House of Commons Hansard #178 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was food.

Topics

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

April 17th, 2023 / 7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always.

Several weeks ago, back in December actually, I asked the Minister of Finance a question in the House of Commons about why European nations were withdrawing any taxes on their fuels in Europe to the tune of about 8,000 euros per family while this government was considering moving ahead with a 30% increase in carbon taxes. I did not get that good of a response, but in the interim, two weeks ago as a matter of fact, Canada's independent officer of Parliament, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, came out with a new report on the whole matter. I brought it with me here to make sure that any of the talking heads on the other side who do not like what it says can hear from it directly.

In 2023-24, the federal fuel surcharge was set at $65 per tonne. We estimate the government will collect $11.8 billion in fuel charges from the seven provinces where the charge applies. This will be in addition, a tax on tax here because there is GST on top of that tax that amounts to $429 million in GST on top of that.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report makes a pretty clear case that one of the problems with this is that it takes away an income tax base, particularly from the provinces. It talks about the economic impact, and it effectively goes through what this impact will be. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in 2030-31, once the full $170 is actually implemented, the province it affects the most is Alberta, with an average of $2,773 per household. Now, this is something. The lowest province affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, will only be affected by $1,316 per household. I know that there will be much gnashing of teeth on the other side about this because those members have been claiming for a year now that this tax is actually a net positive for Canadians. Well, clearly it is not.

However, no sooner had this report come out than my colleague on the other side of the House, the member of Parliament for Guelph, stood up and said that we need to make sure that the costs associated with the environment are considered in here. Well, let me say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a report, which considered exactly that; surprisingly, it came out on November 8, 2022.

The problem with these speculative reports going forward is that they are just that: speculative. They are based on a scenario, but one of the things that came out quite clearly in it is that compared to every other factor the world is going to face, including economic downturns, recessions and conflicts, climate change will be less of a factor in the analysis going forward. Nevertheless, if we take a look at what the numbers are when we analyze it, by 2100 we will have changed the economy, by the PBO's numbers, by less than three one-thousandths of a percentage point per year. That is a lot if we are spending tens of billions of dollars.

Energy costs are by nature inflationary, and there is a reason the Bank of Canada wants energy cost increases excluded when it calculates inflation. It's the trimmed median, whatever it wants to talk about; it is about excluding the number one cause of inflation from the carbon tax because that is what they want consumers to believe at the end of the day. Even the Europeans do not buy into that, as they reduced it by 8,000 euros per family over this past year because of what they are facing in Europe. Now, I will say again that in my strong opinion, European countries are very poor financial and economic managers, but they did give this rebate back to all the citizens across Europe at a point in time.

Therefore, I will repeat the question I asked at the time: Why is the Minister of Finance pushing Canada, punishing Canadians, with a 30% increase to an already inflation-causing tax?

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Vimy Québec

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Madam Speaker, I believe we can all agree that climate change is a very serious issue for Canada. Something has to be done about it, and inaction is no longer an option, at least not for the present government.

The truth is that climate change is already having serious effects in Canada. It is affecting our homes, cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across our country. While addressing climate change is an environmental imperative for this country, it is also an economic opportunity for all Canadians, and we cannot afford to be left behind. For example, the United States is moving forward with the Inflation Reduction Act, and it is important for Canada to keep pace.

We simply cannot miss this opportunity to participate in the transition to the clean economy. That is why we are proposing, in budget 2023, to make key investments in the clean economy. This will enable us to not only fight climate change but also create jobs for Canadians across the country, including in my colleague's home province, Alberta.

Our made-in-Canada plan, presented in budget 2023, is underpinned by a new federal tool kit for investing in the clean economy. We are proposing a set of clear and predictable investment tax credits, low-cost strategic financing and targeted investments and programming where necessary to respond to the unique needs of sectors or projects of national economic significance. Budget 2023 would ensure that a clean Canadian economy can deliver prosperity, middle-class jobs and more vibrant communities across Canada.

When it comes to our pollution pricing system itself, I would like to remind my colleague from Calgary Centre that it is putting money back in the pockets of Canadian households.

In 2023, through CAI payments, a family of four will have received $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, those living in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. Households in these provinces started to receive their latest quarterly payment last week. Is my colleague against these payments to Canadian families?

