Debates of March 30th, 2023

Democratic Institutions

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Chinese interference. In the budget, the government is creating a new scheme, the national counter-foreign interference office.

By doing so, the Prime Minister is confirming that all the committees, expert panels and robust measures he has been talking about for weeks do not work, and he knows it. He is proving that his government was duped by China in the last two elections, and he knows it.

Does this not prove that we need an independent public commission of inquiry?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we will never tolerate any form of foreign interference into our democracy and internal affairs.

That is why, through budget 2023, we are providing $48.9 million to the RCMP to protect Canadians from harassment and intimidation, engage with communities at greater risk of being targeted and establish a national counter-foreign interference office. In a robust Indo-Pacific strategy, we have provided more capabilities to our security agencies to deal with any form of foreign interference by any country.

We will always defend our democracy.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the independence of the special rapporteur. The Prime Minister does not need him in order to take action. The proof is that he did not wait for his recommendations to create his national office. He is dictating the findings of the rapporteur before the rapporteur even gets a chance to speak, and he is adding that to the budget. Hello independence.

The special rapporteur and this new national office are constructs invented by the Prime Minister and under the control of the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister wants to use them to his benefit and the Prime Minister wants to control the information. Those are the facts.

Quebeckers are no fools. They want an independent public inquiry.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to public safety, it is absolutely essential during debates to rely on facts. Certainly, Mr. Johnston's independence is unmistakable. He is a former governor general of Canada, someone appointed by Prime Minister Harper. He has clearly demonstrated throughout his career that he is here for Canada. No doubt, this will still hold true in this instance.

Public Safety

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today's report from the Mass Casualty Commission identified myriad failures. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. Nova Scotians paid for the many failures in policing.

For years, we have had recommendations to fix these problems, which have been ignored by the government. The report also clearly identifies the link between gender-based violence and this horrific mass killing.

Tonight, hundreds of women and children will be looking for shelter from violence, and they will not have anywhere to go. Will the government provide urgent funding to ensure that all those fleeing violence have a safe place to stay tonight?

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

Mr. Speaker, today is a difficult day for the families and communities in Nova Scotia. All MPs in this House are thinking about them and holding them in their hearts.

This morning was the release of the Mass Casualty Commission's report. We will be considering and carefully reviewing the recommendations in the report. We will also be working with the provinces, territories and civil organizations, including those that deal with gender-based violence, in order to respond to the recommendations in due course.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2023, if the NDP had not pushed this government, there would not have been any funding to create good union jobs to help fight climate change. However, much more remains to be done.

For years now, the Liberals having been missing their target and giving billions of dollars to oil companies, and that is making the climate crisis worse. Joe Biden is investing in green industrial policy.

Will the Liberal government finally show leadership by investing in the infrastructure, renewable energies and the good jobs of today and tomorrow.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, all the infrastructure that he is talking about will be built by workers with union jobs or workers who are paid prevailing union wages. That is a game-changer in this country. That is something that union leadership, from the Canadian Labour Congress to Unifor, the Alberta Federation of Labour and Trades NL have all been asking for. They have all asked for a seat at the table. We have told them for years they will lead that table, and this budget proves it.

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government says to the people, “Believe not your eyes”. When we look at page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report today on their carbon tax, it says that the net cost for a Nova Scotia family when this carbon tax is implemented is $1,513 more in carbon tax costs than in rebates. For Newfoundlanders, the number is $1,300 in net costs.

If the government is so proud of driving up the cost of gas, heat and groceries for Atlantic Canadians and consumers everywhere, why has it worked so hard to mislead everyone about the real cost?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives never talk about the costs of climate change, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has talked about those costs, predicted to be $25 billion by 2025, a $9-billion impact to the B.C. economy from floods, fires and drought. The town of Lytton burned to the ground, and 600 people lost their lives in the heat dome.

When are the Conservatives going to stop the denial and get serious about climate change?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, notice he is not even contesting the facts now.

After falsely stating for half a decade that Canadians will be better off with the carbon tax, the government is now admitting what its Parliamentary Budget Officer reported. This is that, on average, Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians will pay approximately $1,500 in net additional costs above and beyond any phony rebate they get back. Worst of all, it has not even worked. It has missed every single emissions target.

Why will the Liberals not ditch this tax plan and come up with a real climate plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, something is not sinking in. The climate rebate will put more money in people's pockets. The member should look at page 5 of the original PBO report that says eight out of 10 families will be better off.

What will not make families better off is investing in cryptocurrency. That is reckless economic advice by the Leader of the Opposition. Will he stand in his place and apologize to Canadians for his reckless environmental advice?

Government Appointments

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, for the Emergencies Act commission, the government named a Liberal staffer as the independent commissioner. For the foreign interference rapporteur, it named a member of the Trudeau Foundation and the Prime Minister's ski buddy. Now it needed someone to be an ethics commissioner, so it named a Liberal minister's sister-in-law to that position of independent Ethics Commissioner. This is the same minister who has already been found guilty of violating the law.

