House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, it is truly disappointing to see this. We are ready to work for Canadians. We were ready to stay here until midnight to discuss important issues for Canadians to get the relief the Conservatives have been demanding. They have been saying that Canadians need relief on inflation, yet here is an opportunity to debate that. Here is an opportunity to get that relief to Canadians faster on a bill that they support, but they would rather play parliamentary games than help Canadians. That is a shame.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak ti the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which proposes changes to the Food and Drugs Act to better protect our children from the harms of food advertising and, ultimately, the health implications associated with unhealthy eating.

Healthy eating is a key priority for our government. It is for that reason we have worked since 2016 to implement a robust set of initiatives through the healthy eating strategy. The strategy has been the cornerstone of our plan to promote healthy eating for all Canadians, including and very importantly, our young ones. This plan has led to action on a number of fronts, from releasing a new and modernized Canada Food Guide, prohibiting the commercial use of trans fats in food, updating sodium reduction targets and, most recently, publishing new front-of-package labelling regulations to provide simplified and easily visible information to help Canadians make informed and healthy choices. These policies are having, and will have, real and tangible impacts, but promoting healthy eating is a complex and ongoing effort, and we cannot stop here.

Members will know that our government has made clear our commitment to protecting our most vulnerable populations by supporting restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children. The sad reality is that the current food environment continues to pose real challenges for families in being able to make nutritious food choices, including the impact on children by food marketing techniques. This is why our government believes in demonstrating strong leadership in this area. Our actions are guided by the recognition that a healthy population is key to reducing vulnerabilities at public health events and protecting our health care system. In addition, a healthy population is central to the long-term growth and prosperity of Canadians today and well into the future.

I am pleased that a number of my colleagues in the House share our government's concern about childhood obesity, diet-related chronic disease and the risks to long-term health, and rightly so. We know that one of the consequences of unhealthy eating is chronic disease, which is on the rise. Diet-related chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, are now a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada, and most concerning is that these diseases are starting to affect children.

Obesity, although a multifactorial condition, is influenced by a range of factors, including environmental and individual factors. Diets with excess intakes of sodium, sugars and saturated fat are a key risk factor linked to obesity and other diet-related diseases. Studies have shown that most children in Canada are consuming excess amounts of some or all three of these nutrients. Given what we know about the number of interconnected factors that influence our diet, our government believes in taking a comprehensive approach to tackling the issue, and food advertising is an area of high priority.

Research has shown us that of all age groups, children are particularly vulnerable to food advertising. Food advertising influences their attitudes, preferences, purchase requests, consumption patterns and overall health. The more children are exposed to food advertising, the more likely they are to request those foods. In Canada, children are exposed to food advertising throughout their day in a variety of settings, including in their homes, schools, restaurants and grocery stores.

Unsurprisingly, television has long been an important source of exposure to food advertising. Despite our change in technology and media-consumption habits, it continues to contribute significantly to children's exposure. In fact, data collected through Health Canada's monitoring estimates that children between the ages of two and 11 are seeing up to 33 food ads per week on television.

The popularity of smart phones, tablets, computers and other devices has also made it easier for advertisers to reach children and amplify their messaging. A study published in 2019 estimated that children in Canada aged seven to 11 saw approximately 30 food ads per week on social media apps alone. The vast majority of these ads were for foods that contain excess sodium, sugars, and saturated fats. In fact, more than 90% of them did.

Advertisers typically employ strategies that strongly appeal to children, such as featuring characters from children's programs and movies, offering incentives like free toys and featuring celebrities, athletes and influencers popular with children.

Not only that, the emergence of sophisticated digital advertising technology over the last decade has enabled industry to reach specific audiences with precision, and children are no exception. Digital advertisers are able to analyze, access and utilize a wealth of data to increase the reach and effectiveness of their advertisements, including users' interests, location, demographics, information, emotional state and much more.

These advances are further exacerbating the need for government to step in and help children make healthier eating decisions by restricting food advertising directed at them. Restricting the advertising of certain foods to children is not a novel idea. Over the years, public health experts and advocacy organizations have continued to tell us that government intervention is required to protect children in Canada.

