Debates of March 24th, 2022

Constitution Act, 1867

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully question whether the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is relevant, given the topic currently before the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention, but the member only began his speech about two minutes ago.

I invite the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to continue his speech.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I am totally on the topic of Quebec and what this might mean for Quebeckers. I will speak quickly. I would like to point out that, earlier, the hon. member for Drummond spoke for about eight minutes before he mentioned his bill, Bill C-246. He first outlined the entire history and digressed quite a bit. I think I am entitled to a little leeway, too.

The fact that the NDP has negotiated pharmacare, that there will be legislation in 2023 and this will help people in a concrete way, all this responds to a demand that comes largely from Quebec civil society. I am talking about the Union des consommateurs, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, which all want a universal public pharmacare plan.

When we talk about Quebec, we have to talk about its place. I think it is important to talk about Quebeckers, workers and tenants who are facing challenges, which we are trying to address as parliamentarians, with the tools we have to help them—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member once again, but the hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent is rising on a point of order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate both the form and content of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's remarks. However, he has now been talking for five minutes. I know prescription drugs are important, but I do not think they vote. The subject we are talking about right now is the number of members in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his comment. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has been speaking for three minutes and has five minutes left. I hope he will talk about the bill we are debating and I invite him to continue his speech.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill being studied this evening. However, I get the impression that it makes my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party a little nervous when we talk about the victories secured by the NDP.

That being said, the NDP has long recognized that Quebec is a nation. The NDP already recognized that by adopting the Sherbrooke declaration, thanks to the work of people like Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair. It truly marked a major turning point in the history of our leftist, progressive movement.

The Parliament of Canada also adopted a motion recognizing that Quebec is a nation. Symbolic acknowledgements are good, but I think tangible action is better. That brings me back to the beginning of my speech, when I was talking about the concrete effects of parliamentarians' work, including the NDP's recent efforts.

What makes Quebec a nation?

It is not because that province is better or worse than the others, but because it is different from the others. We have to recognize that, and that recognition needs to come with consequences.

As my colleagues mentioned in previous speeches, I think we must always bear in mind the idea of the two founding peoples, the linguistic and cultural duality that has long kept us talking and that has fuelled debate throughout Quebec and Canadian history.

However, I must point out that this notion of two founding peoples makes me and my political party very uncomfortable, because it implies that the French, who came first, and the English, who came later, arrived on virgin land that was uninhabited.

This excludes first nations, indigenous peoples and the Inuit from the discussion. I think we must take this into consideration. This notion of two founding peoples is true but seriously incomplete, and we must consider this when discussing democracy, representation and nation-to-nation dialogue.

The basic democratic rule is simple: All citizens are equal. Everyone is equal before the law, and everyone has a vote. Through natural sovereignty, it is the people who decide who will be their leaders and whether they will oust them when they are no longer satisfied with them. This notion of the equality of citizens is the basis for the distribution of seats and representation in the House.

As the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent knows, I would love to discuss respect for every person's right to vote. If we had a proportional voting system, the government could not be elected with a minority of the votes, meaning a minority of popular and national support. This is a discussion I have had on several occasions, and I believe that proportional voting would greatly improve the quality of our democratic life.

Elections Canada decides on the riding boundaries and distribution of seats, but there are many exceptions. In fact, we have a system that functions by exception. We could almost say that the exception is the norm.

Three major clauses govern how seats are distributed in the federation. First is the senatorial clause, which states that no province can have fewer MPs than it has senators, regardless of its demographic weight and the number of voters in the ridings.

Next is the territorial clause. Obviously the large expanses of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut do not necessarily have the critical mass to justify a riding and an MP. However, we all recognize that Nunavut absolutely has to be represented and that it makes sense to have these territorial clauses, resulting in these three ridings.

Last is the grandfather clause, which states that a province cannot have fewer MPs than it had before. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland all negotiated a certain number of seats upon entering Confederation. That has real-life consequences.

If we look at the three territories and 10 provinces, that means seven provinces are overrepresented thanks to different standards or special clauses, in addition to the three territories.

I think it is worth considering whether the Quebec nation could also benefit from a special clause of its own, given that we have all recognized Quebec as a nation. We can therefore say that what is good for others can also be applied to Quebec the exact same way and that this would be a way to recognize the Quebec nation. It may not be the best or only way, but it already came up in past talks, so we are not reinventing the wheel.

