Debates of May 30th, 2024

Alleged Unjustified Naming of a Member—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 1 by the member for Lethbridge, regarding the content of the Debates of April 30. In so doing, I would also like to comment on several points of order raised subsequently regarding the fallout of that day’s events.

In raising her question of privilege, the member stated that the Debates of April 30 did not accurately reflect the previous day’s proceedings in the House. She alleged that the words “I withdraw” had been removed from the blues in the portion where the Chair had named her. The member stated that those words appeared under her name in the initial version of the blues and were attributed to her and that they could be heard in the audio recording.

She added that, in this specific context, those words were not insignificant, as they showed that she had unconditionally complied with the Speaker’s request and that her withdrawal from the House was therefore unjustified. The member argued that since she was unable to participate in the debates and the votes of that day, her privileges had been breached. She also noted that this misrepresentation of her actions could amount to an improper reflection upon a member. The member was supported by some of her colleagues, who said that they had heard her say those words.

Let us first review the events of April 30. The beginning of question period that day was particularly difficult. There was clearly a lot of strong language and strong reactions that required the Chair to intervene. I issued warnings, but also the possibility to rephrase their comments, to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, for particular words they used, those terms being “racist” and “spineless” respectively.

I subsequently asked for the word “wacko” to be withdrawn when it was used as a personal insult. I am certain all members can agree that such terms are not helpful and do not contribute to the kind of civility necessary for our proceedings. In the course of these events, the Chair was subjected to invective from the member for Lethbridge. The Chair told the member that challenging decisions of the Chair is contrary to the Standing Orders and subsequently asked her to withdraw her words. The member replied by saying that the Chair was “acting in a disgraceful manner”. At that point, since she did not appear to be complying with my request to withdraw her words, I rose, and her microphone was deactivated. Even though the member was only a few metres from the Chair, I did not hear what she said after her microphone was turned off, as there was too much noise in the House. The member was named pursuant to Standing Order 11.

The Hansard blues are the unrevised transcript of the debates of the House of Commons. The Debates, on the other hand, are the record of the proceedings, with the necessary editing and grammatical corrections. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 1227, and I quote: “The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Parliamentary Publications staff stationed on the floor of the House.”

As Speaker Milliken explained on March 20, 2001, on page 1917 of the Debates, and I quote: “The editors of Hansard always try to be fair and just in reporting and printing what we have said in the House. It is often difficult to determine exactly what was said.”

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is the normal tradition of the House that the Speaker finishes their ruling before points of order are raised. I will entertain them at the end of the ruling, which will happen in a couple of minutes.

While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.

The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices. Moreover, it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House.

The Chair learned that, on April 30, two versions of the blues had been prepared. The words “I withdraw” were indeed in the first version and were attributed to the member for Lethbridge. During the revision process, the editors listened carefully to the audio recording of the sitting but could not be certain that those specific words had been said or that the statement should be attributed to the member for Lethbridge. The word “withdraw” was clearly audible, but what preceded was not.

Given the context of the exchange between the Chair and the member, the words she said immediately prior and the process of naming the member that subsequently began, the audio in question could plausibly be interpreted as either “I withdraw” or “I do not withdraw”.

In addition, the particularly high level of ambient noise substantially complicated the editors’ task. Faced with this uncertainty, the editors removed the words, and a second version of the blues was produced, which was provided to the member. No comments or revisions were communicated to the Parliamentary Publications department in connection with this intervention prior to the publication of Hansard by the member for Lethbridge or her staff, or any other member or their staff.

Finally, the words are not included in the published version of the Debates. While investigating this matter, the Chair also learned that the staff responsible for Debates had provided these explanations to the member in the afternoon of May 1, even before she raised her question of privilege.

As the member for Lethbridge later pointed out on May 9, it is true that on the morning of May 1, a member of my staff received a question from a journalist about the difference between the blues and the Debates. On the other hand, it should be noted that the answer offered was very general and was provided even before the question of privilege was raised in the House.

The Chair recognizes that the member for Lethbridge states that she said “I withdraw”. The Chair has no reason to doubt her word, nor that of the chief opposition whip, who confirmed that others heard those words. I hope she will accept that, because she began by repeating her comments, and because the noise level was so high, the Chair did not hear her say that day that she was withdrawing her words. My decision to name her seemed justified, based on the information I had at the time. If the member had begun by withdrawing her words, events surely would have unfolded differently.

