House of Commons Hansard #390 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was confidence.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members discuss the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the resulting chaos, with Conservatives questioning the government's stability and the NDP's support. They debate whether the government is in contempt of Parliament for not releasing documents related to the SDTC "green slush fund", with Conservatives demanding their release and calling for an election. The carbon tax, cost of living, and economic policies are also subjects of contention, as is the NDP leader's pension. There's also discussion of Premier's stepping up to do a job that the speaker won't. 41700 words, 5 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives relentlessly attack the Liberal government as being in chaos and losing control, citing the Finance Minister's sudden resignation and the economic update fiasco. They blame Mark Carney's influence for the situation and criticize the government's economic mismanagement, especially regarding rising costs of living. They frame the situation as demanding a carbon tax election.
The Liberals repeatedly promote their upcoming economic update, highlighting measures to help Canadians with affordability and to protect the Canadian economy and jobs. They criticize the Conservatives for playing politics and "mudslinging" instead of focusing on Canadians' needs. They defend their dental care plan and the online harms act to protect children online, while calling for unity to face economic challenges and support Canadian families.
The Bloc interprets the Finance Minister's resignation as evidence of a government crumbling and the Prime Minister losing confidence, including within his own cabinet. They denounce "election goodies" as vote-buying, criticize the $60-billion deficit, and repeatedly call for an election.
The NDP criticize the Liberal government for focusing on infighting instead of Canadians' affordability struggles. They accuse them of siding with CEOs over workers, especially regarding postal workers' wages and safety, and for inaction on the sexist pension clause.
The Green party stresses the urgency of climate action based on the IPCC report, warning that dramatic emissions reductions are needed before 2025 to avert climate disaster.

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act First reading of Bill S-276. The bill declares September as Ukrainian Heritage Month, recognizing Ukrainian-Canadians' contributions and Canada's support for Ukraine, following Senate approval. 200 words.

Petitions

Fall Economic Statement Andrew Scheer requests an emergency debate, citing a finance minister's resignation, high inflation, a housing crisis, rising food bank use, and a chaotic government, arguing Parliament must scrutinize the fall economic update. 600 words.

Fall Economic Statement Members debate the fallout from the tabling of the 2024 fall economic statement, after the resignation of the finance minister. Opposition parties accuse the government of contempt of Parliament for allegedly breaking an agreement to allow debate and questions, while still releasing the document publicly. The Speaker cites the motion's permissive nature regarding a statement as the reason for disallowing debate. 3500 words, 35 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Impacts of the carbon tax Martin Shields claims the carbon tax devastates Canadian farms, giving examples of high costs and relating CN Rail's statement that they pass the tax onto farmers. Adam van Koeverden refutes this, citing lower figures and claiming that climate change, not the carbon tax, is the real problem.
Delayed CSIS warrant Michael Cooper questions why it took 54 days for the then minister of public safety to sign a CSIS warrant regarding a former Liberal cabinet minister. Darrell Samson cites government actions to combat foreign interference and accuses Cooper's leader of lacking security clearance.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, on the occasion of the 2024 fall economic statement, it is clear that Canada is at a crossroads. Many Canadians are struggling and uncertain about their and their families' futures. We are facing multiple, overlapping crises that require immediate and decisive action from the federal government, yet we are watching a Liberal government in complete disarray, out of ideas, flailing with gimmickry and unable to implement a coherent, effective plan to address these challenges.

We are also seeing a Conservative opposition that has reduced these complex issues to nursery rhymes, able to only muster bumper-sticker slogans to the most challenging problems facing Canadians. They are proposing outdated policies that not only will not work but caused many of the structural problems we are seeing today in the first place. They will cut the services Canadians need, reward their corporate backers and create untold damage to working and middle-class Canadians.

Let us review the major crises facing Canadians as a result of successive Conservative and Liberal governments. The cost of living crisis continues to escalate, with millions of people struggling to make ends meet. The cost of essentials such as rent and food have increased by over 20% and 21% over the last three years. Fully half of all Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, and one in four parents have cut back on their own food consumption to ensure their children have enough to eat. The rising costs of staples such as home heating, telecommunications and transportation are straining household budgets, making it virtually impossible for families to save for the future or handle unexpected expenses.

Eighty per cent of Canadians now believe that owning a home in Canada is only for the rich. Among those who do not own a home, over 70% have given up on ever owning one. In major cities across Canada, tenants are regularly paying over 50% of their income on shelter, which is a crippling and unsustainable burden.

