House of Commons Hansard #311 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was targeted.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-69. The bill implements Budget 2024. Conservatives criticize the budget, citing anemic economic growth, high debt, and housing unaffordability, arguing it continues failed policies. Liberals defend the budget, stating Canada is on the right track with strong foreign investment and measures aimed at fairness, including lower costs for essential services and banking reforms. 5200 words, 30 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
Respect for the Authority of the Chair Members debate respect for the authority of the Speaker and rules against criticizing their impartiality. A Liberal MP cites House rules and examples of Conservative MPs' social media posts alleging bias. A Conservative MP emphasizes the need for accountability and the Speaker's neutrality. An NDP MP calls attacks on the Speaker a serious transgression of House rules. 1500 words, 15 minutes.
National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act Second reading of Bill C-223. The bill proposes developing a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. Supporters argue it addresses poverty and improves the social safety net. Critics raise concerns about provincial jurisdiction and economic productivity, preferring targeted benefits or economic growth. 7000 words, 1 hour.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 Report stage of Bill C-59. The bill implements parts of the 2023 fall economic statement and 2024 budget. A Conservative motion proposes deleting its short title, which critics call a costly delay tactic. Conservatives argue the motion highlights government incompetence and harmful policies, such as those increasing energy costs, while defending the debate as necessary to raise constituent concerns about the bill's impact. 13800 words, 2 hours.
Notification of Members Following Foreign Interference—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a question of privilege concerning cyber-attacks targeting Members of Parliament by a foreign state-backed group linked to China. The attacks allegedly targeted MPs for their parliamentary work, and members were not notified at the time. The Speaker finds a prima facie question of privilege exists regarding the attempted interference in members' duties. 1600 words.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate referring a prima facie contempt regarding China's cyberattack against 18 MPs to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. Conservatives allege the government failed to inform them despite knowing for years, impacting their work and diaspora communities. Liberals state the government takes the issue seriously, informed House administration, and note the global nature of the threat. Other parties support the referral, highlighting the need for better protocols and acknowledging the failure to inform affected MPs was unacceptable. 26300 words, 3 hours.
Response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 MP Adam Chambers raises a question of privilege, alleging a minister misled the House regarding Canada Child Benefit overpayment data after a child's death. The Speaker will review the matter. 1100 words.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, this is more proof that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He tells Canadians they have never had it so good. He doubled the debt, doubled housing costs and forced two million people to a food bank. He brags that he spent $87 billion on housing programs, and what did it get us? It got us the worst housing inflation of any country in the G7, the second worst out of nearly 40 OECD countries.
Why does the Prime Minister always spend the most to achieve the worst?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians will take no lessons from a former housing minister who was in a government that did not believe in investing in housing.
Obviously, over decades, the federal government underinvested in housing, and it has led to the challenges we are facing now. That is why we are putting and have been putting, in service for Canadians since 2017, the solid fiscal position of the federal government to invest in Canadians, to invest in communities, to invest in housing and to help solve the challenge people are facing around the world. We are solving it despite—
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely right that we did not waste the billions of dollars that he has now put into his programs, but here are the results.
The average rent for a one bedroom when I was the housing minister was $973, and we built 80,000 apartment units at that low rate. Now the cost has more than doubled. Meanwhile, Stats Canada reports that incomes are down $17,000 per family.
Why are Canadians making $17,000 less to pay double the price for a home?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, here is the question Canadians should be asking the Leader of the Opposition.
Given that Canada has one of the strongest economic balance sheets in the G7 right now in a country-to-country comparison, should we invest in supporting Canadians and creating housing with that solid balance sheet, or should we, as the Conservative leader is proposing, cut programs, reduce investment and do less for Canadians?
We should be putting the strong fiscal position of the government in service of Canadians. That is what we are doing. That is what the Conservative leader opposes.
Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister seemed to endorse the vulgar slurs used by his MP, who made what I will call the “M-word” famous in the French-speaking world. It is all a bit of a distraction, however, because the real issue is actually the issue of funding for francophone universities.