When looking at our counterparts internationally, many countries have already taken action or are currently moving to restrict food advertising to children to protect this vulnerable segment of the population. We recognize the truly global aspect of this issue. It is paramount that we do more to protect our children from the influence of food advertisers.

Beyond the very obvious health benefits, there is a very strong economic imperative for doing everything we can to promote healthy diets. We anticipate Canada's life expectancy will be reduced by three years due to excess weight and obesity by 2050. The economic burden of obesity is also significant. The OECD reported that obesity accounted for 10.6% of all Canadian health expenditures and is one of the highest rates of all countries analyzed.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Obesity Federation estimated that the economic burden of diet-related chronic diseases, obesity and other modifiable risk factors at $26.7 billion per year, rising to $33.7 billion per year by 2025. Overall, the evidence is crystal clear. Obesity and diet-related chronic diseases lead to decreased life expectancy, increased economic hardship, lower educational and employment outcomes and decreased labour force productivity.

Our government is committed to promoting healthy eating and supporting Canadians in making healthier food choices. If we recognize the need to take action now and prevent disease in the future, generations of Canadians will remain productive members of society and enjoy good health. The bill would help limit the undue influence of advertising that makes healthy eating a challenge for families and their children.

There is one point that I would like to address that a previous member brought up, in terms of the concern for advertisers, the concern for sponsorships. It took me back to a time when the government was considering banning smoking and tobacco advertisers on various events, like jazz festivals and races, and that these events would disappear. This is going back decades, when members of Parliament stood up at the time and said that we needed to keep smoking advertisements on events that are marketed to children, because it is good for these events and they would disappear if those advertisements disappeared.

Those advertisements disappeared in the name of public health, and those activities still remained.

Using children's sports as a means to knock down this legislation is truly shocking. The sponsorship opportunities will continue to be there, as they were when this place debated tobacco advertising years ago.

I truly hope that all members of the House will come together and do what is right for our kids. I see it first-hand. The advertisements my kids see on YouTube and other platforms lead to the choices they want to make and where they want to go and, “Dad, can we go here?” We need to do better. We need to do better for them. We need to do better for all Canadians.

I hope all members of the House support the bill.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

I want to, respectfully, just draw your attention to an exchange that I had with the Speaker on June 9 of this year. The context was that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul sought unanimous consent for a motion and was cut off in the middle by the Speaker because of a number of nays.

I asked the Speaker, “Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the process. Is it your ruling going forward that if a member is saying 'no', you will stop the reading of the motion? I think we have had cases where some members were saying 'no' and yet the member continued with the unanimous consent motion.”

The Speaker ruled as follows. He said, “In fact, I have been getting this from both sides. Both government and opposition members have been asking for that exact type of behaviour, rather than let it all go through. Sometimes unanimous consent motions are used as a method of getting a message across, but that is what S.O. 31s are for. If we can just shift everything over, we can use it that way. We will do our best to make that happen.”

Given the precedent set and given the cutting off of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on June 9, I ask that this be taken into consideration in future moments like this.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

That was not a ruling from the Speaker. I maintain what I said: It was a recommendation by the Speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.

What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.

We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.

We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.

For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.

That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.

Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:

States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.

To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”

Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.

I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”

We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.

Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;

The preamble then continues:

And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;

This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.

When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.

The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.

I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.

To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is rising on a point of order.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Madam Speaker, I ask that the House give unanimous consent to support the Province of Saskatchewan's environmental plan. Saskatchewan's plan mirrors the plan of other provinces that the Liberal government has accepted. Therefore, based on fair and equal treatment of provinces within the dominion of Canada, Saskatchewan's plan should be accepted and approved by the government of the day.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has three minutes for his speech.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, currently, more than half of Quebeckers are overweight, and 18% are obese. Obesity affects 6% of 12- to 17-year-olds and 17% of 18- to 24-year-olds. These statistics show that, for some people, obesity sets in early in life.

We have to take this problem seriously, but what can we do? Schools, public places and workplaces need to make it easy for everyone, young and old, to make healthy choices when it comes to being physically active, eating properly and, most importantly, limiting their consumption of sugary drinks.