As my colleague from Drummond pointed out, this was included in the Charlottetown accord. It was already part of the negotiations to convince Quebec to ratify the Constitution after the lamentable and unpleasant events of 1982. The Charlottetown accord proposed setting the minimum at 25% for Quebec. This was agreed to by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Quebec and, at the time, by the federal NDP, which also supported the Charlottetown accord.

I think this is a principle that is worth discussing and studying in committee so that we can debate Quebec's place in the Canadian federation and in our democratic process.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father always told me that history is extremely important. My colleague talked about history when he talked about the current situation, because history helps us understand where we are and where we are going. I too will share a bit of historical background, with all due respect to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

In his 1840 report, Lord Durham said that the francophone people had no future, no culture and no history. That was not a very good start. In 1840, after the Patriotes rebellion, this person was telling us that the salvation of francophones lay in assimilation. By reading what happened next, we see this was the moment that the tragic destiny of Quebec and francophones in Canada was decided.

From 1840 to 1867, there was a Parliament representing eastern Canada, in other words Quebec, and western Canada, meaning Ontario. The catch was that even though Quebec had a larger population, eastern Canada and western Canada got the same number of members. Even though there were more Quebeckers, they did not get more members, but no one took offence to that.

After a while, it became clear that the status of francophones in North America was diminishing because of the influx of immigrants. They became a minority. In 1867, it was announced that representation would henceforth be proportional. That year, the first Parliament opened, but instead of Quebec having 50% of the seats, it dropped to 36%, even though it had had a much larger population for quite some time.

That was the beginning, or rather the continuation, of the decline. To get us to lower our guard, they told us that it was an agreement between two founding peoples, an agreement that would later be broken. They gave us 50% of the seats at first to lull us into a false sense of security.

Yes, there are francophones in the rest of Canada, but they are merely surviving, not thriving. Despite their resilience and their daily struggle to ensure their language reaches their schools, they will never be able to ensure their continued survival. They will decline across Canada.

Just look at the situation today in Manitoba, which is supposed to be a bilingual province. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the rest of Canada, in Ontario, francophones will literally disappear. The only thing stopping francophones outside Quebec from losing the ability to utter the words of Félix Leclerc, to keep speaking the language we hold dear, is their extraordinary courage. It will take a lot of courage.

You are one of the courageous ones, Mr. Speaker. You know what I am talking about.

Quebec was saddled with minority status with respect to economic decisions and everything else until the end of the 1950s. Two things saved Quebec.

The first was the cradle. Quebeckers made babies. They set a world record for baby-making, one for every fence post. We survived because of sheer numbers.

The second came in 1960 with the creation of a Quebec state that finally protected us. It was the Quebec state that allowed us to strengthen the position of the French language in Quebec, which had an impact on the rest of Canada and even Louisiana. Zachary Richard would agree, it is a fact. Quebec, with the Quebec state, protects us. That is a fact.

After being one of the founding peoples, we were confined to the rank of a province, a province like any other. In federal-provincial conferences, we became one of ten in 1949, going from one for one to one for ten. Then multiculturalism was introduced in 1982, which put us on a par with all other cultures. I like other cultures, but the Quebec nation is here, it is present, and it must maintain its place because it deserves to survive.

I will not go into the details of all the numbers, but we are at 23% representation in Parliament. Do people see what the problem is with the Parliament of Canada?

We keep repeating that this Parliament is eroding the power of our legislature. This is a fundamental problem. When we say that Ottawa must not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, it is because the Government of Quebec protects us best and knows us best. It was not the Quebec government that said the London attack was caused by Bill 21, but the Prime Minister of Canada. It was not the Premier of Quebec who said that.

The Prime Minister of Canada is not the one protecting us. It is the federal government that has now decided to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia's francophones, who demanded that education be of the same quality as that of anglophones, won their case before the Federal Court of Appeal, but this Liberal government wants to reverse the court's decisions.

People in the House are saying that Quebec is a nation. This Parliament even agreed with us and adopted a motion saying that Quebec is a nation with French as the common language. However, those words need to be backed up by action.

We put to the vote a two-part motion seeking to ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat in the House of Commons, and that motion was adopted by the majority. The government understood and acknowledged this with its Bill C‑14. However, what about the second part of the motion?