In order for us to move on from this and avoid getting tarred as foul-mouthed barbarians, could the Prime Minister ask the member to resign as chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and to apologize to our partners throughout the Francophonie?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to interfere with the poetic argument of the leader opposite, but the reality is that the word he referred to has been known around the world for a very long time. Our member was not the first to use it. He was certainly overzealous, but he apologized and withdrew his remarks.
The fact remains that we will continue to be there to protect francophones across the country, and we will continue to be there to defend French in Quebec and to do something the Bloc Québécois can never and would never do, which is defend francophones outside Quebec.
Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have an expression in Quebec that goes, “je ne peux rien lui faire qu'il ne se fera pas lui-même”. In other words, he is his own worst enemy and keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.
It has gotten to the point where he is doubling down and continues to endorse comments that make absolutely no sense by trying to do something that he is not particularly good at. Quick little jokes are not his strong suit.
Could he take responsibility, tell the joker next to him to keep quiet and force the member to resign from the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader's responsibility is to pick fights with Ottawa.
The federal Liberal government's responsibility is to defend official languages across the country. We are here to defend French in Quebec, but also to defend the French fact everywhere in Canada. We will be there to defend linguistic minorities across the country.
It should not surprise anyone that the Bloc Québécois's latest battle is to attack a Franco-Ontarian. It is no secret that they do not like francophones who speak French outside Quebec.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. What are the Liberals doing? They are giving $25 million to Costco and Loblaws. What are the Conservatives doing? Their leader is too busy wining and dining corporate lobbyists in private dinner clubs.
New Democrats have a clear plan, which is to tackle corporate greed. We need to make sure we bring down the prices and stop giving millions of dollars to corporate grocery stores.
When will the Prime Minister stop giving big grocery a free ride?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, not only are we continuing to move forward on our grocery code of conduct, but we are working on a project to make food more affordable through competition reform. Now, we are creating a national school food program, which is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids a year and save the average family with two children as much as $800 per year on grocery costs.
We are also ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share. Indeed, there are measures in the House right now that will crack down on predatory pricing, and the NDP has the opportunity to support us as it goes through the House.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the courage to take on corporate greed, which is driving up the cost of food, but we do.
While people are having a hard time filling their fridge, the Prime Minister is giving $25 million to Loblaw and Costco when they are making record profits.
What will it take for this Prime Minister to understand that these corporations that are pocketing billions of dollars do not need this money?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to make progress on the grocery code of conduct and continuing our efforts to make food more affordable through competition reforms.
We are also creating a national school food program, which should provide meals to more than 400,000 children every year and enable an average two-child family to save up to $800 a year in grocery costs.
There are also measures in the fall economic statement, which the House is currently studying, to crack down on predatory pricing. The NDP has the power to help us get this passed.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader was just asking about why the Prime Minister gave tens of millions of dollars in corporate handouts to powerful grocery chains. The answer, of course, is that he voted to let the Prime Minister do that. Not a single penny of that money could have gone without the vote of the NDP coalition partner.
However, we learned something else, which is that this might have been due to the influence of the NDP leader's spokesman and brother whose company is a lobbyist for Metro. Would the Prime Minister support an investigation into whether or not the NDP leader's spokesman and brother has been unduly influencing the leader of the NDP?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we can see very clearly that all the stories out about lobbyists' connections with the Leader of the Opposition are actually hurting the Leader of the Opposition, which is why he is asking the question on the NDP.
However, the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity right now to make it clear that he stands with Canadians and stands to ask the wealthiest to pay a little more by announcing now that he will support our measure to increase the capital gains imposition on Canadians, asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. He has dodged that question since the budget came out. Does he support the increase on the capital gains inclusion rate?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I do support the Prime Minister paying more tax on the trust fund where he sheltered all of his money, absolutely. He does not, unfortunately, support his own policies, which is why he will not put them into a budget bill.