Why I am pointing the finger at sugary drinks? It is because the total number of people living with diabetes has doubled since 2000.

The science shows that being overweight and especially being obese increases the risk of developing chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and certain cancers. The health care cost of obesity is estimated to be nearly $3 billion, not to mention the effects of sugar and acidic drinks on oral health, which might also render the NDP-Liberal agreement useless.

That said, according to Quebec's Weight Coalition, advertising directed at children has a significant economic impact for the industry. We know that children have economic power because they influence almost 40% of family purchases. Since 2006, Canadian children have spent close to $3 billion in allowance money. They are more vulnerable to advertising. They may not yet have the ability to recognize the commercial nature of advertising. Above all, advertising builds brand loyalty among current and future consumers.

I would like to commend all those who have overcome, for example, their addiction to Diet Pepsi, which is one of the most difficult things to do. In particular, I want to commend my girlfriend.

In conclusion, we must protect children from marketing. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, provided that the provinces, like Quebec, have full jurisdiction. There must be clear, informative labelling to counteract the appealing colours, imagery and characters used in the ads. Food labelling must be clearer, and that is a federal jurisdiction. We propose mandatory labelling of foods and products like GMOs. This should not be left up to businesses. The federal government must introduce a traceability program to properly inform consumers and to promote buying local.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-252, known as the child health protection act, which aims to help the youngest and most impressionable Canadians maintain and improve their health by restricting the advertisement of certain foods to them. I am confident that hon. members in this chamber can agree on the harms that diets with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats can have on the health of Canadians.

Research has shown time and again that unhealthy diets with excessive consumption of these nutrients of concern are linked to a higher lifetime risk of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and other chronic diseases. We also know that developing healthy eating habits early in life is important to help protect children from developing these health problems in adulthood.

Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on food advertising in Canada by the food and beverage industry. Evidence shows that food advertising strongly influences children's food preferences and consumption patterns. Children in Canada are exposed to thousands of food advertisements every year across their daily settings and, unfortunately, most of these ads are for foods that contain excess sodium, sugar or saturated fats.

Opportunities to advertise to children have expanded with television and digital media. Children today are more digitally connected than ever before. Their screen time has increased and advertising directly to them has become easier. Tackling chronic diseases and maintaining public health is a whole-of-society issue and everyone has a role to play.

Since 2007, some of the largest food and beverage companies in Canada have been self-regulating certain types of food advertising to children. Recognizing that the current self-regulatory initiative did not go far enough, some industry associations have recently introduced a code. The code outlines criteria that the food and beverage industry will use to determine which advertisements are considered primarily directed at children, and it is the same industry that will determine the nutrient criteria in order to assess which foods are subject to the self-regulatory restrictions.

Although the proposed code is a step forward, it clearly demonstrates that the industry acknowledges the health consequences that food advertising can have on children. However, let us be clear. We know that voluntary codes are not enough to tackle and solve the issue. The first challenge of solely relying on industry self-regulation is simply that they are voluntary in nature. This allows restaurants, food companies and advertisers to abstain from signing on or simply to withdraw their adhesion at their convenience.

Also, criteria used for these codes often omit to stipulate important advertising techniques, tactics and sources of exposure that are known to appeal to and/or influence children. There is also a lack of transparency in the enforcement of these codes with no enforceable sanctions for non-compliance and, more importantly, it does not provide an independent monitoring.

It is clear from experience that self-regulatory initiatives do not go far enough to safeguard the health of our children. Canada's experience with industry-led self-regulatory initiatives have been similar to those of the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Spain. Research in each of these jurisdictions has clearly shown that self-regulatory marketing codes have limited impacts in curtailing children's exposure to the marketing of food and beverage products. Consequently, the U.K. and Spain are pursuing new mandatory restrictions following the observed limited impact of self-regulatory initiatives. This government agrees and believes industry self-regulation is not enough to protect children from being exposed to the harmful and incessant advertising of certain foods.

