Debates of June 6th, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that the government has developed a habit of overspending given the flexibility that it has.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that, to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, the government has roughly $40 billion in fiscal flexibility. However, the government has developed a bad habit of using its fiscal advantage to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction. We saw this in the case of child care and the infamous dental plan. The government has encroached on many areas of jurisdiction.

I believe my colleague will agree with me in part. I think the government could be more fiscally responsible if it took better care of its own areas of jurisdiction and let the provinces do their work as they should.

I think there is some confusion in Ottawa at the moment. All the Liberals want to do is stick their noses into just about everything, in order to win votes. It is highly unproductive.

I am sure my Conservative colleague will agree with my take on the situation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Mirabel, on his excellent speech. He gave us a very clear picture of the situation.

I agree with him completely on the fact that Charles III is not the only one embarrassed to support the Liberal budget, but also on the fact that contempt is being shown for democracy.

Here is my question for my colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that, since the NDP and the Liberal Party formed an alliance, 26 time allocation motions have been used to speed up debates. Commonly called a gag order, this practice is anti-democratic.

In the House, the NDP, this new party that calls itself democratic, is engaging in anti-democratic procedures. It is taking speaking time away from parliamentarians.

There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for our institutions. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for democracy. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for the right to speak. In a democracy, we have the right to discuss bills and the budget, as we are now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Democrat, thank God. I do not agree with the approach the New Democrats took when they decided to support the government no matter what.

I think they took their own risks, and at some point they will have to figure out when it stops being compromise and starts being a denial of who they are and what they believe in.

I think my colleague said it well. I can think of two examples, which I will briefly summarize.

The first is time allocation, gagging Parliament. It is very rare for opposition parties to support such a measure at all, let alone so often.

The second is the special rapporteur, David Johnston. Because of their agreement, they are conflicted. They go from one position on Monday to another on Tuesday and a third on Wednesday. It is obvious. As a result, they cannot do their job as an opposition party. It is becoming more and more obvious.

I am very glad I am not in their shoes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Mirabel, for his comments, notwithstanding some of the little partisan digs he managed to fit in there.

Our goal is to make life better for Canadians. I am sure his goal is to make life better for Quebeckers in his riding. Does the member not see anything in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of his constituents?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan?

What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.

The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers.

The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people.

Tell me who is partisan here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to share my thoughts on budget 2023, which is at report stage.

This government, under this Prime Minister, who has turned out to be the biggest spender in history, has delivered a reckless, irresponsible and free-spending budget. It has upset the fiscal balance that Stephen Harper's Conservative government had managed to restore. Let us remember that in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was driving a backhoe, promised three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. What happened? For eight years, this government has posted deficit after deficit, the biggest deficits ever seen in Canada.

In her fall economic statement in November, the Minister of Finance gave us a glimmer of hope. She said a small budget surplus would be recorded in 2027-28. I remind members that it is 2023. Just a few months later, in the budget we are now discussing, where is the return to a balanced budget? Poof. It has evaporated, it has flown away. It has disappeared into thin air. It has gone up in smoke.

I will give my colleagues some staggering figures that illustrate just how irresponsible this budget is and how spendthrift this government is. Since 2015, the national debt has risen from $650 billion to $1.3 trillion. It boggles the mind. Sadly, the Liberals have managed to double the debt in just eight years. If this Prime Minister were to be awarded a prize, it would be for the prime minister who has increased the debt by more than all the other Canadian prime ministers combined in 155 years.

We know that the Liberals will point out that there was a pandemic. We know that. However, our expectation was that this government would return to more sensible spending after the pandemic. It is incapable of that. The minister told us that hers was a prudent budget. On the contrary, this budget is written in very dark red ink, and we see no end to the deficits.

In 2008-09, the Harper government was forced to invest $60 billion to kickstart the economy after the 2008 crisis. We then managed to recover very quickly. Canada was the first of the G20 countries to recover from the economic downturn, which some compared to the 1930 crisis.

The minister told us that her budget was prudent; however, it is anything but. I am certain the government members will say we are too partisan. That is what they always say. However, I have a few quotes here from independent economic experts and commentators that confirm the opposite.

Gérald Fillion, from Radio-Canada, said the following:

So, where is the prudence and discipline that the Minister of Finance was talking about before publishing her budget? Even back in November, we knew that economic growth was going to be weak in 2023 and that interest rates had risen rapidly. Why add so much to deficits, debt and, consequently, public debt charges?

