the nature of that allegation. He has clearly and repeatedly told the House that he was not aware of the nature of the allegations against General Vance, and that he only learned of it after Global News reported it in early 2021.
The testimony from the Minister of National Defence, Ms. Sherman, Mr. Marques and Mr. Wernick confirms that the specifics of the allegations were unknown until Global News reported that information.
The member for Portage—Lisgar claims that the Prime Minister's statements in the House and in the media kept changing. The evidence simply does not support that claim. On the contrary, the Prime Minister's statements have been consistent all along.
Was the Prime Minister personally aware of unspecified allegations against General Vance in 2018?
The answer is no.
Was the Prime Minister aware of the nature of the allegations against General Vance?
The Prime Minister has clearly and consistently told the House and the media that he first learned of the nature and specifics of the allegations against General Vance in early 2021, when Global News reported on them. Nothing that the Prime Minister has said, nothing that the witnesses said, and nothing mentioned in any document contradicts the Prime Minister on this point.
Was the Prime Minister aware of any allegations against General Vance in 2018?
The Prime Minister has clearly and consistently told the House and the media that his office was aware of certain unspecified allegations, but was not aware of the nature or specifics of those allegations. Once again, nothing that the Prime Minister has said, nothing that the witnesses said, and nothing mentioned in any document contradicts the Prime Minister on this point.
On the issue of the statement released by the Prime Minister's Office, again the member for Portage—Lisgar is misrepresenting the chronology. She stated that the statement was issued to the media on February 23, and it states, “The Prime Minister confirmed on March 10, in the House of Commons, that his office was aware of the concern raised by the defence ombudsman in 2018.”
The member then goes on to state that this means that the Prime Minister issued a public statement prior to his statement in the House that his office was aware of concerns regarding General Vance. Here is what the member Portage—Lisgar said:
That means the Prime Minister has issued a public statement prior to his statement in the House that his office was aware, as the defence minister has stated, that he raised concerns of a sexual nature regarding the chief of the defence staff.
There are two problems with the member's statement. One, it did not happen before the Prime Minister's statement in the House on March 10. The date of the statement from the Prime Minister's Office was April 23 and not February 23. If anyone is misleading the House, it is the member for Portage—Lisgar. The second problem with the member's statement is that it completely mischaracterizes the facts.
The member states that the Prime Minister's Office was aware that the Minister of National Defence raised concerns of sexual misconduct regarding the chief of defence staff. The Minister of National Defence has been consistent that he was not aware of the nature of the specifics of the allegations against General Vance until Global News reported on it earlier this year. The Prime Minister has also been consistent about this.
The member for Portage—Lisgar tries to portray that there is a contradiction between the statement issued by his office on April 23 and the statement he made in the House of Commons on April 27. This is completely false. There is no contradiction. They are entirely consistent with what has been said all along.
As I indicated at the beginning of my intervention, the Prime Minister was answering questions about what he knew in 2018, and as I have outlined, what he knew in 2018 about the specific allegation against General Vance was nothing. His office knew that there were unspecified allegations against General Vance, but did not know the nature of the allegations.
The member for Portage—Lisgar tries to make the case that her arguments demonstrate that this issue meets the test for a prima facie question of privilege.
Test one is, did the Prime Minister provide information that was misleading the House? I have provided evidence to the House that demonstrates that the Prime Minister did not provide misleading information to the House. The record is clear, and the record shows that the Prime Minister has been consistent in the information that he provided to the House on this issue at all times.
Test two is, did the Prime Minister know that the information he provided was false? The evidence, as presented, demonstrates that the first test has not even been met, as the Prime Minister did not provide misleading to the House. Given that the first test has not been met, it is impossible for the second test to have been met. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the Prime Minister did not provide misleading information to the House and he could, therefore, not have knowingly done so.
Test three is, was the Prime Minister intending to mislead the House? The evidence I have put forward to the House demonstrates that the Prime Minister was consistent at all times in the information that he provided to the House, and so he did not mislead the House. He could therefore not have knowingly or deliberately done so. Therefore, it is impossible that the third test could have been met.
It is only by scrambling the chronology and providing information out of context that the member for Portage—Lisgar could come to the conclusion that her arguments demonstrate that the three-point test for finding a prima facie case of privilege could have been met.
