Debates of Dec. 5th, 2022

Report Stage

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, we have continually heard the Conservatives talk about inflation and how Canada is performing with regard to inflation, but what we never hear about is how they measure up to comparator countries. The reality is that inflation hurts and is hurting a lot of Canadians right now, but this is not a uniquely Canadian thing. This is going on throughout the world right now, not only as a result of the pandemic and supports that came out during the pandemic, but also as a result of the war going on in Ukraine, which is really feeding into inflation.

I wonder if the member would like to reflect on that and the realities of what the world is going through, as opposed to just what we are seeing in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' next leader, Mark Carney, said this was a homegrown problem. He is a pretty smart guy, so if he says this is a homegrown problem, it must be a Liberal problem.

We are listening to Canadians and we are in tune with our constituents. We are in tune with the kitchen table issues. These are the issues: home heating, fuel for cars, groceries for the kids and interest rates on mortgages. Those are the issues that have been exacerbated in our country. All Canadians are feeling the impacts, and it is because of failed Liberal policies.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many things missing from this bill. I like it when we can see both what is missing and what is good. I make the effort to do that, even when it is not so easy and there is something in a bill that I do not like very much.

I would ask my colleague to do this exercise. What is in this bill that is good for his riding, even if the bill could arguably be improved?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was a very relevant question. We need to look at the good, the bad and everything. I have tried to do that with regard to the fall economic statement.

I have had an opportunity to point out and articulate what I think are some of the failings and shortcomings of the statement. When I look at it, I have to ask myself what is good about it. What is good about it is that it is not worse.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about listening to people and wanting to make sure we are putting in place real solutions. I cannot seem to wrap my head around and understand why we would not all be on board with taking away the GST from home heating instead of pushing for the carbon tax to be removed, which would only benefit a small portion of Canadians.

I am trying to look at this from a practical perspective. Why would we be pushing for a solution that benefits a few when we could be looking at a solution that benefits many, so they can keep food on the table, heat their homes and get by? Those are all things the member was talking about just now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, why would we not support GST on just home heating? That is a very narrow ask and it would not benefit everybody.

What if we remove the carbon tax? The carbon tax affects absolutely everything in our economy. The carbon tax does not just drive up the cost of driving a vehicle from home to a place of work or to our kids' schools. It affects the cost of the farmers heating their grain and of the transport trucks delivering goods and services across the country, and it adds to the cost of groceries. The carbon tax is only a tax. It is not an environmental policy at all. It is just an additional tax grab. I think the Liberals are even starting to see the errors of their ways.

The carbon tax should be reduced. It affects absolutely everything in our economy.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this important discussion about the future of Canada, the finances of this country and the economic update as part of the Liberals' costly coalition with the NDP.

This makes the price of goods that Canadians buy and the interest that Canadians pay unaffordable. The cost of the Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The more the Prime Minister spends, the more everything costs. There are inflationary deficits that the government continues to pursue unabashedly, and it has driven inflation, particularly food inflation, to 40-year highs.

For two years, in spite of what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton, said that we would see a period of inflation that many Canadians had not seen in their entire lifetimes. At the same time, the finance minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada said the real risk was deflation.

The votes are in, and it looks like the member for Carleton was right. We are in a period of inflation that is going to make it a really tough winter for a lot of Canadians. We have a few solutions that the Liberals can pursue, which are very straightforward. They are only going to need to use the front side of a piece of paper when they write these down as they diligently take notes. First is to stop the taxes. Second is to stop the spending.

There should be no new taxes when Canadians are having a tough time managing the day-to-day and week-to-week household costs. When Canadians are making choices about heating their homes or feeding their families, the government is planning to raise taxes. What is the government's plan? It is not just to raise them, but to triple them.

Canadians are getting their home heating set up for the winter. They are filling their oil tanks. They are filling their propane tanks. They are getting their first natural gas bills, and it does not look good. They are really worried about what it is going to look like in January, when they need a refill. They are not going to be able to fill the tank all the way back up.

These are scary times, especially when food prices are skyrocketing. I hear the members opposite giggling and laughing. Canadians are having a tough time. They are not able to pay. Grocery prices are going to be $1,000 more for the average Canadian family next year. They are not going to see wage growth to match that on top of all the other rising prices.

