Debates of Oct. 25th, 2022

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, the current Liberal government is desperate to justify their dishonest and unjustified use of the Emergencies Act. We have seen a series of misleading statements and outright fabrications about these protests, and it is part of the pattern of dishonest behaviour we have seen by the Minister of Public Safety and by the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

The Emergencies Act is an extreme piece of legislation that, when invoked, allows the suspension of normal protections for civil liberties. The Emergencies Act is therefore for genuine public emergencies and not for the government to invoke arbitrarily. Even when laws are being broken, the government should not use the Emergencies Act unless it has no other alternative.

Conservatives have always encouraged protesters to make their voices heard through lawful means, but the fact is that the border blockades were all cleared by law enforcement without and prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The Liberal government knew all this. It knew that law enforcement agencies had not yet exhausted their options, yet it suspended civil liberties and proceeded to threaten the bank accounts and financial security of Canadians, even Canadians who were far away from the national capital.

Incredibly, the Emergencies Act has never been used before in Canadian history, despite the various events that have taken place since it was created. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was only used during the First World War, the Second World War and the FLQ crisis. It has not been used in response to a myriad of other protests and challenges, including a couple of years ago when our national rail network was shut down by protesters.

There is a big difference between enforcing the law and falsely declaring a national emergency to give oneself the tools to punish those one disagrees with. Many people who did not agree with the protest that took place have still spoken out against the government's arbitrary use of the Emergencies Act to suspend civil liberties and the negative precedent that this sets.

As part of the Liberals' efforts to justify this, in April of this year the Minister of Public Safety claimed, before a committee, that law enforcement had asked for the Emergencies Act. He said the advice received was to invoke the Emergencies Act. That is what the Minister of Public Safety said. However, later, the RCMP commissioner and Ottawa's police chief both confirmed that they actually did not ask for the Emergencies Act. The deputy minister later sought to offer some clarification and, maybe making the situation more fuzzy, said that the minister had been misunderstood. However, it was clear then and it is clear now that the Minister of Public Safety misled the House and he should resign. He should have resigned, but he is still here.

There are many other claims advanced by members of the government. For instance, different members of the House claimed repeatedly that protesters who were here as part of events in January had tried to burn down a building. It was subsequently clarified that the attempted arson had nothing whatsoever to do with that protest, yet that was a claim that was repeated over and over again. We saw claims that these protests were Russian funded, that they were government funded and that there were guns at the protest, all of which has been shown to be totally false.

We have a Minister of Public Safety who has misled the House and now, to update things to where we are today, we have information about the Minister of Emergency Preparedness misleading the House about interfering in an investigation and contradicting the RCMP commissioner.

The fact is that Canadians cannot trust the current government when the two ministers responsible for emergency preparedness and public safety have clearly shown a lack of regard for the truth. These ministers should resign. When will they resign?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in response to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the Government of Canada's engagement with law enforcement and other partners leading up to the use of the Emergencies Act. While the hon. member may wish to stand on the side of the “freedom convoy”, we will stand with Canadians and with law enforcement, ensuring that the safety of Canadians is always our number one priority.

In January and February we saw illegal blockades at the borders and vital trade corridors that impacted our communities' safety, our economy and Canadians' jobs and livelihoods. The illegal protests shut down streets and businesses across Canada.

We recognized that these unprecedented simultaneous illegal blockades constituted a public order emergency, and we have carefully documented this. We also recognized that a safe, peaceful outcome would require the full engagement of provinces, territories and law enforcement. From the beginning, we brought these partners to the table to share situational intelligence, explore possible strategies to achieve a quick and peaceful resolution to the blockades, and discuss the resources needed.

To meet the requirements of the Emergencies Act, a public report describing the consultations we undertook before invoking the act has been tabled in both houses of Parliament. I would encourage all Canadians to read these two public reports. They illuminate the crisis facing Canada and the many discussions we had with partners to find a peaceful path forward. Through these discussions with law enforcement and others, it became clear that the police needed more tools to enforce the law and protect Canadians.

Given the size, number and entrenched nature of the blockades, it became clear that emergency measures were needed. Law enforcement needed the additional tools provided by the Emergencies Act. These tools allowed police to take quick, time-limited action and remove the blockade threat decisively.

Testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 24, 2022, the former interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Steve Bell, confirmed, “From a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest”. He referred to the invocation of the act as “a critical piece” of these efforts.

