Debates of April 25th, 2022

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

Canada Revenue Agency

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been advocating for a very long time on the issue of direction and control. Direction and control are regulations that severely limit the ability of the charitable sector to do its job. They require that any charitable activities be fully under the direction and control of the charitable organization. This creates problems and needless red tape for organizations that are operating in Canada. It is a particular problem for organizations that are operating internationally.

As many members know and understand, the best practice of international development is when organizations in Canada are able to empower and support those who are acting in their own countries to support development, which really recognizes that the people who are in the process of doing the developing are the heroes of their own story, and the role of international organizations is merely a supporting role for those who are doing that important work. However, direction and control regulations require effectively that those organizations operating overseas be fully under the direction and control of that Canadian organization insofar as it wishes to maintain its charitable status. Not only does this create inefficiencies, needless bureaucratic red tape and millions of dollars in lawyer fees that charitable organizations have to pay every year, it also perpetuates this kind of colonial structure of donor control and the requirement for the foreign organization to be in control of the development activity that is happening on the ground.

We have been advocating for a long time for reforms to direction and control. It was a commitment in the last Conservative platform to make these reforms. It also reflected a unanimous recommendation coming out of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament, which directly called out these regulations for being neocolonial in nature. I want to recognize the work of the Senator Omidvar, who put forward a Senate public bill on this, Bill S-216. That bill passed in the Senate twice and is currently being sponsored by my colleague in this House.

With that in mind, I raised the question on this issue in the House a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I did not get a very good answer. I was cautiously pleased to see a reference to direction and control on page 195 of budget 2022, which is the first time the government has acknowledged that direction and control regulations are a problem and need to be reformed. The section references Bill S-216 directly, and that the government intends, in its budget implementation acts, to implement the spirit of that bill.

We cannot assume that the fix will fully address the issues. We cannot assume until we have seen those proposed changes what the actual change in the nature of the regulations will be, because Bill S-216 removes the “own activities” requirement and replaces it with an accountability requirement for charitable organizations. The budget does not reference removing the “own activities” requirement. It simply references trying to facilitate mechanisms for easier transfers. It claims it will implement the spirit of Bill S-216, but it does not say it will implement the letter of the bill. As we have seen before, the devil can be in the details, so although the development sector and charitable organizations across Canada are very pleased to finally see at least a recognition of the problem, we are far from certain about whether the solution will be adequate.

Therefore, I would like to hear more from the government on this, because the reference is there in the budget, but it is lacking in clarity. When can we expect the government to implement these changes? Is the government prepared to actually implement the changes in Bill S-216, removing the “own activities” requirement and replacing it with an accountability mechanism? Is the government prepared to work with the charitable sector, including those who work in international development and members of other parties, to ensure that we get it right? It would sure be a shame to get people's hopes up and then not deliver the fix that is required.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the government's position for my opposition colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I also heard him inquiring about Bill S-216 during the budget debate today, and I am very happy to have this opportunity to address the issue directly.

Let me begin by pointing out that budget 2022 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to allow a charity to provide its resources to organizations that are not qualified donees, provided that the charity meets certain requirements designed to ensure accountability. I thank the member opposite for citing the page number for that reference. This is intended to implement the spirt of Bill S-216, Effective and Accountable Charities Act, which is currently being considered by Parliament. I personally have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians and senators over the past number of months in order to better understand the spirit and to help navigate some of the concerns that have been raised.

We have proposed changes in recognition of the fact that Canadian charities carry out a wide range of important work, including vital international development and relief activities around the world and direct support to Canadians here at home.

Our government recognizes that Canada's tax rules should support their work and minimize their administrative burdens, while still ensuring accountability for how charitable resources are used. Both the charitable sector and parliamentarians have put forward a number of proposals to achieve these goals, while allowing greater flexibility for charities to support non-profit groups that may not have the ability to pursue charitable status on their own. Our government supports these efforts and our budget proposal reflects this support. Our support for charitable donations is also reflected in the fact that Canada's tax assistance for charitable donations is recognized as being among the most generous in the world, in fact.