Income inequality in Canada has hit the highest level ever recorded. The top 20% of Canadians hold more than two-thirds of the country's wealth, averaging $3.4 million per household. By comparison, the bottom 40% of Canadians own only 2.8% of our country's wealth. At the same time, the top 5% of income earners paid a lower overall tax rate in 2022 than the bottom 95%, with the top 1% paying an even lower rate. Welcome to Conservative and Liberal tax policy.

After decades of federal underfunding, Canada's health care system is under serious strain with long wait times, inadequate access to essential services and high levels of burnout among health care workers. Millions of Canadians do not have a family doctor, which is critical to accessing our health care system. I remember campaigning with Jack Layton in 2008 when he pointed out that five million Canadians had no family doctor. We then saw, for the next seven years, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper, and here we are, nine years after that, under the current Prime Minister, and there are more Canadians today who do not have a family doctor after those decades of Conservative and Liberal government in this country.

Thousands of Canadians continue to be harmed by the toxic drug crisis without timely access to publicly funded treatment facilities and other life-saving services. Canada is facing a serious mental health care shortage, with wait times for mental health services especially long for children and youth.

The urgency of climate action cannot be overstated. By 2025, the previous 10 years of climate change will have reduced Canada's GDP by an estimated $25 billion. Without concerted action, by 2030 GDP will be an estimated $35 billion lower than it would have been otherwise, and by 2055 it will be an estimated $100 billion lower. When the Conservatives come talking about the price of the carbon tax, we should ask them what the cost of inaction in dealing with the climate crisis is. It is multiple billions more than the action to deal with it.

Moreover, when governments are forced to cover the costs of climate change by rebuilding damaged infrastructure, paying for increased health care costs and fixing damages from weather-related disasters, including compensating farmers for lost agricultural products, capital is diverted from activities that would drive additional growth.

Youth unemployment in Canada hit 14.5% in August. That is the highest level since 2012, outside the COVID-19 pandemic. Some one million Canadians under 29 are without jobs or training today, as we speak. That is an issue of intergenerational inequity that Deloitte estimates will cost our economy $18.5 billion over the next decade, never mind the cost in broken dreams and shattered lives.

Enhancing productivity is vital for economic growth and competitiveness. However, spending on machinery and equipment by businesses, and on research, development, innovation and training, has been falling as a share of Canada's GDP for decades. Actually, it has been since 2000, and this is despite the large corporate tax cuts introduced at the turn of the century and promoted by both Conservative and Liberal governments. With rapid job creation and population growth, business capital investment has not kept up.

Despite its commitments, the federal government is failing to achieve reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Indigenous housing, water and infrastructure are in perilous conditions. The lack of progress on nation-to-nation governance and the stripping of wealth from indigenous territories have resulted in poverty rates and incarceration levels among indigenous people that are nothing short of shameful. The government has failed to fully implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls for action and the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

New Democrats believe that these crises and other priorities demand urgent and comprehensive action to ensure a prosperous, fair and sustainable future for all Canadians. However, this fall's economic statement has demonstrated once again that the Liberals are out of touch and unable to respond to the realities that Canadians are experiencing. What they have offered today is totally unresponsive to the crises facing our country. They are simply too weak, too self-interested, too full of infighting and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people.

On the other hand, the Conservatives offer no solutions, only a discredited agenda of cuts to the services people rely on, and tax breaks for their friends and the ultrawealthy. They are happy to reinforce disingenuous and insulting characterizations of our country from foreign leaders like Donald Trump, while ignoring the real needs and challenges faced by Canadians. The Conservative approach undermines our values and fails to provide the support and investment required to build a fairer, more prosperous society.

When he was senator, Joe Biden famously said, “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” Liberal and Conservative values are very clear to Canadians who have been paying attention to the federal government for the last 25 years. They continually, consistently prioritize the interests of the wealthy and corporate sector over the interests of working and middle-class Canadians. New Democrats say that is wrong, and there is a better way.

For our part, New Democrats are proposing a robust set of policies designed to tackle these challenges head-on. Let us review some of the key NDP proposals that ought to have been included in the fall economic statement.

With millions of Canadians struggling to make ends meet, the NDP pledged to permanently remove the GST from daily essentials and monthly bills, such as all grocery store items; Internet, home phone and cellphone bills; home heating; and diapers and children's clothing. We believe that Canadians deserve a tax cut that will bring immediate and permanent relief.