The Emergencies Act was a measure of last resort, but it was a necessary one that was crucial in ending the illegal blockades. The act allowed the exceptional and temporary measures to prohibit public assembly leading to a breach of the peace. This was immensely helpful in dispersing the crowds blockading border crossings and city centres. The act also clearly designated protected areas around our critical infrastructure, like border crossings and key government buildings. Once the Emergencies Act was in force, engagement with law enforcement and our partners continued. We were determined that these tools should only be in place as long as absolutely necessary.

Testifying before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency on May 10, 2022, the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, said, “the measures enacted under the Emergencies Act provided all police officers across the country—not just the RCMP—with the ability to deal with blockades and unlawful public assemblies.” She testified it was her belief that the act “provided [law enforcement agencies] with the tools to resolve the crisis swiftly and peacefully”. Once it was clear the situation was no longer an emergency, we revoked the Emergencies Act.

This situation came to a peaceful conclusion because of our engagement with law enforcement, as well as our close collaboration with provinces, territories and municipalities.

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

Madam Speaker, the implication of the parliamentary secretary's remarks is that any means are justified and we are either on the side of the protesters or on the side of using the Emergencies Act. Many Canadians might not have agreed with things that were done in the protest but also do not agree with the suspension of civil liberties.

In particular, the parliamentary secretary danced around the core question here. The Minister of Public Safety claimed that the advice he received from law enforcement was to invoke the Emergencies Act. That was explicitly contradicted by every law enforcement agency and, in effect, by the deputy minister. That contradiction is not being acknowledged. That dishonest statement is not being acknowledged.

Can the parliamentary secretary answer the basic question? Does she still believe law enforcement asked for the Emergencies Act?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. To the assertion the hon. member made that there was an infringement of civil liberties under the Emergencies Act, in fact, the act is quite clear that there was no infringement on civil liberties whatsoever, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply even during the Emergencies Act. I do wish the hon. member would not imply such.

I will reiterate what I said during my remarks. Invoking the Emergencies Act was a measure of last resort, and it was supported by law enforcement. It gave them the additional tools they needed to end the illegal blockades peacefully.

Taxation

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I begin my comments by recognizing those constituents struggling with grocery bills, fuel bills and tax bills from an out-of-touch federal government that has declared war on the average Canadian.

When I asked my question on taxation, Canadians took note it was the natural resources minister responding, not the Minister of Finance. He did so by confirming raising taxes to make life unaffordable was Liberal carbon tax policy. We can now refer to the natural resources minister as the acting minister of finance. This confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: the carbon policy is a tax policy. Carbon taxes are no substitute for environmental policy.

This also raises the question: Is the hidden agenda behind the carbon taxes to abolish capitalism? Capitalism is undeniably the most successful form of wealth creation and distribution that has ever been devised. The key to that system's huge success is individual and corporate freedom with government getting out of the way to unleash human potential. Capitalism has done more to raise the standard of living, lifting more people out of poverty than all socialist government handouts combined.

As a free market Conservative, I know my Conservative Party believes in freedom and free enterprise. We need an environmental policy that focuses on science-based and human ingenuity solutions to pollution. The Liberals are forcing seniors and other Canadians on fixed incomes to have to choose between heating and eating. Emerging economies will not sacrifice poverty eradication and economic development to follow Canada's crushing carbon tax approach that brings so much pain for so little results.

In Canada today, the Liberals' carbon tax policy designed to make fossil fuels expensive is now doing exactly what it was intended to do: making everything more expensive. This means a very bleak winter is ahead. We should be taking the pathway of innovation. As fossil fuel prices climb, the Prime Minister and his acting finance minister believe people will shift painlessly to renewable energy sources. The Liberal Party ignores the science.

Renewables are far from ready to power the world. Solar and wind can only work with massive amounts of backup power, mostly fossil fuels, to keep the world running when the wind dies down, it is cloudy or at night. Renewables mostly generate electricity, which is just one-fifth of our total energy use. The vast majority is non-electric, like transport, industrial processes and heat. That is why the world still gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels. Even though private investment in clean-energy technology is increasing, the Prime Minister and his handlers see the weather as an opportunity to remake society, the so-called “great reset”.

