Debates of Feb. 15th, 2024

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑354, which seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to impose additional consultation obligations on the CRTC, namely the obligation to consult the Government of Quebec on its cultural distinctiveness and the governments of the provinces and territories on their French-speaking markets.

Our government is already working tirelessly to ensure that our broadcasting system is in tune with the evolution of our digital world and that it represents all Canadians. Our actions in this regard prove it. Modernizing the legislative framework for broadcasting is one way our government has been able to provide ongoing support for the French language. A good example of this is the Online Streaming Act, which received royal assent in April 2023.

That was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991.

This act will enable all Canadians, including members of Canada's francophonie, to recognize themselves more clearly in what they watch and listen to, thanks to a new framework that better reflects our country's diversity.

The reform of the Official Languages Act is just one example of our hard work in support of the French language. The purpose of the act is to protect and promote the French language by recognizing its status as a minority language in Canada and North America.

While the objectives of Bill C-354 are laudable and relevant, it is clear the bill poses more problems than it solves and would create redundant obligations and impede existing processes, and that is why the government is opposed to this bill.

Among other things, the bill has a number of problems. It proposes to impose redundant consultation obligations on the CRTC and it could be perceived as jeopardizing the CRTC's independence.

With respect to redundancy and increasing the burden on the CRTC, this administrative tribunal already holds extensive public consultations before making decisions. Quebec therefore already has the opportunity to participate in these consultations, regardless of their scope, and it does just that.

Furthermore, in carrying out its mandate, the CRTC must respect the Government of Canada's commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada.

The obligation set out in Bill C‑354 to consult the government of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories would, however, impose an additional burden in terms of time and resources.

While our government understands the importance of having regulatory measures in place to ensure that the broadcasting landscape is equitable and representative, it is hard to see how additional consultations would add value when the provinces and territories can already participate in said process and do so regularly. That is the issue with this bill. It is simply not necessary.

Another problem lies in the implications of this bill on other obligations under the Broadcasting Act.

As an administrative tribunal operating at arm's length from the federal government, the CRTC regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. With regard to broadcasting, the CRTC's job is to assess how best to give effect to the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act. One of these objectives is to support the creation and discoverability of original French-language programming.

In a democracy like ours, it would be inappropriate for any level of government to exert inappropriate influence on the day-to-day decisions of the CRTC, which is an independent body. Just as a requirement for the CRTC to consult the federal government would undermine its independence, so too would a requirement to consult provincial and territorial governments.

Bill C-354's requirement to consult directly with provincial and territorial governments on certain matters in the exercise of its powers would be unprecedented for the CRTC. Moreover, it would risk interfering with the decision-making process and undermine public confidence in its independence.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to remind the House and all Canadians that the government already actively consults the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to broadcasting. I understand the intention behind my good friend's proposal, but the reality is that the work that the CRTC does already takes into account the very requests that he is making.

The CRTC plays a critical role in regulating Canada's broadcasting system. It is essential that we give it the necessary flexibility to carry out its mandate effectively. Bill C‑354 goes against these objectives.

It is clear that Bill C‑354 poses several problems. It does not target the right legislative vehicle, it creates ambiguities and imposes a disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the CRTC, to name just a few. Imposing a consultation requirement on the CRTC, as proposed, is inappropriate for the various reasons I mentioned.

In conclusion, I believe that, although this bill is motivated by good intentions, it presents major risks for the effective functioning of the CRTC and for the legitimacy of our processes for regulating our broadcasting system.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to consider the consequences of this proposal carefully before making any decisions. Our government will be ready and willing to answer members' questions and will continue to ensure that the CRTC has the means to fulfill its critical role without imposing unnecessary burdens on it.

The reality is that if we consider the motivations behind the proposal in this bill, there are many things that the hon. member, as I mentioned before, seeks to achieve. We need to understand that the mandate of the CRTC, what the CRTC already does and seeks to do, particularly with regard to consultation, already exists. It is important for us to remember that provinces like Quebec already get involved, make their submissions and appeal to the CRTC, as and when required. For us to add an additional layer of reporting requirement on the CRTC causes a significant concern with respect to interference from levels of government.

It is important for us, particularly in this challenging time, to ensure that the independence of the CRTC is maintained, that we do not cause the perception of undue influence on it and we do not create an environment where the CRTC feels it is under an obligation of specific levels of government, whether federal or otherwise. I would encourage all members to consider seriously, while taking into account the laudable and certainly well-intentioned thinking behind the proposal, that the CRTC is already responsible for this. There is an arm's-length relationship with government that must always be maintained and we cannot do anything to create the perception that the government, at any level, is telling the CRTC what to do.

