House of Commons Hansard #328 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act Members debate Senate amendments to Bill C-234, which removed carbon tax exemptions for on-farm heating and greenhouses. Conservatives argue rejecting amendments and passing the original bill is crucial to lower farmer costs and food prices, citing PBO data on the significant financial burden. They criticize the government for lobbying against the original bill. 8300 words, 1 hour.
Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions Members debate a Bloc motion to take note of the Special Report on foreign interference, express concern about parliamentarians wittingly or unwittingly working for foreign powers, and request to expand the terms of reference for the Hogue commission. Opposition members criticize the government's slow response and perceived lack of transparency, while Liberals highlight actions taken and the need for protecting sensitive intelligence. The debate also includes calls for party leaders to receive security briefings. 30900 words, 4 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Record of the Proceedings of the House Andrew Scheer argues a question of privilege regarding Hansard accuracy should be dismissed, stating the member corrected the record and concerns about the official record are points of order, not privilege. 500 words.
The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act Third reading of Bill C-20. The bill establishes the Public Complaints and Review Commission, an independent review body for the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency. Members debate its long overdue passage and improvements improved in committee. Some express concerns about resources and independence, while others note the need for addressing systemic racism and ensuring accountability for officers' actions. 11300 words, 2 hours.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, that was a very long way to say no, and Canadians deserve to know the truth.
The Liberal responses have been a convoluted, finger-pointing exercise of secret committees or, worse, a dismissive “Boo hoo, get over it” from someone who once sat on the very committee that released this damning report. If they will not tell the truth, I will ask the minister one more time.
Will the Liberals send every document, unredacted, with names, to Justice Hogue so she can release them?
Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the Conservatives want to heckle and the irony is in the fact that they want to misrepresent what happened at committee.
While Conservatives play partisan games, we are steadfast and focused on countering foreign interference and putting in place the measures that will strengthen our democratic institutions. It is ironic that the Conservatives bring up NSICOP, a committee they voted against and in fact also pulled members off at one point.
We are going to do everything to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected from foreign interference.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this Prime Minister has a long and troubled history when it comes to foreign interference, whether it involves political financing, his admiration for the basic dictatorship of the Communist regime in Beijing, or his talent for turning a blind eye to reports from the intelligence community.
The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians courageously exposed the fact that the Prime Minister has known for a long time that members have been wittingly co-operating with hostile foreign states.
After nine years of hiding, will the Prime Minister finally be transparent and tell Canadians who they are?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite knows very well that it was this Prime Minister and this government that established, over the objection of the member opposite, the committee of parliamentarians, which oversees our intelligence agencies.
Had it not been for these initiatives and the very tough set of measures taken to counter foreign interference, we would not know what we know today, and the member, despite being opposed, would not have had the information that he wishes to have today.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to get answers on foreign interference. That is the truth. The Prime Minister knows that. He knows the names. He has consistently refused to act. No Liberal MP has suffered any consequences, even though he knows the names. Well, hiding behind classified information to avoid taking action to protect Canada's interests is no longer an excuse.
Since he refuses to be transparent with Canadians, will he accept the common‑sense Conservative proposal to share the names and facts about the MPs who are colluding with foreign states and being hostile toward Commissioner Hogue?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we are having a hard time understanding why such a combative tone is being used on an issue that should not be partisan. The member knows full well, as the minister just reminded us, that the government is sworn to secrecy, that this information is one of Canada's most important secrets and that we could be criminally prosecuted if we disclosed such information. That is not something we are going to do.
I am having a hard time understanding why the member opposite is adopting such a partisan and combative tone. We will obviously rely on the laws that are in place.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning, Le Journal de Montréal painted a bleak picture of the job market. According to Statistics Canada, the number of unemployed workers in Quebec jumped by 58,000 in one year. We are talking about thousands of full-time jobs. This is very bad news, because the federal government continues to neglect the unemployed.
At a time when the job market is showing signs of distress, six out of 10 workers still do not qualify for employment insurance.
The Liberals have been promising reform since 2015. It has been nine years. What are they waiting for?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
Let me begin by saying that we understand the difficulties that Canadians and Quebeckers are going through. That is why we are very pleased with the good news that we all heard last week about the Bank of Canada's decision to lower interest rates. The bank was able to do this thanks in part to our responsible fiscal policy, which has allowed inflation to fall.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to protect workers. Why do the Liberals always wait until there is a disaster before they take action?
There needs to be a single eligibility threshold of 420 hours with the maximum amount of benefits. It is time to permanently end the EI spring gap. It is time to undo the discrimination against women who lose their job while they are on parental leave. The Liberals can no longer condone a system that leaves six out of 10 workers out in the cold.
When will EI be reformed?