The member for Portage—Lisgar closes her arguments by stating her opinion, an opinion not backed up by testimony and facts, that it is not believable that the Prime Minister was unaware the allegations against General Vance were of a #MeToo sexual complaint nature. I respectfully submit to you, Madam Speaker, that if one selectively presents evidence deliberately out of context, and out of chronological context, perhaps the member for Portage—Lisgar could come to that preconceived conclusion. As I have stated, this can only be seen as an attempt to mislead the House.
However, if one follows the facts and contexts, understands the chronology, listens to the evidence and testimony at committees and the statements made by the Prime Minister in the House, it is clear that none of the three tests necessary to make a finding of prima facie privilege exists and that the Prime Minister has not misled the House in any way on this important issue.
There are three other points that I believe are relevant to the present question.
The first is that the House, through the Standing Committee on National Defence, is conducting a study entitled “Addressing Sexual Misconduct Issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, Including the Allegations Against Former Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance”. The committee is currently hearing witnesses and will eventually prepare a report and present it to the House.
The second point is that the member for Portage—Lisgar has completely contradicted herself. On Friday, April 30, she gave notice of an opposition day motion for the week after, stating the following:
That, given that:
(a) women and all members of the Canadian Armed Forces placed their trust in this government to act on claims of sexual misconduct;
(b) the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff was informed about a specific sexual harassment allegation against General Jonathan Vance three years ago;
(c) the Prime Minister asserts that this sexual harassment allegation was never brought to his attention; and
(d) the Prime Minister said that those in a position of authority have a duty to act upon allegations,
the House call upon the Prime Minister to dismiss his Chief of Staff for failing to notify him about a serious sexual harassment allegation at the highest ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces and for being complicit in hiding the truth from Canadians.
By virtue of her giving notice of this motion, she is confirming what the Prime Minister has said all along: that he was not aware of allegations against General Vance until early 2021.
We also have the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill who asked the following question in question period on April 28, 2021:
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated that his office, like him, takes sexual harassment extraordinarily seriously, but Katie Telford did not take the misconduct allegations against General Vance seriously. If she had, she would have informed the Prime Minister. Only he can replace a chief of the defence staff, not unelected members of his office. His staff made him complicit in the misconduct, denying him the opportunity to act.
If the PM's staff had not kept him in the dark about the allegations against General Vance, would he have removed him?
In asking this question, the Conservative member recognizes that the Prime Minister was not aware of the allegations made in 2018 against General Vance, nor of their nature.
Lastly, as I already mentioned, the Standing Committee on National Defence is currently studying this issue, namely what the Prime Minister knew and when. If the Conservatives are so sure of their argument, why are they continuing with this study?
The third point is that it is not easy to establish that a matter is a prima facie question of privilege. The bar is high regardless of the situation.
All three conditions must be met. The member for Portage—Lisgar states that the simple presence of doubt should suffice to establish a prima facie question of privilege. I maintain that the bar is much higher than mere doubt. I also maintain that, in this particular case, the evidence demonstrates that there is no doubt at all.
The Prime Minister has been consistent in all of his statements to the House, and combined with the long tradition of accepting members at their word, it is evident that there is no basis for finding a prima facie question of privilege. The only way the member could attempt to prove that there is doubt was by scrambling the chronology of events and presenting statements out of context.
As the Prime Minister himself has said, every person deserves a safe work environment, and we will continue to do everything we can as a government to protect those who serve our country in uniform.
The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has four minutes left in his speech.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I am sure the government House leader will come back with further comments to the House in the future.
The issue we are debating is the government's failing response to the climate challenges that Canada and the world face. Canada, under the Liberal government, does not have an effective response plan, and Conservatives have offered an effective alternative that recognizes the truly international dimensions of this crisis.
What we have not heard from the government is a plan that takes into consideration the international dimensions by having appropriate adjustments at borders. Instead, what we have is the government punishing domestic industry in a way that pushes development outside the country but does not actually address the problem.
The government's approach imposes regulation as well as taxation on Canadian industry, but if the same investors move that industrial activity outside the country and then sell back into Canada, they are not subject to any such mechanisms. The system the government has put in place simply creates incentive to push economic activity out of the country rather than respond to these challenges.
We have a government that is very happy to import foreign oil, for example, while making the development of a domestic energy sector very difficult. For the first time, Conservatives are proposing a plan for Canada that takes into consideration this inequality. It says that the same standards would have to apply to products imported into Canada as are being applied in the case of production taking place in Canada.
I know this responds to what my constituents are saying and to what is frankly a source of significant frustration for my constituents. They ask the question of why our oil and gas sector is subject to further and further taxation and inconsistent regulatory burdens, and why, in cases where projects have been approved, the government allows lawless acts of protest to disrupt projects that have already been approved from moving forward. Why is that happening?