Public debt charges have doubled. They went from $24 billion to $48 billion. Imagine what we could do with $24 billion. My colleague mentioned health transfers earlier. This is money that was requested by all the Canadian provinces, but they were given virtually nothing.

Derek Holt, an economist with the Bank of Nova Scotia, said this:

Big spending, big deficits, big debt, high taxes, high inflation and bond market challenges are not the path to prosperity. [The Minister is] wrong to describe the budget as prudent, with overall program spending set to balloon to 51% above pre-pandemic levels by 2028.

Michel Girard, a leading economist with the Journal de Montréal, wrote an article with the headline “Ottawa is taking $102 billion more out of your pocket”. I will quote from the article:

$46.1 billion more in personal income tax

$35.4 billion more in corporate income tax

$14 billion more in GST

$2.8 billion more in other excise taxes and duties

With such a deluge of money into the federal coffers, one might have expected the Trudeau government to finally announce a return to balanced budgets.

The fact is, Canadian families are currently being heavily taxed by the government. This is to say nothing of the carbon tax and the second carbon tax that is right around the corner.

Michel Girard continues with the following:

Well, no. According to finance minister Chrystia Freeland's latest budget, the federal government will remain in the hole for the next five fiscal years.

This completely contradicts what the Minister of Finance had said a few months earlier. It is completely backwards.

Have the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance read or heard these words? I do not believe they have. They continue to spend lavishly and to propose inflationary policies.

This is very unfortunate because the biggest losers in all this are Canadians who work hard and are seeing the fruits of their labour slip away more and more each day.

I have a company with 30 employees and we had to make a major salary adjustment in the past few months because of the rising inflation and interest rates. I have employees whose mortgage payments have gone up by $700 a month. Wages have not kept pace with inflation.

Inflation is at his highest level in 40 years, and the impact on food prices is dramatic. Here are a few examples: The price of butter is more than $8; a loaf of bread costs $5.50, compared to $1.50 four years ago; a pound of bacon costs $10.

A family of four, meaning two parents and two children, will spend $1,065 more on groceries this year alone. That is a lot. It is way too much. It also does not help when we add to that the price of gas, which is hovering around $1.80. Obviously, there is transportation. The Liberals are always telling us that the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, which is completely false. The food that is sent to us from across the country travels between the provinces. Obviously, there is trade happening. All of the items that need to be transported are subject to all of these taxes, which are inevitably inflationary.

Some parents have to skip meals so they can feed their children. The use of food banks has skyrocketed. In Canada, 1.5 million people are using food banks every month. That is a source of daily stress for families, and yet nothing stops this government's out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything.

That is not even to mention the cost of housing. Since this Prime Minister took office, the cost of housing has doubled. Just last year, the price of houses increased by 21% in the Quebec City area. That is unbelievable. Successive interest rate hikes have doubled the average mortgage payment, which is up to almost $3,000 a month. It is the same thing for rental units. It is not unusual to see ads for one-bedroom apartments that are renting for $2,000 a month.

As a result, young families are abandoning their dream of owning a home. I have been an MP for eight and a half years and, for the first time, young people are coming up to me and saying exactly what we have been saying for months. They are asking me how they can one day become homeowners. No one had ever talked to me about that before, but now that is their reality.

The list of negative effects and wrongs caused by this government's policies is too long to fit into a 10-minute speech. I am not even talking about the other problems caused by this government, such as violence, which is constantly on the rise, or the inadequate services to citizens.

Just think about last year's passport crisis. I have never seen anything like it in my life. The number of federal employees has increased by nearly 70,000 over the last eight years and we have never had such bad service. This is truly poor organization from this government.

I am not going to touch on the other problems. I am not going to talk about foreign interference, about everything that is going on at the moment or about our colleagues who have been spied on, and even threatened in some cases, by Beijing.

Canadians deserve a lot more and a lot better. They deserve a government that puts them first, that thinks about their paycheques, their homes, their families and, most importantly, their future. They deserve a government that recognizes the hard work they put in every day and that is not always trying to squeeze more out of their paycheques. They need a government that will bring back some common sense. They need a Conservative government.

