Debates of May 1st, 2023

Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the budget implementation bill was debated at length in the House. I know that many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues took part in this debate. This bill will support Quebeckers and all Canadians, for example, by increasing limits on certain withdrawals from a registered education savings plan, or RESP, and by capping excise duties on alcohol at 2% for a year.

I invite the Bloc to join us in referring this bill to committee for a more in-depth study.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this place sometimes demonstrates that it has a very short memory. I have to call out a comment that was made by the previous Conservative speaker talking about a guillotine motion.

It was common practice, during the days of the Harper government, to introduce a notice of time allocation on the very first day of debate of its government bills. It did not even give the House the courtesy of debating a bill for a few days. A time allocation was announced within the first hour of debate. Let us just call out rank hypocrisy when we see it. I am no fan of it being used either way, but to ignore our history is most egregious.

Does the minister have a comment on that? I would welcome it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I do find the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservative side of the House on some of these issues to be a bit difficult to take. It is no different from the hypocrisy we hear about when they talk about the carbon tax, which formed a key part of the platform they were all elected on. We should not be surprised.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the number of hours we have had for debate. Something I hear the constituents ask in the riding of Waterloo is this: When will some of these measures that were put forward in the budget and will impact their everyday lives, including the grocery rebate, come into effect? I tried to explain the process in the House of Commons and explain that the legislation needs to pass before we get it there. It is unfortunate that tools like this need to be used.

If we can keep this legislation moving, how soon will Canadians be able to benefit from the measures within the implementation act? What kinds of measures should they be looking forward to? Perhaps that will ease some of their everyday challenges. We remain in uncertain times, and our government remains here to try to make life more affordable for them.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, a range of measures are in the budget. Some of them will come into effect very quickly if we can move the legislation forward, and some will require more time and consultation.

Certainly, the grocery rebate is one that we want to see move forward very quickly. It was debated in the House as a separate piece of legislation a couple of weeks ago. It is clearly a priority on the affordability side.

There are many other things that are extremely important for Canadians. We need to move this proposal through to committee and get it through the House, so Canadians can have access to the kinds of supports and programming that will help them build prosperous futures for their families.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a little sorry for the minister, who now has to stand up in the House and defend an indefensible position.

The finance committee already agreed with the government that it would prestudy the bill. The purpose of time allocation is usually to move a bill through the House so a committee can start to study it, but all parties agreed to prestudy this very large bill to make sure to do our due diligence properly. I have not found a reason for time allocation to be moved while we are still debating it in the House.

After campaigning on not using time allocation, the Liberals are deciding to use it for a purpose for which it is not needed. Could the minister explain why this is being done?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that, in a parliamentary system, the role of opposition can be to oppose. However, with this bill, the Conservatives have chosen to obstruct.

With only two days of debate, the Conservatives proposed an amendment that would not even allow the BIA to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They have used concurrence motions and two committee reports to delay and obstruct debate in the House. Conservatives are putting more work into the delay tactics they are exercising than they are into scrutinizing this important piece of legislation. On this side of the House, we will do our job as parliamentarians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to be faced with a time allocation motion yet again, as my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert so aptly pointed out as he was raising important issues. There are other issues that have not been raised yet.

Let us take employment insurance, for example. How is it that the federal government is taking money from workers for its budget and is refusing to conduct a real EI reform like it has been promising to do since 2015?

Are they moving ahead so quickly before too many people realize that this budget includes a provision recognizing Charles III? That takes nerve. I understand that the monarchy represents a significant expense, but I think it deserves a separate debate and a separate bill.

Do the Liberals want to move this quickly in order to hide the details they stuffed into this huge bill?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois members have many questions about this bill and the many measures it provides to help Canadians and Quebeckers. They will have an excellent opportunity to ask officials and witnesses questions when it is studied in committee.

I encourage those members to vote with us today to send this bill to committee and to ensure that Canadians receive these supports.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that over 100 MPs have already spoken at this stage of the bill.

Over 50 years ago, Tommy Douglas sought to have health care as a primary condition of being a Canadian citizen and dental care was part of that vision.