The GST is a structurally regressive tax that puts a burden on many Canadian households, particularly those who do not receive any rebate. By making it permanent, the NDP knows that Canadians can count on a predictable reduction in costs of 5% on the bills they face every month and cannot avoid, with a measure that businesses can easily administer.

Unfortunately, last week, both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted no to the NDP's motion to permanently scrap the GST on daily essentials and monthly bills. Axe the tax indeed. It seems the only tax the Conservatives want to axe is when it is given to the corporate sector, but when there is a tax cut proposed by the NDP for working and middle-class Canadians, they vote no. That is a shame. This is a prime illustration of what Senator Biden, now President Biden, meant and of where Liberal and Conservative priorities really lie and where their values really are.

New Democrats believe that a youth climate corps would help address both the climate emergency and Canada's youth employment crisis by providing young people with the skills and job experience they need. The NDP's youth climate corps would provide participants with a decent wage and practical training while they engage in work across three critical areas: first, emergency response in the face of extreme weather events such as wildfires, flooding and heat domes; second, strengthening community and environmental resilience to climate change by enhancing natural ecosystems, improving local infrastructure and strengthening community supports in anticipation of climate disruptions; and third, building infrastructure that drives down greenhouse gas emissions. This measure will be of particular assistance in Canada's rural and remote areas, places that especially need our support and development.

New Democrats believe that the federal government should accelerate and expand the Canada public transit fund to enhance public transportation infrastructure across the country. We also have proposed the establishment of a Crown corporation to enhance and make sure that people in rural and remote areas have regular intercity bus service between their communities and major urban centres, because they deserve public transportation as well. By investing in public transit, we can reduce traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and provide Canadians with reliable and affordable transportation options.

After decades of neglect, the federal government must support the construction of non-market housing of all types, including community, non-profit and co-operative housing, at the scale and speed needed to meaningfully address the housing crisis. I am shocked to not see profound investment in this area in the fall economic statement.

New Democrats believe we should begin by doubling the percentage of Canada's non-market housing stock to meet the OECD average, which, shockingly, we fall significantly below. By increasing the availability of affordable housing, we can alleviate the burden on low- and middle-income families, reduce homelessness and ensure that all Canadians have access to safe and stable housing. By substantially increasing the amount of non-market housing stock, we can also reduce demand in the market supply, which will reduce market prices and make home ownership available to more Canadians.

The federal government must also take immediate steps to end the financialization of housing, such as by ending the tax exemption for real estate investment trusts. This measure will help curb speculative investments in the housing market, ensuring that homes are treated as places to live, rather than commodities to make money from.

It is trite to say that a healthy population is essential for economic success. The federal government must take strong action to protect our public health care system by enhancing patient care, reversing privatization and addressing the health human resources crisis. Federal funding transfers must be tied to the public delivery of health care services, and the Canada Health Act must be robustly enforced in the face of attacks from Conservative premiers who want to gut public services and privatize delivery, both of which will make health care more expensive and less available to all.

The federal government should also fulfill its commitment to establish a dedicated mental health transfer and provide targeted funding to expand desperately needed mental health services across the country. Mental health is as vital as is physical health. It is also essential to expand access to public addictions treatment and other life-saving services, addressing the urgent needs of those affected by the toxic drug crisis and other substance-use disorders.

On the revenue side, New Democrats believe fair taxation is essential to providing revenue for the services Canadians depend on and to ensuring a sustainable fiscal framework. We note that the former finance minister blew through two of her three so-called financial guardrails, both last year and this year, and likely next year as well. This is because Liberals refuse to address fair taxation in this country.

A key component of this is an excess profits tax on large corporations that have abused their monopoly positions in the marketplace and taken advantage of Canadians. Since 2021, increased corporate profit margins have significantly contributed to high levels of inflation and growing income inequality across the country. Despite the normalization of supply chains and easing of shortages today, Canadian corporations have maintained stratospheric profit levels and sky-high prices on everything from food to energy and rent.

To add insult to injury, inflated profits have not translated into increased investment in the Canadian economy. Instead, they have largely been used for share repurchases and dividends, without contributing to wage growth or productive investment. Despite large corporate tax cuts and other corporate-friendly policies, Canadian businesses have demonstrably failed to invest in the machinery, equipment, innovation and training that are so needed to set the basis for increased Canadian productivity. New Democrats believe it is time we tied all corporate incentivization programs to clear commitments to invest in the Canadian economy.