We knew before the pandemic that half of Canadians were teetering on the brink of personal bankruptcy and teetering on the brink of insolvency. They are going to have no emergency or rainy-day funds. It is a question of whether or not they can buy a week's worth of groceries. Are they going to put a full tank of gas in their car to get to a job site?

The carbon tax is one that punishes Canadians. The Prime Minister said it was designed to change Canadians' behaviours. They use their cars to drive to work. That is a behaviour we want Canadians to continue; we want people to work. They use their cars to go to medical appointments, to go to school and to take their children to sports, like hockey, dance or basketball.

These are not behaviours to be corrected. It is a way of life. Imagine Canadians driving to the hunt camp as part of their annual tradition, part of our Canadian culture, to go hunting. They are going to drive their cars to get there. The carbon tax is going to hammer Canadians at a time when they can afford it the least.

The Prime Minister has not shown that he is serious in addressing the housing supply crisis, and this is evidenced in the fall economic statement. The price of homes has doubled under the Liberal government. For the price of rent, we are looking at $2,600 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver and $2,300 for the same in Toronto. Meanwhile, six out of 10 renters do not qualify for the inflationary cheques that the Liberals are sending out. Those few renters who are eligible will see that $500 vaporized by the effects of Liberal inflation.

Let us think about what the challenges look like on a day-to-day basis for Canadians. Grocery prices are up 10.8%, the highest in 40 years. What does that look like?

Eggs are up 10%. Margarine is up 37.5%. Dry and fresh pasta are up 32%. Fresh fruit is up 13%. Soup is up 19%. These are staples that people depend on. They are not able to stock the cupboards for a rainy day.

The impact the inflationary policies of the government are having on Canadians is affecting businesses as well. We know, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that one in six businesses are considering closing their doors. Sixty-two percent of small businesses still carry debt from the pandemic. They are feeling the effects of inflation as well. All of their operating costs continue to rise.

The carbon tax, again, is one that affects every business. It does not matter what service they are providing. All of their inputs are going up.

These Liberals have put these hard times on Canadians. We look at the legislation they present in this place, and they want to say one thing and implement legislation that does another. They say that they have Canadians' backs, but that is not reflected here.

It is much like when they say they are not going to ban hunting rifles and shotguns used by farmers and hunters, which are not a risk to public safety, as they are in the hands of well-vetted, law-abiding, trusted firearms owners. The government says that it is not going after them but introduces legislation that does just that. It targets them instead of targeting gangs, criminals and weapons smuggling. It is like a bait and switch, which is what we can expect from it nearly every single time.

Instead of creating more cash, which is the plan that the Liberals have, they should focus more on how we can create more of what cash buys. Fuel is a great example. We see that, in western provinces, we have ubiquitous natural resources that are the cleanest, most ethically produced in the world, but instead, these Liberals would prefer to get dirty dictator oil.

To say nothing of the environmental impact of bringing it across the ocean, the actual extraction process does not match the environmental standards that we have here in Canada, the environmental stewardship that is shown by natural resource companies in this country and the Canadians who work in that resource production, the human rights protections and standards that are in place for these companies that are extracting natural resources in Canada.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this very important issue, and I hope there are some good questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. It is a question that has been asked of a lot of Conservatives and one that never gets answered. I hope the member can address the question, as opposed to just rambling on about something else, which is what every other Conservative does.

When the member ran in the last election, he ran on a price on pollution. His leader at the time, the member for Durham, put in the Conservative platform that they would have a price on pollution. How can the Conservatives, just a year later, be so critical of pricing pollution? Can he please shed some light on this question and not completely disregard it?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to talk about the effect of the carbon tax on Canadians' home heating.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems some disorder has broken out on the other side, but I am laser focused with my Conservative colleagues on making life more affordable for Canadians. We need to scrap the carbon tax. That would allow Canadians to buy more of what they need, which is fuel to heat their homes. That is what we are focused on.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in this bill, as in other budget bills, there is a glaring omission, namely health transfers for Quebec and Canada's provinces. This has been a glaring omission for 30 years in Canada.

Does my colleague think that it is high time Canada respected its own Constitution and its own constitutional agreements by increasing health transfers, with the understanding that increasing health transfers is a federal duty and that health transfers, in emergency situations such as a pandemic, are also a federal duty?

