Debates of Feb. 6th, 2024

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, time and time again, we hear from the Liberals and the NDP, the costly coalition, that the government is doing well. They speak numbers about where they are at, according to other OECD countries, when it comes to GDP or debt-to-GDP ratio.

We heard in Saskatchewan, under the socialist NDP for so long in the 90s, that the government was doing well.

If this Liberal-NDP costly coalition is doing so well, why are Canadians hurting so much?

Why is food bank usage at two million people per month?

If the government is doing so well, why have Canadians never had it so bad?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think of some quotes of some famous Conservative politicians throughout history.

Ronald Reagan said that the most terrifying words in the English language are “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.”

The late, great Prime Minister Winston Churchill, of the United Kingdom, said, “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

The evidence is clear. We see the evidence today in the heartbreaking stories that my Conservative colleagues and I hear on a daily basis. When the government does well, Canadians are hurting.

It is time to make sure that we bring some common sense back to the agenda and objectives of government, to make sure that when it comes to the carbon tax, we take those billions of dollars out of the hands of bureaucrats and politicians in our nation's capital and make sure that we bring down the price of food.

I recently heard a heartbreaking story of a senior at a grocery store who had to put items back because her bill was too expensive. She knew she could not afford it.

When the government is doing well, it means that the people of that country are suffering. It is time to bring home some common sense and remember that the government should be the servant, not the master, of the people. That has been forgotten in our country.

Conservatives will right that ship and ensure that, once again, the government serves the people of this country.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I hear from the opposite side that they are always talking about the carbon pricing system, half of it, but I do not hear them ever talking about the rebate that people in their communities are receiving.

The average family of four in Alberta would be receiving $386 four times a year, plus, if they are in a rural area, they actually get a rural top-up.

When they are talking with constituents about carbon pricing, are they also asking constituents how they feel about the fact that they are not going to be getting that rebate cheque? That is money right into their accounts, $386, four times a year, plus the rural top-up.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes they just make it way too easy. We have a Liberal member bragging about giving Canadians back the money that they took from them. Forgive me if I disagree with Liberal logic on this.

When Conservatives say we want to axe the tax, we simply want to empower Canadians, who are in the best position to make choices when it comes to the food they eat and the vehicles they drive, and not raise costs only to then send it back to a few people based on a formula, which they certainly did not consult with the people of Alberta on.

In fact, the majority of provinces in this country have actually elected governments that do not support the carbon tax. That is something the member should not forget when trying to impose that left-leaning ideology that has been so destructive on the people of my province, as an example.

It is time to bring some common sense back to the conversation. The member talks about the so-called rural top-up. It is 10% more, yet there are devastating impacts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself made it very clear that 60% of Canadians end up paying more in direct and indirect costs, because every stage of the food supply chain, the transportation sector, etc. ends up paying the carbon tax.

It was dishonest of the Liberals to claim it was a revenue-neutral tax, because it is not; it costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year to administer. Then they say that Canadians get more back than they pay into it. That was dishonest as well. At every step of the process, it is time to axe the tax, so that we can empower Canadians to make the decisions that are best for them.

In this case, they so flippantly suggest that they are somehow solving the problem by intentionally raising prices. No. Let us lower the price of food for Canadians, so that Canadians can afford to eat, heat their homes and live the Canadian dream that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have taken away from them.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleague just gave us a glimpse into the Liberal psyche. She said we never talk about the rebates when it comes to the carbon tax. My colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot hit the nail on the head: We do not have to give the money back to Canadians if we do not take it in the first place.

My colleague mentioned a couple of really great things when it comes to Conservative principles. Another one is Margaret Thatcher. She said the best thing I have ever heard about socialism: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” That is what the Liberal government is starting to do. We cannot tax Canadians into oblivion and then wonder why they cannot afford food. We have taxed Canadians so much. That is why there are two million Canadians lined up to go to the food bank.

