Agreed.
House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that questions in Question Period must relate to government administrative responsibility. Question Period's purpose is government accountability, not attacking opposition parties who lack the same response opportunity. The Speaker will enforce this. 900 words.
Public Accounts Members debate a Public Accounts report on pandemic border measures, focusing on current border security. Conservatives raise concerns about lax controls, increased fentanyl trafficking, illegal crossings, and potential U.S. tariffs, criticizing the government's record. Liberals defend their border investments, accusing Conservatives of amplifying misinformation and past cuts. NDP members also criticize Conservative border cuts and accuse them of undermining Canada by echoing U.S. rhetoric. Bloc members criticize federal border management and call for CBSA administrative supervision. 25200 words, 3 hours.
Industry and Technology NDP moves to split Bill C-27 into privacy/tribunal and AI components. They argue the bill is poorly drafted and compromises privacy, seeking to pass the privacy component and protect the Privacy Commissioner. Liberals argue for a holistic approach, are open to amendments, and accuse parties of obstruction. 6200 words, 45 minutes.
Access to Parliamentary Precinct NDP MP Leah Gazan responds to a Conservative MP's question of privilege, denying involvement in an event that allegedly breached privilege and defending her support for "Jews Against Genocide" demonstrators against accusations. 1000 words, 10 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5 Members debate a Conservative motion claiming Liberal drug policies and Bill C-5 contribute to 47,000 deaths. Conservatives propose reversing C-5, increasing sentences, and enhancing border security. Liberals, Bloc, and NDP counter that C-5 addressed unconstitutional mandatory minimums and simple possession, argue Conservatives cut border security, and advocate for harm reduction and treatment. 12900 words, 2 hours.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 2024-25 First reading of Bill C-79. The bill grants sums of money for federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. It passes all readings with support from Liberals, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties; Conservatives and one Independent vote against. 400 words, 10 minutes.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON
Mr. Speaker, on November 27, the Prime Minister avoided my question and tried to deflect the failures of his immigration minister to protect Canadians and secure our borders.
The Prime Minister should worry less about the opposition leader and concentrate more on his ongoing refusal to name the individuals implicated in working on behalf of Chinese foreign interests and bring them to justice. What is motivating the Prime Minister to not provide those names? Is he afraid that on that list are members of his own party or cabinet, people who have benefited from Chinese foreign interference? Treason is a serious offence, as is being bought off by foreign influencers in being in receipt of electoral and financial benefits, as reported by NSICOP. These are all very serious matters that require full investigation by the appropriate authorities.
The Prime Minister does not have the legal authority to determine if traitors get shielded from our laws. The Prime Minister knows the damage and the danger caused by his weak and ineffectual immigration minister and the precarious position his failures are posing to the Canadian economy in light of the 25% tariff threat issued by President-elect Trump. How is it possible that the Prime Minister would shelter people and permit a porous border, where terrorists and those out to betray our democracy and our country are given free entry passes? Are we now to see another influx of extremists like we have seen with the IRGC, but this time from potential extremists exiting Syria?
At least 14 countries have already frozen Syrian asylum applications, four of which, by the way, are fellow G7 members. What about Canada? Is the immigration minister going to let even more extremists waltz into Canada under the pretext of being bona fide refugees, eager to exploit our compassion as Canadians and our refugee program as a cover to avoid detection or persecution? What kind of immigration and refugee system do we have under the government? It seems more interested in letting in terrorists rather than acting to defend our borders and protect Canadians.
The Prime Minister must come clean and explain why he is so reluctant to bring those names forward for investigation and prosecution. This entire mess cannot be the product of some misguided personal or twisted interpretation by the Prime Minister of some form of executive privilege. It is the Prime Minister's duty to protect Canadians, our democracy and our economy. While he is at it, he must find a new immigration minister who is actually capable of doing the job.
It is not a coincidence that the Prime Minister did not bring the immigration minister with him to Mar-a-Lago, despite one of the core issues being the fact that there were 350 people on the U.S. terror watch-list stopped from crossing into the United States from Canada. First and foremost, how did these people enter Canada in the first place? For the same period, 52 people were stopped on the U.S.-Mexico border. That is nearly one-seventh of the terror suspects stopped at the Canada-U.S. border. Before the parliamentary secretary accuses me of talking down our country, I am focusing on the safety of Canadians, the dangers of the government and the worst immigration minister in our nation's 157-year history.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is simple. If someone who worked for him messed up this badly, putting his team, his staff and his customers at risk, would he not fire them?
Paul Chiang LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system very seriously. We have processes and measures in place to safeguard Canadians, while also ensuring that those who seek to come here are treated with dignity and respect.
As part of our risk mitigation process, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in collaboration with the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, conducts comprehensive security screening to identify those who might pose a threat to Canadians. Everyone coming to our country must meet entry and admissibility requirements. Before entering Canada, everyone is screened to ensure individuals do not pose a threat to the health, safety or security of Canadians.
This pre-screening is conducted through visa or electronic travel authorization applications. It involves verifying identity and assessing for potential risk; it can also involve the use of biographic and biometric information. We check applicants' fingerprints against a wide range of databases, including RCMP and international partner holdings, to identify potential security risks. These thorough checks help maintain the integrity of our immigration system and keep our country safe, while facilitating the safe travel of those who do not pose a risk.