It is “and” not “or”.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the federal health transfer has been on the minds of all Canadians over the last two years with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the premiers have been asking to meet with the Prime Minister. They made some requests with respect to the Canada health transfer, and the Prime Minister refused to meet with them. It is an absence of leadership we have seen from the government on this file, and there are real consequences for Canadians across this country.

It is time for real leadership there. The Prime Minister should meet the minimum obligations of being the Prime Minister, actually sit down with the premiers and do the work.

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

Madam Speaker, it is absolute propaganda and misleading when the Conservatives rise in the House and start saying the federal government can remove the carbon tax in jurisdictions like mine in British Columbia. I have even seen Conservative MPs from B.C. suggest the same thing.

We have had carbon pricing in British Columbia since 2009. It was brought in by the B.C. Liberals and supported by all parties in B.C. Just as I said earlier, even the Conservatives supported a price on carbon in the last election, but it is not convenient for them right now.

We have been asking repeatedly whether the Conservatives will support removing the GST on home heating. It would also apply to electric heat, which millions of Canadians use. Will the Conservatives finally support the NDP's call to remove the GST on home heating?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is an NDP promise from B.C. that I agree with: “B.C. NDP promises to kill carbon tax”. That is from 2009, when it was introduced in that province.

Maybe we will come full circle with my hon. colleague's party. I think the NDP of 2009 were bang on and now is the time to axe the carbon tax.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Taxation

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about some of the policies the government has put forward and, frankly, its lack of action with respect to the finances and the financial troubles Canadians are facing.

We are facing 40-year-high inflation. Canadians are making tough choices between heating their homes and feeding their families. It is unconscionable that with these record-high prices that Canadians are facing at this time, the government is planning to triple its tax on everything: gas, groceries and home heating. Why will the government not relent? Why will the Liberals not put aside their pride and do what is right for Canadians?

The prices Canadians are facing at the grocery store are unbelievable. The government has an opportunity to give them some relief by cancelling the carbon tax. Staples like soup are up near 20%, and potatoes are up nearly 11%. Dry or fresh pasta, which people used to stock their cupboards with for tough times, is up 32.5%.

The government needs to take a look in the mirror and make some hard decisions. It needs to cancel its carbon tax. It needs to commit to not undertaking any new spending for which it has not found savings elsewhere, and it needs to commit to not introducing or increasing taxes. However, the Liberals seem determined to do the opposite of those things.

It is incredibly frustrating for Canadians to hear that driving to work and driving themselves or a family member to a medical appointment are behaviours that need to be corrected. That is what the Liberals have said. There is no subway that runs in Victoria-by-the-Sea, Prince Edward Island, and there is no LRT in Vancouver Island or in the north. In Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, there is certainly no mass transit for folks to be able to correct that bad behaviour that the Liberals say they are undertaking by just supporting themselves, putting gas in the truck so they can get to the job site or putting gas in the car so they can take their children to an extracurricular activity.

It is very simple: The government needs to axe its carbon tax and allow Canadians to have some breathing room, to not have to make those dire choices about skipping meals. Nearly one and a half million Canadians went to the food bank in a single month, with 500,000 of those food bank users being children. These are the stark choices Canadians are having to make in this economic climate.

The government has all the cards, and there is a quick one that it can play. It is the wild card. The government can axe its carbon tax and make life more affordable for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the question of putting a price on pollution. This is something that the member opposite will certainly be familiar with, because he vigorously campaigned for it in the last election. This is also something that we are familiar with in British Columbia, where we have had a price on pollution since 2008. In the time since it has been implemented, not only have emissions per capita gone down, but we have actually led the country in economic growth. The clean-tech sector in British Columbia, for example, produces billions of dollars in revenue each and every single year and provides tens of thousands of good-paying, sustainable jobs.

In the last three years, the price on pollution in British Columbia has gone up by about two cents per litre despite gas prices going up by more than a dollar at times. This is a reflection of disruptions in the supply chain due to the pandemic and more recently due to the illegal war in Ukraine. While the Conservatives have tried to argue that the federal carbon price is driving inflation, they know that they are ignoring 98% of the real problem.