I want to emphasize this point. When the Chair asks a member to withdraw offensive remarks and apologize, out of respect for the Chair and the rules of the House, the Chair expects members to comply, with no hesitation, period. An invitation to withdraw words that are deemed unacceptable is not an invitation to repeat those very words. In the event of refusal to comply, a member risks being named and asked to withdraw from the House or having the Chair decide not to recognize them until they do.

Members sometimes disagree with the Chair’s decisions, but it is important for all members to accept them once they are made. Disregarding the rules is one thing; disregarding the authority of the Chair when one is called to order is another.

As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stated in his point of order on May 1, 2024, criticizing such decisions in the House amounts to challenging the Chair, which is contrary to our practices. On the other hand, while it is true that the Chair exercises control over decorum during proceedings and generally does not comment on statements made outside, attacks on the Speaker or the deputy speakers outside of the House can have a corrosive effect on our proceedings. It certainly does not help the House function smoothly.

In conclusion, the Chair is of the opinion that the final version of the debates was prepared in accordance with the standards applied by the debates' editors and that their decision, as well as the Chair's decision to name the member, was justifiable based on the information available on April 30. Consequently, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Lethbridge has clearly indicated what her words were, and that is now also part of the record.

I thank members for their attention.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the manner in which you have arrived at this decision.

In several previous cases of questions of privilege related to your conduct, for example, when I raised a point of privilege related to the government potentially withholding information on an Order Paper question that you had signed off in your role as parliamentary secretary in this Parliament, you had recused yourself from the decision.

In this instance, you are ruling on a matter that directly relates to, once again, your conduct and your behaviour. How is it possible that you can make a ruling related to your behaviour, when precedent in this Parliament clearly shows that you should have recused yourself?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for raising her point of order.

Because the question of privilege was germane to the question of how the blues are prepared and to how the contents of Hansard were prepared, which of course the Speaker has no role in doing, it was found to be appropriate for the Speaker to be able to issue this ruling.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When this controversy was first brought to our attention by the hon. member for Lethbridge, I rose to speak in deep concern about the possibility that the words that were spoken, which were in the initial blues, had been changed without the member's knowledge because this is an essential piece of how this place works, that we are confident that there is no interference with respect to the words that come out of our mouths, as best as they are able to be captured by the extraordinarily talented and dedicated staff, obviously with new equipment. However, for centuries there has been Hansard, and the words of parliamentarians are recorded, we hope faithfully.

I also want to make a parenthetical comment. Then, I want to ask a specific question in case your ruling included it and I missed it.

One of the things about the operations of Parliament, which is to say the fragility of our democracy, is that in Westminster parliamentary democracies, such as Canada, and I would say particularly Canada, much rests on intangibles: respect, decency, unwritten rules, traditions, concern for the country, etc. There are a lot of intangibles that float around when it comes to respect. I know that when hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker, I vigorously disagreed with many of his rulings, but I knew, as there is no appeal of a Speaker's ruling, there would be nothing but chaos if I were to show anything but respect for the rulings I heard, no matter how passionately I disagreed.

My point is this. We are in a perilous place, to all my colleagues I would say the same, and we have to be able to work together and to respect our traditions. They are intangible and imperfect, but without them, there is nothing here but chaos.

My question is this. I do not know if you can respond to it now or if you will have to fill me in later. I have had the experience of saying things and the Hansard staff got back to me to say that they were not sure they heard me right and asked me what I said. What I am missing here is this. I remember the day; there was a lot of noise and a lot of chaos, so I can understand that it was hard to hear clearly. What I am not certain about, and I would feel much more reassured as I am very concerned about the point the member for Lethbridge made, is if we were absolutely certain that nothing untoward occurred between what she said and how it was recorded.

Do we know if the staff from Hansard reached out to the member for Lethbridge to seek clarification before the new version of Hansard emerged with the words “I withdraw” removed?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for rising on the point of order.

As was contained in the ruling of the Chair, and if members were to check the ruling they would see that we do address precisely that point, that there were two times that the blues were prepared and shared, and there was a discussion on top of that between the member for Lethbridge and the people who prepare Hansard.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would offer to respond to that, actually.

There was no effort made to reach out to my office to clarify what I had said that day and whether or not the blues had been changed. In fact they were changed without my knowledge and then published in the Hansard record, which was signed off by your office, all without my knowing about it. It was only after the change that I, on my initiative, reached out to your office in order to seek clarification and understand the procedure better.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once again, I would encourage all members to read the ruling very carefully.