The Minister of Health's mandate includes a commitment to protect vulnerable populations, including our children, from a range of harms, such as the stream of commercial messaging and endorsements that trigger the most basic eating instincts, especially for foods containing excess levels of sodium, sugars and saturated fats. Supporting Bill C-252 is well aligned with this commitment and will help address many of the shortcomings of the current landscape of the industry-led self-regulating codes.

Our children, just like the one that is in the gallery with us today, are our priority and concrete action is needed now in order to ensure that they are not subject to and do not succumb to the aggressive advertising of foods that contain excess levels of nutrients of concern and that pose unnecessary risks to their health and the health of future generations.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

Child Health Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, today in the House, the Conservatives put forward a motion with a simple ask of the government: to recognize the harm being done to Canadians by the government's high tax, high borrowing, high spending, high inflation agenda, and to stop the damage by committing to reverse planned tax hikes, which are scheduled to take effect automatically next year. We have been very clear. The Conservatives are calling on the government to stop these automatic tax changes.

In particular, tonight I want to focus on the issue of the carbon tax, because there has been so much, dare I say, misinformation from the government around the carbon tax and around the actual record on the environment.

Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary misstated the record by implying that emissions went up under the previous government. Actually, emissions went down under the previous government. In every single jurisdiction across this country, emissions either went down or went up by less than they had in the previous decade.

A carbon tax is not necessary, and what we are seeing with the government is it is not effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Liberals continue to double down on a failing strategy. They have said that raising taxes is somehow an environmental plan, and when it is shown not to work, when they are missing their environmental targets, their solution is even more taxes.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. On the issue of a so-called environmental plan, the government thinks that if its current taxes have not worked to achieve environmental objectives, it is going to pile more and more taxes on and expect a different result. Projections from various corners are that this carbon tax is going triple under the government, and Canadians simply cannot afford that.

As a basic show of good faith, the government should listen to Canadians. It should listen to premiers, and not only Conservatives premiers. There is even a Liberal premier who is saying that now is not the time for the government's planned carbon tax hikes to go ahead.

I mentioned in my previous questions the way that the carbon tax hike, these scheduled tax increases and the crisis they are causing regarding inflation and affordability are threatening national unity. There are deep divisions in this country, and understandably, because many Canadians have lost their jobs and many Canadians are struggling to pay for basic necessities such as groceries, gas and home heating fuel. Those Canadians are increasingly frustrated by the fact that the government is not listening, does not seem to care and is in fact putting in place automatic tax increases that would make it even harder in the future for them to afford their basic necessities.

This is causing a national unity crisis. This is causing further deepening divisions within our country. The government is simply failing to listen and respond.

The first step the government needs to take is to recognize this reality. We are calling on the government to support our proposal, which is to immediately reverse the planned automatic tax increases, the scheduled tax increases for next year, that the government has said it is going to put forward. We are calling on the government to stop this, to give Canadians the relief they are asking for, to start allowing our country to heal and to start allowing Canadians to see hope and opportunity so they will actually be able to afford their basic necessities.

There is more we need to do, of course, to make life more affordable, but a first step would be for the government to stop the damage and stop increasing taxes.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Burnaby North—Seymour B.C.

Liberal

Terry Beech LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, through you, I wish to give virtual greetings to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

We are seeing higher inflation rates and higher costs of living around the world as a result of many factors, which include the war in Ukraine; global supply chain bottlenecks, in large part due to the pandemic; and, global energy market uncertainty. That being said, inflation in Canada, at 7%, has slowed and is now more than one percentage point below its June peak; moreover, it is lower here than among many of our peers, such as the United States at 8.3%, United Kingdom at 9.9% and Germany at 7.9%.

Elevated inflation is not a unique Canadian problem, but we are uniquely positioned to deal with it. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a AAA credit rating, and according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada will have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 both this year and next. This means we can build a comprehensive affordability plan for Canadians while continuing to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Our affordability plan is a suite of targeted inflation-relief measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support for those Canadians who need it the most. This is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. We know that the pandemic has been a major shock to the economic livelihoods of Canadians and Canadian businesses, and we know that recent global events have pushed us even further. It is important that we address these challenges while not adding further fuel to the inflationary fire.