I really look forward to the day when we are back in government. We will simply stop spending, and we will still have plenty of money to deliver all the programs people need.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that perhaps the member can answer.

Why do the Liberals and the NDP insist on imposing a carbon tax when it clearly is not working?

Emissions continue to rise, so why are they imposing this?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

The carbon tax was effectively put in place by the government to get people to change their behaviour. The people who pay this tax were to receive the equivalent amount in the form of a rebate. Obviously, that is not what is happening, because the math does not work.

Furthermore, the government has had environmental targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases for seven and a half years now, and none of those targets have been met, even with the carbon tax.

Now, they want to add carbon tax 2.0, and they want to add the GST on top of that. We are talking about 61¢ a litre. That is going to send the cost of every food item and product in Canada sky-high.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very troubling, as my colleague from Mirabel said so well earlier, to hear and see the Conservatives manoeuvring to block the business of the House. What fascinates me even more is the misinformation being conveyed by the members of that party. It is still quite fascinating.

I was just doing some research on my phone. I did not find the price, but I gather that the member has not gone grocery shopping for a long time, since he said that bread cost $1.30 four years ago.

What is really extraordinary is that when the Conservatives come to power they are going to fix everything. They have magic solutions for the labour shortage and inflation. It is as though they could fix everything by waving a magic wand. I would like to know their abracadabra formula.

Lastly, it is funny, but in Quebec seniors do not talk to me about the carbon tax. They talk about real support that the government could provide, such as an increase in old age security or a review of the guaranteed income supplement. I do not see a lot of seniors in Quebec stopping me on the street to talk about about the carbon tax.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good bakeries in my riding. Four years ago, I could still get a loaf of bread for less than $2. That was perfectly normal. I go grocery shopping regularly. I am also very pleased to tell my colleague that.

In the past four, five or six years, I have seen prices skyrocketing, particularly in the past two years. The inflationary taxes that the government continues to impose on Canadians are inevitably driving up the cost of food in Canada. There is a reason why 1.5 million people across Canada, my riding included, are turning to food banks. I spoke with the director of Moisson Kamouraska just last week and she told me that this is unprecedented. Every month there is a significant increase in demand.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's party has said that, instead of carbon pricing, it is going to focus on technology, yet every single economist out there, including my friend from Mirabel, will tell us that directly subsidizing technology is a far more expensive approach than carbon pricing, which relies on the market.

I am wondering why the Conservatives are insisting on a more expensive approach to addressing climate change.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the science of technology. It is actually surprising that the NDP and Bloc Québécois members do not want to believe in new technologies. It is as if we were going back in time. We only have to look at communications technologies, for example. We hold those in our hands every day. We did not have that 25 years ago. We were still sending letters by mail, as my colleague pointed out earlier.

Obviously, things evolve, including in the world of oil and gas. It is a lot less polluting than it was before. In fact, I really applaud the people of western Canada who have made huge efforts to reduce their carbon footprint over the years with the help of new technologies.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a genuine pleasure for me to be able to be here to speak to the substance of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I say this because so much time has been spent dealing with whether we should now adjourn the House or adjourn debate, or whether one member or another of the Conservatives should now be heard. We have spent time sitting mute during a lengthy filibuster at the finance committee, where there was a detailed elocution on the fishing of eels, or seeing members insist that the bells ring for 15 minutes at the end of question period before a vote. These are not the reasons why the good people of Charlottetown sent me to Parliament. They sent me to be the voice of Charlottetown here in Ottawa and to speak to substantive issues such as those presented in the legislation, Bill C-47, so I am particularly pleased to be here and have the opportunity to carry out that role.

Before we can look forward, it is important to know where we are at currently. I would like to, of course, bring a Prince Edward Island perspective to this debate. I will start by highlighting a recent report from the Public Policy Forum entitled “The Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”. This report outlines the progress made across the Atlantic region over the last decade.

Members may also be interested to know that just today there was an op-ed in the local newspaper, penned by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, talking about the remarkable progress that has been made in our region since he was prime minister and was overseeing the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Going back to the “Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”, the report outlines the progress made across the region over the last decade, looking at 20 key indicators. In particular, I want to highlight the great work that has been done in Prince Edward Island. In the 2015 to 2022 period, 17 of the 20 indicators experienced an improvement in P.E.I. These are things such as housing, immigration, business investment, and R and D spending. Prince Edward Island had the highest and best performance of all of the Atlantic provinces. This is fantastic news for Islanders. It demonstrates that real progress is taking place.