In 2022, tax assistance associated with the charitable donations tax credit and deduction is estimated to be over $4 billion. However, given the generosity, registered charities are required to follow the rules set out in the Income Tax Act that ensure the funds are applied to charitable purposes. We recognize the need to ensure that these rules are as up to date as possible and that they support the important work that charities do. Our budget proposal reflects this. I look forward to working with this member and all parliamentarians to implement the measure in the most appropriate way.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the requirement for alignment with a charitable purpose is very important. It is also important that we do more to address the red tape that charitable organizations face across the board. I was very proud of the work done by the previous Conservative government around red tape reduction for business. I think we need a similar, broad red-tape reduction initiative around charities saying what all the areas of red tape are that charitable organizations have to deal with and finding ways of achieving the same objectives and necessary oversight that is required, while minimizing red tape and removing direction and control requirements. Doing so in a full and complete way, in alignment with the spirit and the text of Bill S-216 would, I think, go a very long way. Of course, the budget states the general policy direction of the government but the rubber really hits the road when we see the budget implementation act.

I wonder if the member could just share with the House when we will see the changes that are referenced in the budget with respect to direction and control. When will we see them in a budget implementation act, what can we expect and when can we expect them?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have noted, our government supports the spirit of Bill S-216. I appreciate the member's comments about reducing red tape. I also look forward to the delivery in this house of the budget implementation act and am hopeful to be able to commence that work very soon.

The changes proposed in budget 2022 reflect the spirit of this bill by removing barriers to charities working in partnership with others, while including additional concrete accountability measures that both protect the integrity of the tax system and ensure that tax-assisted donations are used to support charitable activities at home and abroad.

My thanks for the opportunity to make this crystal clear for the benefit of my friend opposite, for all Canadians and for all members of the House.

Natural Resources

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to pursue, in Adjournment Proceedings, a question that I originally asked not that long ago, actually, on March 24. My question related to something we have debated in the House quite a lot, mostly on supply day motions of opposition parties. It is the notion that somehow Canada can step up and do more for Ukraine by producing more fossil fuels and exporting them. There are many fallacies in that proposition.

At the time, I directed my question to anyone on the government benches, but it was the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources who responded. I said the notion that we needed more pipelines was quite misguided and there was not any evidence for it, and when I posed my question, I noted that the International Energy Agency, which is an unquestioned expert on supply, price and sustainability of energy supplies, put forward a recommendation to reduce the use of oil daily by 2.7 million barrels. That 2.7 million barrels of oil a day could reduce the demand within the European Union. There are other quite simple things too. I mentioned some of them in the 10-point plan and asked if Canada would consider joining the European Union in implementing this 10-point plan.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, who happens to be the member for Toronto—Danforth, as there are a couple of parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Environment, was very positive in her response and said they are considering it, but did not actually suggest what we might do. That is why I wanted to pursue this in Adjournment Proceedings.

The world has paid a lot of attention to many things that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said since his country has been so cruelly and viciously attacked by Russia, but it has not paid a lot of attention to the things that President Zelenskyy has said about the climate crisis and his commitment to climate action. In other words, whenever we hear someone in Canada say that we need more pipelines, we need to produce more oil, we need to produce more gas and this is how we help Ukraine, that is not something the President of Ukraine, the extraordinarily courageous leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said.

In fact, on March 29, after the war had been raging for a month at that point and just as he came to us on Zoom and addressed this Parliament, President Zelenskyy addressed the Parliament of Denmark. These are statements that I think would be worth having on the record for people to consider in the Canadian Parliament. President Zelenskyy, in addressing the Danish Parliament, said, “Russian aggression against Ukraine and against everything on which life in Europe is built is an argument for accelerating the green transformation on the continent.” He went on to say, “long before this war, it was obvious that humanity should reduce the use of fossil fuels. The era of coal and oil has caused very serious damage to...our planet as a whole. Green technologies, green energy have become a logical and fair response to this challenge.”

If the European Union understands what needs to be done, the International Energy Agency understands what needs to be done, the Government of Ukraine understands what needs to be done and the Government of Germany understands, why is it that Canada is failing to understand that in the context of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the best way we can support Ukraine and President Zelenskyy is to go off fossil fuels as quickly as possible? It would mean no more Russian oil and no more oil.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the crisis in Europe and what that means to all of us. I know that Russia's brutal and illegal assault on Ukraine has affected her, as it has affected myself and many throughout our country. It is truly heartbreaking, and I think we have all felt that over the last number of days and weeks.