Let us be absolutely clear. The suite of measures that comprise our affordability plan will support Canadians without increasing inflation. Many economists, including the former deputy parliamentary budget office, University of Calgary's Lindsay Tedds and Alberta economist Trevor Tombe, have all agreed that this support package for Canadians is non-inflationary.

Let us now turn to fighting climate change and our national price on pollution. First, fighting climate change is an absolute necessity for the future of our planet, and let us also acknowledge that the effects of climate change are also an inflationary pressure on our economy. It is well known that having a national price on pollution is a highly effective market mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while making life more affordable for the majority of Canadians.

Through debates all this session, Conservatives have tried to correlate the massive increase in the price of gas with the federal carbon price. This is simply not true. In 2019, the carbon price was approximately nine cents per litre in British Columbia. Today, it is 11¢ per litre. That means that although gas prices have increased by more than a dollar per litre, only two cents of that increase can be attributed to the price of pollution in B.C. over the last three years. Further to that, because the carbon price in British Columbia is provincially administered, if the federal carbon price were eliminated, as the Conservatives are suggesting and the member opposite is suggesting, this would result in zero savings for residents of British Columbia. Instead, it would simply mean that other jurisdictions, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, would do less to fight climate change.

In jurisdictions like Alberta and Saskatchewan where the federal carbon price is in place, it is important to know that approximately 90% of directed proceeds are directly returned to residents and that the fee is revenue neutral to the federal government. Further, with the climate action incentive, carbon pricing actually makes life more affordable for 80% of Canadian households.

I hope that the member opposite will share this information with his colleagues and convince his caucus to go back to supporting carbon pricing, as those members previously did, less than 12 months ago.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has entirely missed the point. Higher taxes are not an environmental plan. They have not worked, and the government members think that even further increasing taxes is going to somehow achieve a different result. It will not.

Let me put to the member something that is very obvious. Even proponents of carbon taxes generally admit it, and that is that the very purpose of a carbon tax is to increase the price of gas. That is why the people who support it, support it. They say it would be better if we had a higher price of gas because it would deter people from driving. That is the argument for it.

The member says that it is totally incidental to the carbon tax policy that there happens to be higher gas prices, but that is the point of the policy. Of course there are other inputs to the price of gas, but the price of gas would be lower if the government were not intentionally increasing it through a carbon tax that has as its very purpose the increase of the price of gas. This is obvious, and when everybody admits—

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The parliamentary secretary.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC

Madam Speaker, the government does understand that Canadians are feeling the effects of elevated inflation. They feel it particularly at the gas pump and when they reach for items at the grocery store. I would encourage all Canadians to read or listen to my previous speech to fully understand the Liberal plan to fight inflation, to make life more affordable and to grow an economy that works for everyone. Canadians can count on us to continue supporting them through this inflationary crisis while remaining prudent fiscal managers.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Madam Speaker, on April 28 I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship how I should respond to constituents who are experiencing severe delays in processing immigration applications and the pause on express entry draws. People have had to put their lives and careers on hold as they wait for rescue from IRCC purgatory.

The government, four months after my question, was finally embarrassed enough to take some action to address the then over three million backlog, and the minister announced a 10-point plan on August 24, but sadly it was just more smoke and mirrors.

It has been over a month now since the plan was announced, and let us look at the numbers. As of the end of July, over 50%, over half of applications in IRCC’s inventory were considered backlogged. Let us put that percentage into context: There are 2.4 million total applications in all IRCC inventories, with 1.3 million cases exceeding the IRCC's own service standards. Is this what amounts to progress?

Moreover, the government has set a 20% backlog target. This is no game. The government is dealing with people’s lives and its continued failure has real consequences for the highly skilled foreign workers we need, who are being left in limbo. The government's continued failure is hurting our nation’s businesses as we face a labour shortage, and it has real financial and business implications for our nation’s economic prosperity.

If the government thinks it is worthy of a gold star for doing its job of processing applications while also accepting a 20% backlog, its members are simply delusional. Failing at 20% is still failure. Worst of all, the government is projected to not even meet its own target of failing at 20%.