The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the concern I have on this is that there is the official Hansard record when a member is standing up and speaking. Then there are individuals heckling, and there are mics that are around that often pick up the heckling.

From my understanding, there is no issue with regard to members who have been recognized and are speaking. What we are talking about is off-to-the-side comments. Hansard does not record all the offside comments, nor do I believe we would want to mandate it to do that, because we would need another whole team, plus, at times, to record all of the statements that are said off the record. What the member said was completely off the record. I never even heard it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before we get into a back and forth, I just want to make it clear that the Chair has been very open to hearing points of view, especially on a sensitive issue like this. I am going to invite all members to please take a closer look at the ruling. The hon. parliamentary secretary raised a point that I think can, again, be found in the ruling, in terms of how this was captured or not captured.

I am going to allow the chief opposition whip to rise on the last point of order on this matter. It is not normally—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The reason is that after a decision of the Chair, it is not up for debate. I do understand, and I have great respect for the chief opposition whip.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am standing for clarity on this. This was not a heckle. It was not an offside comment, as it has just been characterized. It was—

[An hon. member]

It was.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

No, it was not. The member is heckling now. That is not the same thing.

It was a statement by the person who had been recognized. There was an exchange going on. Her last comment was “I withdraw”, which was picked up and then put in the blues. I will not go any further on the point other than to say that was a mischaracterization of what happened on the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. official opposition whip, and I appreciate the point. It is a fair point as well. I invite all members, once again, to read the ruling where it makes it very clear the sequence of events.

I am afraid that is the final point the Speaker is going to entertain on the issue.

If the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is rising on the same matter, I am going to invite her to please take a look at the ruling of the Speaker, as I said earlier.

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDPLiberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister, the Liberal Bloc is not worth the cost. Housing costs have doubled. The debt has doubled. Inflation is at a 40-year high. These tax and spending increases are penalizing the work being done by Quebeckers. These increases are also further centralizing our country's power in the hands of federal politicians and bureaucrats.

All this was done with the support of the Bloc Québécois, which is the bizarre and ironic part. A so-called separatist party is becoming increasingly dependent on the federal government. It voted in favour of $500 billion in bureaucratic, inflationary and centralizing spending. This spending is not on health care or old age security, but rather on bureaucracy, agencies, consultants and other parts of the bloated federal and central machine here in Ottawa.

From time to time the Bloc Québécois votes to ensure Ottawa collects Quebeckers' powers and money. It is not an pro-independence party. It is a pro-dependence party.

In contrast, the Conservative Party seeks to reduce the federal government's role, power and costs. We want a smaller federal government to create more space for Quebeckers. We are going to reduce the cost of government by cutting spending and waste with a view to lowering taxes, inflation and interest rates. That means more money in Quebeckers' pockets and less money in the coffers of this centralizing Prime Minister.

We are the only party that supports Quebeckers' autonomy and that of all Canadians. Our common-sense plan is very focused. It consists in axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. We are also proposing that Quebeckers get a gas tax cut of 17 cents per litre this summer. This would at least allow them to have a vacation and spend time in Quebec communities, while supporting small and medium-sized businesses, such as camping sites and the magnificent hotels and small inns that dot this beautiful province. It would keep more money in the Quebec economy instead of feeding the bloated monster that is the federal government.

Our approach means less for Ottawa and more for Quebeckers. That is common sense. Fortunately, there is a party that is there for people. On the other side, there are the other parties and the Liberal bloc. For the next elections, the choice is clear. It is either the Liberal bloc, which taxes food, penalizes work, doubles the cost of housing and releases criminals into the streets, or the common-sense Conservative Party, which is going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is what we call common sense.

I am going to begin with a text message I just got from the owner of a small business in Ottawa who has opened some beautiful, legendary local restaurants, Fratelli, which is Italian for “brothers”; and Roberto, an incredible and beautiful pizza shop where one can get some wood-oven pizza.

He sent me this message, in which he was responding to a friend who asked him about a business investment opportunity in Ottawa: “Hi Victor, I appreciate you thinking of me. I am personally done with investing any time or money in Canada. I've actually started the process of leaving. My kids have already left and don't want to come back here. One is in Italy, the other in Florida. Both are extremely happy and living life the way it should be lived. It's sad, but it's my new reality based on what's happening with this Liberal Prime Minister and Canada, for the next generation. I hope all is well with you and your family. Lastly, FYI, I found out today that 46% of businesses in the downtown business improvement area will not renew their leases. Yikes, that's scary. What's coming in the next year or two? I hope you and your family are well. See you soon.”

