Debates of June 12th, 2024

Countering Foreign Interference Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of Motion No. 109.

Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of a motion put forward by my learned colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

The motion instructs the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake a study to consider a series of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. The effect of these amendments, if adopted, would be to limit the ability of the government to amend the Standing Orders, absent broad consensus. This is consistent with a long-standing convention that the Standing Orders ought not to be amended, absent a broad consensus among parties and members across the House. It is a convention that has been literally trashed by the Prime Minister, but it is par for the course from a Prime Minister who, over the past nine years, has demonstrated his complete and utter contempt for this institution. Then again, this is a Prime Minister who, after nine years, has broken just about everything in Canada and has worked very hard to try to break this great institution of democracy, the House of Commons.

It is a bit ironic because, during the 2015 election, the Prime Minister was criss-crossing the country, disingenuously selling Canadians on his so-called “sunny ways”, in which he said that he would set a new standard for respecting the institution of Parliament, if he was entrusted with the responsibilities of being the Prime Minister. It turns out that it was nothing more than phony election sloganeering. It did not take the Prime Minister long to break his word. Within months of the Prime Minister securing a majority government, he found himself in a situation where he almost lost a confidence vote.

The Prime Minister, no doubt, was embarrassed. He was angry, and his response was one of revenge, in which he attempted to abuse his majority in a power grab. He attempted to do so by way of a motion that would have made radical changes to the Standing Orders, the effect of which would have been to literally remove just about every tool available to opposition parties to hold the government to account. In the end, the Prime Minister did back down, but he only backed down in the lead-up to the vote on the power-grabbing motion, when the Prime Minister, in a fit of rage, elbowed a female member of Parliament, disgracing himself.

However, the Prime Minister was not finished in his attempt to abuse his power because, less than a year later, in 2017, the Prime Minister again sought to make a series of changes to the Standing Orders, unilaterally, the effect of which, again, would have been to remove, from opposition parties, tools available to hold the government to account. Fortunately, Conservative members at the procedure and House affairs committee fought back, standing up for parliamentary democracy and standing up against the Prime Minister's power grab. After two months, the Prime Minister finally backed down.

He, again, was not finished because, last year, the Prime Minister rammed through some of the most significant changes to the Standing Orders, to make the hybrid parliament permanent, despite the fact that there was nothing near to a consensus among the parties. We know the Prime Minister did it so that Liberal MPs could mail it in. There are some members across the way whom I would barely recognize. Since hybrid parliament came about, they participate in Parliament via Zoom from the comfort of their living rooms. They just do not show up for work. They just do not. It is a fact. That is an example of how the Prime Minister has worked to hollow out this institution.

Therefore, in the face of a Prime Minister who has demonstrated such utter contempt, who in an unprecedented fashion has three times disrespected a long-standing convention, who has attempted to abuse and has abused his power, this motion could not be more timely to put a check on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker clearly has a selective memory. He must be forgetting the time that he, along with the NDP and the Green Party voted in favour of a motion to change the Standing Orders, on an opposition day nonetheless. That was to change the Standing Orders to allot each of those parties one more supply day in the supply period, so it is very interesting that my colleague is selectively choosing what he decides to remember about trying to change the Standing Orders in this House.

I am glad to say that, like my colleague from Edmonton, we are going to vote in favour of this, because it is a really good proposal. There must be something in the Kingston water that encourages those from the area to present fair and reasonable solutions in this House, and that is what we are seeing here today. I want to congratulate my colleague from my neighbouring riding, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, for introducing this motion because I think that it is really important that PROC look at this issue.

There are things that are happening. We need to make changes to our Standing Orders, like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned before me, with respect to a hybrid Parliament. He went on to say that people are skipping work. I would disagree with that. I would say that people are not present for various reasons, including those who are on maternity leave, which I know has happened on all sides of the House. A hybrid Parliament gives an opportunity for members of Parliament to be reflective of the Canadian population, for it not to be a man's sport, as it was 50 years ago, but to be more inclusive and to encourage more people to be members of Parliament.