I would like the minister to elaborate on people such as seniors and persons with disabilities who will not get proper service, or must wait for root canals and other dental care. How much longer they will have to wait in pain is a reality we face. I would like to see those types of service expedited. They have waited long enough and it does affect their overall health.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. I am probably one of the few members of this House who actually knew Tommy Douglas personally. It was part of Tommy Douglas' vision for medicare, more generally, to ensure that health issues, dental being a health issue, were addressed. In fact, Saskatchewan for a long time, led the way. Allan Blakeney brought out a dental care program in every school in the province to ensure that children had their teeth treated. It was eliminated by then Conservative premier Grant Devine.

This is an important step forward from a health perspective and we are very much committed to moving forward.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this debate because the budget implementation act really does impact the backyards of the people I am here to represent. There is a range of things in the budget implementation act, including measures in regard to cryptocurrency. We know that the world is changing. We know the economy is changing and sometimes we have really reckless advice from the leader of the official opposition, but it is important that we understand these things.

I would like to hear from the member how Canadians can also participate and have their voices heard. Even though the official opposition is trying to delay the legislation we are trying to pass, how do we engage more Canadians so that they can have their say and we can respond to their needs? I feel like this budget implementation act does do that.

I would like to hear the member's comments also on cryptocurrency.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are focused on serious issues that Canadians expect their parliamentarians to focus on. We are not making strange and awkward statements with respect to embracing cryptocurrency or trying to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada.

We are focused very much on ensuring that Canadians are part of this process. Definitely on this side of the House, members of Parliament reach out through town halls and a range of things to ensure that they are hearing the voices of Canadians. That is reflected in this budget implementation act. There is an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit. There is a doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools. There are improved registered education savings plans. We are working to strengthen Canada's supply chains. We are supporting our friends in Ukraine. We are building a clean economy. We are putting in place dental care. We are investing in health care and we are working on affordability to ensure that Canadian families can move forward with confidence.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what many members on this side of the House have been saying.

Constituents in the riding of Provencher are very concerned with the increased cost of living, and we have seen the government put a disproportionate amount of emphasis in this bill, Bill C-47, on environmental spending and green spending, which is something that needs to be debated more rigorously.

We also know the government has chosen to take $13 billion of taxpayer money and commit it to Volkswagen for an apparent green initiative. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, who tabled this motion. Many of these initiatives are going to require the mining of critical minerals and other minerals in order for them to be successful here in Canada. Is he prepared to move legislation forward that would remove some of the regulations and roadblocks his government has set up that make mining in Canada virtually impossible?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy to talk about a clean industrial strategy for Canada. That was a very big part of this budget, as the hon. colleague talked about. It is about ensuring Canada will prosper and create jobs and economic opportunity in every province and territory in this country as we move through a transition to a lower-carbon future, which science tells us we simply must.

Certainly, we were very pleased to announce the Volkswagen investment in Canada. It is an enormous step forward. It will create jobs, it will create supply chains and it will ensure we are driving forward in a manner that will ensure Canada is prosperous in the future. I am, to be honest, shocked the Conservative Party is opposing the Volkswagen agreement. That is really appalling. I think voters in Ontario are going to think very seriously about this, as well as voters who are concerned about a strong economy in the future.

We are very focused on the critical minerals. I hope my hon. friend has read the critical minerals strategy for Canada. Part of that is about making our regulatory and permanent processes more efficient and working with provinces and territories through the regional energy and resource tables to align those processes and enable good projects to go ahead. We just announced the approval of two critical minerals projects in this country and we expect to see many more.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking us to go to committee and discuss the budget implementation bill, and that is a worthwhile exercise. The problem is that, as the bill stands currently, we would not be able to do a good job because many unrelated items have been thrown into the same basket.

It makes sense that the budget would include the Volkswagen subsidy. However, as my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out earlier, this budget also includes recognition of the King of England.

That has nothing to do with the budget, and we would oppose it, but the government refuses to take it out of the budget. If we had a real bill for each of these items, instead of an omnibus bill, we would be able to do the effective and valuable work our colleague has urged us to do.