However, one tax the Prime Minister is increasing is the carbon tax on food, and he is doing it with the help of the NDP. We already have the second-highest carbon tax in the entire developed world, yet if the NDP-Liberal government is re-elected, it plans to quadruple that tax to 61¢ a litre on the farmers and truckers who bring us our food.
How will Canadians afford to eat, heat and house themselves?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, Canadians saw that the Leader of the Opposition avoided pronouncing on whether or not he supports our increase to the capital gains inclusion rate.
However, in regard to his deflection to carbon pricing, carbon pricing works. We are on track to meet our emissions for the first time for any government in Canadian history, and Canadians get more money back in their pockets, thanks to the Canada carbon rebate. Families are already using that rebate to help pay their bills and plan their monthly budgets. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader continues to oppose every measure we put forward for both affordability and fighting climate change.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, just like his carbon tax, is not worth the cost. The tax is already up to 17¢ a litre, higher than he promised it would go, and he plans to quadruple it further to 61¢ a litre; this, after it is a proven environmental failure. Canada ranks 62 out of 67 countries when it comes to fighting climate change, and this is precisely because what he has is a tax plan and not an environmental plan.
Why will he not adopt our common-sense plan for technology and not taxes?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to present an actual plan to fight climate change, we would love to see it, but he has refused to take any measure to fight climate change, period. He does not even recognize that pollution has a cost, which will only keep rising if we do not fight climate change, with extreme weather events and health impacts increasingly impacting Canadians. Indeed, the Conservative leader thinks it should be free to pollute and that we should not be giving more money to Canadians through the Canada carbon rebate.
We will continue to have an effective plan to fight climate change, which is reducing emissions and putting more money back in Canadians' pockets with the CCR.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister introduced his carbon tax on the farmers who grow the food and the truckers who ship the food, it has raised the price on all who buy the food, with a record-smashing two million visits to food banks every single year, 50% of Canadians buying food past best-before dates and 20% of them becoming sick as a result of it. The Prime Minister promised he was going to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. Now the so-called middle class cannot afford food and homes.
Is that what he meant by help?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, eight out of 10 Canadians, middle-income and lower-income Canadians primarily, do better with the Canada carbon rebate that lands in their bank accounts four times a year because of the price on pollution.
If the leader opposite actually cared about affordability and supporting vulnerable Canadians, he would be standing up to support our measure on dental care, which has now delivered dental care to 30,000 vulnerable seniors across this country already, in just a few weeks. He would be supporting our initiatives to help families. He would be supporting our initiatives to help with child care.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, we have to do this all over again with him. The Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a report. I am going to read the title so he can google it right now. It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the distribution of costs and benefits under the carbon pricing program. He can look at page 3, where every single province that has the tax sees middle-class Canadians and 60% of families paying more in tax than they get back in benefits.
Why will he not get to know the facts and axe the tax?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition's campaign to simply axe the facts, we are going to continue to stand with the science, the evidence, the research and the economists, who have all pointed out, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that the Canada carbon rebate puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in the jurisdictions across the country in which it is and is effective in bringing down our emissions while creating economic growth as we invest in cleaner technology and good jobs and careers for the future. We have a plan for the economy and the environment. He does not.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, with his comedy routine, I was going to say that he should not quit his day job, but actually, he should quit his day job. He should not go into number crunching whatever his next job is, because he does not believe the economy is about numbers. I do not blame him, because if I had his economic record, I would not want to talk about numbers either.
It might help him to go to the library and quietly study just a little. Will he commit to reading page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which demonstrates Canadians pay more than they get back in the tax?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and far many more experts and economists have clearly demonstrated that the money that returns to Canadians through the Canada carbon rebate four times a year is greater than eight out of 10 Canadians pay every year with the price on pollution. Those are the simple facts. We will continue to invest in Canadians. We will continue to support with affordability. We will continue to put the best balance sheet in the G7 in the service of Canadians through investments and support, unlike the cuts he is proposing.