What we are seeing here with this motion is that it is asking PROC to study the changes that can be made. I look forward to inviting experts to PROC, as I sit on the committee, to hear some of the best practices on how we could move forward in a way that tries to take some of the partisanship out of the procedures. I come from a place where I believe that the procedures we have set up in this House should require unanimous consent in order to to be changed. The reality is, what we have seen over the years, or at least what I have witnessed and clearly I have a bias because I am going to reflect more on what I see from across the aisle, is delay tactics and tactics that are used in order to change procedure and allow things to occur. Not allowing opposition parties to, at will on a supply day when they are presenting an opposition motion, change the Standing Orders, like the Conservatives did with the help of the NDP and the Green Party a number of years ago, I think better serves our democracy and the functioning of this place.

I hope we can all be reflective of the fact that changes need to occur when we are talking about inclusivity, trying to be more diverse as a Parliament and looking for ways to encourage more people to get involved. Whether that is a hybrid Parliament, which the previous speaker spoke so negatively about, or different Standing Order changes that allow us to better reflect the times we are in now, there needs to be a proper process in place to get us from where we are to there, hopefully removing a lot of the partisanship out of it.

I do not need to fill the full 10 minutes today on this, believe it or not. I know people hear enough from me, so I will leave it at that.

I thank my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for bringing this forward. I think what he has proposed is reasonable. He has given good timelines to PROC in order to look into this. If we do get to vote on this and see it pass by next week, by my math that puts us somewhere around February for changes to be reported back from PROC. I think we could better serve Canadians and indeed the way this House functions by supporting this motion, so I will certainly be voting in favour of it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising in the House today to share a few remarks on Motion No. 109, put forward by my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. This motion specifically looks at the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

For constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who might be watching this debate, I realize that whenever we talk about the Standing Orders, to people outside of this place it is a bit of inside baseball. However, the Standing Orders are extremely important, not only to the members who serve in this House but also to our constituents, because they are essentially the bylaws by which we operate. They spell out the procedure and practice of this place and set up the rules for debate, how voting can occur, how motions can be presented, and so on and so forth. They are extremely important, because while many Canadians may not be intimately aware of them or familiar with them, they are very important to allow me, as a member, and all of my colleagues to do our jobs in this place. Those rules are important because, in order to do our job properly, we need those rules. I have to be able to effectively represent the constituents of my riding, as every member does.

The Standing Orders are important, and probably even more so for opposition members. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2015, my first four years in this place were in opposition to a majority government. The incredible amount of power that a majority government wields is quite awesome to behold because, of course, it has the votes to win on every motion and every bill. As the opposition, when we are faced with a majority government, knowing it has the votes necessary to prevail in every instance, the only thing we have left is the rules of the House, the Standing Orders.

Majority governments have to walk a fine line. They cannot just barge their way through everything, because the opposition can use the Standing Orders of the House to create a real logjam. For every action, there can be an equal and opposite reaction. I recall that frequently, during those first four years of my time in the House of Commons, when the Liberal majority government behaved too much like a bully, there would be a reaction where we could tie up the House of Commons in procedural shenanigans. That is one of the options that an opposition can use to make its displeasure felt.

One of the biggest instances of that would be back in 2017, which, of course, was the famous filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee. At that time, the government was trying to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. We have often tried to change them based on a consensus model, but the changes that the Liberals were proposing to the Standing Orders at the time would have, effectively, neutered the opposition's powers to hold the government to account in this place. Of course, it was a non-starter for all of the opposition parties.

One of the ways in which we protested against these proposed changes to the Standing Orders was to use the Standing Orders to launch our protest. I remember that, at that time, the procedure and House affairs committee went through a filibuster that lasted, I think, over 50 hours. There were frequent times in the House of Commons when the legislative agenda of the day was interrupted through dilatory motions and vote calls. It was all in an effort to make the opposition's displeasure known to the government. The Liberals did eventually back down, so the Standing Orders are quite important.

I will now get to Motion No. 109 and what is being proposed by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. Essentially, several changes are being proposed in this motion, but it is really about improving the way the House can amend the Standing Orders by making it harder for the majority of the House to impose its will on the minority. It comes down to the model where a consensus is important. I am proud to support this motion. This is a very legitimate and proper motion being proposed on the Standing Order changes. We fundamentally believe that no one party should be doing this without the consent of the opposition.