With that, I again ask hon. members in the House to consider seriously the ramifications and implications of opening up the CRTC to direction from any level of government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Automotive Industry

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, back in November, I put a question to the Minister of Innovation regarding the government's decision around its massive subsidy program for battery plants. I asked him about the inconsistencies that the government had offered at that time for the number of taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers who were going to be employed amid the massive incentives that were being given to a profitable company in Windsor.

It was quite alarming. People were really surprised that, despite the massive financial support from the government, this was not even going toward local jobs in Windsor. Rather, it would require a massive number of temporary workers, who would have to come and add to the strain on local housing and health and all the other services that people need municipally. Moreover, the salaries of people who were coming in to take these jobs would be paid from the taxes of local workers in Windsor.

The response was wholly unacceptable. The minister just talked about how wonderful it was that they have all these new factories that are being built only with massive support from the government.

The question, at the time, was this: Would they release the contracts and actually be clear with Canadians as to the details and what the costs would be? The estimates are that every family in Canada would be paying $1,000 for this subsidy program for construction to be carried out by temporary foreign workers, not local workers, who would be adding to the strains on the local housing market and all the other things that go along with that.

This is part of a broader pattern where the current government's industrial policy is to chase out actual real investment, whether foreign or domestic, and the only way they can get anything built in this country is to subsidize. We need look no further than what the Liberals have done in the oil and gas industry. The government's own report from Statistics Canada states that rising living standards will depend on productivity growth. It says, “Labour productivity has declined in 11 of the past 12 quarters and is below prepandemic levels.” Furthermore, “business investment in non-residential structures and machinery and equipment has...pulled back since...the mid-2010s.”

The living standard of Canadians is declining. The per capita GDP in Canada is shrinking. People are doing less well, and the response of the current government is simply to try to incentivize countries through subsidy while it is chasing out private capital, as it has done in my province.

To top it all off, this week, the environment minister said that there will be no more road construction, when road construction leads to productivity. One wonders whether the batteries from the Stellantis plant subsidized by the government will power flying cars. It is a growing country that needs roads. The Liberals do not want roads or private investment. They simply want to subsidize as their industrial policy.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be here tonight and to answer the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge's questions regarding employment at the NextStar battery plant in Windsor.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the ways in which Canadians will benefit from the partnership with NextStar. NextStar is investing billions of dollars to establish Canada's first large-scale EV battery manufacturing plant in Windsor. This facility will produce leading-edge lithium ion battery cells and modules for Stellantis's vehicle production in North America.

Through its investment, NextStar will create a total of 2,300 jobs for Canadians during the construction of the facility and an additional 2,500 permanent jobs for Canadians during the operation of the facility. Beyond the jobs associated with the facility in Windsor, an investment of this size will act as an anchor for further investments across the EV battery supply chain. It will also help secure the new EV mandates at Stellantis's Windsor and Brampton assembly plants.

It is correct that during the construction phase of this project, NextStar has indicated they will employ approximately 900 foreign specialists with technical skills needed to install machinery and equipment and to train Canadians. That is in addition to its commitments to create jobs for Canadians.

The Liberal government strongly believes that all businesses operating in Canada should prioritize the use of our local workforce. The government will continue to work with NextStar to ensure that it is filling as many jobs as possible through our talented local workforce and that it is minimizing the number of workers employed from outside Canada. However, it is important for the member opposite to remember that this is the first large-scale battery plant in Canada. Most of the machinery and equipment will be imported, as it cannot be sourced domestically.

It is normal practice in the manufacturing and automotive sectors that when dealing with imported specialized machinery and equipment, the company supplying the machinery has its own employees complete the installation. This is not only because of proprietary knowledge and warranty issues, but also because it is important to bring new expertise and skills into Canada. Without the use of foreign workers, this investment and others like it would not be possible. The resulting thousands of Canadian jobs would not be created. This is a first of its kind transformational investment that requires expertise that currently resides outside of Canada.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government would simply get out of the way, private capital would return to this country, and we would have actual investment that would employ Canadians and create jobs without massive subsidies. The estimate has been that the subsidy on this plant alone will be $1,000 per family in Canada.

A perfect example of the Liberal government's absolutely disastrous track record on investment in this country is the oil and gas business, where it chased out private capital that would have built the Trans Mountain pipeline. Now, the government has to massively subsidize that project, when it could have been built with private capital and could have employed Canadians in both the construction and the fulfillment of that job. The project is still not done. The government wants extraordinary credit for its subsidy program when it should be welcoming private capital.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that I disagree with the member opposite. I think the stats and the actual information out there actually proves the opposite. Canada is rated number three in the world in foreign direct investment. We have also been rated by BloombergNEF as the number one place for investment in electric vehicle supply chains in the whole world.