Advancing indigenous reconciliation is both a moral and economic imperative. According to a recent report from the Assembly of First Nations and Indigenous Services Canada, it will cost $349 billion to close the indigenous infrastructure gap by 2030. However, the report also found that closing that infrastructure gap could generate $635 billion in economic output over the next seven years.

Increased funding for education, health care, housing, infrastructure and clean water in indigenous communities, supporting indigenous land rights and self-governance and implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls' calls for justice will help us unlock the potential that exists in Canada's indigenous communities.

Recent developments in the United States make it clear that Canada needs a comprehensive green industrial policy and a resilient trade strategy to secure our long-term economic prosperity and sustainability. This shift will not only help Canada meet its climate goals but also create high-quality jobs and stimulate economic growth. A renewed trade policy would protect Canadian industries from the volatility of international shock and external pressures, making Canada more self-reliant.

As the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted, Canada currently lacks the capacity to produce essential items during a time of crisis, such as masks, ventilators and vaccines, underscoring the need for greater self-sufficiency to critical sectors. The recent comments from the president-elect south of the border provided us with a historic opportunity to diversify our trade markets, including in Europe and Asia-Pacific, taking better advantage of CETA and trade agreements that include Asian tigers like Japan and South Korea.

They also should compel us to embark on a serious made-in-Canada policy, using government procurement measures and incentives geared to national self-sufficiency in key areas. If the United States can have a buy America program, so should Canada have a buy Canadian program.

The crises we face are daunting, but they are not insurmountable. With bold, progressive and forward-thinking policies, we can build a stronger, fairer economy that benefits all Canadians. New Democrats believe in a Canada where everyone can thrive, where science and compassion are at the heart of our policies and where we invest in our future to build an equitable, sustainable society.

We are ready to lead with a vision that puts people first.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to recognize it is the birthday of one of our colleagues: the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek. I will not say her age, but for the length of time she has been here and her age, I think it is quite an honour and a privilege to have her as an MP here in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I believe we are debating the privilege motion on the Liberal green slush fund. I did not hear the Liberal green slush fund or SDTC mentioned in his speech. I heard a lot of other things that seemed more like a budget speech.

I would ask the hon. member why his party continues to vote for the government when the former deputy prime minister will not even support the Prime Minister. In this case, the Auditor General found that almost $400 million was funnelled to companies of Liberal insiders, yet the member did not speak to that issue at all or say whether he will support the motion the House passed, which is paramount, that all documents be unredacted and released, otherwise the government is in total disregard of the role of Parliament and the 600-year history of our power to request documents.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the member raised the question of what we are voting for. I can give a little sample of what I and my New Democratic colleagues have voted for. We voted to bring dental care to nine million Canadians. We voted to bring diabetes medications and devices and contraceptives to 10 million Canadians. We voted to bring a school nutrition program to schools in this country. We voted to permanently remove the GST from life essentials, monthly expenses that Canadians have to pay and cannot avoid. We voted to have 10 paid sick days for every Canadian working in this country.

The question I have for my hon. colleague is, why did the Conservatives vote against those things?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Why did you vote for the corruption?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has another one, he needs to stand at the proper time.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has the floor.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, some of us reach an age where we express our age in Celsius. It works for us.

I appreciate the latitude the member took with his comments. We have heard an awful lot from the opposition about the carbon tax and the horrible burden it is placing on the cost of everything, and yet every reasonable economist in the land says that it is simply not the case.

Perhaps the member could explain where the NDP is on that specific issue.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, if we are speaking of latitude, in my 16 years in this place, I have never seen such latitude given to a government in presenting a fall economic statement, which was basically to table it outside, run for the hills and not be in the House to present the document. That is showing latitude to a government.

In terms of the carbon tax, New Democrats have for many decades been very concerned about the climate crisis. We were warning about this decades ago. We have always called for an effective price on pollution and supported effective policies, whether that is a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, regulation of industries or, frankly, incentivizing the production of renewable energy in this country. Our record, in terms of dealing seriously and responsibly with the climate crisis, is second to none.

My disappointment is that after nine years of the government, I have not seen meaningful progress in reducing Canada's carbon emissions. The question the member has to answer is, why is that? Why has his government failed so terribly in meeting our international commitments, whether it is Kyoto or Paris? We have a whole generation of Canadians—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disturbed by everything I am hearing in the House today.