On the other hand, we do not hear the same criticisms about the environmental crimes, in many cases, in other parts of the world, as well as violations of human rights taking place in the production of things that then come to Canada. This is where we need to be rethinking our approach and where we have proposed a rethinking of the approach that emphasizes the global nature of the challenge we face.
As we look at Bill C-12, the government's request for a reporting framework, again there is no clear plan on actually responding to the environmental challenges we face. We are also very frustrated that despite the Liberals coming into Parliament and saying that they are going to look at these issues in good faith and consult with other parties, they have already presumed to declare who will be on the advisory board that is supposed to be set up by this legislation.
We have to look at this bill in a context where the government seems to have already preprogrammed certain decisions that it has not been forthright in communicating to the House at all. On that basis, Conservatives have put forward a reasonable amendment to challenge aspects of this framework, to challenge the failure to take into consideration the international dimension of the challenge and the unfortunate decision of the government to announce in advance who is going to be on the panel without consulting.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I think I was here to hear the first half of it.
As we talk about our accountability toward getting to net-zero and how we are going to measure that, the government has put a policy in place here, a framework for exactly how that will happen. I know the member is critical of that. However, in all fairness, the Conservatives do not really have a great reputation, as it stands, for being able to properly gauge the direction of environmental legislation of the day. It was not that long ago that the member spoke very adamantly against a carbon tax, and now his party has decided that it is the best way to go.
I am just worried. If we take this member's advice, will he not realize, a couple of years from now, once the public opinion is fully there, that, again, the Conservatives had it wrong?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the government's proposal is to impose taxation on Canadians as a proposed solution to environmental challenges, for the government to take that money and redistribute it according to its own choices, including to include various public works programs in that spending.
Conservatives have been consistent in opposing that Liberal approach. We have proposals that take into consideration the global dimension of the challenges, as well as leaving resources in the pockets of Canadians in order to support their response to environmental challenges. I would submit that this is very different. It is also lowering the price overall. Without taking the same punitive approach, the taxation-oriented approach the Liberals have, we have independent agencies showing that we will achieve environmental targets.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I did hear some rather positive points as I was listening to his speech. For example, he said that the same standards would have to apply to products imported as are being applied in the case of production taking place in Canada. I think that the reciprocity of standards is very important. However, today we are talking about Bill C-12 on reducing greenhouse gases.
Does the member not think that clear standards should be set in Bill C-12? Is he open to adopting amendments to set such standards and allow for an independent oversight authority other than just the minister?
Does the member not think that there is a way to support his constituents by maintaining investments in his region without insisting that these investments be made in the oil sands?
This is not a judgment, but is now not the time to invest in the transition and in other energy sources? The Bloc Québécois will support the people in his region, but we also think that starting the transition is imperative.
What are the member's thoughts on this?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I will focus on the last point first.
The way we can respond effectively to the environmental challenges we face, recognizing the increasing global need for energy, is to leverage the technology that is being generated through the development of our energy sector, technology that is constantly, aggressively improving the performance of the sector, and work to make that technology available as part of development around the world.
We are not going to address the challenges we face by expecting Canadians and people around the world to stop using energy. If we stopped using energy tomorrow, the rest of the world would still be increasing its use of energy. It is the technology we generate. It is the use of cutting-edge techniques, like carbon capture and storage projects in my riding. It is the—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We have to give an opportunity for more questions. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting speech.
I hear the Conservatives criticizing the Liberals for introducing a bill when we are not even on track to meet our 2030 targets, targets that herald back to the good old Conservative days. We just continue to move in a direction that promised that the environmental crisis we are in is going to continue.
Would the member admit that the Conservatives lack total credibility around having an active climate plan that is actually going to get us where we need to get to save the planet?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the member will not be surprised to find that I do not agree with her characterization of things. We can debate some aspects of the policies, but at the end of the day, it should be remembered that the last Conservative government was the first government in Canadian history that actually reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions output.
Members of the NDP may say it was not enough, but it was the first government in history, unlike the Liberals, who signed the Kyoto Protocol and did absolutely nothing and saw emissions increase. Conservatives have been ahead of the Liberals in terms of actually delivering the goods when it comes to these issues. We continue to see all hat and no cattle from the Liberals when it comes to really achieving results—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, the climate change challenge has often been compared to the moon shot of the 1960s. The moon shot involved a redoubling of resolve after a difficult and halting start to the space race in the United States. The moon shot was very much about targeting a seemingly out-of-reach objective on a seemingly impossible timeline: namely, reaching the moon before the end of the decade of the 1960s.
