Debates of Dec. 1st, 2023

Gender-Based Violence

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, this week we have begun marking 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The campaign started on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and will conclude on Human Rights Day, December 10. Unfortunately, we are too well aware that, every day in this country and around the world, women still face emotional, physical and psychological abuse. As a society, we have made progress, but so much more needs to be done.

What concrete action is the government taking to confront the threat—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler for speaking up for women everywhere.

We take the issue of gender-based violence very seriously and have implemented more supports for victims, for survivors and their families, supports for violence prevention and a more responsive justice system, and indigenous-led approaches to challenges faced by indigenous women and girls. We have brought forward responsible firearms safety measures, including red- and yellow-flag gun laws. We know there is more to do, but we are committed to making sure we end gender-based violence.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, something is rotten in the CRA. Following a phone call from Deloitte to a senior official at CRA, it gave a company $63 million in tax rebates that are being referred to as “illegitimate”. The CRA was auditing the company in question, yet it took less than 24 hours after a phone call from a powerful accounting firm to not only make the problem go away but also give away millions of dollars of Canadians' money.

The minister needs to come clean. How many audits have they cancelled at Deloitte's request, who else has this kind of power and why are the Liberals not ensuring tax fairness at a time when Canadians are struggling?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleagues that the decisions made at the Canada Revenue Agency are administrative decisions, and they are made following the same rules that apply to everyone.

Obviously, as everyone knows, I cannot comment on a specific case. I can guarantee that the CRA remains independent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have a document that I am asking for unanimous consent to table. In essence, it states, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on BillC-57”, which is the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, “and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.”

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have here an article from the Journal de Montréal related to a question that was raised during question period—

[Some hon. members]

No.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24”.

Public Accounts

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Tuesday, May 17, 2022, be concurred in.

It is always a pleasure to be here, and I will say, if I am allowed to make this observation to the Chair, that question period was well run. It kept people on time.

Today I am going to talk about something incredibly important to the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and those across Canada. We are talking about protecting Canada's food system. This report was concurred in when I was on the fabulous public accounts committee. Unfortunately, I have moved on to the finance committee, but I very much enjoyed my time on public accounts.

We are talking about something near and dear to my heart, which is food security. Of course, food security is always an issue, but it was highlighted during the great pandemic years, when Canadians were reliant on food and we saw, unfortunately, shortages in our grocery stores. It was not too long ago, even though in some ways it seems like a lifetime ago, that grocery stores were short on food.

It is incredibly important that we have food security in our country. One of the issues that will drive that is, of course, the carbon tax. The carbon tax is raising the cost of food. It is also driving food production offshore.

There are those in the House who may have been here back in 2019 when I was elected. I found out early on in my time as an MP, in 2019, that I had won the lottery. I remember a staffer coming to me and saying, “Mr. Lawrence, you won the lottery.” Of course, I had no idea what that meant at the time, but it meant that I had won the PMB lottery. I actually got number six.

We then had a very difficult decision to make, as there were lots of things that needed to be changed in 2019, and even more now in 2023, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, which is certainly not worth the cost. Our team did a search of various issues. Of course, a large portion of the Northumberland—Peterborough South economy is agriculture, so our farmers came to us and said the carbon tax was killing them. They presented me with bills for tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax. That was back when the carbon tax was a lot lower than it is now, when it was only $20 a tonne. Now it is headed up to $80 a tonne next year. To everyone at home, that is quadruple what the current carbon tax is. We then said to farmers that they were right and we needed to provide relief. We would have loved to just axe the tax in a private member's bill, but that is not permissible because of the limited scope of a private member's bill.

I was told I have to split my time. I was hoping to have a lot more time to speak here, because food security is important and critical. My mentor from Winnipeg North has taught me the incredible importance of brevity in this House, but I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Calgary Shepard.

Farmers came to us and said the carbon tax was killing them, because not only is it potentially making them globally uncompetitive, but there are many markets where they simply cannot pass that cost on. The challenge is that it is making their farms unprofitable. In the system of capitalism we have, if their farms or businesses are not profitable, they simply cannot continue them.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 31, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Public Accounts

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South may continue with his speech. I would remind him that under the rules of the House, members may not name members, including themselves.

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to try to speak French. In the future, I hope to do an entire speech in French.

For today I will continue in English.

In 2019, we started a journey to remove the carbon tax on farmers. Our farmers said that it did not make sense to them that diesel and dirtier fuels were exempt for farmers but natural gas and propane were not. Propane's carbon footprint is considerably less, fully 50% less, than that of diesel.

Here was my naïveté coming into 2019, which was not far from 2015, when we were hearing things like “sunny ways” and “open by default”. I thought the Liberals probably made a mistake, that it was probably a drafting error. I was positive that once I brought it to their attention, they would say, “We do not want our farmers to be suffering. We have that one farmer in Milton, so we need to take care of this.” I thought, in my naïveté, that when I would bring this to their attention, they would say we would not even need to pass legislation; they would fix it in their next budget. However, somehow that did not happen.

We therefore brought it forward, and members will not believe this, but we got the support of the Green Party. We got the support of the NDP. We got the support of environmental activists; they were on our side. They realized that propane is cleaner than diesel, so why would we give an exemption to diesel but not propane?

The Liberal logic world is a very muddled place, because we then found out that they doubled down. Instead of providing an exemption on home heating with natural gas, which is way cleaner than oil, they gave an exemption to oil. It boggles the mind. The logic behind the carbon tax is to put a cost on fuels with a higher carbon intensity to reduce their usage. If that is true, they should be making it go up eight or 10 times on fuel, but they know it is not true. The logic behind Bill C-234, which is in the Senate right now, is that if we give farmers an exemption and give them control of their resources, they will make the right decisions. They will invest in the technologies that will clean our planet.