I want to highlight two matters that have been raised that led to tonight's discussion. She noted that one party in this chamber has been focusing very heavily on its belief for the need for more oil and gas production. Indeed, the official opposition seems to be implying that our government should respond to the crisis by abandoning large parts of our climate plan, a plan which is recognized as one of the most comprehensive in the world.

However, the member opposite is also focusing heavily on a specific part of the democratic world's response to Russian aggression. I am referring to her focus on the International Energy Agency's call for Europe to reduce its dependency on Russian gas by reducing demand. Though actions such as improved public transit, a more aggressive focus on energy efficiency and the expanded use of electric vehicles are all necessary and need to happen, the fact is we need a comprehensive approach.

First and foremost, we have to counter Putin's aggression by working with our allies to punish Russia with sweeping sanctions to provide Ukraine's heroic defenders with lethal and non-lethal military equipment, and to do everything we can to ease Europe's worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War.

We also need to do our part to deal with energy security, because right now Putin's war machine is being funded with profits from the sale of petroleum products to the European nations that depend upon them, especially for gas to heat their homes. Diversity is necessary. The energy agency's 10-point plan, which the member refers to, urges Europe to find new energy suppliers in order to reduce and ultimately end this dependency.

Canadian producers have responded by agreeing to increase production this year by up to 200,000 barrels of oil, and the equivalent of up to 100,000 barrels of gas. We will do this without compromising Canada's climate plan. We also support the agency's call for quicker action on reducing demand and finding alternative energy sources.

We encourage this, and in fact our government has a strategy that we hope will eventually make Canada an important hydrogen supplier to Europe. We also agree with the member that we have to act in the areas she has mentioned, and we have been doing just that by making large scale investments since 2016.

We are on the right track, and we will continue on that path.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the call for reducing demand for fossil fuel products is one that resonates for people in Ukraine. The call is for Canada to do the same, as much or more than our European Union colleagues.

They are ramping up the transition to 100% renewable energy. Contrary to what the hon. parliamentary secretary has said, Canada's plan is not recognized as one of the best in the world. Our record is one of the worst, and our targets are not aligned with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned us we must do.

I want to mention a Ukrainian activist who formed a group called Stand With Ukraine. Her name is Svitlana Romanko. She describes people who promote fossil fuel expansion while claiming it is to help Ukraine as “peace washing”, not “green washing”, but “peace washing”. She calls it out as something to justify fossil fuel expansion that is unforgivable.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some of the things that we are already doing.

Since 2016, we have pledged more than $10 billion towards decarbonizing homes and buildings, and encouraging energy efficient retrofits. We have also signalled to the auto industry and Canadians that, starting in 2035, all light-duty vehicles must be zero-emission. We are investing across Canada in charging stations. We are investing to fund charging infrastructure in suburban and remote communities.

In Vancouver, the TransLink has used the federal gas tax fund to help add 15 new battery-powered buses to its fleet. In Guelph, Ontario, we have invested $40 million to help the city replace diesel buses with electric ones. In Prince Edward Island, we are helping the province replace its 300 school buses with electric alternatives.

We are stepping up, and we are doing it aggressively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that everybody in this place would agree that lots of Canadians are really looking to us in this place to address the issue of the rising cost of living. Certainly one area where we have seen major increases in the cost of living is energy prices.

I would like to say that every Canadian wants Canada to do its part when it comes to ensuring that we have renewable energy and non-carbon-emitting energy. At the same time, the reality is that as much as the government wants to talk about investment in this and investment in that, what it has done is reduce Canada's capacity to produce energy to supply the demand for energy. Now that we are in a time of a global supply crunch, that means higher prices for Canadians when we have that resource here.

Again, I think it is wonderful that we are looking for ways both to produce Canadian energy sustainably and to ensure that we have all sorts of good ways to address climate change, but the reality is that many Canadians cannot afford to fill up their cars. For many Canadians, including in my community of Calgary Nose Hill, there are not public transit options available to them. When we look at the price of groceries with fuel as an input cost, those groceries are getting to people based on carbon-based energy.