The NDP had an opportunity to help people who really needed it by continuing to support us on Bill C‑319 to increase pensions. Instead, the New Democrats have continued to support this spendthrift government with measures that do not really help people. Our leader even said that, at some point, someone would get tired of this marriage. Clearly, the former finance minister started to find this marriage with the NDP a little too onerous, because of its demands. As a result, we are stuck and we cannot help people. For example, we could continue to talk about the bill to help seniors. It was a much cheaper measure. My colleague from Joliette talked about it in his speech. The New Democrats like to brag about the dental care program when, just last Friday, people came to my office to complain about it.

Why did the NDP continue to support a government that is now completely dysfunctional, only to suddenly call for the Prime Minister's resignation?

It makes no sense.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I will join issue with her on one thing, which is that we also believe the Prime Minister should resign. Our leader called for that very thing today. The New Democratic Party has 25 MPs in the House. My hon. colleague is a member of the Bloc Québécois and it has, I think, 33 seats. It has more seats than we do.

What have the New Democrats accomplished in this Parliament since 2021? Again, as of today, three million Canadians have signed up for and are receiving dental care in this country because of the efforts of the NDP. Agreements with British Columbia, Manitoba and, I understand, almost every other province are well under way to ensure people can walk into a pharmacy and walk out with contraception and diabetes medications that they need. That is what the NDP did. We worked to obtain a billion dollars to help kids across this country get access to a nutritious school meal every day. That makes a difference.

After we withdrew from our confidence and supply agreement, the Bloc Québécois attempted to make a deal with the government, which failed. The Bloc Québécois has achieved nothing in this Parliament for anybody. I would stack the New Democrats' record of accomplishment and achievement in the House, in this Parliament, against anybody's. We have helped millions of Canadians in a practical and pragmatic way, including millions of people in Quebec.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for the amount of his speech that he dedicated to addressing the housing crisis. It is clear that he and the NDP are serious when it comes to addressing the housing crisis. He talked about the need to double social housing across the country. He likely knows that one of the reasons the government has been unable to do so is that the CMHC has a definition of housing that is not actually being used in the various programs it operates. In fact, in today's fall economic statement, there are accelerated funds for a program of which only 3% delivers anything that helps those who are in core housing need.

I would appreciate understanding from him the extent to which he is similarly concerned with CMHC not using the right definition of housing and how addressing that could help address the need to get more affordable housing built.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the housing crisis that we experienced in 2024 did not develop yesterday. It did not develop in the last five years. This has developed over decades of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, beginning in the early 1990s when the Liberals and Conservatives cut CMHC's investments in social housing in this country. That was the start of the long slide. That is why Canada today is so far below the OECD's averages of the percentage of our housing that is social housing. We can blame CMHC, but to me, the buck stops with the government. The policies of the government are the ones that should be driving the CMHC.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation that should be fully driven toward producing a house for every single Canadian in this country who needs one. We all represent ridings in this country and we deal with thousands of issues, but some are foundational. In my view, housing is a foundational issue. It anchors people in community. It is what makes their ability to work and access schools and connect with community possible. When people do not have access to a secure, affordable, decent house, their rights as a citizen are seriously abridged. Only New Democrats are capable of making sure the CMHC—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I just want to add one more question here.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for really sharing with the House all of the fantastic work the NDP has done for Canadians, all of those programs for Canadians.

I wonder if the member would not mind letting Canadians know what the Conservatives have not delivered in the House in three years.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all of her work. She has been a crusading force in the House fighting for people with disabilities, including getting a meaningful Canada disability benefit. She continues to fight for that. In a word, I guess, the shorter list is to explain what the Conservative opposition has obtained for Canadians in the House, in this Parliament. The answer to that would be nothing.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at this moment and to debate in the ongoing motion of privilege. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Being a stickler for the rules, I am aware as I begin this that today seems to be a day when all the rules are going right out the window. I noticed that the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets noted that the member for Vancouver Kingsway did not speak to the motion that is before us. That is consistent with the 20 minutes that the leader of the official opposition took to give his speech, which also made no reference to Sustainable Development Technology Canada nor the motion of privilege nor the return of documents.

Through a series of, I have to say, ill-considered, not necessarily ill-intentioned but certainly disrespectful decisions that were occasioned by the unanticipated and I am sure shocking events of the day in terms of how they affected the Liberal caucus, the planned tabling of the fall economic statement, the planned opportunity to hear the former minister of finance and deputy prime minister explain what was in that document, explain to us how the guardrails of deficits above $40 billion had been breached, explain to us what was in there and what was not in there, and then to allow each party in this place, including the Green Party, to have a right of response, to take questions and so on, all went out the window.