Let us go through some of the details here. One of the first parts is that the government cannot use a provision that gives a minister the right to move a motion for which unanimous consent was denied. The government would not be able to use closure. A previous question could not be moved in order to prevent the tabling of amendments. The motion would also increase the amount of time in debate for concurrence of a committee report that contains changes to the Standing Orders. The motion would change how the House deals with private members' motions and opposition motions that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.

Instead of the House voting on the motion, the vote would be on referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, otherwise known as PROC, which would then have 75 sitting days to report on the matter. Motion No. 109 itself is going to be referred to PROC to study these changes and report to the House on the matter within that time frame.

Again, all in all, this is a very reasonable proposal. For all the reasons I outlined, it is something that I am going to support. I realize that, for anyone listening to this debate, this is very much inside baseball. However, I can assure people outside the House of Commons that these kinds of changes are extremely important. They allow us to do our job, and I think that this is an important injection of fairness into how we amend the future.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I enjoyed listening to him speak in support of his motion.

When we look at the motion from a broader perspective, we see that it seeks to codify what has been done for decades, in other words, to systematically seek consensus when changing the rules of procedure of the House and, therefore, the rules that govern how we govern ourselves as a body.

This consensus, which has been the custom and tradition for decades, was hard-won through many battles. My colleague pointed that out, and I found it interesting. He referred in particular to the period from 1834 to 1837-38, to the Patriots and the battles they fought to win the famous system of checks and balances, to ensure that all members of the House have a role to play without being relegated to the position of mere advisers, for example, and that we never experience any kind of tyranny of the majority. My colleague reminded us that the gains we enjoy today have come at the cost of many battles.

Unfortunately, if we are debating this motion, if it needed to be moved, it is because we recently witnessed some major violations to this consensus which is so important. We saw this last year when, under closure, the rules of the House were changed significantly through the creation of the virtual Parliament.

I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North, in his speech on Motion No. 109, brag that the creation of the virtual Parliament was an important change, the likes of which had not been seen in decades, even a hundred years. He practically bragged about having done so under closure, which showed the ingenuity with which the government changes the rules without consensus. It is precisely for this type of situation that we need a remedy like Motion No. 109.

While I am on my feet I would like to correct some of the statements that were made during the first hour of debate. The member for Winnipeg North said that gag orders, in other words closure or time allocation motions, are essential, that they speed up the legislative agenda for government bills, while private members' bills are already scheduled, in a way. We know when they will be debated. A certain number of hours are allocated.

This motion is not intended to banish all closure or time allocation motions. We could have that discussion, but that is not the purpose of motion No. 109. Motion No. 109 strictly concerns changes to procedure and seeks to prevent us from making such changes under a gag order, forcing all of us instead to actually seek some form of consensus.

I also heard the member for Winnipeg North and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby say that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois members were a bit hypocritical by using remote voting to vote against the virtual Parliament project. In doing so, these members, both Liberal and NDP, are failing to see the forest for the trees precisely because, if we had had the opportunity to debate these procedural amendments, we might have reached a consensus focused exclusively on voting through the app, and not necessarily on the broader issue of the virtual Parliament.

It is possible to be in favour of voting through the app without systematically being in favour of all the measures of the virtual Parliament, especially because they do not use the same resources. For example, interpretation is not needed for voting. We know that the hybrid Parliament is generating a lot more need for interpretation and the use of accommodation. That in itself is a concern and we should have debated it, but we were caught with only 11 hours of debate on that, without the possibility for amendments, because the government had used closure.

Motion No. 109 seeks to correct the government's ability to become a sort of tyranny of the majority when it comes to changing rules as critical as the ones that govern us.

When closure is invoked on a bill, its impact is not the same. The reason for closure also matters.

Closure during consideration of a bill can generally be aimed at protecting a certain segment of the population and our communities. Generally, it concerns values that are specific to each party and over which we might disagree, whereas the rules of procedure in the House are our rules of the game. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston gave a perfect example. He suggested imagining any sport, such as tennis, hockey, badminton or volleyball. If one of the two sides or teams could unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game, would that be fair? That would make absolutely no sense. That is precisely what the motion seeks to correct, so that no one can decide more or less unilaterally how we govern ourselves.