When we vote on a motion, we vote on the entire motion. The second part of the motion said that Quebec's political weight must not be diminished. It does not take a Ph.D. in math to understand that if we have 78 seats out of a total of 338, when that total eventually goes up to 343, 350, 400 or 500 members, our political power will be diminished. I explained this to my golden retriever and he understood. The government does not seem to understand. Seriously?

What we are asking for is that we use a ratio expressed as a percentage. It is obvious if we want to avoid this decline. It is just that simple. Why are we asking for 25%? It is because that is what was negotiated in the Charlottetown accord. That is where we got it from.

Can this be done without reopening Canada's Constitution? I know that reopening the Constitution is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racket. I know that, but we do not need to do it. We can do it in the House with legislative tools. That is where we stand today: We have to use percentages to avoid this slow but steady decline that is undermining our people.

I will quote Claude Péloquin, who said, “Aren't you tired of dying, you idiots?” Sometimes, I think we are dying. Unfortunately, we do not even know it. We are here because half of our taxes are administered by this Parliament, and as long as we are in Canada, we must defend Quebec.

Our dream is not to account for 25% of this Parliament, but 100% of the parliament of our future country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

The Environment

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the recent IPCC report is a dire warning about the climate crisis and the consequences of empty Liberal promises. The UN Secretary General called the report an “atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership”.

Canadians have already been dealing with the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. It is threatening everything that we value. The report warns that half of the global population lives in areas considered highly vulnerable to the changing climate. Millions of people are already facing floods and water shortages. There are mass die-offs of species. Key ecosystems are losing their ability to act as carbon sinks. We know that racialized communities, indigenous communities and marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted. It is one of the reasons we need an office of environmental justice.

Climate breakdown is rapidly accelerating and many climate impacts will be more severe than previously predicted. The brief window to ensure a livable future is rapidly closing. Despite years of warnings from experts, the Prime Minister is not showing the climate leadership that people in Canada are looking for. This report is a call to stop making empty promises. We must take urgent action now.

Instead of acting with the urgency that is needed, the Liberals continue to subsidize the largest polluters in the oil and gas industry. They have purchased a pipeline, and they are delaying climate goals at the peril of Canadians and their communities. Canada has missed every single climate target, and we have the worst record on climate of any G7 country.

The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, passed in the last Parliament, requires that the government publish an emissions reduction plan to show how it plans to meet its 2030 target of a 40% to 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That this is an inadequate target when the IPCC report says that we need to cut our emissions by at least 50%, and we should be going farther for our fair share.

That plan is due next week, and this week the net-zero advisory body published its first round of advice on what the government should include in that plan. That body has told the government to set and implement legally binding oil and gas sector emissions targets without delay, but the government still has not decided what its promised oil and gas emissions cap will be. The net-zero advisory body has also told the government that carbon removals and offsets should only be used as a last resort.

The IPCC also points to the uncertainty in the future deployment of carbon capture and storage, and cautions against reliance on this technology, but the government is pushing forward with a tax credit for carbon capture and utilization storage. This is another subsidy to the oil and gas companies at a time when they are making record profits and Canadians are being gouged at the pump. Canadians are struggling to pay for food, medication and housing. If carbon capture and utilization storage is critical to these companies' plans, and they are making record profits, then there is no reason that they cannot pay for these investments themselves.

The Liberals have promised to meet Canada's G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies two years early by 2023, but Environment and Climate Change Canada recently confirmed that it does not have a concrete definition for what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy is or a complete list of the subsidies to review. How do they expect Canadians to trust that they are on track to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies when they cannot even define what it is that they are phasing out? Canada should be using internationally agreed upon definitions of fossil fuel subsidies that align with our climate commitments to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2022 and ensure that we are in line with keeping global warming—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Victoria that the recent IPCC report is a stark reminder of the impacts of climate change and that Canada needs to move faster and go deeper on its decarbonization efforts.

In 2016, we worked with provinces and territories and sought input from indigenous peoples to develop and adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Unlike many of our peer countries, in 2016, Canada's emissions were on a steady upward climb before the pan-Canadian framework was adopted. National emissions were projected to continue to increase to about 12% above 2005 levels by 2030. The measures adopted in the pan-Canadian framework reversed that trajectory, and we are projected to reduce national emissions to 19% below 2005 levels by 2030. This represents the single largest projected drop in emissions in Canadian history.