The Conservatives do not like when we trumpet positive economic news about the region. The common critique we hear is that we are saying that things have never been so good. There is no denying that there are significant challenges. We have made positive growth, but Canadians and Islanders face significant challenges. When I talk to people in Charlottetown, whether while door knocking or when at the farmers' market on the weekend, the three challenges they want to talk about are the cost of living, health care and climate change. Undoubtedly, as a government, there is much more to do. We cannot sit on the sidelines. That is why the budget implementation act and budget 2023 have been brought forward, specifically to make sustainable steps to address these challenges.

I want to talk for a minute about the grocery rebate and its importance. It is undoubtedly more expensive to put food on the table. Islanders have had to carry the burden of some of the highest inflation rates in the country. Aside from one month, Prince Edward Island had the highest inflation rate in Canada every month for two years, from March 2021 to March 2023. This is in large measure because of the disproportionate dependence on home heating oil and the increase in price in that regard.

In Charlottetown, the median after-tax household income is $58,000, so in general, Islanders have to pay more but earn less. We know that the burden of inflation is impacting the pockets of many people across the country. That is why the government has responded in this budget, and in this budget implementation act, with the grocery rebate to support those most in need.

For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians, the grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children an extra $467, single Canadians without kids an extra $234, and seniors an extra $225 on average. It is absolutely unfathomable that with all of the stories of hardship I hear, especially from seniors, we have these procedural, partisan games blocking those payments. It is my sincere hope that people will come to their senses and accept the reasons they have been sent here, that debate in a substantive way will proceed on Bill C-47 and that it will get to a vote and get to implementation so that people who need that money in these inflationary times will be able to get it. I hope other priorities will not stand in the way of that progress.

We know that many Canadians have had to choose between putting food on the table and other necessities. One thing that is often on the back burner is dental care. In 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. With the recent increased cost of living, we can assume even more Canadians cannot access dental services due to cost.

That is why in the fall of 2022 we introduced the Canada dental benefit. Since December, over 300,000 Canadian children have accessed dental care services. To build on this, in budget 2023, our government will invest $13 billion over five years in the Canadian dental care plan. The plan will provide dental coverage for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no copays for those with family incomes under $70,000. This includes seniors, children and people with disabilities.

I have heard seniors in my riding, after hearing coverage of the budget, asking when the dental care plan will start and when they can start to access it. The news is out there and people are looking forward to it. There is absolutely a need, especially for seniors who are struggling, and quite frankly we need to get on with it.

In addition to budget 2023, the budget implementation act demonstrates a clear effort to address the cost of living by supporting those in need. I mentioned earlier how often I hear from seniors who are having a hard time and how very frustrated they will be if the grocery rebate is further delayed.

One other measure that has been taken, not for seniors on the lower end but for those in receipt of federally regulated pensions, is adding some flexibility to the payments under those pensions. That will help those in the middle class among retired people. That is important in my area, because Prince Edward Island is the only place in Canada outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department, that being the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a disproportionate number of retired federal servants. This matters to them and it needs to go forward.

The last thing I will touch on before wrapping up is the tools deduction. In P.E.I. we have among the lowest vacancy rates in the country. For apartments it is 0.9% and for bachelor apartments it is 0%. For love or money, one cannot find a bachelor apartment in Prince Edward Island. One of the measures in the budget implementation act is to give a break to tradespeople. We need to show as much love to tradespeople as possible, because with 1,500 vacant construction jobs in Prince Edward Island, there is a major bottleneck in getting the houses built that we need.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight that Prince Edward Island has experienced positive growth and momentum in recent years. While we have made progress, the cost of living, health care and climate change continue to be major concerns of Islanders and Canadians. I encourage all of my colleagues to help address these shared challenges and to focus efforts on the things that matter to our constituents, not partisanship and not procedural games. Let us support Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from those on the other side of the House that the government is investing, that they will do this and they will do that. I wonder if they recognize that there is no such thing as government money. It is the money of hard-working Canadians. It is important to live within our means or we will go further into debt.

