Debates of March 19th, 2024

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

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

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 38(3.3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, a case report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Auditor General of Canada

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

It is also my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(3) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2024 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

International Trade

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the enhanced transparency requirements set out in the amended policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, I am pleased to present to the House of Commons the Government of Canada's objectives for negotiations for a Canada-Ecuador free trade agreement.

The Government of Canada intends to commence negotiations with Ecuador as soon as practicable, but in accordance with the policy, the commencement of the negotiations will take place no later than 30 days from today.

Environment and Climate Change

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”, adopted at Panama City from November 14 to 25, 2022, and “Amendments to Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”, notified on November 16, 2020; March 24, 2021; March 15, 2022; March 24, 2022; October 13, 2022; November 3, 2022; November 25, 2022; February 3, 2023; and February 20, 2023.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment.

I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Briefing by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on her Mandate and Priorities”.

I thank the committee for this short report, which I am very proud to present today.

Motor Vehicle Transport Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

This bill aims to harmonize Canadian logging device rules with our southern neighbours. It proposes a 240-kilometre radius ELD exemption from the start and end points of a journey transporting livestock or insects, such as honeybees.

This common-sense Conservative bill would give agriculture transporters the flexibility they need to safeguard the welfare of livestock if they are faced with unforeseen circumstances while loading or unloading, as well as during their journey, that may cause drivers to go over their ELD allotted hours.

I would like to thank the constituent stakeholders whom I met with and worked with together to bring this bill forward. I also thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for its work in recommending the provisions of this bill in its 16th report.

Conservatives will always support Canadian agriculture producers to safeguard animal welfare and bring home the best-quality food in the world.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present a petition signed by more than 16,460 Canadians from every province and two territories, including many Yukoners.

The petitioners call upon the Minister of Justice to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code to set out a specific framework for an advance request for MAID. This would be for individuals who have received a diagnosis of a capacity-diminishing, grievous and irremediable medical condition and who would wish an assisted death when they reach an advanced state of decline, their suffering becomes intolerable and diminished capacity prevents them from giving contemporaneous consent.

Rail Transportation

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition for the people of Lillooet.

In 2002, train service to the town of Lillooet was cancelled, resulting in an 82% decline in tourism. Residents in my riding are calling on the federal government to re-establish rail service to the village of Lillooet for economic and medical needs.

Needle Exchange Program

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of correctional officers who are calling on the Government of Canada to stop their failed experiment, noted as the prison needle exchange, at prisons in my riding.

It is not going to result in any better health outcomes. That has been stated by the professionals. Correctional officers want it cancelled now.

Lets'emot Regional Aquatic Centre

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to raise is on behalf of residents in the eastern Fraser Valley, regarding the Lets'emot Regional Aquatic Centre.

Residents of the District of Kent, Harrison Hot Springs and Seabird Island, Cheam, Stó:lo, Sts'ailes, Sq'éwlets, Skawahlook, Popkum and Peters First Nations, as well as Fraser Valley Regional District electoral areas C and D, want a regional aquatic centre. They just want the same thing that people have in larger communities: a pool.

Transport Drivers

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians calling on the government to address the challenges transport drivers in Canada face.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to make laws and regulations that protect these drivers. This protection includes a transport driver bill of rights; transparent industry contracts; the right for drivers to see what they will get paid; a must-have minimum rate of pay per kilometre for drivers and owner-operators; must-have paid layover, downtime and cancellation fees; access to bathrooms where drivers deliver their goods; a cap on brokerage fees; and mandated rest stations with washrooms across the country for the safety and well-being of drivers. They also call on the government to work with provinces and territories to twin the Trans-Canada Highway.

Transport drivers work hard to bring us what we need every day. They deserve to be treated fairly, with good pay and safe working conditions. The petition recognizes the invaluable service provided by our transport drivers and seeks to ensure they get the rights and protections they deserve.