Is that not sad? This is the kind of person the Prime Minister likes to demonize. The person is someone who has earned a living and built his own business from scratch. He did not inherit a multi-million-dollar tax-deferred trust fund.

No, he had poor immigrant parents from south Italy, the kind of people whom we see in communities across the land, including in South Shore—St. Margarets, where the member with whom I am splitting my time resides, and I know that this is the kind of story that the Liberal-controlled media likes to shut down. For example, I told the story of a Cape Breton couple that had moved to Nicaragua, and Bell CTV tried to gaslight them and me by claiming that it was all crazy talk. It was actually a story told by the person themself.

Of course, Bell is the Prime Minister's favourite telephone company. It loves to get favours from his regulatory arm by giving him a lot of gushing media propaganda. It even publishes the propaganda that is regurgitated by The Canadian Press. It just literally cuts and pastes the stuff the PMO feeds The Canadian Press to write. It can no longer gaslight Canadians on these facts.

Let me read from an article. Even the CBC had to admit it today:

Emigration from Canada to the U.S. hits a 10-year high as tens of thousands head south. Census [data] says 126,340 people left Canada for the US in 2022, a 70 per cent increase over a decade....

One group called Canadians Moving to Florida & USA has more than 55,000 members and is adding dozens of...members every [single] week....

Marco Terminesi is a former professional soccer player who grew up in Woodbridge, Ont. and now works as a real estate agent in Florida's Palm Beach County with a busy practice that caters to Canadian expats.

“I hate the politics here”—

“Here” is Canada.

—Terminesi said his phone has been ringing off the hook for the last 18 months with calls from Canadians wanting to move to sunny Florida.

“‘With [the Prime Minister], I have to get out of here,’ that's what people tell me. They say to me, ‘Marco, who do I have to talk to to get out of here?’....

“There's a lot of hatred, a lot of pissed-off calls. It's really shocking for me to hear all of this....

“And I'm not sure all these people are moving for the right reason. People are saying, ‘I hate the politics..., I'm uprooting my whole family and moving down,’ and I say, ‘Well, that problem could be solved in a year or two.’”

God willing. I think a lot of people are hoping that common-sense Conservatives will come in to solve the problem the Prime Minister has caused. I think it is clear. Let us be very blunt about this. If I am not prime minister in the next two years, there will be a large sucking sound of Canadian businesses, entrepreneurs and workers leaving this country to go anywhere on Planet Earth and escape the doubling housing costs, the quadrupling carbon tax and the devastating economic policies that are pricing the people out of their own country. That is the reality.

It is happening already. Canadians are fleeing the doubling housing costs that the Prime Minister has caused by printing cash to inflate costs and by funding bureaucracy that blocks homebuilding. Canadians are leaving the country to avoid the massive tax increases that have shut down businesses and pushed, according to one Liberal former governor of the central bank, $800 billion of Canadian investment more abroad than has come home.

With all of the suffering and misery, the 256 homeless encampments that have popped up in Toronto, the 35 homeless encampments in Winnipeg, the two million people lined up at food banks, the one in four Canadians skipping meals because they cannot afford the price of eating, and the 76% of young people who say they will never own a home, for God's sakes, can Canadians not at least enjoy a merciful vacation from the taxes?

That is why common-sense Conservatives not only want to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime when we form government, but also in the meantime are asking for a tax holiday on fuel that would save 35¢ a litre and allow families to get in their car, go on the road, do some camping and support local tourism businesses.

Let us bring our money home. Let us bring a vacation for long-suffering Canadians. It is common sense. Let us bring it home.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the Leader of the Opposition, and I would ask that he listen and try to provide a direct answer to this. I think it is really important, and it pertains to the substance of his motion.

The member's motion says that the average Canadian will save $670 between now and Labour Day. Now, if we look at the carbon tax, it is 17.6¢; the federal gas tax is 10¢. If we put GST on there, it is 29¢. In order to save $670 for the average Canadian, they would have to drive 25,842 kilometres between now and Labour Day. To put that in perspective, if we were to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole, we would still have over 5,000 kilometres left over. We would have to drive 272 kilometres per day between now and Labour Day.

Can the member explain where he plans to travel that would account for 272 kilometres per day, starting today, between now and Labour Day?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member got confused. He was actually looking at the manifest that lays out the Prime Minister's international island-trotting vacations, and that is where he got all these numbers. It is his leader who travels those distances to vacation on private billionaire islands in the Caribbean and who loves to globe-trot around the world to various tax havens where he can enjoy a vacation.