By all accounts, the scientists and engineers who came together to achieve this astounding historic feat that was the moon landing came up against tremendous technological challenges, brick walls that no doubt appeared insurmountable, especially on a tight timeline. NASA scientists were up against a target for which they were held to account by a president who created a public expectation of success with American national security and American pride on the line.
The key words here are “public expectation of success”. That is what the net-zero emissions accountability act is all about: a public expectation of success backed by a legal mechanism aimed at holding successive federal governments to account for fulfilling that expectation.
In the same way NASA scientists followed a critical path informed by experts for reaching their target, Bill C-12 will require the government to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets informed by experts, plans for achieving those targets informed by experts, regular reporting by the government on its progress in achieving its targets, regular assessments by the government on the effectiveness of its measures for achieving its targets, and regular independent analysis by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development of the government's measures aimed at mitigating climate change, including those undertaken to achieve its most recent greenhouse gas emissions target as identified in the relevant assessment report.
More specifically, the government's progress report must provide an update on the progress it has made toward achieving its relevant milestone GHG target and an update on the implementation of its climate plan: that is, the federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies aimed at reaching the relevant milestone target. These progress reports must be prepared no later than two years before the beginning of the relevant milestone year so that adjustments can be made to these measures and strategies.
For its part, the assessment report must contain a summary of Canada's GHG emissions inventory, a statement on whether Canada has achieved its national GHG target for the milestone year and an assessment of how federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies described in the relevant emissions reduction plan contributed to Canada's efforts to achieve the national GHG target for that year.
The strength of this framework is that it does not rely solely on the government's own assessment of its progress and the effectiveness of its climate action plan. It allows for multiple expert voices to weigh in, in a sense to write the government's report card on climate change. In other words, the government will not be grading itself.
Incidentally, the space race achieved more than a target. It achieved a government-driven acceleration of technological progress and economic growth. Similarly, Bill C-12 is not only about meeting a life-saving target for the planet. It is ultimately about driving technological innovation and economic growth associated with the proliferation of the green products and services the world increasingly wants and needs.
There is, however, one difference that I see between the moon shot and the present task at hand. In a sense, the moon shot was a closed system involving a singular locus of scientific activity and a well-defined technological focus, all within the purview of a dedicated government program that obviously involved numerous partnerships.
The quest to meet targets around greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Canada is, in a sense, organizationally more complex, with more moving parts. Achieving net-zero emissions involves technological progress in many areas and simultaneous co-operative actions by many orders of government, where the degree of commitment to the goal of fighting climate change is not always shared equally across jurisdictions.
Added to this is the fact that the federal government lacks exclusive jurisdiction and power in the matter. We are a federation, not a unitary state. Nonetheless, our government has been able to exercise meaningful leadership on climate change.
We have been a government of firsts. Our government was the first federal government to put a national price on carbon and fight for the constitutional right to do so all the way to the Supreme Court. Our government was the first to develop a clean fuel standard.
Our government was the first to have the courage to attempt to negotiate a pan-Canadian framework on climate change with the provinces and territories, and we were successful, thanks to the Prime Minister's political will and capital and the can-do determination of the member for Ottawa Centre, who was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the time, but, governments change and can renege, and we have seen this happen.
Our government was the first to provide financial incentives for the purchase of a zero-emission vehicle. Our government was also the first to require environmental assessments of large energy projects to factor in their GHG emissions. Our government was the first to set a net-zero emissions target, and our government is now the first to create a legal accountability framework for setting and achieving interim GHG targets on the way to net-zero emissions.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I have two quick questions. Do we have a new environment minister in Canada? On Earth Day here in Quebec and in the media it was the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who came to sell us on Canada's new measures. I was wondering about that.
Also, the possible new environment minister mentioned something rather surprising on Radio-Canada. In the past year, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have increased, as they have in previous years, and the new environment minister said that was good news. He saw good news in that. That is newspeak to me.
What does my colleague think of that?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the exact quote the member is referring to.
As far as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is concerned, when there are important announcements such as the budget or major steps when it comes to the environment, the entire Liberal caucus looks after delivering the message. There is nothing extraordinary about that.
As members know, many members of cabinet have expertise in the environment. In fact, the Liberal caucus is very concerned about the issue.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a quick question of my colleague with regard to some of the issues we have with climate change and the opportunity for electric vehicles. One of the things I have been raising recently is a national auto strategy. The United States has moved ahead quite successfully with a lot of investment, and Canada is lagging even on a battery plan.