When is the Liberal government going to run out of family and friends to name as independent officers?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the ski buddy that the hon. member refers to is David Johnston, an eminent Canadian whom Stephen Harper actually chose to be governor general of this country. He stood in his place and commended David Johnston as being a good and appropriate choice for governor general. To suggest that David Johnston does not have the best interests of Canada at heart as he looks at the issue of foreign interference is ridiculous.

With respect to the position that he has just referred to, the interim Ethics Commissioner, again this is somebody who has been in that office for 10 years, who came in when Stephen Harper was in office and is second in command in that office.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, one can almost imagine the conversation between the Liberal intergovernmental affairs minister, who was found guilty of breaking the ethics law, and the Prime Minister, who has twice been found guilty of breaking the ethics law. One can imagine them saying, “How are we going to quit getting found guilty? I know, we'll appoint my sister-in-law as the Ethics Commissioner.” What a plan. It is foolproof.

The problem is that pretty soon they are going to run out of family and friends. After they do, how are they going to avoid their next conviction for breaking the law?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a place where comedy routines can be tried out; I would suggest that it is not on the floor of the House of Commons.

What I will say about the conversations that have taken place in the Ethics Commissioner's office is that, for 10 years, the individual in question has absolutely made hard decisions on the government, as well as other parties, and she has comported herself with total professionalism. She was appointed as number two in charge in the Ethics Commissioner's office during Stephen Harper's time in office.

What is not professional is to take somebody who has worked in the public service for 10 years making hard decisions, including hard decisions that affected the government, and treat them in that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister and his gang of serial lawbreakers were told by the outgoing Ethics Commissioner to take remedial ethics training. Instead, at Sunday brunch, the Liberal cabinet minister turned to his sister-in-law and said, “How about we make you the new Ethics Commissioner?”

When are the Liberals going to take their responsibilities seriously and appoint someone who is independent and can restore accountability to this place for all Canadians?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's role in our democracy is extremely important. Over the last 10 years in which the person they are referring to has been in the office, they have taken a lot of difficult positions against the government, and frankly, against that party. The person was appointed at the time of Stephen Harper, in the number two position. These decisions have been well-received in the sense that the Ethics Commissioner's job is to hold us to the highest possible standard. The idea that a public servant cannot do their job or set aside differences, when they have a screen in place, is not realistic.

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

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the Liberal government is stranger than fiction. Even the writers for the Simpsons could not have dreamed up such satire. The Prime Minister, who has twice been found guilty of ethics violations, has appointed as interim ethics commissioner, the sister-in-law of his best friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, himself found guilty of ethics violations for awarding a contract to his cousin.

Is the brother-in-law of the interim ethics commissioner, the minister, going to take advantage of family get-togethers over Easter to ask her if it is ethical for his best friend, the Prime Minister, to appoint his sister-in-law to rule on his ethics?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the person in question was part of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner when the decisions were made on the matter involving the Prime Minister and on other issues. Clearly, this person is capable of acting independently. She was appointed to the office during Prime Minister Harper's government and has been at that office for 10 years.

Employment Insurance

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we better not be sliding into a recession given that the Liberals have once again dropped the promised EI reform from the budget. In the midst of all this economic uncertainty, they just told 60% of workers that if something bad happens to them, tough luck, because they will not be able to rely on EI or the federal government.

Every economist is wary of the year ahead, so how can the Liberals abandon the only safety net that workers have if they lose their job?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we know Canada's EI system is complex, and that is why we are focused on improving it. In the past two years, the minister led more than 35 virtual, national and regional round tables with workers, employers and academics. EI reform is a priority. We are on it, and we will get it done.

At the same time, we are making historic investments in skills training and in support like child care to help more Canadians re-enter the workforce, and it is working. Over 830,000 more Canadians are working than before the pandemic. On this side, we will always, always have workers' backs.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to overhaul EI in 2015, then in 2019, then in 2021, then last summer at the very latest, then before Christmas, guaranteed. They always push it further down the line, always later. Even now, the Liberals are completely abandoning that reform in the budget.

If the Liberals cannot keep their promise to working people today, when economists are worried there is going to be a recession, when are they going to do it?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question because it is a very important question.

We have always been there for workers across Canada. We have promised EI reform and we will deliver.

In this budget, we have demonstrated once again that we are there for Canadian workers across the country and we will continue to be.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing. Here is what seniors will find in the budget to help them deal with the cost of living: absolutely nothing.

We still have two classes of seniors. Pensions for those aged 74 and under have not increased. Seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement who want to continue working are still heavily penalized. Others who also want to help mitigate the labour shortage have no incentive to do so.

In a 300-page budget, why did the Liberals not spare a single thought for people aged 65 and over?