We are talking about Canadians enjoying a camping trip and saving 35¢ a litre on diesel, on gas, by getting rid of the carbon tax and then the tax on the tax. The one thing he did not even acknowledge is that not only do the Liberals tax gas, but they also have a carbon tax, and then they have the GST on those two other taxes. The compounding effect of those taxes drives up hundreds of dollars in taxes that Canadians pay every single year. The member thinks it is not enough. He wants to quadruple the carbon tax. We will decide what happens in the carbon tax election.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the oil and gas industry. He fills his fundraisers with its lobbyists and CEOs, so it is not surprising that he has no climate plan. He is not concerned with the fact that many Canadians will have a road trip this summer in which they flee wildfire evacuation zones, worrying about whether their home will still be there when they get back. On top of that, he has been going around the country saying that he would also scrap the north coast oil tanker moratorium. This would ignore municipalities, first nations, anglers, commercial fishermen and the majority of the people in the District of Kitimat, among many other communities in the north, who wholly reject any plan to bring crude oil supertankers to the north coast of B.C.

Can the Leader of the Opposition confirm that he would scrap that moratorium?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will acknowledge that the member and her party have been enthusiastic supporters of the oil industries in Russia, in Saudi Arabia and in Venezuela. They love the oil industries in countries where they have ideological allies running socialist governments. They also do not have a problem with tankers. They support bringing in Saudi and Nigerian tankers to Port Saint John in New Brunswick.

I find it very interesting that they are against putting Canadian energy products on ships and sending them off to market, but they are delighted to have dirty dictator oil arrive at our shores in the amount of 130,000 barrels every single day. It is interesting how wacko one has to be to support dictator oil while shutting down the paycheques of unionized Canadian workers. We stand on the side of bringing home powerful paycheques for our union workers in this country.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this to be the most extraordinary opposition day we have ever had. It is a bunch of hot air. This is a horrible show of populism.

These taxes represent $1.3 billion for the three months during which the Leader of the Opposition wants them waived.

How would he make up for this $1.3-billion shortfall? Would he make cuts, or would he simply add to Canadians' debt?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was René Lévesque who said, “Beware of those who say they love the people but hate everything the people love.” That is my response to his aiming to collect money here in Ottawa. I find it interesting that a member of the Bloc is opposed to us taking money away from the federal government to leave it in the pockets of Quebeckers

Where will I find the money to reduce taxes on gas? We will reduce the amounts spent on hiring consultants. Note that $21 billion was spent to hire consultants. That is an increase of 100%, which represents $1,400 for every family in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois voted for this increase in federal consultants and we voted against it. We will wipe out this centralist spending to put money in the pockets of Quebeckers.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a little intimidating to speak after the Leader of the Opposition, but I will give it a shot.

The motion is a really important one for all members of Parliament to show they have a bit of a heart, caring and understanding of what Canadians are going through. It made me reflect on my childhood, growing up, and this time of year, approaching the end of school in June. There was excitement that I would have the freedom to do all the things that I liked to do in the summer, such as ride my bike and all the stuff I would do with my friends. The summers seemed to last forever back then.

One thing my family would do was summer road trips. My parents struggled each month to decide which bill to pay or not pay, but they always found the money to take the four kids on a holiday. Sometimes, we would simply go across the Annapolis Valley from our house in Halifax and stay at my grandmother's house in a place called Paradise. It was paradise as a kid. Other times, they would have enough to take us to Toronto on a car trip. We would stay at my aunt's, go to the CNE and do great things.

Once in a while, we had enough money to go to the United States; we would go to Washington or visit Disney World in the summer, believe it or not. Those are great memories, and we were fortunate enough to do those things; we did not understand that our parents may have been struggling a little with money.

However, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the dream of doing that for millions of Canadian families is gone. Canadians are going hungry and having trouble even paying their rent or mortgage. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits, and they are projecting an additional million this year. Can members imagine? There were three million visits, a record number, to food banks in Canada. Feed Nova Scotia estimates that, in my province, food bank usage went up 27% last year alone; the record for every number it tracks has been broken.

Last weekend, I went to the Souls Harbour Rescue Mission, which provides meals for the homeless in Bridgewater in my riding. They did not have to do that two years ago, and now they have to cook meals for the homeless. The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac met with the folks there who are doing that great work. Last year, 36% of food banks had to turn people away because they ran out of food. Canadians are homeless because they can no longer afford the cost to own or rent a home under the NDP-Liberals.