Will the member not recognize that massive deficits and debt are fuelling inflation and making life more expensive for all Canadians?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was here in the tail end of the decade of darkness and witnessed the Harper government run deficit after deficit after deficit, attempting to cut its way to economic growth and exhibiting a period of economic growth that was the worst since the Great Depression, I really am loath to buy into the idea that austerity and cuts can get us to prosperity. Those cuts were disproportionate in our part of the country. They struck us particularly hard. I will make absolutely no excuse and absolutely no apology for the philosophy of this government to invest in Canadians and especially in our regions.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on July 1, while Canadians are celebrating Canada Day, Quebec will be marking a special day. It is moving day.

That is the day everyone moves. All the leases come to an end. The vast majority of Quebeckers who move to a new place or buy a home, although I do not think that anyone is buying a home right now, do so on July 1. Last year, in Montreal alone, 600 people did not find housing. This year, every organization is expecting it to get worse.

We are halfway through the national housing strategy that started five years ago. For five years, the Liberals have been saying that they are getting things done. Just this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that they are investing, that we are going to see a housing accelerator and that housing will be built. However, every organization is saying that this year, the situation is going to be worse than ever.

What is being done to deal with the housing crisis?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Canada really does have an affordable housing crisis. We have indeed invested in a lot of programs to address that. There is still a lot of work to be done because it is true, the statistics cannot be denied. We continue to work hard to develop and finance good programs to try to make a difference.

I think it is very important for everyone here, the members from all parties, to work together to give advice and collaborate. We all have the same goals. We must recognize that it is a real problem; we have invested in possible solutions, but it is still a problem, I agree.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Charlottetown a question that I asked earlier in question period. Given what we know about the financial hardships faced by people living with disabilities, does he agree with me that the CRA should stop clawing back CERB from people in our country living with disabilities? People with disabilities are twice as likely to live below the poverty line given the challenges they face getting their bills paid and given the fact that the government has long delayed the Canada disability benefit. Does it not add insult to be clawing back the few benefits that these folks have received over the past two years?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult question. For the CERB program to have integrity, there need to be checks at the end of the day to determine eligibility. It is my firm belief that the CRA should be acting with compassion with respect to collection efforts. It is my understanding that it is.

The record of this government, particularly with the onset of Bill C-22, is one where people with disabilities have made and will continue to make better progress than they have under any other government. However, compassion in collection efforts is absolutely critical. I do not think they should be wiped out.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the government's budget implementation bill.

The cost of everything is going up. Why? Because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created that cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

The Prime Minister is trying to ram $67 billion of new spending through Parliament before he takes the summer off. We would think that there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not. We would think that there would be a detailed plan for how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not. We would think that the government's finance minister would answer questions about her spending, thoroughly, in Parliament, but she has not. We would think that the Prime Minister would stop raising taxes on Canadians during a cost of living crisis, but he has not.

That is why the Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget until he changes course. The Conservatives have asked for two things.

First, the Prime Minister must present a plan to end his inflationary deficits and spending. The Prime Minister has added more debt to our country than all other prime ministers combined. Let that sink in for a minute. It is staggering. Now Canadians are paying the price. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high, and 1.5 million Canadians are eating at food banks.

With higher inflation comes higher interest rates. Recent reports predict that the Bank of Canada will continue to raise interest rates on Canadians. Canadians cannot afford more interest rate hikes to keep up with the Prime Minister's inflation. The down payment needed to buy a house has doubled under the Prime Minister. Mortgage payments for a new house have doubled under the Prime Minister. The cost to rent in Canada has doubled under the Prime Minister.

According to the CMHC chief economist, Canadian households are more in debt than those in any other G7 country, and the amount they owe is now more than the value of the country's entire economy. Even Statistics Canada has proved that Canadian households are paying 72.25% more in interest payments since the Prime Minister took office. It is just staggering.

At what point does the Prime Minister look in the mirror to understand where the problem lies?

The second thing Conservatives are demanding is an end to the Prime Minister's carbon tax hikes. Canadians know that the Prime Minister's carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. That is why the government's own budget watchdog proved that the Liberals' first carbon tax would cost Canadians $1,500 more than they would get back in rebates.

However, one carbon tax is not enough for the Prime Minister. That is why he introduced a second carbon tax that would drive up gas prices 61¢ a litre, further hiking the price of gas, heat and groceries.