Perhaps the goal is also to prevent this kind of vicious circle in which the government changes the procedure under closure in order to give itself more power, so that it can later change the procedure even more and ultimately take away any power the opposition parties have that is necessary to hold the government to account.

Unfortunately, this motion will not undo what was done in the past. It will not change the fact that the government invoked closure to fundamentally change the rules of procedure in the House, for example, to create a virtual Parliament. However, at the very least, this motion will serve as a sort of guarantee for the future. That is what is good about this motion.

The way this motion works is also good. We do not want a majority to be able to change the ground rules. What the member is proposing is that we do not vote on the motion in the House right away. The motion seeks to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that we can hear from enough experts, fully debate the issue and then send the motion back to the House. In its wording, the motion lays out what should be done.

For all of these reasons, I sincerely thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that he is passionate about procedure. I also know that he is a staunch defender of the basic rules of democracy that govern us. That being said, I look forward to seeing how members will vote. I can already guarantee that the Bloc Québécois will support the motion for many reasons, including because of what happened last year.

I am looking forward to seeing how the Conservative members vote on this. In a way, they may be tying their own hands, given that they could form the government in the not-too-distant future. One does not need to be Nostradamus to know that. Maybe they would be tying the hands of their own government. It will be interesting to see what happens.

In any event, the substance of the motion perfectly reflects the democratic will that should govern how we do things in the House. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

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

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I observed that the purpose of Motion No. 109 was “to ensure that no future government would be able to amend the Standing Orders without the consent of all recognized parties.” The mechanism laid out in the motion and the proposed additions to the standing order that are contained in the motion is to ensure that debate would continue as long as there is a meaningful body of individuals opposed to whatever change to the Standing Orders is being proposed. This would ensure that debate would simply continue ad infinitum unless a consensus is sought. This does not translate into meaning unanimous consent is required. In practice, it would mean that all-party consent is required.

Let me turn away from the rationale for doing this and toward a discussion of how I think the process ought to proceed. There is a role model for this: a change to the Standing Orders that I proposed back in 2015 for changing how the Speaker is elected. Formerly, the Speaker was elected through what is known as an exhaustive vote. There would be multiple candidates. If no candidate secured a majority on a vote, we would have a second vote. We kept on doing this until we eliminated all the candidates. I proposed changing this to a preferential ballot, but I did not propose simply that the House vote on my motion. I said instead to send it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, where expert witnesses could be brought in to look at the preferential balloting system used in a number of other jurisdictions, most notably in Britain in their elections of speakers, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. That is what we did.

As such, the same language is incorporated into the motion proposed here. I just want to read it. Ignoring all the substantive content, the procedure part of the motion reads as follows:

That...it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows:

The substantive part of the motion follows, of course, and then the last part of the motion says:

[that] the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.

Assuming that the motion is approved at some point the next time we vote on Private Members' Business next week, it would be reasonable to assume that we would have this matter back before the House for a final vote on a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in February. Let me say what that committee report would probably look like. I am now holding in my hands the procedure and House affairs committee's report from the 41st Parliament, its 21st report. I will read what is said here. I would anticipate something like this being said again. The report said:

The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489...and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489.

In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows:

There is then the substance of the motion. That was respectfully submitted by the chair of the committee.

I think the same process would allow us to act now as we did then. We took an issue that could have been treated in a partisan manner. Maybe this is not a matter of concern, because it sounds like all parties support this, but that process allowed for it to be dealt with by means, essentially, of free votes of all the party caucuses in a manner that normally is not dealt with this way. There was actually a free vote in the House. Every single party in the House actually wound up dividing, with some members for and some against. A majority was in favour. I think that was a really proper way of handling changes to the Standing Orders. I do hope it happens again.

I guess I will get to say this again, but I do hope there will be a recorded vote on this, as opposed to seeking some other form of consent to the motion when we deal with this.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I initially asked the Prime Minister on February 28. Although the topic of the rubric announced earlier today was climate change, I was really asking about a series of related issues in terms of Canada's preparedness to respond to extreme weather events, such as extreme wildfires and flooding, as well as the need to quickly pursue the clean electricity regulations promised by the government.