Decarbonizing the Canadian economy with crushing carbon taxes means replacing in a few years fossil fuel infrastructure that was built up over decades. This will require hundreds of thousands of square miles of wind and solar farms, enough battery storage to keep the power flowing and at least doubling Canada's transmission line capability. The same laws that Liberal-sponsored environmental groups have used to block fossil fuel projects are being exploited to slow down the transition to clean energy like hydro and nuclear. The only credible environmental plans include nuclear and hydro power generation.

The carbon tax policy goal of achieving net-zero CO2 emissions brings crippling economic pain. Fossil fuel costs have shot up and will keep rising every time the acting minister of finance increases the carbon tax burden on Canadians.

While it may be convenient for the Prime Minister and his acting finance minister to blame Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Prime Minister added $100 billion to our national debt before COVID and $500 billion to it before Russia even opened fire. All that borrowed money is driving up the cost of goods that we buy and the interest charged to service that debt.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of points in that speech that I would like to address, but perhaps I can invite people who are listening today, if they want to get the story on exactly what we are doing with our plan for the economy and the plan for the environment to visit my website at Terrybeech.mp.ca. I draft very fulsome reports, and anybody who is interested can go to those and follow up with me.

Our government does understand that Canadians are having trouble making ends meet. However, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, which has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by snarled supply chains that are affecting people and businesses right around the world, not just in Canada.

While Canada's inflation rate is less severe at 6.9% than that of many of our peers, like the United States at 8.2% and the United Kingdom, the euro area and the OECD all at above 10%, Canadians continue to experience a higher cost of living when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. This is why we are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes measures worth $12.1 billion to support the Canadians who need it the most, particularly those with lower incomes and those who are most exposed to inflation.

Our plan includes an enhanced Canada workers benefit for low- and modest-income workers, which will put up to $2,400 more into their pockets; cutting regulated child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year and to $10 a day by 2025; a 10% increase in old age security for seniors over the age of 75; dental care for Canadians with family incomes under $90,000 per year; a $500 payment, coming this year, to help people who have low incomes, are renting and are struggling with the cost of housing; doubling the GST credit for six months, which was supported by the member opposite and will go to 11 million households and over 50% of seniors; and, of course, our main support programs, including the Canada child benefit, OAS, GIS and others, which are indexed to inflation. That means those benefit will actually increase as the cost of living increases.

We are supporting Canadians while controlling our spending. The International Monetary Fund expects Canada to have the lowest federal government deficit as a percentage of GDP in the G7 this year, a track our country is forecasted to maintain for at least the next three years, and the lowest net-debt burden as a share of GDP in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened those advantages over the course of the pandemic.

Now, when it comes to pollution pricing, I would like to say that climate action is no longer a theoretical, political debate, it is an economic necessity, and a national price on pollution is the most effective market-based system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is actually designed to work in a capitalistic society. In 2022-23, in the four provinces where the federal system price applies, climate incentive payments mean that life is more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families. In addition, families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. In areas like B.C., my home province, where the price of gas has gone up by more than a dollar a litre over the last three years, the carbon price has gone up by only two cents.

This highlights the fact that Conservatives continue to mislead Canadians by ignoring 98% of the real problem when it comes to inflation and high energy prices. The reality is that most households are getting back more than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. We have a plan to grow the economy while lowering emissions and making life more affordable for Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the absence of affordable, effective fossil fuel replacements, the carbon tax policy espoused by the Liberal Party just means costlier power bills and lower growth rates to achieve unmeasurable changes in the earth's temperature.

The best long-term strategy would be to dramatically increase investment in energy research and development. This Conservative approach would be much more effective while likely being 10 times cheaper than the Liberal's approach of making life unaffordable. It is much more plausible developing countries around the world, including China and India where the bulk of pollution comes from, will implement it.

It is time for the Liberals to actually take responsibility for the carbon tax policy failure. A trillion-dollar debt is bone-crushing for our consumers. When will the Liberal Party reverse its inflationary policies and axe their tax increases?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government understands quite well that Canadians are feeling the effects of elevated inflation, which, as I outlined in my previous speech, is a global phenomenon. They can count on our government to continue supporting them through this cost of living crisis while remaining prudent fiscal managers.