The automotive manufacturers in Canada and around the world are taking major steps to transition to electrification. As a result, demand for EV batteries is expected to grow exponentially over the next decade. Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this transition with its existing expertise in the automotive sector, clean energy and an abundance of critical minerals and access to global markets.

However, Canada will not be able to secure these investments without taking steps to remain competitive. Restricting the use of foreign—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Public Services and Procurement

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed to the Minister of Industry in question period last November, namely which Liberal insiders the minister is protecting at the Liberals' corrupt green slush fund.

The level of corruption, conflict of interest and self-dealing at the fund is staggering. According to whistle-blowers, more than $150 million of taxpayers' money has been misappropriated by Liberal insiders at the fund. An independent fact-finding report revealed that board members of the fund funnelled tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from the fund to their own companies; talk about self-dealing and corruption.

The minister has the authority to fire the corrupt green slush fund board, but incredibly, the minister refuses to do so. Why does he? When the scandal broke, the minister claimed he was unaware of corruption at the green slush fund, but the minister's claims are contradicted by the facts.

Here is a fact: As early as 2019, the minister's predecessor, the Liberal industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, was informed that the Liberal-appointed chair was in a major conflict of interest because her company was receiving millions of dollars from none other than the fund. Not only that, but the minister sent his officials to each and every green slush fund board meeting, including the very meetings in which decisions were made to inappropriately and perhaps illegally funnel money from the fund to board members' companies. According to whistle-blowers, the minister and his department are engaged in a coordinated campaign to cover up corruption at the fund, and the minister is more interested in damage control than in getting to the truth.

With these things taken together, it is evident the minister knew of corruption at the green slush fund, did nothing about it and turned a blind eye to it, thus enabling Liberal insiders to get rich. When the corruption was revealed, the minister continued to stand behind the green slush fund board. Again, why is he protecting corrupt Liberal insiders?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

We have taken responsible and prudent actions necessary to investigate the claims that have been presented to us. These processes are well under way. The party opposite needs to understand that proper due diligence takes time and that the appropriate measures are in place to allow the processes to play out.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development has temporarily frozen SDTC's funding and has appointed a legal agent to review the organization's HR practices. The minister has also accepted the resignation of the board chair and the CEO of the organization. Funding will not be restored until the minister is satisfied that SDTC has fully implemented the actions contained in the management response and action plan issued in response to the recommendations in the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report.

SDTC has worked diligently to provide documentation to demonstrate that changes have been made, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is now in the process of assessing the completeness of SDTC's response in ensuring that the appropriate measures are actually in place. We cannot proceed on half-truths. Facts matter in this case. Our actions and the associated measures put in place will continue to be informed by proper due diligence.

We await the Auditor General's report, the results of the legal review of HR practices and the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner's investigation. We will take the appropriate measures in response to any findings or recommendations that may result from these processes. SDTC is an organization that wants to get back to supporting Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector. I think the party opposite should allow due process to take its course as we remain prepared to take the next necessary actions.

The government is committed to supporting Canada's innovative industries in the clean tech sector. Canadian clean technology companies are crucial to ensuring that Canada and the world meet their 2030 and 2050 climate commitments. I am confident that we are on the right path with the implementation of the corrective measures, the review of SDTC's human resources management, the Auditor General's audit and the Ethics Commissioner's investigation.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the minister is wilfully blind to the facts. The facts include that $40 million of taxpayer money from the fund was funnelled to the companies of board members. The parliamentary secretary spoke about due diligence. The minister's officials sat in on meetings in which tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were inappropriately funnelled from the fund to the companies of board members.

The minister knew about it. He had to have known about it, or he is completely incompetent. Either way, why will he not, at the very least, fire the board? Who is he protecting?

I would submit that it begs the question: To what extent is he himself involved in this corruption?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, what the member implies is absolutely false, but I think he probably knows that.

I would like to urge the member opposite to exercise patience and allow the actions that we have put in place to play out. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue at hand is to have the confidence to restore funding to SDTC and to allow proper due diligence in fact-finding to happen. We set conditions before new spending can happen, and the organization is working to meet those conditions.

The RCGT report did not uncover deliberate unethical behaviour as the member has implied. Nonetheless, the board chair and the CEO of the organization have resigned.

We await the results of the numerous investigations and reports, and we will take action as necessary.

Carbon Pricing

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I quote:

Canadians turn to GoFundMe to tackle cost-of-living challenges. Record-high inflation and affordable housing shortages have profoundly impacted Canadians, who have been turning to the GoFundMe platform to rally support. Since early 2020, GoFundMe has recorded a 274% increase in Canadian campaigns that mention “cost of living”.