In the pan-Canadian framework, the government committed to meet and exceed Canada's previous 2030 goal. The government delivered on that commitment in December 2020 through Canada's strengthened climate plan: “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”. The measures in that plan were projected to reduce emissions by at least 31% below 2005 levels. In mid-2021, the government announced Canada's enhanced greenhouse gas emissions target of a 40% to 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.

Science has indicated that countries, including Canada, need to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. We listened. In 2021, we worked across party lines to pass the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, to enshrine Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, to establish Canada's 2030 emissions target at 40% to 45% below 2005 levels as the first key milestone for this path, and to ensure a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objectives. The first requirement under the act, the 2030 emissions reduction plan, will be established by March 29 of this year, as the hon. member mentioned.

Meeting our climate objective requires close collaboration with partners. The year ahead of us will be an eventful one with the release of the 2030 emissions reduction plan, Canada's first national adaptation strategy, and continued implementation of initiatives such as the strategic innovative fund, the net-zero accelerator and the Canada greener homes grant. We are also working on numerous additional measures. We have already launched consultations on regulating 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, achieving net-zero electricity by 2035 and regulating landfill and oil and gas methane. We have also launched initial consultations on oil and gas caps, and we will release a discussion paper this spring and invite Canadians to share their views on the design of the cap.

At the same time, our government is working to ensure that the oil and gas sector makes a meaningful contribution towards Canada's climate targets. At COP26, Canada announced it would take additional steps to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by setting emissions caps.

I have run out of time, but I am happy to answer the next question from the hon. member.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the IPCC is clear: All levels of government have only a narrow window to implement key climate change mitigation and adaptation measures to secure a livable future. However, while Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the government continues to give handouts to oil and gas companies that are making record profits.

Canada is one of the biggest funders of the oil and gas sector in the G20, and Export Development Canada is the worst offender. Under this Prime Minister, Canada has given more than 14 times the financial support to fossil fuels than it has to renewables. We need to make sure that EDC financing is in line with Canada's commitments to hold global warming to 1.5°C.

Will the minister and the parliamentary secretary commit to telling Export Development Canada to clean up its act and stop financing fossil fuels?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments.

I would remind the member, and all those who are listening, that in addition to taking action to reduce emissions, we also recognize that we must be prepared for the climate risks that are now upon us, as historical trends are no longer our climate normal. That is why, this year, we will release a national adaptation strategy. Building on our strong foundations, the strategy will bring together different levels of government, indigenous groups, the private sector, civil society and all of us in Canada to develop a common blueprint for action.

Government Appointments

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in this place to address the important issues facing my constituents, Albertans and all Canadians.

I stand today to talk about the Senate, and specifically the question that I asked back in December related to the Senate election that the Province of Alberta held last October. This is something that is unique to Alberta admittedly, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit more about it here today.

On October 18, Albertans made a choice. They elected three, what we consider, senators in waiting. They are, by name, Pam Davidson, Erika Barootes and Mykhailo Martyniouk. Significant precedent suggests that Albertans are able to make that choice. However, in the response given by the minister who responded this past December, I was once again incredibly disappointed by the ignorance, arrogance and how out of touch the Liberals are when it comes to the issues that western Canada faces.

The response basically said that the Liberals do it better, that they have all the answers, that they blame Stephen Harper for all the problems our country faces and, therefore, it is actually the Conservatives' fault. That is not acceptable. My constituents share often how frustrated they are with the status of the federation. They share often how they feel like Canada has failed Albertans. They share often how they feel there is little our country can offer them and that it may not even be worth our federation sticking together.

I am a proud Canadian. I am also a proud Albertan. I find it a travesty that there are those, and a growing number under the leadership of the current Liberal government and Prime Minister, now an NDP-Liberal coalition, who have made it so that more Albertans all the time are deciding that they would be more willing to give up on our country than fight for it.

These are serious issues that, unfortunately, the Liberals seem to dismiss, not only issues like appointing democratically elected senators to Canada's upper chamber in our bicameral legislature known as the Senate, but issues each and every day, whether it be the energy industry, the Ottawa knows best mentality or the imposition of the carbon tax on Albertans when Albertans made it very clear they did not want it. The list goes on and on. There is such a host of challenges that the province of Alberta faces, there are even more people today. In fact, since the announcement Monday evening where the NDP-Liberal socialist eco-left coalition was announced, I have heard from many more constituents who are asking, “What is the point in fighting?”