Why not create a national auto policy that sets targets and goals to achieve low emissions and produce electric vehicles, especially right now, given the fact we need to compete against not only the United States, but also Mexico and the rest of the world?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, first of all, I think it is a very good development that we have a government in the United States that is committed to environmental action. Obviously, it makes things much easier to be working with a like-minded government on a continental basis.
In terms of zero-emission vehicles, the member may know, as I know the industry is very important to him and his riding, that the environment committee of the House of Commons just completed a study on zero-emission vehicles and made a number of recommendations. I believe one of them was very much in line with what the member just mentioned. We will see, going forward, how we can work with auto makers and battery makers to make Canada a leader in the area of zero-emission vehicles.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, at this point, around the world there are 11 countries that have passed climate accountability legislation. Canada's will hold the distinction of being the weakest. If we are looking for a moon shot, and if we are shooting for a moon, this is the equivalent of a stepladder.
Does my hon. colleague not think it would have been wise for the federal government to consult, particularly with the gold standard? The country with the climate accountability that has worked for the longest and the best is the U.K. The legislation before us today differs in substantial ways from theirs, particularly by not having an independent expert group that monitors government progress and reports to the nation, as opposed to a multi-stakeholder advisory group for the minister. Would the member not agree it would be better to try to base our bill on what has worked elsewhere?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's views and insight carry a lot of weight in this chamber. As the member knows, the bill will hopefully be passed at second reading and make its way to the environment committee, where amendments will no doubt be tabled and we can have discussion about the points the member has raised.
However, it is important to acknowledge that there is much room for expert advice in this bill, and this is key. It is important that we do rely on expert advice and indeed that any consultative body be not just a diverse group of individuals who represent the country the way this House does. We need also some expertise to move forward, so I appreciate the member's point.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the draft legislation of Bill C-12, with regard to net-zero emissions. I am also very pleased to highlight some of our party's positions, which are set out in our position paper, entitled “Secure the Environment”. With a Conservative government, Canada will meet its Paris Agreement targets, importantly, without killing jobs or taxing an already over-taxed population. Our plan will help the environment while also helping Canadians succeed in every region of the country and in all sectors.
The Liberal plan is based on an ever-increasing taxation plan that, while being presented as being revenue neutral to the government, is certainly not revenue neutral to the taxpayer. At best it is a tax scheme that redistributes wealth away from those living in parts of the country where greater energy consumption is a fact of life. Why are they being punished for that?
The Conservative plan, on the other hand, is much fairer in that it sets aside some of the money that each consumer will pay for energy consumption into a personal savings account that the consumer can spend or invest as they see best for their own purposes on green options.
The big distinction between the Liberal carbon tax and the Conservatives' plan to secure the environment is that Conservatives trust Canadians to do the right thing, spend their money wisely, be incentivized to think green, act responsibly with regard to the environment and do their part. We all want to do that. The Liberals, on the other hand, think that government knows best. We think educated Canadians know best.
Bill C-12, while being promoted as a significant step forward in the fight against climate change, is really more symbolic than substantive. It might give the casual political observer the impression that something significant is happening, but keep in mind that Bill C-12 follows up from Canada's dismal record of setting, and then missing, its emissions reductions targets.
What does Bill C-12 do? I think this is important and should be read into the record, so let us take a look at section 16. This is under the heading “Failure to achieve target”, and it states:
If the Minister concludes that Canada has not achieved its national greenhouse gas emissions target for a milestone year or for 2050, as the case may be, the Minister must, after consulting with the ministers referred to in section 12, include the following in the assessment report:
(a) the reasons why Canada failed to meet the target;
(b) a description of actions the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target; and
(c) any other information that the Minister considers appropriate.
What happens if we miss the target? Not much, we just set another target. We create more reports, and the conversation just continues as though nothing happened. If anything, this would help Canada's pulp and paper industry as more and more reports are being printed.
Canada is a federal country, as has been noted by some of the previous speakers, with parliamentary sovereignty shared among two levels of government. Much of what is needed to be accomplished in protecting the environment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights within the province.
The federal government cannot do it on its own. It must work with the provinces. Sadly, the Liberal government's record is one of being sued by the provinces. The federal government won the last round, so I guess congratulations are in order, but Canadians are wondering why intergovernmental affairs on something as important as the environment needs to resort to the courts in the first place.