Does my colleague agree that Liberals would not have to give so much money back to Canadians if they were not taking it in the first place?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, because my colleague from Regina—Lewvan is absolutely right. He mentioned the socialist extremes that Saskatchewan faced throughout some of its history and how that ideology held that province back.

I know that for the four years during which the accidental NDP ruled over Alberta, there was pain and suffering. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and taxes were imposed that certainly the people of Alberta did not vote for. I know now, across this country, we are seeing the devastating consequences of a government that thinks it is, and this comes back to the comments I made before, the master and the king, that it has the right to impose upon the people.

It is time to reorient the priorities of government. It is time for a Conservative government, which will make sure its people are the masters, not the government, and respect Canadians' decisions and their hard-earned dollars. We will axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everybody.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

There being no further speakers rising, pursuant to order made earlier this day, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, February 7, 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.

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has been gripped by the arrive scam scandal: the way the government spent $54 million on a glitchy app that did not work and the fact that it chose GC Strategies, a two-person company that did no actual IT work and simply subcontracted all the work.

How did this happen? Who was responsible? Who had the relationships with GC Strategies? Who created the procurement system that allowed a two-person company that does no IT work to get this contract and, essentially, to simply be able to receive and subcontract the work? This is the work the government operations committee has been trying to get to the bottom of.

The government is now intimidating witnesses who spoke out at committee. Here is what happened. Supposedly there was an ongoing internal investigation within the government into what happened in the context of the ArriveCAN procurement. The investigator in this case is not independent; this is an internal investigation. The so-called investigator reports through the existing chain of command within CBSA. He effectively reports to people who could be under a cloud of suspicion in the context of the investigation.

On November 7, 2023, two witnesses, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, came before the government operations committee. In response to questions, in particular from Conservatives, they gave devastating testimony. They identified people inside the government who, they said, were lying and were covering up information. They identified conversations that happened between the minister's office and the senior public servants that were filtered to them. While other public servants were very reserved and limited in their responses to questions, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano gave very direct and very forthright responses that were critical of actions taken by others, especially more senior people within the chain of command.

Surprisingly, almost immediately after that, on November 27, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano received a letter saying that they were the subject of internal investigation. They had not been notified of this before. Coincidentally, apparently, they were told they were under investigation immediately after they offered critical testimony at committee. Then the government went further and suspended these senior public servants from their jobs without pay, even though the internal investigation has not been completed. There is an ongoing internal investigation not complete, yet two people have been suspended without pay.

This is very suspicious. The government is under a cloud of suspicion over this procurement, so it has an internal investigator; however, the internal investigator has not even completed the investigation but has submitted interim findings that apparently point the finger at people who have been critical of the same senior public servants to whom this investigator in fact is subject, and they have been suspended without pay.

This very clearly, given the timeline, looks like retaliation against public servants who have spoken out about the arrive scam scandal. There is a big problem here. There is the underlying issue of corruption in the arrive scam contracting, $54 million to a company that did no actual work but just subcontracted all of the work, but then there are people who have provided testimony about it, not the testimony the government wanted to hear, apparently, who are suddenly suspended without pay.

How does the government justify retaliating against witnesses who criticize it?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, we expect procurement processes to be properly followed and any person who commits wrongdoing to face the appropriate consequences.

As my colleague knows, the president of the CBSA has referred allegations of misconduct received in 2022 to its professional integrity division, which has been actively working on its administrative investigation since then.

The president of the CBSA has already implemented changes in how the agency manages and oversees procurement. Better controls and oversight have been put in place, including those people with procurement authority in headquarters retaking their training. Also, it is having a senior committee review every task authorization and is centralizing procurement responsibilities within the organization. These controls will be calibrated over time with a fuller of understanding of what happened and why. This will also be informed by the internal review that is ongoing with respect to the contract documents associated with ArriveCAN.

The CBSA has also suspended its contracts with three companies, including GC Strategies, through a stop-work order from Public Services and Procurement Canada. While investigations are ongoing, it is committed to acting on findings from all audits and reviews to inform the future of contractual arrangements. The CBSA will continue to work with PSPC to improve procurement practices and processes.