Russia

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition this morning, signed by over 600 Canadians from across Canada.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to list Russia as a state supporter of terrorism. This measure would allow Canadians to take the Russian Federation to court to sue for damages. It would also send a message that Russia needs to be considered a pariah on the world stage because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

I would also like to add that this measure would be of no cost to taxpayers. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the petition here today.

Spanish Language Day

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to present a petition to this respected House on behalf of the members of Spanish-speaking communities in Canada, including those in my riding of Davenport.

Canada is proud to be home to over 1.2 million Spanish-speaking individuals, representing a huge cultural and ethnic diversity. For those of Hispanic and Latin American descent who have chosen Canada as a new home, the Spanish language holds profound significance, serving as a vital link to their heritage, identity and traditions.

The petition has gathered thousands of signatures and has the support of Spanish-speaking communities right across our great country, asking that Canada proclaim April 23 as Spanish language day at the federal level. It is a date chosen in memory of the great writer of Spanish letters, Miguel de Cervantes. This designation would serve as a symbolic gesture of solidarity and recognition, further empowering the Spanish-speaking community to thrive and contribute to the multicultural fabric of Canadian society.

First Responders Tax Credit

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. They are calling on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310, which would amend the Income Tax Act to increase tax credits for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services.

Air Service to India

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present yet another petition in regard to Canada's airline service between Canada and India. As members know, our Indo-Canadian community has grown significantly over the last decade. It is arguably the fastest-growing community in Canada today. At the end of the day, with that growth and the demand for international flights even from individuals of non-Indo-Canadian heritage, it is believed that having more direct flights from Canada to India would be a positive thing.

From a personal perspective, they are really emphasizing that flights from the city of Winnipeg to New Delhi or Amritsar would be a nice thing to see.

Hong Kong

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just one petition today.

It is deeply troubling to see the passage of article 23 in Hong Kong. This is another devastating attack on the people of Hong Kong. It creates a provision that would allow sentences of up to 14 years of imprisonment if an individual fails to disclose that another person indicates an intention to commit treason. This builds on the national security law of 2020, but it is another devastating action that requires the condemnation of the government. The government should also call for the release of Jimmy Lai.

I am presenting a petition in relation to the situation in Hong Kong that calls on the Government of Canada to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong. In doing so, it could create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with pro-democracy movement-related convictions could explain such convictions. Therefore, they would not be deemed inadmissible to come to Canada under the criminality provisions of the Immigration Act.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved:

That, given that 70% of provinces and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike on April 1, the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. While the Prime Minister wants to drive up the cost of literally everything, common-sense Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.

Today, we are going to focus on that first piece of it because, on April 1, the Prime Minister has a cruel April Fool's Day joke planned for Canadians. As if prices were not high enough already, the out-of-touch Prime Minister is going to raise the carbon tax by a staggering 23% in just a couple of weeks.

I know that I speak on behalf of all my Conservative colleagues when I say that we sympathize with the struggles hard-working Canadians are going through. We see it in our ridings. I have been in grocery stores where well-dressed people who look like they have jobs and have means go through the meat aisle, pick up a package of beef, stare agonizingly at it, and then put it back when they realize they just cannot afford it. That is what life is like after eight years of this Liberal government.

On April 1, those prices are going to go up, yet again. Common-sense Conservatives are fighting all week to spike the hike and to convince the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners to, at the very least, not raise it any more. The first thing we can do to help Canadians is to hold the line on this punitive tax and to not make it any worse.

I will deal with some myth-busting of the carbon tax. Do members remember when the Prime Minister promised that the carbon tax would do a few things? First of all, he said that it would be revenue neutral, that it would help Canada reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and that Canadians would be better off with it because of a rebate scheme he had developed.

At this point, I will remind the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Those are the three pillars that the Prime Minister built his carbon tax on: revenue neutral, reduce emissions and help Canada reach its targets, and he would give out more than he would take in from Canadians. Let us bust all three of those myths.