Why does the federal government not work with the provinces and come to a consensus on how to move forward? Conservatives understand the significance of that, and we will work with the provinces. Conservatives also recognize that the fight against global climate change is, in fact, global.
Canada cannot do it on its own. If it is global, after all, solutions also must be global. Canada is a large expanse of land. It is in the northern hemisphere. It is cold, and people must travel a lot and heat their homes and offices. That is just a fact of life in Canada.
Canada produces only a small fraction of the total world's greenhouse gas emissions, something often overlooked. Canadians want to do their part. We are inventive, we have great universities, we are leaders in technological advances and with strategic partnerships, we can develop and export green technology around the globe, not only for our own use domestically but internationally. We are a trading nation, but that trade must be fair. We have to be on an even playing field and if we are to impose tough environmental standards on ourselves, and I agree that we must, then it is only fair that others who trade with us should be held to the same or comparable standards.
Producers in countries with emission reductions targets and mechanisms compatible with our own would be exempt. Countries that do not and have high-emission reductions standards would have to pay. That way, the Conservative plan would secure both the environment and Canadian industry and jobs and would urge our American trading partner, our biggest trading partner, to adopt the same approach.
I want to talk about the oil and gas sector. Canada is a big producer, but also a responsible producer. We have the best minds in the world working on cleaner energy production, and that applies not only to renewable energy but also the more traditional oil and gas extraction, production, processing and delivery. We are a leader in all of that. To say that this sector needs to be phased out misses the reality of an ever-improving industry and the very obvious fact that the world needs Canada's oil and gas.
The International Energy Agency has projected that demand for oil will remain high for decades, and this is particularly true with the downturn in U.S. shale production. The world needs our oil and we need to produce it responsibly. We do not need to be talking about phasing it out.
The government's stated goal in phasing out oil and gas also overlooks the fact that since 1998, investment and production of Canada's oil sands is one of driving forces behind Canada's economic growth, and that must be true as we look to a pandemic recovery plan as well.
I also want to talk about LNG. The province of British Columbia is a big producer of natural gas and it can be a big tool in Canada helping the world become cleaner. Natural gas burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels and should be used at home and abroad to replace other more polluting energy sources. Using LNG instead of coal cuts emissions in half and countries across Asia are eager to do business with us.
Red tape imposed by the Liberal government means massive projects like Kitimat LNG being in danger of cancellation. This would not only hurt Canadians and Canadian jobs, but the planet. What Canada needs is a government that sends a message to the world that we are proud of our natural resources and that we will develop them in a responsible way. We will attract investment, not scare it off.
When we talk about investment, the Conservatives recognize that industry leaders are already changing their world view and investment strategies to be looked at through an ESG lens, an environmental, social and governance lens. Our plan recognizes that increasingly there is an expectation in global capital markets that ESG is an important factor. Our ESG leadership would help demonstrate the leadership of our oil and gas sector with respect to emissions-intensity reduction.
I want to mention indigenous peoples. We need to acknowledge the historic fact that they have not been treated respectfully. Canada needs to show leadership here as well. The current government has often said that no relationship is more important to it than with our indigenous peoples, but let us look at how that has worked out recently.
Coastal GasLink investors thought they had an understanding with the Wet’suwet’en people, the people whose traditional lands the pipeline will be built across, and who should be benefiting from that investment and structure. However, so far, it is not built and the protects continue—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We have to go to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, the member has said that the only difference between the Conservatives' new price on pollution and the existing one this government has is that Conservatives appear to apparently trust Canadians in how to spend their money. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On this side of the House, the government plan was put in place where the money that was collected through the price on pollution would go back equally and be evenly distributed within the province. People get to decide how to spend their money. At least that is the case in Ontario since the federal government stepped in.
The plan from the Conservatives literally takes people's money, puts it into a special bank account and then people have to go to the Conservative Party boutique to decide what green product they will buy. It clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives are trying to control what people can spend their own money on.
Could the member please add some clarity to the fact that he has suggested that the Conservative plan gives people more decision-making power on their?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives trust Canadians to do the right things, but we have heard from members of the Liberal side of the House that under a Conservative plan, Canadians would actually be incentivized to drive more, burn more to earn more. That is so cynical. That is not the way Conservatives think of our fellow citizens. We are confident that given the right incentives, Canadians will do the right thing. Clearly, government does not always know best. Let individuals make their own decisions.
As to the Liberals' carbon tax plan, it is a redistribution of wealth; it is not—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.