Could I ask him to suggest to the Prime Minister and all members of government that they reconsider this decision and introduce bills that can be worked on in committee so we can do the work we were elected to do?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I understand that the Bloc members have many questions about this bill and the many measures it provides to help Canadians and Quebeckers. Bloc members will have an excellent opportunity to ask officials and witnesses questions at the committee stage.

I encourage those members to vote with us today to send this bill to committee and to ensure that Canadians receive these supports.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Minister of Natural Resources reference the just transition, the transition to a renewable economy and we heard him reference the VW deal.

As a New Democrat, and recognizing today is May Day, one of the things I think is incredibly important in this conversation is the idea of equivalency. That when workers in the oil patches of Alberta are being transitioned, that they are not just being sent to some job retraining centre and they are actually given prevailing wages and equivalency in their work.

I have not quite heard the government tell Canadians, tell working-class people, those who are currently in a carbon economy, what its plan is to ensure that, when announcement like a $13-billion deal is set for a corporation, it is the workers who are not left behind.

I will say this on May Day, on international labour day, that it cannot just be about talking about jobs. It needs to be talking about good work, good unionized work with benefits and pensions and the security a collective agreement provides. Can the hon. Minister of Natural Resources please enlighten us on the government's plan to make sure the billions of dollars it is sending to corporations actually make it to the tables and bank accounts of working-class Canadians?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that we are very focused on creating good jobs for Canadians going forward. That was really the focus of the work that was done on the sustainable jobs action plan. If one reads the document, it is focused on creating good jobs and economic opportunity in every province and territory in this country.

If we reflect on the investment tax credits that are part of the economic strategy to create those jobs, there are labour requirements that are baked into the investment tax credits. We have been working very closely with the labour movement across the country, but, in particular, the labour movement in Alberta, as we move through this. We are very focused.

I would also say that my concern about the future with respect to the economy is that this economy and the opportunities that are available to Canada are going to enable us to create so many jobs if we are to seize those opportunities. We are actually talking about skill shortages and the need for us to be upgrading and retraining people, ensuring that we are bringing the right skills into Canada.

We have enormous economic opportunities in this country. We intend to seize them and we are certainly going to work with the labour movement and with industry to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a debate on Bill C-47, I confine myself to the contents of the bill. Much of the minister's speech and much of the debate in this place did not pertain to the budget itself. I am not criticizing any rulings or trying to get new rulings from the Speaker in terms of relevance, but Bill C-47 is in fact 429 pages of disparate pieces of legislative changes, and I have to say that I find nothing within Bill C-47 with which I disagree and much within the budget with which I disagree. I plan to vote for Bill C-47.

I wonder if the minister has any comments on how we are to proceed with fairly skeletal plans for changes to the Canada Elections Act to protect privacy information.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly very focused on ensuring that questions like the ones posed by the hon. member are answered. That is why we want to see this bill move to committee. The Conservative Party continues to obstruct and delay. It is time for us to move forward to ensure that the committee has the time to do the work and answer the kinds of questions that the hon. member is asking.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on page 84 of the budget, it says, “Projected costs of this agreement”, in reference to the battery manufacturing plant by Volkswagen, “have been fully accounted for in Budget 2023.” Can the minister point out to this House or, maybe at a later date, table how the Volkswagen announcement has in fact been accounted for in the projections put forward by the government?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Volkswagen investment is an enormously important step forward for Canada, as are the investments by Stellantis, by Ford, by Air Products, by Imperial with biofuels, by a whole range of companies that are helping us to build an economy that is going to prosper in the context of a lower-carbon future. One of the reasons why we want to see this bill move to committee is so hon. members, like my colleague across the way, can ask the specific questions that they have on their mind.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Can my colleague across the way explain to the people watching what time allocation is, and can he explain why his government moved this time allocation motion that we will be voting on in a few minutes?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it is very important that this bill be sent to committee so that members of the House can have an opportunity to ask witnesses and officials questions. We cannot wait any longer, because it is important for Canadians that this bill be passed.