Further, taking aggressive action on climate change has become an economic necessity in itself. We have to act now to prevent further damages. Canada is confronted with more and more extreme climate events, such as floods, hurricanes and wildfires. The reality is that we can lead the fight against climate change, and we can do it in a way that creates good-paying jobs and new businesses for Canadians.

Our government also understands and appreciates the fact that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that our plan is revenue-neutral and that, through the climate action incentive, life is actually made more affordable because of the carbon price for eight out of 10 Canadian families.

We do understand that Canadians are having issues making ends meet. We are worried as our country's economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. We understand these concerns and we are all experiencing these challenges alongside our constituents. We feel the pain of inflation when we go to the grocery store, fill up our tanks and, of course, when we pay our rent.

With regard to grocery store prices in particular, we have specific concerns, which is why earlier this year the Minister of Innovation wrote to the Competition Bureau to make sure it was using all of its tools to detect and deter any unlawful behaviours that might be leading to higher prices or profiteering in the food sector.

In addition, we have provided targeted supports to Canadians through the fall economic statement and the budget to ensure that we give the help that Canadians need, in particular, to those Canadians who need it the most. A good example of this is the doubling of the GST credit. This is a significant investment of $2.5 billion in support that will help 11 million households and more than 50% of our seniors. I actually want to thank the member opposite for supporting this important measure.

We know that there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and then thrive in the years ahead. This is because our unemployment rate continues to be near its record low, and our country has an AAA credit rating. We also have the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. In fact, those advantages increased over the course of the pandemic, thanks to our strong fiscal leadership. As well, our health outcomes and job recovery rates are significantly better than those in the United States, and that is going to put us in an even better position going forward.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss with the federal carbon tax, including with any cheques that the government sends back to Canadians trying to fool them by taking money with the left hand and giving a little bit back with the right hand. This scheme is not going to do what this government claims it is going to do. It is not going to provide the environmental stewardship that it claims, nor is this government a model of that, as we have seen with the dumping of sewage in the St. Lawrence River, which runs through my community.

What we are looking for is a plan from this government that makes life more affordable for Canadians. That means it is not going to introduce new spending unless it finds savings, and it means that it is going to need to axe its carbon tax.

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

Madam Speaker, we understand that many Canadians are feeling the pain of high inflation, but I would like to take this opportunity to reassure them. They can continue to count on our government to support them through targeted and fiscally responsible measures. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained in the fall economic statement, we will continue in the months ahead to work hard to build an economy that works for everyone to create good jobs and to make life affordable for all Canadians.

Sports

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the time that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Sport and I have been given to discuss and revisit the need to launch a public judicial inquiry into the toxic culture in sport.

My colleague might not be indifferent to this idea of bringing together athletes and experts in the culture of sport around an issue that seems to me more topical than ever.

I would ask him to share the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the minister. I hope she will pay particular attention to the evidence given by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, or SDRCC, which admitted that it lacks the powers needed to respond adequately to athletes' complaints.

As it stands, what the work of parliamentarians has highlighted is that there is no place where athletes can feel confident in reporting their abuser. An SDRCC representative appeared before the committee today and talked about the lack of investigative mandate and her inability to intervene effectively. The SDRCC does not have the authority to enforce penalties and compel testimony or the production of documents in athletes' complaint cases. I would like to think that the message will be heard, and that athletes will not have come all this way in vain.

Is he at ease with the knowledge that there are predators acting with impunity who are not held responsible for their disgraceful behaviour towards athletes?

It makes no sense that the government is stubbornly refusing to open a public judicial inquiry. Athletes need to have faith in an organization that is dedicated to defending their rights, which is not the case at this time.

With all due respect for the work of the House, I would be remiss if I did not bring forward the requests of the athletes who proudly represented us on the international stage. We even welcomed them in this place with joy and pride. We remember the medals around their necks. Everyone was eager to welcome and congratulate them. We could show them the respect that they fully deserve.

Athletes need a recognized body that is able to receive their complaint. They need to have access to a resource person independent from the sports organization that they have a dispute with. They need a point of contact that will guide them through the process and help them get through the obstacles one by one and the fear of reprisals by organizations or people who abused them. This assistance plan needs to include legal services, psychological help, skilled people who are capable of helping people who experienced trauma. It is hard enough to experience abuse and mistreatment; imagine the courage and nerve it takes to face one's abuser.