I will conclude by stating that the current investigations should not in any way undervalue or dishonour the incredible work the frontline border officers and all CBSA employees do every single day to serve and protect Canadian citizens at the border and in support of our country's prosperity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the midst of this gross corruption scandal, we continue to get bureaucratic non-answers from the NDP-Liberal government.

I had a very simple question that was not answered, so I will ask that simple question again. Why were two senior public servants suspended without pay in the middle of an investigation only after they had offered testimony critical of more senior public servants and the government? Why were they suspended after their testimony?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we understand and take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. member. This government is committed to transparency and accountability. The CBSA and the RCMP are investigating the allegations and the government welcomes these ongoing investigations.

The CBSA was fully engaged with the Office of the Procurement Ombud and will implement its recommendations. The agency will also make improvements based on the upcoming report of the Office of the Auditor General and its own internal review of contracting. The president has also already implemented measures to strengthen and improve procurement processes and internal controls.

I assure all Canadians that the government will continue to prioritize efficiency, accountability and transparency in the management of public resources.

Carbon Pricing

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, in October of this past year, I asked the government about its selective reversal of the carbon tax for Atlantic Canadians who heat their homes with fuel oil. Incidentally, about 25% of Atlantic Canadians heat their homes with fuel oil, as opposed to 6% in the rest of the country and about 0% in my province of Alberta. However, there is no reduction offered elsewhere in Canada, just in Atlantic Canada. The rationale was explained by the government's Newfoundland regional minister, who said that perhaps people need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies. It is a rare moment of frank honesty from a Liberal minister on how to get financial advantage in Canada. It is easy. Just get on the Liberal gravy train.

However, I am sure it gutted the two Liberal members from Alberta. Respectfully, both of these members have proven good at one thing in particular in Parliament, which is mindlessly reading out clearly ridiculous Liberal talking points on a number of issues. The member for Edmonton Centre, the one who responded to my question, is a minister. He just obfuscated in response to my question. I do not blame him. His colleague the minister from Newfoundland's public assessment about his lack of engagement on this file for his constituents must have stung for quite a while.

Let us get some real perspective on this. The carbon tax on clean-burning natural gas rose this past April by about 27%, to $3.33 per gigajoule. It is going up again this April Fool's Day to $4.21 per gigajoule. It is interesting that this tax on clean-burning natural gas is more than the cost basis of the commodity itself. The average in 2023 was only $2.50. Incidentally, people pay GST on top of the carbon tax, a tax on a tax that is also increasing.

On January 13 this year, residents in the riding of Edmonton Centre felt temperatures drop to -45°C. The average home was using about twice as much natural gas as usual to keep residents safe and warm. Here is the outcome. It gets cold in the Prairies every winter, and the government benefits by collecting more taxes. Cold weather in the Prairies is a gift that keeps on giving to the government, but it is not free. It is an increasing transfer from the pockets of constituents of Edmonton Centre and other Canadians on the Prairies to the Liberal government. Therefore, the member for Edmonton Centre should feel the sting when his colleague announced his ineffectiveness in representing his constituents to all Canadians.

I know the response to my question is going to include one or a few Liberal bromides, such as we should not worry and the government is spending this money to make all things better, neither of which have proven effective. I am going to hear about the virtues of heat pumps and that oil heat in Atlantic Canada costs more than natural gas, so it is only fair, but whatever is said, it will not excuse the Alberta Liberal members of the House for failing to speak for their constituents and the regionally disproportionate share of the carbon tax the government collects from Canadians who live on the Prairies.

I am asking again if the government's exemption from carbon taxes by region, for political purposes, should properly be reduced for all Canadians, regardless of how they stay safe and warm in the winter.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a couple of issues in what the member opposite just raised.

The first part is to take into account the very real issue of climate change. It is frustrating when I hear from members opposite not only that they do not have a climate plan but also that they have accepted and are willing to just let the planet burn at this point. That is unacceptable.