This is a text taken directly from the GoFundMe website, which now has a record number of Canadians, hard-working Canadians, who cannot make ends meet in spite of working multiple jobs and now feel that their only recourse is to resort to digital begging. On this particular page there is the story of Claude. Social worker Leigh Adamson set up this GoFundMe campaign to support her friend, who was forced to live in his car due to the soaring cost of living. There are so many stories about this.

Also, if members go to different mom Facebook pages, instead of seeing stories about sharing vacation photos or recipes, they will see people asking for support to buy groceries. That is because, as GoFundMe said, of soaring inflation.

One of the key drivers of this cost-of-living crisis is unnecessary taxes like the carbon tax. In fact, the carbon tax is set to rise as much as 17% in April of this year. Despite pleas from people across the country to axe this tax, which does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and does not work, the Liberals are just keeping it, and it is costing people. It is making them digitally beg to deal with the cost of living.

Instead of axing the tax, what the Liberals are doing is spending money on consultants to rebrand the tax. I really feel the Liberals should have some compassion for people, not make them resort to digital begging on platforms like GoFundMe. They should be looking at affordability measures.

There is no way to make the carbon tax affordable. It increases the cost of everything. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Parliament's top watchdog on public spending, said that as the carbon price is expected to increase over time, “most households will see a net loss”. People cannot afford that. They cannot afford to put a roof over their head. They cannot afford to buy food. They certainly cannot afford to pay a tax that does nothing to protect the environment but only goes to make their lives more unaffordable.

Will the Liberals have some compassion and axe the tax?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate tonight and have the opportunity to highlight the importance of having an actual plan to tackle climate change.

Canadians expect their elected representatives to pursue tangible solutions to combat climate change, yet the Conservative Party continues to deceive Canadians and perpetuate climate denial. In the past year alone, Canadians have endured severe climate-related events, including wildfires, droughts, heavy snowfall, torrential rain and tornados, marking some of the worst in our nation's history. Failing to take action against climate change is simply irresponsible.

Let me first clarify the facts regarding carbon pricing. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, the majority of proceeds generated from the price on pollution is returned to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households in these provinces receive more money back through quarterly carbon rebates than they pay as a result of pollution pricing. This is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said. For example, a family of four residing in the member's province of Alberta can receive up to $1,800 this year in quarterly payments, so that is $450 every three months. With our plan, we are fighting climate change and returning money into the pockets of Canadians.

Canadians are understandably worried as elevated global inflation and high interest rates continue to squeeze their finances. The economic environment has driven up the cost of far too many necessities, including housing and groceries. While Conservatives would have us think that carbon pricing is the main culprit, research from the University of Calgary reveals that the price on pollution adds less than a penny for every dollar spent on major expenses by Canadians. Canadians expect seriousness on affordability, not empty slogans or deceptive talking points, which the Conservatives continue to perpetuate.

Our government is actively tackling affordability issues by introducing new measures to alleviate the financial strain on Canadians. In the recent fall economic statement, we unveiled a comprehensive plan to bolster affordability and support Canadian households facing financial strain. Our government has made significant amendments to the Competition Act aimed at fostering greater competition within the grocery sector to lower costs and expand choices for Canadian consumers. To help Canadians who are feeling the pressure of their monthly energy bills, we are putting money back in the pockets of Canadians by doubling the rural top-up to 20% and temporarily pausing the federal fuel charge on deliveries of home heating oil. Our government is also cracking down on junk fees, such as international roaming charges and overdraft charges from banks that are costing Canadians money. As well, we are protecting homeowners with new mortgage relief measures.

Our government is moving forward with meaningful solutions and actions to make life more affordable in this country, all while fighting climate change.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is so expensive to live in Vancouver that people are buying flights twice a week to commute from Calgary to Vancouver, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and costing them so much money. It is unbelievable that the Liberal government has created a cost-of-living crisis that is so profound that people feel they have to fly back and forth from Calgary to Vancouver twice a week just to make ends meet. That is insane. That does not help greenhouse gas emissions, and it does not help people make ends meet.

When will the Liberals axe unnecessary taxes and help people make ends meet?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the member opposite is rich in slogans and rhetoric but short on solutions.

On this side of the House, we believe in climate change. We are tackling affordability, along with Canadians, and we are listening to Canadians every step of the way. It is time for the opposition to wake up to the realities of climate change.

Canadians can count on our government to keep up the fight against climate change while continuing to move forward with meaningful measures to make life more affordable for them and their families.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.)