However, the Conservatives, under their new leader, have presented basically a three-point affordability plan. First, they are suggesting that they would destroy the independence of our institutions that have been built up over generations, institutions like the Bank of Canada. Second, they would stop fighting climate change. Third, they are proposing to raid the pension benefits of our seniors by attacking agreements that we have made on the Canada pension plan. Their plan is not reasonable. It is not responsible and, really, it directly reflects their current leader.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, residential school survivors continue to live abuses from the government. The government says it is acting. Out of the 106 applications for burial searches, 84 have been approved. This is not enough.

This week in Winnipeg, researchers, academics and first nations communities from all over the country are gathering to share what they have learned in their search for unmarked graves at former residential schools. This is important work. The federal government has a responsibility to make good on its promises and do its part.

The funding currently promised is critical and validates what indigenous peoples had been saying for decades. For too long, first nations, Métis and Inuit were ignored when they shared their stories about the loved ones they lost to the residential school system. All these decades of being ignored have stifled the path to healing. It is outrageous that indigenous communities must beg and plead for funding. Delays on delivering the promises made must stop. Inuit, Métis and first nations have been given far too many promises that have not been acted on.

The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said, “Some have said it could take up to 10 years, and the worst thing to see would be for any government to step away from that commitment. We will keep doing it, but at their pace.”

In budget 2022, there was one curious line item. It said the budget would provide $5.1 million to Public Safety Canada to ensure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could support community-led responses to unmarked graves. By funding the RCMP instead of supporting indigenous-led organizations, such as Survivors' Secretariat, the government is supporting further practices of colonialism.

Why are these funds not directly funding indigenous peoples to heal from the shameful legacy of residential schools and colonialism?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge my hon. colleague from Nunavut for raising this very important question. I would like to start off by saying that I am speaking from my home in Eskasoni First Nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory.

The member is right that this is an important issue, and our government certainly needs to do more. That is why, as part of our commitment to the many Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action that talk about justice, health and the need for us to do more on burial searches, we have made available the funding that coincides with them.

Further to that, my colleague and I share the same passion in making sure that we are following through on our calls to action. That is why Bill C-29, which we are currently moving forward with, would ensure that we have an independent oversight committee that is funded for years to come to ensure that it is not just the government holding itself accountable; it is the survivors themselves.

We owe this duty to the survivors. We owe this duty to indigenous communities across Canada. I come from a family that has been affected by residential schools. My oldest aunt went to those schools, as did my cousins and my uncle. We owe them healing. We know that our communities need more of it and we know there are important areas around healing.

Budget 2021 announced $43.7 million over five years, starting last fiscal year, to move forward with this work. We are currently working with the Assembly of First Nations on not only making sure that there is healing but making sure that our communities are safe and that we put money, almost $1 billion, toward indigenous justice and indigenous policing. We are beginning to meet with stakeholders. We are in the process of talking with stakeholders to make sure they are part of the process, because we do not want paternal, government-knows-best solutions. We want solutions that are brought by the indigenous communities themselves.

I would also like to talk about some of the achievements of our government. Before I end my time, I want to make sure to recognize that we are also moving forward on murdered and missing indigenous women. One of my proudest moments was a call I made to the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association to let them know they would get the funding they requested for a resilience centre in Nova Scotia, the first of its kind in this country, to keep indigenous women safe in the Atlantic provinces. I remember the tears on the other side. They were saying they had been waiting for this for 30 years. I would also like to acknowledge that our government just recently announced $8.4 million for Velma's House, in Winnipeg, for a 24-7 safe space in emergency shelters and transition homes for indigenous women.

Initiatives like these show the difference we can make when we work together on a common goal. Much more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to do that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, we are told there is no relationship more important than the one with indigenous peoples, yet the government is funding law enforcement that upholds the systemic racism that has existed for too long. To this day, these institutions have failed to adequately respond to important work led by indigenous peoples, including the MMIWG calls for justice.

If the federal government will not divert these funds from its colonial institutions, how will it ensure that such agencies discontinue the systemic racism it continues to perpetuate?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I understand the question and I understand the intent of it. However, what we have seen in many of our indigenous communities as a result of intergenerational trauma is that indigenous communities are far more likely to be violent, far more likely to see abuses and far more likely to need indigenous policing and policing of all types.

We feel that the RCMP is part of that answer. In fact, many indigenous communities are asking for increased policing. We have various methods of doing that, the RCMP being one, but we also have our commitment of $1 billion toward enhancing indigenous policing. It is something we are striving to do.

We know we are not there yet, so we have to work within the means we have and with the tool kit we have. That is why our government continues to be committed to this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.)