This ham-fisted stick-before-carrot approach of the carbon tax has been proven to not only increase costs but also increase global emissions, because it drives production, whether it be in a factory or on a farm, off clean Canadian energy and into coal-producing jurisdictions around the world. This is the ultimate in greenwashing. There is no bigger greenwashing tool than the carbon tax, because it moves farms and factories to Guangdong province, where, instead of being powered by clean Canadian hydro power in Quebec or Winnipeg or by natural gas in Alberta, they are powered by coal.

We are raising worldwide emissions because of the carbon tax. Instead of energy being produced here in Canada in a clean, sustainable way, we are exporting it. Worst of all, we are impoverishing ourselves to do it. Instead of having paycheques going to workers in our clean Canadian energy sector, those paycheques are going to Dubai. What is going on in Dubai? I believe they are in an air-conditioned dome in the middle of the desert. Can we get any more ironic than that? The fossil fuels they are burning will somehow reduce the amount of fossil fuels. The hypocrisy has no end with the Liberals.

Bill C-234 needs to be passed. Even if someone is a wholehearted believer in the carbon tax, Bill C-234 gives equity to our farmers. It does not matter if members are in the Green Party or the NDP. We all agree, except for the Liberals, that farmers deserve a break.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, only one thing is happening here, and Canadians should take note.

This morning, on the Order Paper, we were scheduled to debate once again the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and once again, Conservatives have used a procedural tactic to slow down the process. The member should be absolutely ashamed for what he and all Conservatives are doing right now. He needs to come clean and tell Canadians why he does not support Ukraine and why his leader does not support Ukraine. They need to stop slowing the process down and start doing the responsible thing: stand up for Ukraine and stop telling Ukraine what it needs. I think Ukraine has heard enough of what Conservatives have to say about what it needs.

It is time for Conservatives to start listening to Ukraine, to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and to do the right thing: allow us to debate the free trade agreement and get to a vote.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike in Putin's Russia, this is not a dictatorship. We still get to vote and to have the ability to work in Parliament. Liberals do not get to decide everything.

Conservatives support Ukraine. That is why we are going to send them arms and not a carbon tax.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating was moved by the Conservatives. It is very obvious and unfortunate that it is an attempt to block a debate on the free trade agreement with Ukraine that is supposed to be taking place, an agreement New Democrats support.

There is a terrible situation going on in Europe, and I would hope we could get to a point in the chamber where partisanship can take a back seat to the realities facing our planet. This is a serious issue. There are warmongers on the loose, attacking countries like Ukraine, an ally of ours.

Simultaneous to that, the member, whom I respect deeply, knows exactly what is taking place here and what his party is doing, which is blocking the debate. I sincerely ask the member to sympathize with Ukrainians for a moment and realize how important the bill truly is to them. Can the member please speak to Ukrainians about why Conservatives are doing this?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely understand. That is why we want to send fuel, energy and arms, not the carbon tax, to Ukraine.

The carbon tax and food insecurity are important in my riding. There are people lining up at food banks because the cost of food is so high, so I resent the member's saying that it is not important. Food insecurity is important. If he does not believe it, he should come to Cobourg and see the food bank.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. There is something about agriculture that fascinates me. Why are we not focusing on local distribution channels? Obviously, my Conservative colleague will say that, if we focus on local distribution channels, we will be spending less money on transportation and using less oil, and that is not good for that industry.

I think that, when it comes to agriculture, the solution is to promote local production, local distribution channels and buying local through investments near farms and investments in agricultural cities and towns, so that we can process food, especially in slaughterhouses. That would cut down on the cost of fuel to ship these agri-food products to the five continents.

How can we focus on that? Does my colleague have a recommendation on local distribution?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree.

We do need to focus on local farming. In my riding, there are some great farmers' markets in Port Hope and Cobourg. People driving from Toronto to Ottawa, or maybe people from Quebec who want to go to Toronto, though Quebec is beautiful and I do not know why anybody would want to leave Quebec, should come to my riding and stop at the Port Hope market or the Cobourg market from 9 o'clock to 12 o'clock on Saturday mornings.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see someone from the Bloc in the position of representing all of Canada and our main democracy. I know that the member supports that above everything else.

In this year's public accounts, there is $3.5 billion in losses by the Bank of Canada, and this year it is projecting $3.9 billion in losses. I wonder whether my colleague could tell us some of the things we could help Canadians with instead of Bank of Canada losses.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have billions of dollars going to the Bank of Canada, by the way. Only the Canadian government could lose money selling drugs and running a bank. That is money that could go to health care, to education and to helping the most vulnerable.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Shepard.

This is the 14th report of the Public Accounts committee, a committee I got to chair briefly. I know that there are other members here who have had the honour of chairing that committee as well. It is one of the most interesting committees to be on because it is one that deals very closely with the Auditor General and with their reports.

For constituents back home, the 14th report is an audit of several government programs, and I see five of them, that account for hundreds of millions of dollars, and of how the money is spent. All of these programs deal with input costs and how the government is trying to offset the high cost of certain grocery products available in the aisles. The report accounts for how, in this particular case, the programs try to provide reasonably, affordably priced groceries for people who are trying to purchase them.

For weeks now, we have been talking about Bill C-234, which is now stuck in the Senate because Liberal-appointed senators will not lead it to a vote so it can be passed after the House has already spoken. I have always been taken by the argument, made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, that Bill C-234 is a spending bill. The House has Standing Orders, and there is a long constitutional tradition that, when we pass spending bills in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, the other place, does not have the right to continuously block it; it has to pass those types of bills.

In a private member's bill, we cannot pass new taxation but we can do a carve-out, and Bill C-234 would do a carve out. There is already a carve-out that was, by the Liberal government's own admission, created by the government for individuals with heating oil—