When it comes to the specific question I asked back in December, Albertans deserve this, Albertans need this and, for the sake of our country, Alberta needs to be respected. I would simply ask the minister this. Will he take a moment and recommend to the Liberal Prime Minister to put his partisanship aside and understand that Alberta has a unique status within our federation and appoint to the vacant seat for Alberta in the Senate one of Canada's democratically elected senators?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on the matter of Senate appointments from the province of Alberta.

Let me start by saying that this government strives to appoint outstanding people who represent the diversity of this country. We are committed to vibrant and inclusive representation in the Senate. The Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, established in 2016, plays an important role in ensuring representation by providing the Prime Minister with non-binding, non-partisan, merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments that meet a high standard of integrity and collaboration.

As members know, under Canada's Constitution, senators are appointed by the Governor General. By convention, the Governor General's power is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. One of the Senate's fundamental roles is to serve as a chamber for the representation of regional interests. This government believes that a less partisan Senate would be able to fulfill this role and other roles more effectively.

That is why, in 2016, the government introduced the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments to provide non-partisan, merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments for the Prime Minister's consideration. Moreover, in recognition of the important role the Senate plays in regional representation, the advisory board provides unprecedented and equal opportunity for all provinces and territories to participate by recommending individuals from their jurisdictions to serve. In fact, two of the five advisory board members are selected from the province or territory in which a vacancy arises. The provinces and territories are given an opportunity to engage in the process by providing a list of individuals for consideration as provincial or territorial members of the advisory board.

The advisory board for Alberta may consider the Senate election nominees against the established criteria for current or future vacancies. However, these individuals, the ones the hon. member spoke about tonight, like all others, would still need to formally apply through the online application process to be considered by the board as a potential candidate for an appointment to the Senate.

Canadians may also nominate an individual for a Senate appointment, though nominees would still need to submit their own application to be considered. This process is the same for everyone and everywhere across Canada, including Alberta. All applications are reviewed using the same assessment criteria, which are publicly available online. These include constitutional eligibility requirements, a range of merit-based criteria established by the government and additional considerations, such as gender, indigenous and minority representation and bilingualism, to ensure the Senate increasingly reflects Canada's diversity.

The government remains committed to the non-partisan and merit-based Senate appointment process in place, and we are confident this process will continue to result in a less partisan and more effective institution to serve Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments for its continued work in the service of parliamentary democracy on behalf of all Canadians.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I suggest the member takes seriously.

First, there is very little that is equal about our Senate. She is right in the sense that it was meant to be a regional balance in the country, as intended when the Fathers of Confederation and those involved with the foundations of our country created a structure to ensure there was regional representation. It does not exist today.

Second, as the member referred to an independent advisory committee, I note there was a very clear process, called a democratic election, that selected those individuals who deserved to be in the Senate representing Alberta, and they have applied through the Prime Minister's process. It is absolutely essential for the sake of the unity of our country that they be appointed to our Senate to make clear that Albertans' voices matter.

When it comes to the issues that our country faces, the government talks big but unfortunately has failed to deliver each and every time, and it is tearing our country apart.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to stress again that the Senate plays its intended role of sober second thought.

The independent Senate advisory board provides advice to the Prime Minister on candidates for Senate appointments. I would remind the hon. member that senators are not democratically elected according to our Constitution. The advisory board reviews applications in provinces and territories where there are planned or current vacancies. Canadians have the opportunity to apply directly for a Senate appointment on a year-round basis through an open application process based on merit-based criteria and requirements under the Constitution. This is important because the Senate is critical in representing regional and minority interests. Also, all nominees for a Senate appointment must submit an online application.

Our government remains committed to restoring public trust in the Senate by moving toward a less partisan and more independent Senate.

The Economy

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, and tonight I am speaking about something I asked in question period and statements I made in the House. It has to do with the RCMP.

Outside of Ontario and Quebec, many municipalities have the RCMP with a municipal contract. We respect the RCMP, and I have worked with it as a municipal leader and a mayor in my community. It is a fantastic community force within our municipal structures.