As long as the power imbalance established by national sports organizations and the inaction over the years by Sport Canada is seen or perceived by athletes, reconciliation will not be possible, the athletes will not file complaints and they will not break free from this culture of silence.

Would my colleague convey that message to the minister and make sure she is apprised of the situation immediately?

If the government really wants to make things better, it will have to come up with a mechanism by and for athletes and stop thinking in terms of sport and structure. That is the real problem. We need an independent public inquiry to do this work and bring the two sides together. We need transparency in order for people to learn about problematic situations and consider them with more empathy and understanding. We have to be able to identify what works well and what needs to be reconsidered in whole or in part.

The independent public inquiry we need is an opportunity for enrichment, a pivotal moment that will make a public statement to the effect that this is not acceptable and we will not let it happen again. Yes, sports organizations and federations will be put on the spot. Yes, we will have to name things, and that might make some people uncomfortable. However, there are things and stories that everyone must take the time to absorb, and this transition will not happen behind closed doors in government officials' offices.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my hon. colleague for her question, her leadership and her attention to this very important issue.

I would also like to thank the other members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for the important work they are doing in studying the issue of safe sport for women and girls in Canada. I had the privilege of joining one of the meetings. I paid attention today to those meetings. The testimony was both extremely moving and terribly important for us all to listen to.

I want to commend the courageous athletes who continue to tell their stories about the abuse they have suffered. I want them to know that we hear them; we see them and we absolutely believe them. I want to be clear that anyone who is a victim or witness to a criminal act should report that incident to the police immediately.

In reality, this is a deeply personal issue for me. The objective of creating a safer sport free from abuse was my main motivation for entering the world of politics.

As a society, we in Canada have a shared responsibility to promote a safe sporting environment for everyone. Our government responded to calls from Canadian athletes for an independent, centralized mechanism for violations of any provisions of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, or OSIC, was created in June under the leadership of Sarah-Ève Pelletier, who is a former member of the national artistic swimming team, a member of the Quebec bar and an accredited civil mediator. This office was created to end the culture of silence, to help provide a reliable mechanism for reporting abuse and mistreatment, and to ensure that victims are heard and supported.

By April 1, 2023, all national sport organizations must sign on to the abuse-free sport program, which includes OSIC services. This is a condition of receiving funding from the Government of Canada. As of December 1, 2022, some 23 organizations have signed on, including Hockey Canada and Gymnastics Canada.

Some have questioned OSIC's independence. Just like any administrative tribunal or court of justice supported financially by the federal government, from the Supreme Court of Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, OSIC is an independent entity.

Earlier I spoke to the personal nature of this concern. It was about seven years ago that I retired from sport. I had a long career in sport. I went to four Olympics for Canada, and indeed witnessed many things that I wish never happened.

In 2016, the then minister of sport asked me to be part of a working group to develop a system to address the maltreatment in sport that was occurring. There first needed to be a universal code of conduct. We made recommendations to the federal government at that time. Those recommendations included having a universal code of conduct that was mandatory for all national sport organizations, ensuring that the system was fully funded by the federal government, as the Supreme Court is, and ensuring that it was independent of the government entirely. It is true that those things are the case today.

Given that sport is a shared jurisdiction in Canada, we, along with provincial and territorial colleagues, should all be working together on this. In August 2022, building on the Red Deer declaration signed in February 2019, ministers agreed to work toward establishing an independent third party mechanisms in their jurisdictions for allegations of maltreatment in sport—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The parliamentary secretary's time is up.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear the parliamentary secretary admit in the answer he gave me this evening that the government will think about the request of parliamentarians, who are unanimous about the fact that these athletes must be given a voice.

It is the Minister of Sport's responsibility to look into the management of sexual assault and sexual misconduct in sports for the good of the public. It is high time to act as a watchdog and recognize the distress and frustration felt by these athletes in the amateur circuit and by those who are overseen by programs subsidized by the federal government. The government must absolutely shed light on the management problems in sports organizations because this problem has been going on for far too long. We are talking about a right, and athletes are well within their rights to require such action from their government.

In closing, I would like to say that I am sincere in offering the Minister of Sport our full co-operation in this necessary modernization of the sport policy. I also want to remind her that she would benefit from the recommendations of such a commission because it could enable the OSIC to really protect athletes. A real culture change—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.