Our government understands that many Canadians are still struggling to make ends meet in this period of high inflation. Canadians see it when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. However, I would like to remind my colleagues that inflation is dropping. The inflation rate in Canada was 8.1% in June, and it is now 5.2%.

We do understand, however, that many Canadian families still need some support. That is why we are supporting those who need it the most, when they need it the most, with targeted measures. For example, we proposed in budget 2023 the new one-time grocery rebate. This targeted inflation relief has been designed to help support the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. The grocery rebate would help approximately 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families across the country. This would mean a one-time payment of up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children, up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children, and an extra $225 for seniors, on average.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I have to beseech the members on the other side to actually read the report they are referring to here, because they will find the numbers somewhat instructive. However, let us go “déjà vu, all over again” because we can look at the 1980s for massive government deficits at the time that led to high inflation, just like today.

The U.S. fought this with what is called the strong dollar policy, which means higher interest rates on its bonds all the way through the economy. This penalized the developing world because most of the developing world has to pay its debt in U.S. dollars and with U.S. interest rates. This led to a decade of economic stagnation in the developing world, and some economies actually went negative over the decade of the 1980s to the 1990s. Therefore, this was predominantly thrust upon the world's poor to address inflation. However, one issue that addressed inflation was the fact that there was cheap energy, because oil became less than $10 a barrel at the time.

Let me ask the question again. These are costs. Will the minister take a lesson and acknowledge that she is on the wrong path?

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Madam Speaker, as demonstrated by the recent federal budget, Canadians can continue to count on this government to implement measures that will protect the environment and create jobs at the same time. We have a plan to ensure that Canada is part of the clean economy, and we can all be proud of that.

Of course, we understand that some Canadians still need targeted inflation relief support, and that is why we are moving forward with our grocery rebate.

Women and Gender EqualityAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I am here today because I asked a question in March and I feel the question was not answered. I want members of my riding of North Island—Powell River to know that today I am standing up for the over 2,300 RCMP women who, between 1974 and 2019, faced terrible sexual assault, abuse and harassment in the RCMP. These brave women came forward and told their stories. The Merlo Davidson suit came into play, and we now have a decision that allows these women to be compensated for the terrible, violent abuse they survived.

What is sad about this is that Veterans Affairs has seen fit to claw back some of their disability pensions. I am reminded of some time I spent at the veterans committee today, where we are studying, for the first time ever in this place, women veterans. One of the women who testified today talked about having a survivor focus, which is moving forward in a way that focuses on the survivors' realities and making sure that everything is built around supporting them so they can do better. I thought that was such an important value, which we need to look at, not only in the military and the RCMP, but also in all of Canada. When a victim comes forward, they need to be supported.

In this ruling, through the Merlo Davidson suit, we see six levels of compensation. I really encourage Canadians to look at the six levels because they show just how vile the abuse was. Every time one reads a different section, they can read just what these women lived through. They have this terrible situation. Some of them from 1974 did not feel they would be listened to and did not come forward until much later. They can finally be acknowledged, and what they see happening is their disability pensions being withdrawn from them again. This is abuse.

We know that it was incredibly brave for these women to come forward to share their experiences. Doing so will hopefully make the pathway safer for women RCMP in the future. The justice who gave the report described the women as having to endure shocking levels of violence. These women experienced extreme brutality while protecting our country, and now we are seeing that same government deny them what they are rightfully owed. VAC is literally making these women who served this country suffer all over again. The minister needs to make it right.

I have heard commitments that a letter would be sent and the claw backs would stop. I am going to come back to what I said in the beginning. If this were survivor focused, this would not have happened in the first place. If we had that culture in these organizations, including this one, this would not have happened. These woman would have been supported and given what they needed, and we would not have seen VAC abuse them again.

Today, I want to know when the government will return the clawed-back dollars? We cannot just stop the claw back. We also need to get the monies that were taken wrongfully from them and return them as appropriate. Women in this country served our country through the RCMP and suffered while they were serving, and that has nothing to do with their disability claims.

Will the government make it right?