First of all, it is not revenue neutral. The government keeps a sizable percentage of the carbon tax. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, estimates that the carbon tax alone costs small business $2.5 billion, which is $2.5 billion sucked right out of the economy, and those costs that those businesses have to pay gets passed on to consumers. The government keeps far more of what it collects than it gives out with the carbon tax. That myth is completely busted. That pillar has been completely demolished.

On emissions reductions, let us take a look at what experts say about the Liberal government's plan. It has not helped it hit a single emissions target. The Climate Change Performance Index ranks Canada 62 out of 67 spots. Canada has actually fallen several spots on that ranking under the Liberal government, after eight years of the Prime Minister. Canada now ranks behind countries like Kazakhstan, Algeria and Belarus. Those countries are doing better than Canada under this government. The environment commissioner said that this government was stacking failures on top of failures; that is the environment commissioner the Prime Minister appointed. His own environment watchdog has concluded that this government is stacking failure after failure. It is clearly not an environment plan; it is a tax plan.

Let us take a look at the impact it has on families, which is the third myth that somehow Canadians would be better off if they paid this tax. That has been completely shattered. We know that it adds to the cost of fuel, heating and groceries. Let us take a look at some specifics.

Starting April 1, the carbon tax will add 17¢ to every litre of gasoline and 21¢ to every litre of diesel. We are looking at staggering costs that Canadians just cannot afford. The food experts, the people who monitor the grocery industry and the price of groceries in the aisles, are saying that Canadians are going to have to pay an extra $700 in grocery prices this year, before the carbon tax hike is even factored in.

If we factor in all of the secondary costs, we can see the ridiculous rebate ruse that the Liberals are trying to sell Canadians. Somehow, magically, if people pay these higher carbon tax costs, the government will take the money, will swoosh it around in Ottawa, and then will spit it back out in various parts at various times, and somehow, Canadians will be better off. The only problem is that once one takes a look at that scheme, it falls apart almost instantly.

What the Liberals did was something very tricky. It was very clever, but very tricky. They designed the carbon tax rebate to only capture the direct costs, which is only what someone sees as the carbon tax on a bill, whether it is filling up one's car with gas or paying one's home heating bill. One will only see that line item cost. That is the only thing that the rebate scheme factors in. However, what it does not factor in is how all those costs in the economy get passed on to consumers. We pay that higher carbon tax every time we buy something that had to be grown or manufactured, that had to be transported, that had to be cooled or refrigerated or that had to be warmed or heated. Any time a retailer has to pay the carbon tax on their heating bills or on their utility bills, all of that gets cascaded on, and consumers and Canadians pay for that.

The rebate scheme captures absolutely none of that, but do not take my word for it. I know many Canadians might say that the Liberals have a tale to tell and that the Conservatives have their perspectives. Let us look at what independent experts say about this part of the carbon tax plan.

The Prime Minister's own budget watchdog, the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer, did this analysis and went through all of the numbers. He broke Canadian families into various groups that he calls quintiles. Basically, he took all Canadian wage earners and divided them up into different groups based on their income levels. This is based on income earners who are the middle group; these are middle-class Canadians who are average, middle-income earners. In Alberta, they would be $1,400 worse off, and in Saskatchewan, they would be $929 worse off once the carbon tax is fully implemented. In Manitoba, they would be $1,000 worse off. In Ontario, they would be $1,200 worse off. Nova Scotians would be $1,100 worse off. Prince Edward Islanders would be another $1,100 worse off. For the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would $680 worse off, even after the rebate scheme. We are talking about average middle-class Canadians.

If we look at one income bracket just below that group, they are still worse off too. They are not better off. These families are still paying more in the rebate, but that middle group is significant. That is almost $100 a month that Canadian families just simply cannot afford. They cannot afford groceries, cannot afford to keep the heat on and cannot afford to pay higher costs through the carbon tax. Again, these are the independent analyses of the Prime Minister's own budget watchdog.