I am a stickler for the rules, so before turning the floor over to my hon. colleague, I am going to say that nothing I am about to say is relevant to the matter that is before the House for Orders of the Day. I apologize, but this is my one opportunity to say some things that I think need saying.

I want to say on the floor of this place, as we normally would in a circumstance where someone who has served on the front benches of this place as a cabinet minister since 2015, who has now left that cabinet suddenly and unexpectedly, that I do not agree with much of what that member for University—Rosedale put forward over the years, but I respect her enormously and it is a really lousy thing. I do not know what word to use. It is graceless, it is crass and it is unbecoming to our tradition as parliamentarians that someone as fine as the member for University—Rosedale would leave the cabinet, leave being deputy prime minister and leave being minister of finance.

The member had previously been minister of international trade and played a really large role in getting this country through our first encounter with a Trump presidency. She played a rather large role in negotiating and renegotiating NAFTA, now CUSMA, so that Canada ended up whole and in fact better because we got rid of the energy clause and what were then chapter 11 investor-state provisions of what was NAFTA and is now CUSMA.

In terms of good or bad luck for a government to have an expert, the member for University—Rosedale was, as far as I know, the first Canadian banned from Russia by Vladimir Putin because, before entering politics, she had a job. She was a journalist and was based in Moscow and she did not write flattering puff pieces about Mr. Putin. She told the truth and, as a result, she risked her life and certainly did not earn any bonus points. Mr. Putin decided to name her specifically as someone not welcome in Russia. I have had that honour since that time. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and since Greens have stood up with the rest of this Parliament in defending Ukraine and in urging that we do everything we can to stop the brutality of the Russian invasion, I eventually got listed as one of those not welcome in Russia, but I am a johnny-come-lately to the honour. The member for University—Rosedale has it hands down regarding the bravery of living in Moscow and doing that work as a journalist.

The member for University—Rosedale played a large role in navigating us through COVID. Much of Canada emerged from the COVID pandemic a different country, fractured, so I would love a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and experts to figure it out. We are more divided than we used to be and yet we got through COVID with half the death rate of our neighbours south of the border and we got through it using benefits that actually, for the first time in the history of this country, reduced childhood poverty.

There is much to be said about the hon. member for University—Rosedale, and I just wanted to, publicly in this place, thank the hon. member. I have argued with her many times about climate policy, but she is a fine public servant, sitting as the member of Parliament for University—Rosedale, and today was not a good day for any kind of gracious acknowledgement of a role that somebody played across the aisle.

I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale very much for the incredible work she did during very difficult times and during several crises. I am thinking about Russia and its war against Ukraine, and there was also the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Today was not a good day for us in this place, because I think it was a contempt that, without any “by your leave”, the fall economic statement was dropped. I have a lot of respect for the government House leader. She was not prepared to deliver a speech nor to take questions, but I think it was, again, classless and disrespectful that we were not allowed to give a round of speeches on what we thought of the document, having been briefly exposed to it in the shortest lock-up in history over any budgetary document.

Usually we are given the better part of a day for time to ask questions. We got the document at about 1:30 or 1:45 this afternoon. I had to run back here for question period. I am not looking for sympathy about how quickly we had to work and how hard we had to read, because there was so little there, but that does not matter.

The exemption on props, Madam Speaker, is if we are speaking to the document itself, so this document itself—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member is not to point to a document that she is holding. She can reference it, but she cannot be pointing at it.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, we learn something new every day. I understood that there is an exemption to the rule on props if we are actually speaking to a document and holding it in our hand for reference. I thought that was acceptable, but perhaps we had better check the rules.

The document has very little in it, despite its bulk, and there is almost nothing new. There is a pittance on housing and less than a pittance on climate. There is recognition for the first time, which is good, that there should be some transparency rules around climate finance. There is a suggestion that the government is going to work with the insurance industry, there is an idea, to try to get flood insurance for Canadians in flood plains and to keep them out of “harm's way”.

That is not going to be a solution to the galloping climate crisis and the number of Canadians whose life and limb are at risk from the variety of climate crises that are upon us, whether they are extreme flooding events; atmospheric rivers; heat domes such as the one that killed 619 British Columbians in four days in the summer of 2021; extreme events like hurricane Fiona or the derechos that devastated parts of Ottawa, storms that we did not even know had names; or increased tornadoes, floods, droughts or extreme weather events of all kinds.