Applicants flagged as potential threats are referred to, and undergo further screening by, the CBSA and CSIS. Immigration officers evaluate admissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, addressing criminality, security risks and misrepresentation. CBSA officers conduct another layer of screening upon applicants' entry into Canada. People who misrepresent themselves or use fraudulent documents, as well as those flagged in the system, can be denied entry.
All adults who claim asylum in Canada are subject to comprehensive security screening by CBSA and CSIS. Once people are admitted to Canada, security partners and law enforcement work together to manage threats within our borders. To uphold the integrity of our immigration system, we collaborate with international partners to establish agreements that enhance our shared commitment to secure and effective processes. These agreements allow for the secure exchange of immigration data and personal information of applicants to support informed decision-making and strengthen the integrity and efficiency of our immigration system.
These partners are essential in helping to make swift, reliable decisions about admissibility; enhancing security; and promoting legitimate travels. The Government of Canada is committed to continuing to protect our borders and communities and to uphold a fair and well-managed immigration system. We will keep working with our partners to strengthen our system and keep our country safe.
Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON
Mr. Speaker, given the complete and utter failure of the government and the immigration minister, honestly, I do not blame the parliamentary secretary for reading his script word for word. Frankly, I do not blame him for trying to run out the clock with his government-issued talking points either.
The parliamentary secretary talked about safeguards. Let us look at how those safeguards are performing. Earlier this summer, a father-son duo was arrested in Toronto before being able to execute an advanced-stage terror plot, an attack in Toronto, Canada. That father was in an ISIS terror video, in which he was pictured dismembering the body of a victim that they had murdered, hacking at them with a sword. Therefore, the safeguards are not working.
What is the plan to keep Canadians safe, defend the integrity of our immigration system and secure our borders?
Paul Chiang Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to prioritize security at our borders and integrity within our immigration system.
I reiterate that all people applying to IRCC must meet specific requirements. All foreign nationals are screened before entering Canada. IRCC also collaborates with its partners to conduct thorough security screening. Admissibility decisions are evidence-based and are in place to identify those who might pose a threat to Canadians, while facilitating the safe travel of those who pose no risk. Canada collaborates with international partners to securely exchange immigration data and personal information of applicants. This enhances security, supports informed decisions and promotes legitimate travel.
Through the many steps taken by the government and IRCC, we will continue to protect our border and maintain a fair, well-managed immigration system.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my late show, I just want to acknowledge that I am joined this week by my daughter, Jada. I was really happy to have my 12-year-old out here with me for the week, so I just want to give a quick shout-out to her.
I was also honoured this week to be able to host the U18 Shaunavon Badgers hockey team here in Ottawa. We had a quick little tour on the floor this morning. I really enjoyed doing that. They have a game tonight at 10 o'clock against the Ottawa Sting. I believe they are a rep B level team, so I am looking forward to that game tonight.
When I got up to ask a question of the Minister of National Resources, it was with regard to the government's emissions cap. I have talked to people from the area around Shaunavon, in particular. Even those young men earlier today talked a lot about what the future of our country looked like.
When we look at policies like the emissions cap that the government is implementing, we have seen from independent analysis that it is going to be a production cap. I know the parliamentary secretary, when he stands up, is going to say that it is a cap on emissions and not a cap on production. However, the proof is in the pudding. We have seen multiple reports already by several groups saying that the emissions cap will amount to a one million barrels per day reduction in oil production, so we have already seen that there is going to be a reduction in the amount of oil that is produced in this country due to the emissions cap.
Why is that a big deal? It is a big deal because a million barrels per day would amount to a 1% hit to Canada's GDP. Coming up next Monday we are going to hear from the finance minister finally on the supplementary estimates. She has not told us what the deficit is going to be, but she did say that, because the PBO said we have room for a 1.5% swing in GDP, everything is fine and it does not matter how big the deficit is; it will be okay.
The reality is that, when we implement policies that blow a 1% hole in this already right off the top before we even get to this 1.5%, we know we are going to be operating within a very tight margin. What is going to happen to the spending power of the average Canadian after this production cap hits Canadians fully is that it will amount to $420 a month per Canadian household in disposable income that they will not have access to. They are going to lose $420 per month based on those numbers. That is important because, when we look at the forecast for the cost of food for 2025, grocery prices are going to go up on average $800 per Canadian family.
When we factor bad policy A with bad policy B and with things like the carbon tax and the Liberal fuel standards, we are seeing a continual assault on the cost of living for Canadians. When we look at the energy security of our country, we are seeing around the world right now that energy security is of utmost importance. When we see what the oil and gas sector does for Canada, the strategic advantage that we have with our natural resources, and we see policies put in place like the emissions cap that are going to cost 115,000 jobs for Canadian workers, we see the 1% hit in GDP and we see the multiple billion dollars that are going to be lost in the Canadian economy because of this singular bad policy. However, if we add that on top of the other pancaking of bad policies from the government, Canadians are going to be worse off.