We are seeing drought right now in Alberta, for example. People are talking about the fact that they are not going to be able to use as much water in their daily living. We have been seeing wildfires across the country, including in northern Ontario; massive hurricanes impacting Atlantic Canada; and all sorts of other natural disasters. Those things are impacting people's daily lives. When people's homes are at risk and are being damaged by these things, it is impacting the cost of living. It is leading to increased insurance costs because of the fact that people are having to do repairs or are losing their homes. The way that the fees are being considered by insurance companies is takes into account these natural disasters.

Climate change is real.

The next part, though, is about carbon pricing. It is so frustrating to listen to the complaints being made about carbon pricing, because they are factually inaccurate. I say that because there is an economist from the University of Calgary, the home city of the member opposite, who did a study looking at how the carbon pricing system works in federally backstopped provinces. The conclusions to that study were that, if the carbon price was cancelled tomorrow, the people who would benefit the most are the people who earn over $250,000. That is not the affordability crisis that people in my community are talking about.

People in my community, when they talk about issues, talk about how we help the people who have the greatest need. Those are not the people who earn over $250,000, and those are the people who would be benefiting from the proposal that the Conservatives are putting forward. It makes no sense. They do not like hearing about how eight out of 10 people are better off with the carbon rebates and the system that we have in place for carbon pollution pricing, but it is true. As I said, it has been backed up by further research, including from his own home province. I would hope that the Conservatives would take that into account when they are doing this analysis.

When we are talking about issues around how we help people with fuel switching or reducing the cost of heating their homes, the oil to heat pump affordability program actually does that. That is applicable in the provinces that are signing up to help make it work. I would ask the member to please look into that option as well.

If we are talking about affordability, because that is the other main issue that we are bringing forward, we are also talking about things that we have made changes in, such as the Canada child benefit. There has actually been a massive reduction of child poverty right across our country. The Canada child benefit is a program that we brought into place. The Conservatives were sending $100 cheques to millionaires. We changed that system so that, now, the people who need it the most are getting the help. Statistics Canada, in their studies, has found that it is having an impact.

We are fighting climate change, and at the same time, we are going to be working on affordability and reducing poverty across our country.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I predicted, there were Liberal bromides in there by the dozen. I am not sure, but there was confusion in the talking points that came back at us here. However, we heard a whole bunch in there. We heard “climate change is real”. We heard “let the planet burn,” as she stated in her speech. I do not think anybody has ever said that.

The question was about fairness of the applicability of the carbon tax and how it is not being applied fairly. It is being applied politically at this point in time, as opposed to judiciously across the country. I did not hear one response in that jumble that actually told us why it costs less for Atlantic Canadians than people on the Prairies are being charged. That is a mindless approach rather than how we actually need to address the way we tax Canadians.

This is a tax on Canadians, and nothing but. It is a regionally specific, very targeted tax on people who do not have as much political representation as that member would like them to have in her party.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going back to the main issues I spoke about. This is about fairness and making sure that we are protecting Canadians right across this country from natural disasters that are impacting their homes and their livelihoods.

We are taking actions. These actions include the carbon pricing system and others as well, which are so important as part of an entire, cohesive system that works together. We are going to keep on standing up for Canadians and fighting climate change. I hope that the members opposite will join us in that.

Indigenous Affairs

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally be able to rise and be a part of the discussion here this evening. I am looking forward to bringing it home for the evening. I rise tonight to follow up on a previous question posed about the carbon tax impacting first nations.

Before I get to that, I just want to talk about the current state of Indigenous Services Canada as a whole. The government is spending a lot of money. It likes to talk about how much it has increased spending, but what we have seen in recent reports is that when it comes to Indigenous Services Canada, this increase in spending has not led to a similar equivalent increase in the ability of the department to achieve its targets. Despite the money going out the door, it is not actually getting to where it needs to go. The government is funding high-priced consultants and bloating the bureaucracy, but it is not getting to the first nations or the indigenous communities that rely on this critical funding. That is why, unfortunately, 10 drinking water advisories remain in the Kenora district out of 28 overall on first nations across the country.