Women and Gender EqualityAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darrell Samson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, signing up to serve with the Canadian flag on one's shoulder comes with risks, but being at risk of sexual misconduct should not be one of them. There is simply no excuse or justification for that, either in the armed forces, in the RCMP or in any workplace. Our government is fully committed to eliminating the workplace violence, harassment and discrimination in any form. We recognize the enormous courage it takes for someone to disclose this kind of abuse and fight for justice and accountability.

We are aware of the letter published by the Office of the Veterans Ombud on February 23 asking that Veterans Affairs review the Merlo Davidson case to determine if pension reductions had been properly applied, and if not, to issue a corrective payment. For privacy reasons, we cannot comment on individual files.

What I can say is that the department has contacted all of the impacted veterans by telephone and via letter to offer them an opportunity to submit additional information regarding their payment so that the payments can be recalculated and corrected as appropriate. We want to be as generous as possible under the legislation.

We are also aware of the recommendations made by the OVO. Each impacted veteran has been provided with contact information at VAC and the OVO for support in providing the information needed. We are committed to continuing to work closely with the ombud on this file and any other file.

Women and Gender EqualityAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I am fairly disappointed with that response, because we know that these women have suffered. We know they have had their pensions clawed back. Now, what we are saying to them is that, after all the indignity they experienced just by serving their country, they have to do all the work on the other side to get back what was theirs in the first place. I still do not hear anything that says the government is actually going to pay back the money it has, in my opinion, been stealing from these women.

Hopefully the member can say something that actually addresses that serious concern.

Women and Gender EqualityAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Madam Speaker, as I said before, the women who came forward and disclosed their experiences in Merlo-Davidson did so with incredible courage. Our government is committed to ensuring all veterans and members get access to the benefits they are entitled to. In the case of the Merlo-Davidson settlement, the minister has told staff to review the OVO's recommendation to ensure that all pension adjustments have been properly applied and that we are being as generous as possible under the legislation. Veterans who had their disability pensions reduced in the Merlo-Davidson settlement have been contacted and given the opportunity to submit additional information.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I am rising again in the House, as I have on multiple occasions, to warn the government of the risks posed by unregulated shipbreaking.

This originates from a question in November 2022. On November 24, an oil spill was discovered on the shoreline of a shipbreaking facility that has been operating since 2020 in the community of Union Bay in my riding. This facility is operating despite legal challenges and warnings of environmental hazards from residents, local government and first nations. Now, a spill has happened, and the lack of federal regulations and guidelines to protect the ecosystem is glaring. The spill has led to serious concerns for Baynes Sound, which is home to over 50% of British Columbia's shellfish production and is critical to the local economy and many jobs. In addition, of course, there is the importance of the ecosystem.

I have spoken in the House about the lack of federal regulation of shipbreaking, as I cited, and have called on the government to take action to prevent such an incident.

I want to take members back to 2016, when I, Chief Councillor Recalma from the Qualicum Nation, our former MLA Scott Wilson, local shellfish owners and workers, tourism operators and locally elected officials had to go out on boats and take media to shine a light on the lack of response from government when it came to abandoned and derelict vessels.

There were two boats that had been sitting there, and the previous Conservative government had promised for a decade to remove them. The boats were threatening jobs. They were the Silver King and the Laurier II, and it took all of our pressure to finally get the government to respond and remove those vessels. What we do not want is a repeat of a long delay. We do not want the Liberals to go the way of the Conservatives and delay in responding to really important issues at hand.

Again, we applied pressure last time, and the government responded. We are hoping it will respond now, but we need to shift from a reactionary to a precautionary approach to prevent incidents like these. Instead of waiting for another spill, the government should urgently ratify the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, adopt regulations comparable to the EU's ship recycling regulations and provide financial support to qualified shipbreaking facilities to help them meet new standards and regulations. We know the government is in a consultation phase with the provinces, but it needs to fast-track that.

I want to highlight that the government's lack of response has really put the local economy and the environment at risk, but also right now we are learning that Transport Canada has no monitoring or enforcement of hazardous materials on board international vessels being shipped across Canada's border. There is only a voluntary certificate, which is done through Environment and Climate Change Canada, and it is effectively a self-reporting honour system. This is just unbelievable. There is the risk this puts on coastal communities, and it is also putting all the risk on provinces, first nations and indigenous communities and on local governments, which is totally irresponsible.