We have to address the climate crisis, but at the same time, listening to a debate that ignores the fact that every Canadian needs carbon energy right now is so out of touch. The question should be how we are producing Canadian energy, which is some of the cleanest and most sustainably produced energy in the world, and meeting this need while looking at producing low-carbon, readily available, low-cost carbon alternatives such as public transit and all of these other good things. People in my community still need to fill up their cars. That is just the reality. Ignoring that reality really says that we, as a Parliament, are out of touch.

A while ago, the Americans went to Saudi Arabia and Iran to ask for increased production and exports to the United States to meet the U.S.'s increased demand issue and its supply issues. They did not come to Canada, and that was such a missed opportunity for our country. I had asked the government why the minister of trade had not really addressed this issue of why the Americans were going to these other countries as opposed to coming to Canada. We should be ensuring that we are producing Canadian energy and supplying it, not just to people in our country, to lower prices and reap the benefits, but also to have energy supply security on the North American continent. I just wonder whether the government has made any progress on this, given the increased costs of energy in Canada.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that there is no better supplier of responsibly produced oil and gas than Canada during this transition to a net-zero future. Why is that? It is simply because we have one of the strongest and most comprehensive climate plans in the world, a plan that is leading the way for the oil-producing nations around the world and certainly right here in Canada. Our plan is bold and is working, and it is in partnership with the industry, as the member knows. In fact, it is industry partners that have talked about placing a cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector, and as a government we have agreed and are working with them to look at those outcomes.

Companies representing a full 90% of Canada's oil sands production have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It is our job to work with the industry to get there, but it is also our job to help diversify our dependency on the oil and gas industry and look at different options that are more respectful of the climate and of the place we are developing and shaping together.

The member talked about our relationship with the United States. The fact is that there are no two countries in this world that share a highly integrated energy and economic relationship that is stronger than the one we have with the United States. We have more than 70 pipelines and nearly three dozen transmission lines that cross the borders between our two countries. That network helps make America our largest energy customer, with $100 billion in energy trade each year. There are always going to be projects that we may not agree on, and there are going to be moments when we will disagree in any relationship. However, at the end of the day, never undervalue the relationship we share as a country with the United States when it comes to the energy sector.

In saying all this, I also want to point out to the member that any transition we do in oil and gas in this country will include the protection of jobs and the protection of communities. We can transition to a safe and sustainable future for our children and as a country, and we can do so as a world leader. We can also do so while protecting the people who depend on those jobs, ensuring that they have skills and have a strong future in the country.

In terms of the affordability of gas, we all share that concern. I share it in my own riding and right across the north, an area that I represent in the House. It is a huge concern. However, the member knows that we are coming off a COVID crisis and we are in the middle of a Russian-Ukrainian war. The nature of the world has changed. It is the global picture and global impacts that are shaping the price of fuel at the pumps today, not anything that is directly happening in our Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is except for the fact that the Liberal government, prior to COVID, spent several years offshoring Canadian jobs to Iran and Saudi Arabia because it worked to shut down the energy sector. Can we imagine if the Keystone XL pipeline had actually been built and if the Prime Minister had actually gone out and advocated for it? Can we imagine if energy infrastructure had been put in place? We could have supplied ethical, cleanly produced energy to the world at a time when it needed it, and perhaps we would have seen lower demand. Some say it is a global problem, and it is a global problem. We could have been the solution, but the Liberals have really sat on their hands and tried to make things worse over the last few years.

I am just wondering if there has been a change in tone. I would like to know if my colleague, given her attachment to Newfoundland, will stand up and proudly support the Bay du Nord project and if she will also support the Keystone XL pipeline.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will support the Bay du Nord project. I lobbied our government very hard given the benefit of that particular development, only because I knew the project would be one of the lowest emitters of oil and gas emissions in the country and it was necessary. Our dependency on oil and gas is going to be around for the next two decades at least, and for us to transition off oil and gas, we will need to produce low-carbon oil and gas.

In terms of the XL pipeline, that was a decision of the Government of the United States. That was never a decision of our government. I noticed that Senator Manchin, when he was in Alberta a while ago, spoke to this issue, and we will see what happens. However, as it is right now, that was not a decision of the Government of Canada.

I think we need to understand that we are the single largest supplier of energy to the United States, and we know that it is important to be competitive no matter what energy sector it is.

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

I thank everybody for their interventions this evening.

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

(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)