The Canadians I talk to, especially those who live in rural Canada, cannot afford the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Rural Canadians have no other choice but to drive. There are no subway stations in rural Canada. They cannot rely on bikes for transportation. Rural Canadians rely on gas-powered vehicles to live their lives. The Prime Minister wants to change the behaviour of Canadians but, in doing so, he is making it impossible to live the rural way of life.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Prime Minister's spending is that he is spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little to show for it. Do members notice how the government always talks about how much it is spending instead of how much Canadians are getting in return?

Let us just look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member who will be able to come back to his speech after Private Members' Business. He member still has five minutes and 10 seconds to complete his speech.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill C-320, I would like to talk about a special event that took place on Saturday, May 27, in which I was honoured to take part. Durham Region Remembers was a victim awareness and candlelight vigil that provided community support for those bereaved by homicide and to remember those we have lost. This very important event, which will now become an annual occurrence, was organized by Lisa Freeman, and I am happy to say that Lisa is here in Ottawa with me today. She is the person who inspired Bill C-320, a bill that we like to call the “truth in sentencing act”.

Since 2019, Lisa and I have made efforts to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding disclosure of information to victims; at Durham Region Remembers, Lisa and I had the opportunity to share our efforts with the families of victims who were present. I can say that this was well received, with murmurs of hope that we might be able to help families that are plunged unasked into unfathomable situations. These families have then been further demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the government through the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Services, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime. Unfortunately, at best, this is an illusion.

Lisa is an inspiration not only to me but also to a very special community. This is a community, sadly, that has been forgotten by our criminal justice system. It is made up of victims, families and friends who have had to endure and re-endure trauma, emotional pain and endless suffering regarding their families' safety. Ms. Freeman is the author of the 2016 book, She Won't Be Silenced, described as the “story of my father's murder and my struggle to find justice WITHIN the Parole Board of Canada.”

After years of fighting to have her family's voice heard, while decisions were made about parole and the passage of information concerning her father's murderer, Ms. Freeman has petitioned the federal government to amend the ineffective Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the opaque Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide improved transparency to victims of violent crime and their families.

This “truth in sentencing” bill was first tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-466 by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in June 2019 and then again in the Senate by the Hon. Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu in December 2020 as Bill S-219. I want to thank Ms. Raitt and Senator Boisvenu for their work on this file. Now, I am hoping that I am three times lucky, and that this bill will finally make it through our process and become the law of the land.

It is important to recognize that this bill is a short bill; it would add just a few words, a common-sense phrase. It may make a small change in the law, but it would make a huge difference to victims. This bill would add the following words: “and an explanation of how that date has been determined”.

The aim of Bill C-320 is twofold. It would amend the current Canadian legislation to better meet the needs of victims of crime by providing timely and accurate information upon sentencing of an offender and avoiding the false comfort of misleading parole eligibility dates. It would also ensure that the victims of crime are provided with improved transparency and passage of information from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. I admit that these changes would not fix the system, but they would certainly be a step in the right direction, and they could not occur at a better time.

In Canada we are now starting to see the effects of changes made to our justice system through the government's bill, Bill C-75, the bill that accelerated the government's catch-and-release bail system and bail policies. This change has unleashed a wave of violent crime across the country. We are hearing from Canadians that they do not feel safe walking down the street or taking transit. Canadians are telling us that our communities feel less safe. It is our responsibility to turn this trend around and avoid making the situation worse. We cannot allow violent offenders to repeat—

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

I will just interrupt the hon. member to ask him to remove the cellphone from near the microphone. It is causing some problems for the interpreters.

The hon. member.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing from Canadians that they do not feel safe walking down the street or taking transit. Canadians are telling us that our communities feel less safe; it is our responsibility to turn this trend around and avoid making the situation worse. We cannot allow violent offenders, and repeat violent offenders, to access easy bail. As Canadians know, Conservatives believe in jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.

The numbers are staggering. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. In Vancouver, 6,000 crimes were committed in one year by just 40 individuals. Does that sound like a system that is working?

Sadly, this week, we are reminded of Canada's most heinous murderer. They were moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. As Lisa Freeman said, “In this killer's case—just like my late father's axe murderer—the level of prison security in no way matches the severity of the crimes committed by these wicked individuals.”

With this transfer, we see the system retraumatize the victims' families by not allowing them timely access to information related to their loved one's killer. As reported in the media, “The lawyer for the families of two of Paul Bernardo's victims says they were given no warning or explanation about [the] recent prison transfer..., a move they oppose.”