Randy Boissonnault LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, my colleague criticizes me a lot on this issue. Let me assure the House that we have already made changes to the EI system. We extended sickness benefits to 26 weeks. We extended the additional support for seasonal workers by five weeks until October 2024. The member and I have had a conversation about this. We will sit down together again.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, interest rates are falling here in Canada, and we will be there for unemployed workers from coast to coast to coast.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, explosive revelations from Global News highlight the ethical concerns surrounding the NDP-Liberal government. Text messages implicate a Randy in shady business dealings from a company that the employment minister has a 50% interest in. The mysterious Randy was requesting an immediate half-million dollar wire transfer. This occurred nearly a year after the employment minister's cabinet appointment.
The minister claims it is not him. Then who is it?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as the member across knows full well, ministers are expected to comply with what are among the most stringent conflict of interest and ethics provisions in the world. The minister has responded to all of the questions, and that member knows that full well.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, I get that transparency is an elusive concept for the government, but it is in the minister's best interest to get to the bottom of this to clear his name. So far, his committee interventions have shown an evasiveness and a laissez-faire attitude toward this serious situation. Perhaps ethical breaches are so old hat for this Liberal Party that the minister does not see this as a big deal. Canadians, however, disagree.
When will the minister take his scandal seriously and tell us who the real Randy is?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague across the aisle just pointed out, the minister spent an hour in committee answering questions from all sides of this House. The minister has filed the requisite disclosures under the very stringent conflict and ethics provisions. Those measures are available to the hon. colleague for consultation, and I would say that the minister has complied with all of those measures.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader and the Minister of Employment are not fooling anyone. The company at the centre of this scandal admits there is this other Randy, but at the same time, they claim to have forgotten what his last name is. In all of Alberta, there are only 630 Randys, so what are the odds that two of them are going to be working in the same tiny company at the same time and that no one knows who this other Randy is?
Will the minister just come clean and tell the House who the other Randy is?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, for the third time, the minister is subject to this government's conflict of interest and ethics provisions, which are among the most stringent in the world, and he has answered all of these questions.
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing an existential crisis due to climate change. Older generations are asking what we can do to preserve and maintain prosperity for the next generation, while young people everywhere are worried about their own future.
Can the Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry update the House on the government's plans for harnessing the technology sector in order to create the jobs of tomorrow and fight climate change effectively?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, generational fairness is one of our top priorities. In fact, it was one of the key themes of the last federal budget.
This week, we are making changes to the capital gains inclusion rate. These changes will not only allow us to pay for the green energy transition, but they will also create jobs for this and future generations.
We can already see that our economic plan is working. We have record investments and are creating prosperity for generations to come. We know that the Conservatives will probably vote against it. On our side of the House, we will always be there for this and future generations.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are on the hook for a shady real estate deal between the Prime Minister and his best buddy, Tom Pitfield. We know that the labour minister, Pitfield and the PM went together to billionaire island when the Prime Minister was found to have broken the law. We know that the labour minister and Pitfield were groomsmen in the Prime Minister's wedding, and the labour minister is on the Treasury Board, which approved this shady real estate transaction.
After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, we know the Prime Minister and labour minister are not worth the corruption or the cost to Canadians. About that cost, how much did this sketchy deal help the insider, Tom Pitfield?
Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that that decision and recommendation were made by the National Capital Commission, an independent organization, which has said that it wants to focus on revitalizing downtown Ottawa. It recommended this decision to the Treasury Board, obviously without the Prime Minister's Office, or any other minister not associated with the Treasury Board, having a say in the matter.
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister, Quebeckers are forced to sleep in shelters, under bridges or in their cars. While seniors in Quebec are living in motels or vans because of a lack of affordable housing, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of $500 billion in spending, and they are even voting against the leader of the Conservative Party's bill to make housing more affordable.
What do the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois have to say to seniors who are living in their vans because they do not have a home?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. We understand the importance of investing in housing, of investing in affordable housing. We also understand the importance of investing in affordability, for example, in dental care, which is very popular among seniors in Quebec. However, we also understand that we need to finance all those investments.
I have a question for all of the Conservative members. Will they support our tax fairness measure to finance the necessary investments?
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this government, homelessness is becoming a concern in Quebec. The resulting insecurity is becoming untenable for Quebeckers.
The Bloc Québécois voted for $500 billion in budget allocations and Quebeckers are the ones paying the price, left to fend for themselves in the midst of a housing crisis. The Bloc Québécois and the Prime Minister are just not worth the cost.
Will this Prime Minister, who is supported by the Bloc Québécois, think of Canadians and stop voting against the Conservative Party's measures to ease the suffering of Quebeckers?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I just talked about the much‑needed investments we are making. We also understand that we need to make these investments in a fiscally responsible way.
That is why tomorrow we will be asking every member of the House, including the Conservatives, the following question: Are they prepared to support our tax fairness approach or would they rather support the wealthy?
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, if we had to create a whole new tax system from scratch, what choices would we, as Canadians, make? Would we give the biggest tax benefits to those who earn the most, or would we make sure everyone pays their fair share?
The next generation of young Canadians is showing us the way. They say they want a more just, more future-oriented Canada. Would the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance please explain to Parliament how the government is making that vision a reality?