However, very little is said for Canadians to make us feel safer in our homes or to make us think that the government understands what the crisis really looks like when we live through it. We live through more all the time. Wildfire events are extremely bad for our health. It is extremely hard to have to breathe the smoke from fires that come at all times of the year.

While the fall economic statement in its substance was extremely disappointing, the way in which it was dropped on us, with the lack of accountability for fiscal promises made and broken, is a low ebb for the Government of Canada. I wish the best to the new minister of finance. I hope someone will take responsibility.

Accountability is sorely lacking in all corners of our institutions, across Canada and into provinces. We need to take responsibility for our actions, be accountable, say when we have made a mistake and be honest with Canadians about how we plan to do better and what we plan to do.

It is not enough to have rhyming slogans. We need policies and programs, and we need to be serious about the work at hand, because Canadians are serious, honest, hard-working people, and they need to know that their members of Parliament are working for them, not just to prop up one colour-coded team against another.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

December 16th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, since 10 o'clock this morning, I have been hearing a great deal of discussion about the fall economic statement, and as the member herself admits, even with the question of privilege that is before us, virtually all speeches, whether they were pre-two o'clock or post-tabling of the document, have been on the fall economic statement. That is not necessarily my question, however.

One of the slogans the Conservatives have is that they are going to fix the budget. “Fixing the budget”, for many Canadians, including myself, would mean a Conservative government would in fact look at cutting things that we put into place, such as the national disability program, the national child care program, the national pharmacare program, the national dental care program and the national school food program.

Whenever the Conservatives use the slogan, “fix the budget”, does the member have any concerns in regard to what is actually meant when they say that?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, we actually do not know what is meant by that, because to me, fixing the budget is to get a balanced budget. We know it will take some time, but the Greens have been advocating that if we want to balance our spending with our revenues, we should go for where the money is, which is the billionaire class, big banks, big oil and big grocery chains. They have been reaping excess profits over the last number of years.

It is true that, when I asked this in question period last week, the former minister of finance said that the Liberal government introduced an excess profit tax on banks and insurance companies, but it is a very small one. It did not apply to oil and gas or to grocery chains, and it did not apply to a wealth tax, because we have seen a massive increase in the number of billionaires in this country. They are very nice people, I am sure. However, I would like to see them taxed not enough that it would be cruel, but enough that it would reduce them to mere millionaires.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, one thing I hear a lot about in my riding, from constituents and from people who are following this, is security clearance. I know the leader of the Green Party got her security clearance, and duly so. The leader of the NDP got his security clearance. The leader of the Bloc got his security clearance, and of course the Prime Minister has his security clearance. There is one leader who does not have a security clearance. That is the Leader of the Opposition. A lot of my constituents are simply asking, “Why not just get it?” Put out that fire and move on. However, he continues to avoid getting it.

My question to the leader of the Green Party is this: Why?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I have one small factoid correction. It is true that the Prime Minister of this country has his security clearance, but he got it by right when he became Prime Minister. He never actually had to go through the process that I, or the leader of the New Democratic Party or the leader of the Bloc Québécois, had to go through.

That is a good question, and a very important one. Why did the leader of the official opposition refuse to initiate the process?

The only reason that I can think of is that the Conservative leader is worried he would not get it, because we do not get it by right. I urge the leader of the official opposition to remove the doubt for Canadians that there is something about his history, potentially with foreign interference or something else, which means he worries that he would not get top secret security clearance if he were to ask for it.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:15 p.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, in the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' speech, she talked about what we could do if we were to really tax the wealthiest. I know she believes one of the things we could do would be to lift folks with disabilities out of poverty. I used to say that the government was going to do this vote-buying scheme, and maybe it is just the Prime Minister who is planning on doing it. That vote-buying scheme left out folks with disabilities, just as this fall economic statement did.

Can the member comment on how important it is to lift folks with disabilities out of poverty and how this statement could have been a place to do it?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, we are a rich country. Thanks to my hon. friend for Kitchener Centre for reminding us that we have an obligation as a country to have essential fairness. People with disabilities have a disproportionate rate of poverty, but why do we have people living in tent cities? Why are we allowing people to live in conditions that are inhumane in a country that could afford a guaranteed livable income for all?