How can the government seriously look Canadians in the face, Canadians who are looking to the future in their small towns, and even in our country at large, and say that this is going to be a good policy when it is going to hamper and strike down the futures of Canadians?
Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in welcoming his daughter Jada to the House of Commons and to Ottawa. As well, I would like to join my colleague in welcoming the Shaunavon Badgers to Ottawa. Since there is no Milton team in the tournament, I presume, I can cheer for the Shaunavon Badgers.
Is it the Badgers, Jeremy?
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
It is the Badgers, okay.
Mr. Speaker, I am a big fan of sports and I love that we celebrate that collectively, as we did last week when our Olympic and Paralympic teams were here. It was a nice moment of non-partisan celebration here in the House of Commons for everyone.
On to the issue of the day, which is the emissions cap that our government has proposed very proudly. We are one of the first oil and gas producing nations to propose an emissions cap. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge one thing my colleague said. He said that I would say it is not a production cap. He is indeed correct; it is not a cap on oil and gas production. It actually accommodates a more than 16% increase in production.
Many of the products in the oil patch, certainly not all of them, but some of them, have the highest emissions intensity in the world of certain types of projects. Those mostly include projects that are not in the province where my colleague resides but mostly in the oil sands in Alberta, where there is bitumen production. The emissions intensity in the oil sands has actually gone up. Albera has acknowledged it needs to have an emissions cap. We can have a conversation as to where that should be, but no sector in Canada should be entitled to unlimited pollution. I do not believe any sector should be able to operate in the absence of any regulations around how much it pollutes. I am also, like my colleague, concerned about the future of our planet and our country. I am also concerned about our economy and that climate change is having a really negative impact on our economy.
Food reports have come out from various organizations and agencies recently, and all of those have pointed to climate change as the leading cause of food inflation. The Conservatives have recently kind of leaned in the direction of misinformation when they have talked about the difference in food inflation rates between Canada and the United States. I would like to call them out on that because they continually provide false information and false narratives around the difference in food inflation between Canada and the United States. Canada and the United States have very similar rates of food inflation: the United States in the absence of a federal price on pollution, and Canada with a federal price on pollution. All of these things are very measurable. It is not a new thing.
We have been pricing carbon in Canada in various ways for over a decade and we know that with the so-called axe the tax campaign, if we were to reduce or eliminate carbon pricing entirely in Canada, it might save Canadians about 50¢ on $100 worth of groceries. It would also cost them the Canada carbon rebate.
Back to the issue of the day, which is the cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector. We have to use absolutely all of the tools in our tool box to combat pollution. On November 4, our government introduced the proposed regulations to cap greenhouse gas pollution from the oil and gas sector, which would drive innovation and create jobs in the oil and gas sector. We have been very clear that the pollution cap would work to curb pollution and not production. It would drive investment; create good, new jobs; grow a strong and greener economy; and encourage many of those energy products that we need for both our economy and our day-to-day lives, to heat our homes, drive our cars and deliver our goods. We also need to ensure that those emissions go down. We also have to keep reminding Conservatives that the cap on emissions will allow, and actually encourage, production to expand by 16% by 2030.
I have more to say, but I know there will be an opportunity for a rebuttal. Once again, these regulations would set reduction levels at 35% below 2019 levels by 2030 and that is a good thing for future generations.
Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings
The Speaker Greg Fergus
Before I go to the hon. member, I want to point out one of the reasons I gave a hand signal that might have been misinterpreted. Although we are all Badgers fans, and there was a really respectful debate between the two members, I want to mention that it is important not to refer to members by their first or last names in this place. Out of respect, we refer to them by their position title or the name of their riding.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, we are already starting to see the effects of these bad policies the government is putting in place. Enbridge is investing $700 million in an American pipeline down in Texas. Shortly after the American election, TC Energy approved over a billion dollars' worth of capital spending on three natural gas plants.
We know Canada has a strategic advantage for producing natural gas, but particularly for producing liquefied natural gas. We have a cold climate, as we are experiencing outside right now, which is strategically advantageous for trying to produce it. We are also the closest point to Europe and Asia, so logistically, it makes the most sense to be producing LNG in Canada. If we have our main energy-producing companies going down to the United States, and these companies also are the largest investors in wind turbines, solar farms and things like that, the current government is chasing that investment out. There is going to be nothing left when the government is done.
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague will not be surprised to hear that I disagree that effective climate policy, climate action and emissions reductions are chasing away investment. They do not. They do the opposite, in fact. The world wants cleaner and greener electricity. The world demands cleaner and greener energy, oil products and fuels, and that is where we have to go. Many of the oil companies, and the member mentioned some of them, are doing a lot of these things on their own. Certainly, with respect to the LNG sector, they are constantly looking for ways to innovate and to create a greener, cleaner fuel supply chain.
I would ask my colleague from Saskatchewan if he shares the sentiment of the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has said that he has considered alternatives to carbon pricing but sided against those because he has decided that they are too expensive. More recently, he said that people often come to him and say that Saskatchewan has the highest carbon emissions per capita in Canada, but “I don't care”.
Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings
The Speaker Greg Fergus
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)