We need to look at what the EU has done when it comes to shipbreaking and recycling, as well as at the Hong Kong act.

I am really hopeful the government will take action and take a precautionary approach, and I am hoping today it is going to give us some sort of path to how it is going to remedy the situation before an environmental disaster takes place, even further to what is happening now.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Vimy Québec

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Madam Speaker, the government takes any threat to our marine environment seriously. We are aware of and continue to monitor the ship recycling activities taking place in Union Bay, British Columbia.

Regarding the oil spill that was reported at Deep Water Recovery on November 22, the Canadian Coast Guard responded immediately. The Coast Guard confirmed that the source of the spill was land-based, from a vessel that is currently being removed from the marine environment by Deep Water Recovery as part of the deconstruction process. While a boom was deployed to minimize pollution, the spill amount was small and not recoverable.

No amount of oil spilled in our marine environment is acceptable. To this end, the Canadian Coast Guard has reminded the deconstruction company of its responsibilities under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to prevent any release of oil or other pollutants from reaching the marine environment. As it is a land-based spill, the Coast Guard will assist Emergency Management British Columbia, which is the lead agency, if requested.

Canada's marine safety system ensures that we are ready and able to respond quickly to spills in Canadian waters, which include our three coastlines, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have a robust regime in place to respond to spills through our environmental response regulations and ship-source oil spill response organizations on each coast. Through the oceans protection plan, we are establishing 24-7 emergency response and incident management, increasing on-scene environmental response capacity, improving oil spill response plans, acquiring new environmental response equipment for the Canadian Coast Guard, sharing near real-time information on marine traffic with indigenous and coastal communities, and modernizing Canada's marine safety regulation and enforcement regime.

As announced in November, under the oceans protection plan, the Government of Canada will also develop, in consultation with other levels of government, indigenous groups and industry, a system to ensure an appropriate level of preparedness for marine pollution incidents. This system will also provide a framework to ensure an effective and consistent response to marine pollution incidents across the country and for post-incident recovery. Polluter accountability will be strengthened, and a formal role for indigenous communities, sustainable funding and appropriate legal protections will be put in place.

In addition, the Government of Canada also recognizes the importance of safe and environmentally sound practices for the recycling of ships. Ship recycling is recognized as the most environmentally sound method to dispose of ships at end of life. Currently, there is a robust federal and provincial legislative framework governing this activity. Many provisions affecting ship recycling facilities are governed by the provinces and territories, such as environmental and waste management and workplace occupational health and safety. Federal rules prohibit the release of pollutants into the marine environment.

The government knows that we can do more. Together, with provincial and territorial governments, Transport Canada is exploring whether there may be ways to enhance Canada's ship recycling rules.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, but we need an urgent response. I am really concerned, and so are the people at Union Bay, that the government has opened this up to becoming a dumping ground for international vessels that contain hazardous materials. Right now we are learning that the only thing ECCC offers to ensure it protects us is a voluntary certificate when it comes to hazardous materials, which is totally unacceptable, and a self-reporting honour system.

What happens when one of these companies decides to abandon its operation after raking in millions of dollars probably by getting paid to dispose of ships properly, only to leave a big mess? We saw the Kathryn Spirit. It was $11 million to clean up that abandoned vessel. Our former NDP colleague, Anne Minh-Thu Quach, fought very hard to get Kathryn Spirit cleaned up.

We want to know when they are considering putting a ready-to-recycle certificate in place for international vessels.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada takes any incident that threatens our marine environment with the utmost seriousness. The Canadian Coast Guard responded immediately to this incident. Moreover, building on our marine pollution preparedness response and recovery system, under the oceans protection plan renewal, we are exploring a single-window response for oil spills to ensure even better preparedness and greater accountability for polluters.

In terms of ship recycling, while Canada has some of the strongest rules globally, we are looking for ways to improve. As stated before, many of the legislative provisions that govern safe and environmentally responsible ship recycling fall under provincial jurisdiction. We are committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that we have the safest recycling facilities in the world. This includes examining requirements under the European Union ship recycling regulation and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships to determine what elements can be adopted in a Canadian context to address any gaps in federal legislation.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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 7:46 p.m.)