The final point I will make is the role the carbon tax plays in inflation. The government tries to say that the carbon tax is not a significant driver of inflation. Let us look at what the Bank of Canada governor himself said. I am just going to quote very briefly from committee evidence, and then I will yield the floor.

Mr. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, told the committee that eliminating the carbon tax would drop inflation by 0.6 percentage points. My colleague from Northumberland asked him to clarify because 0.6% might not sound like a lot. However, when inflation is at 3.8%, with the target of 2%, and if the Bank of Canada can start cutting interest rates once inflation gets closer to the target, that means 0.6% is about a third of the 1.8% that Canada has to eliminate in inflation to get back down to the target so that interest rates can come down. In other words, the carbon tax is responsible for about a third of the extra inflation that is plaguing Canadians and is forcing the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high. If the government eliminated the carbon tax, it would be one-third of the way to getting inflation back down to the target, which means interest rates and prices can come down.

This week, Conservatives are going to stand with the 70% of Canadians who oppose this carbon tax hike and the 70% of premiers who oppose the carbon tax hike. We are going to fight to spike the hike so we can axe the tax.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the former leader of the Conservative Party twist, bend and jump all over the place to try to justify statistics so that Conservatives can continue their spin of misinformation.

Let us be very clear. There is a carbon tax, and there is a carbon rebate. It is as simple as that. Eighty per cent plus of people will receive more in the rebate than they will pay in the tax. No matter how many somersaults or twisting of the facts the former leader of the Conservative Party does, that is the reality.

Why do Conservative Party members not go around Canada saying they are going to be cutting the carbon rebate? They know full well that the disposal income for 80%-plus of people is going to go down under the Conservative plan.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the hon. member is the one who has to twist, turn and pretzel.

We have to hold up the rebate in just the right light, maybe on the second full moon of the month, and if we have it at the right angle, we might find where someone is better off. This is not my opinion. This is from the independent budget watchdog.

I can tell all my colleagues participating in the debate today that the Liberals are going to do this all day. They are going to start talking about only the direct costs of the carbon tax, but we know all the experts' analyses have concluded when we factor in all the costs, that retailers have to raise their prices, that shippers have to raise their prices, that producers have to raise their prices and that companies have to pay out lower wages because they are paying a higher share of the carbon tax. When that is all factored in, Canadians are worse off.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that 60% of Canadians pay far more than they get back. The fifth quintile, the fourth quintile and the third quintile of middle income-earning groups are hundreds of dollars worse off, even after the rebate program is factored in.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion today is very short, clear and concise. They are relying on numbers, and I imagine that the Conservative Party is very thorough and does not pull numbers out of a hat. They claim that 70% of Canadians oppose the 23% tax hike that will take effect on April 1. However, if we look at the survey, we see that those numbers apply to the government's decision to exempt heating oil from the carbon pricing legislation, not to the legislation itself.

Did the Conservative Party forget to specify that in its motion?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. We heard the pleas from Canadians who are suffering because of this punitive tax.

We know Canadians are opposed to the carbon tax, especially the hike in the carbon tax, and it is not just public polling that shows that. Seventy per cent of premiers have urged the government to, at the very least, not hike the tax that is coming on April 1.

The Prime Minister is very divisive. He likes to divide groups of Canadians against each other. He likes to divide regions against each other and provinces against each other, but he is actually achieving something, which is a little rare in Canadian politics. He is creating consensus and unity among premiers from various regions, from west to east, Liberal or Conservative. He is uniting them in opposition against his terrible tax plan.

The carbon tax hike is going to make everything more expensive. Canadians are going to be worse off. They are going to have to pay more, and they are going to lose more money at the end of the month. The rebate program does not cover it. Those are the facts.

The least the Liberal government could do in a cost of living crisis, as young people are moving back home, as people are moving into tent cities, choosing between heating and eating, is to spike the hike so that prices do not rise any further.