Timothy Danson is the lawyer for the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, the teens who were kidnapped, sexually assaulted, murdered and dismembered by Bernardo and his then wife, Karla Homolka. Mr. Danson said that the Correctional Service of Canada informed him by phone this past week that Bernardo had already been moved from a maximum-security institution in Ontario to a medium-security prison in Quebec. Mr. Danson had to tell the families the news of the transfer and communicate the results of a failed system that forces families to feel victimized over and over again. It is totally unacceptable.

Who is looking after the rights of victims? If we do not, who will? As Mr. Danson explained, “This just brings back all the horrible memories that they've been trying to suppress and control over these last number of decades. So it just brings sadness and despair and disbelief to them.”

By failing to change the system, we are creating more victims. More families have to live without a mom or a dad, a brother or a sister, or a daughter or a son. We cannot continue on this trajectory. Bill C-320 is an attempt to change that trajectory and restore some semblance of respect to the system and to victims' families.

Often, victims of crime, such as Lisa Freeman and her family from my riding of Oshawa, are caught off guard when they are notified that an offender is eligible for forms of parole before the 25 years indicated on their certificate of conviction. Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. I think it is also worth noting that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place. Lisa was caught off guard when her father's killer was eligible for early parole, only 20 years into his sentence of 25 years to life. She believes, and I agree, that the lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined cause the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment for the justice system.

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation, Bill C-320, makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in terms of disclosure of information to victims, that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated, in writing, to offenders' victims. This would include an explanation of how the dates for parole were determined and explain the process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We cannot argue with the logic of this bill, and I am sure that I shall have full support from my colleagues, the members of this House.

Currently, the system is designed to support the criminal and not the victim. Victims do not have any support compared with the support our government gives to the criminal. I would like to remind my colleagues that it is a matter of public safety, and it is the job of the Minister of Public Safety and the government to keep the public safe. The job description is “public safety”, not “axe-murderer safety”. To victims of crime, this is clear: A murderer's rights trump a victim's rights every single time.

Victims and the public deserve this bill. It would provide accurate and timely information regarding the parole process to victims and avoid providing a sense of false comfort by misleading them and the general public regarding parole eligibility. Such a sentence as life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity. However, it is simply not true that the punishment is severe; this is misleading to the families and to the general public. The system uses these words that imply severity, that imply punishment. To any passing observer, it does look severe and harsh, but the words uttered by judges and echoed by the media give false information to the general public. These words are a false comfort to families and to the public.

Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can actually be released on other forms of parole for personal development, temporary absences and community service work. This can happen well before their so-called sentence ends. In prisons across the country, offenders who have committed some of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, are housed in minimum-security prisons; families are constantly aware that the level of security does not match the severity of the crime.

Lisa Freeman said:

“When the axe murderer who killed my father received a ‘life sentence’ never did I think it would include living in a halfway house, with a job, a car, a very comfortable home and catered meals made by an in-house Chef. Most hard-working Canadians don't live as well as this! The offender was moved across the country to Alberta because the program he wanted to attend wasn't ‘available in Ontario’ but in transferring him, they placed him in an institution 10km from my sister's house, and only notified me 24 hours later because he ‘has the right to delay the information by 1 day’. Full parole for this axe murderer was denied in October of 2020—but I wasn't allowed to attend the parole hearing to object—Covid didn't deny me the right to attend in person—the Parole Board did. As per the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the offender has the RIGHT to an office decision once they have passed their parole eligibility date, a decision made by a sole panel member. My rights—victims' rights—didn't exist.”

The families of homicide victims should not have to be subjected to any of this. They are busy grieving, trying to repair broken lives and trying to keep the trauma at bay. However, compounding the trauma is dealing with Correctional Services Canada, the Parole Board of Canada and the justice system. It is our job to keep dangerous people incarcerated and Canadians safe, but we are failing miserably. From brokered, watered-down sentences for violent crimes to mismanagement of parole and the bail system, Canadians are just not safe anymore.

Families who have suffered as a result of an offender's action do not deserve to be revictimized by the parole system; victims of crime have enough to carry. Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime are often forced to stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which most victims of crime find are nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. Where are the victims' rights? Victims deserve better. They at least deserve accurate information.