However, it had been without a contract for almost five years, and then the federal government settled the contract, which means it had a huge retroactive piece to it. The municipalities were not part of that negotiation. The federal government was. This is a huge retroactive settlement that the RCMP deserves. It deserves this settlement.

However, the municipalities that contract with the police were not part of this. I had somebody remind me it was sort of like something that happened in the Boston Harbor in 1774 or 1775, the Boston Tea Party, where the people living in Boston were upset about taxation without representation. That is what the municipalities feel like.

I heard from the mayor and city council in Brooks, Strathmore, Acme, Kneehill County and many more who have spoken to me. St. Mary's in Nova Scotia is also very concerned, so this is countrywide.

How would this affect the taxpayers? We are talking about a 5% to 10% tax increase. The St. Mary's community said 11% is what it would cost as a tax increase. We are talking about property tax and business property tax. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

We have communities that have been suffering with COVID and businesses that have endured lockdowns and supply disruptions. Now business and property owners are facing anywhere from a 5% to an 11% tax increase. This is brutal on our small businesses. These is an extreme challenge for homeowners. We talk about the number of economic challenges we have in our communities coming out of COVID, and they are facing a retroactive pay increase that was negotiated by the federal government.

The federal government negotiated this agreement. That is great. It is deserved, but the federal government should pay for this retroactive pay. It should not come back to the municipalities that were not involved in this negotiation. It should not come back to the property owners and the small business owners at this extremely frustrating time to be in a small business and survive. The federal government negotiated it. The municipalities were not part of that process. They should not get the bill for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize we are all facing challenging times with increased costs of policing across Canada and operational pressures on our officers to keep our communities safe.

As the member is aware, under our Constitution, provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, including policing matters. The Government of Canada is collaborating closely with more than 150 municipal contract jurisdictions and with all provinces and territories to support them in addressing the many challenges facing police service.

Policing services are delivered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under a contracted cost-sharing arrangement between the Government of Canada and each jurisdiction that has opted to have the RCMP as their police of jurisdiction.

The historic first collective agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Police Federation, the bargaining agent for RCMP members, went into effect on August 6, 2021. It marks the first time RCMP members have received a pay increase since 2017. The agreement provided a reasonable economic increase and market adjustments to address wage differences that existed between RCMP members and reservists and other police services across Canada.

As a result of the agreement, RCMP salaries are now consistent with other police services across Canada. We know that policing costs are significant for all communities, including municipalities that contract RCMP police services. That is why federal officials kept partners informed throughout the collective bargaining process starting in 2017, including on anticipated salary increases to help them plan accordingly.

Our government has committed to meeting with contract policing partners, including municipalities, in the coming weeks to discuss the implementation of the collective agreement, including their specific situations and needs. Our government will continue to work with contract police and jurisdictions on the impacts of the agreement.

In closing, I want to emphasize that ensuring the safety and security of our communities is paramount. The Government of Canada will continue to support the RCMP and all jurisdictions to meet this objective. This is a goal we all share collectively and continues to be one of the highest priorities of our government.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of what I heard from the parliamentary secretary that I absolutely agree with. It is a tremendous force, and the negotiations for the settlement needed to happen. It was deserved, absolutely.

The part that I would disagree with was the piece about communication with partners. When I talked to municipality leaders, mayors and reeves in my area, they said they not a part of it. The organizations that represent the municipalities in Alberta, which I used to be the vice president of, were not involved in the process or in communication with the federal government. Municipalities were saying they were not part of this organization in the sense of communication. If the federal government was communicating, it was not to the organizations in the province of Alberta and other provinces. It was not the municipalities themselves. We look to the federal government to deal with this retroactive pay and pay for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the financial planning challenges and the complexities of the implementation of the collective agreement, and we are mindful of the significant costs it represents for municipalities, provinces and territories.

We continue to collaborate extensively with officials at all levels in contract policing jurisdictions throughout this process. I want to make it clear that the Government of Canada remains committed to the public safety of all Canadians across the country and remains proud of the services that the RCMP provides to our contract jurisdiction partners. We remain steadfast in our commitment to continue our collaboration with our contract partners and will begin meeting with them in the coming weeks to discuss further their respective financial situations.

Our objective is clear: We will meet with jurisdictions in a meaningful way to enable open dialogue with the aim of supporting their ability to meet their financial obligations under the contracts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:16 p.m.)