Citizenship applications are projected to fall shy of the target, with a 25% backlog by December of this year. Temporary resident applications will continue to experience the highest level of backlogs by year end, and work permits, in particular, will face even more severe backlogs. The projected backlog for these applications is listed at 60% by December, which is an over 30% increase from current levels. The government has been failing Canadians and immigrants. It moved the goalposts in the hopes of making it appear like it was making progress, and is even failing to meet its new targets of only failing at 20%.

Given this, can the parliamentary secretary provide the millions who are waiting some glimmer of hope of their applications being processed in their lifetime? Let us not forget either the quagmire of Afghani refugees or indeed the Ukrainians. They have yet to see the government acting in a timely fashion to bring in the numbers that it promised to bring in. Some observers, looking at all of this information, would strongly suggest that the minister not take up archery as a hobby, because it is clear he cannot hit any target.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Orléans Ontario

Liberal

Marie-France Lalonde LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Madam Speaker, I am happy about the questions, because I hope they are going to help my hon. colleague to maybe answer some of his constituents and give me the chance to talk here about the accomplishments the government has achieved to strengthen and expand our immigration and refugee system.

As I hope the member for Spadina—Fort York is aware, the pandemic presented challenges to our immigration program that had not been seen before. Actually, the government has taken action to reduce wait times, expand online services and provide better information to clients on their applications, all to provide better services to Canadians. Our plan is working: Canada was able to achieve record-setting admissions of permanent residents.

In 2021, we set a record, bringing in more than 405,000 new permanent residents. Our goal for 2022 is to bring in 431,000 permanent residents, and we are on track to reach that goal, with about 309,000 admissions between January 1 and August 31. Never before have we brought in that many people that fast.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, also issued more than 199,000 work permits in 2021. This year, we issued over 349,000 work permits between January 1 and July 31, compared to approximately 112,000 permits issued during the same period last year. That includes over 220,000 open work permits. Every day, these work permits enable up to 1,700 new people to come work in Canada and contribute to our economic growth.

Canada is also a destination of choice for foreign students. In 2021, IRCC finalized nearly 560,000 applications for study permits, breaking the previous record set in 2019 by 31%. This year, IRCC is on track to break that record too, having finalized nearly 452,000 study permits between January 1 and August 31, 2022, compared to 367,000 permits during the same period in 2021. That is a 23% increase.

We have also taken actions to support those already here. We have extended post-graduation work permits for recent international graduates. Those whose permits have already expired are eligible for an additional open-work permit of 18 months.

The government has invested to improve processing. By the end of this year, we will have added up to 1,250 new staff to increase processing capacity. Also, some of our new system improvements are already increasing efficiency, with more coming to make processes more sustainable in the long term. The government is committed to providing regular progress on reducing inventories and delays. This is why IRCC publishes monthly updates on its website.

This all demonstrates that our immigration system is returning to its previous activity and will again achieve Canada's proud standard of welcoming immigrants and refugees.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Madam Speaker, here we go again. It is more smoke and mirrors. When is the government going to stop blaming the pandemic? It did all of these actions that the parliamentary secretary mentioned, yet we still have 2,583,827 people in the backlog as of the end of August. The proof is in the pudding and this pudding is 20% bad, or at least that we know of, because we know there are higher backlogs in other streams. We are not getting the full story and the government is not doing a full job. We are clearly headed for a backlog iceberg and the department is the Titanic.

When are we going to see a government capable of conducting an immigration system for this country, instead of a litany of failures, excuses and band-aid solutions?

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON

Madam Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has been working hard to improve processing times for all applications since the beginning of the pandemic.

We have hired more staff and implemented new systems to process applications more quickly. We will have hired 1,250 people by the end of the year to process more applications for temporary and permanent residence.

We are well on our way to reaching our historic immigration levels again this year with approximately 309,200 admissions from January to August 31, a number reached faster than any previous year. This year, we have already issued over 350,000 new work permits, meaning that up to 1,700 new people are able to come to work in Canada every day and help grow our economy.

We believe that, by hiring more staff and modernizing our immigration system, we can get back to our processing service standards by the end of this year.