This is especially of concern to me, because I recently found out through a written Order Paper question to the government that 94% of Indigenous Services Canada employees at the executive level received bonuses last year. That represents a cost of over $3.6 million to the department. Again, this is a department that is not achieving the targets that it set for itself, yet the government has seen fit to give big bonuses to executive-level staff. I know the 42 chiefs of first nations in my district could have found much a better use for that $3.6 million. I believe that just shows how out of touch the government is.

I said that to set the groundwork, because, with all of that happening with the current government, it is also driving up the cost of living for first nations with the carbon tax. We know that this is a tax on everything. It impacts all of the goods that people need to buy. In fact, Chiefs of Ontario, which represents 133 first nations, nearly a third of which are in the Kenora district, is taking the government to court. They are actually arguing that the carbon tax leaves them worse off and breaches the principles of reconciliation. Once again, they are arguing that the carbon tax breaches the principles of reconciliation, a very serious claim and, I think, one that up until now the government has completely disregarded, as it did in my previous question.

I would just like to ask once again when the government will finally show some common sense and axe this tax for good for first nations, farmers and families right across the country.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on the part the member opposite raised that concerns carbon pricing because that was the subject of this Adjournment Proceedings question. Therefore, while I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, I will ask him to seek his answers about the Indigenous Services Canada issues he is raising at another time.

When we are talking about carbon pricing, I appreciate the question he has raised. I just want to talk a bit about the way the carbon pricing system works, where there is a federal backstop such as in Ontario. The federal carbon price is revenue-neutral, with proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system being returned to the jurisdiction where they are collected. Provinces and territories that requested the federal system receive these proceeds directly; they can use it as they see fit. However, in other jurisdictions, which would be like those in Ontario, the federal government is returning proceeds to individuals, families, business owners, farmers and indigenous governments through direct payments and targeted programs. This helps make the carbon pricing more affordable and enables households to make investments to increase energy efficiency to further reduce emissions.

The question that the member had raised was specifically regarding indigenous communities, so I do want to address that piece. The Government of Canada recognizes the unique circumstances of first nations, Inuit and Métis people and is returning 1% of the fuel-charge proceeds to indigenous governments in jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge programming is in effect. A total amount of $282 million, representing 1% of the proceeds collected from 2020-21 to 2023-24, is being returned to indigenous governments in eight provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is working collaboratively with first nations in Ontario, including the Chiefs of Ontario, on the process to transfer $160.6 million in fuel charge proceeds to indigenous governments in Ontario specifically.

The Government of Canada's objective is to return these proceeds in a way that supports economic reconciliation and that helps to strengthen indigenous-Crown partnerships on climate action. The Government of Canada acknowledges the concerns that the Chiefs of Ontario and other indigenous partners have raised and continues to explore potential solutions to address the impacts of carbon pricing on first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the response from the member opposite. She mentioned that it is 1% of proceeds, as she put it, that the government is returning to indigenous communities. That is obviously a very low amount and, frankly, does not cut it, as evidenced by 133 first nations taking the government to court. These are communities, many of them remote, northern communities, in my area that rely on heating fuels and rely on transportation, either by vehicle on the ice road in the winter or by aircraft, just to be able to get out of their community and to access critical services. They need to use gas to do that, and this carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. Why do the Liberals not finally axe the tax for good?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has repeatedly heard from first nations that ambitious global and domestic action is needed to address climate change. It recognizes the importance of first nations climate leadership and the need for the federal government to support self-determined action to advance climate priorities. That is why Canada has committed to advancing first nations climate leadership as the cornerstone of Canada's response to climate change.

In collaboration with the Chiefs of Ontario and other first nations partners from across Canada, we are working together to develop a first nations climate leadership agenda. It is an important opportunity to develop a joint road map on how to improve Canada's partnership with first nations on climate, and it will enable us to meaningfully implement the declaration in our climate action.

[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 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)