Rent has increased 107%, and now it takes Canadians 25 years to even save for the idea of a down payment on a house. We know homeless encampments have grown everywhere, in small towns and large towns; there are 35 of them in Halifax. In 2015, there were only 284 homeless people in the city of Halifax. Today, there are over 1,200. That is a 326% increase under the NDP-Liberals. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that, since 2018, the number of people who have been continuously homeless has increased by 38% nationally. They have been homeless for more than a year. For those who are recently homeless, the increase is 88%.

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is not just low-income families that are suffering. Middle-class families are now both working and using food banks because all their income is going to pay the mortgage. Why did this happen? It is not something that happened because of Europe, as the government claims. It is a made-in-Canada, NDP-Liberal creation. Years of inflationary debt and taxes led to Canada's record inflation rate, which reached 8.1% at one point in the last two years, with the fastest growth in inflation in Canadian history.

These inflation hikes have hit countless Canadians who are now facing mortgage renewals. They are already facing historically high debt and a cost of living crisis. Over the next two years, 45% of outstanding mortgages in Canada will be up for renewal. These represent homes built at record-high prices and at record-low interest rates. The homeowners could see a 30% to 40% uptick from the interest rate they received only a few years ago. For a $500,000 mortgage on a home over a five-year fixed term for 25 years, this will mean an increased payment of nearly $1,000 a month.

In addition to that, we know that food costs are up 23% since 2020; gasoline costs are up 30%. The years with the greatest decline in food purchasing power for Canadians were 2022 and 2023.

Unfortunately, for Canadians, these records are not records they seek from their government, but their government nonetheless brags that inflation has come down to 3%. The government is bragging that prices are still going up, and these are shocks that Canadians cannot afford.

As Canadians are struggling, the NDP-Liberal government increased taxes by increasing the carbon tax by 23% last April. That means the average Nova Scotian family will now pay $1,500 more in the carbon tax than they get back in fake carbon rebates according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is estimated that in 2024, the average Canadian family will have to pay $700 more for food than they paid last year.

Canadians cannot afford these increases. Despite the dangerous misinformation that the NDP-Liberals spread about how great Canadians have it, they are not better off because of the government. They are suffering dramatically. That is why premiers in almost every province of this country have asked for the government to get rid of the carbon tax. The government says it care about provinces, but it ignores every request from them.

A poet named Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. The foolish consistency of the NDP-Liberal government is continuing to spend money, which is driving up inflation, driving up interest rates and driving up food costs. The government thinks that somehow, after nine years, that is going to result in an outcome other than having poorer and poorer Canadians. That is the foolish consistency of the government. I will let members judge the issue of little minds.

I will also leave it to members to consider that Canadians are demanding a break. The number one question we all get is, when are we going to get an election? It is not because Canadians love elections. It is because they want to get rid of the government. Canadians need a break from the hurt, the pain and the hunger caused by the NDP-Liberals.

We are proposing to give Canadians a temporary break so that the great privilege that some of us had in our summers in our youth of getting into the family car, going on a vacation and having a great adventure can happen this summer too. What is the best way to do this? Our motion today says the following:

That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.

That is a reasonable request. It would save Nova Scotians $542 this summer. Some in this place may not think $542 is a big deal, but $542 will help someone pay the gas to drive from Halifax to Toronto to take their kids to a Blue Jays game or visit the Hockey Hall of Fame. That would be a great treat for many of the struggling families in my province. They could even go to the Canadian National Exhibition and watch the fantastic air show that it has on Labour Day.

However, that is out of reach for families in my community in Nova Scotia, with an average income in my riding of $30,000. The $542 is tax that the NDP-Liberals will keep taking from their pockets while they suffer and try to put food on the table. This would be the difference between taking a vacation and what unfortunately has become normalized under the government, which is the staycation. The staycation means someone cannot afford to take a holiday, so they just stay at home. That is not a vacation for families.

We are asking the government to show a little compassion and a little heart. We would not be in this situation if the government just followed our common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Particularly, this summer, the Conservatives want the government to axe the tax on all fuel costs and call a carbon tax election, if it believes in it so much, so that we can deliver what Canadians are asking for. I challenge the government to do one of those two things. If the Liberals do not have the guts to remove federal taxes this summer to give a break to Canadians, at least they should have the guts to call an election and let Canadians decide.