The Prime Minister's answer was certainly on point, but I am grateful for a chance to pursue more completeness where it was lacking. Of course, it is no surprise that, when reduced to less than half a minute to respond to questions, none of the answers are particularly complete. However, in talking about a net-zero grid, the Prime Minister did commit to it again. I agree with everything the Prime Minister said in that answer or those statements. Therefore, this is not a confrontational raising of the issue in Adjournment Proceedings; what I would like to pursue tonight is just the adequacy of what Canada is doing.

As we increasingly see, one of the very best ways to respond to the climate crisis and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to shift to electrifying as much as possible, wherever we can, and to ensure that our source of electricity is 100% green and renewable. In that, we skip over a problem quite often. Perhaps I can just quote from the Prime Minister's response on February 28, where he said, “A net-zero grid will serve as the basis for climate actions across the economy”. That is true.

The difficulty is that we have not really grasped a pretty sticky, unpleasant, thorny nettle, which is that we do not have a national grid in this country; province by province, we have a balkanized series of individual monopolistic utilities. Just as we have not yet solved interprovincial trade, we sure have not solved having an effective grid; I would point out that, in the European Union, believe it or not, 27 separate nation-states have a grid system with the ability to have national sovereignty at their borders. We would think that would mean they could not possibly do as good a job as Canada. One country with 10 provinces, three territories and one federal government should be wonderfully well-organized, but we are a shambles. We do not even think like a country compared with what the European Union has done, where it has a fully integrated grid.

The members of the European Union were able, after Putin invaded Ukraine, to say that Ukraine deserves to have secure energy sources. It plugged Ukraine into the EU grid. We cannot plug the Maritimes into Hydro-Quebec. We have never had provinces at war with each other. France and Germany were at war with each other and collaborate better now than do Alberta and B.C.

Somehow or other, we are going to have to figure out interprovincial-federal co-operation around an electricity grid that works north-south and east-west. Only then can we meet the Prime Minister's goal, the government's goal and Canadians' dream of an electricity grid that works.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her years of advocacy on these issues.

I want to be clear: Our government has no intention to delay or weaken the clean electricity regulations. On the contrary, these are regulations of national significance. Yes, there are challenges with provinces across the country, but we understand the importance of getting it right so that the regulations can pass the test of time moving forward. Canada will need more clean electricity to achieve a net-zero economy.

Our population is growing. More and more Canadians are plugging in electric vehicles and using electrified public transit. More and more homeowners are switching to electric heat pumps. Companies are looking for ways to decarbonize their warehouses, offices and factories.

A transition to a clean electricity grid will only be successful if provinces and utilities across the country can deliver significant emission reductions while continuing to provide Canadian industries, businesses and households with reliable and affordable electricity. For that, the regulations must be flexible. That is why we conducted extensive consultation following the publication of the draft clean electricity regulations last summer. We reached out to provincial and territorial governments and to indigenous representation. We engaged with the Canada Electricity Advisory Council, utilities, industry, environmental organizations and all interested Canadians.

We have heard the concerns and criticisms from the electricity sector and from governments. We have heard about the challenges and the need for flexibility that some provinces have to face when generating electricity relies heavily on fossil fuels.

We have made improvements to ensure that provincial operators have greater flexibility.

We came to the table with more than $40 billion in federal support to help provinces and territories on their path to a cleaner grid. Right now, Environment and Climate Change Canada is analyzing the feedback we received on the proposed changes. Stakeholders had until March 15 of this year to submit their comments. Continued collaboration is crucial.

As for all regulations, we will continue to engage, to understand any remaining concerns before publishing the final regulations before the end of the year. I know the hon. member has provided some feedback, and we will continue to push our government to do more. We are working to make sure that the clean energy regulations make sense so that they deliver significant emission reductions, reliability and affordability over the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have to express deep distress that the hon. member thinks that we are moving to clean electricity regulations. One cannot have clean electricity when the federal government is allowing Ontario to bring more fossil fuels online to fuel an electricity grid that had been largely decarbonized by the previous Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne. It is a terrible shame, when we want to move to clean electricity, to allow more fossil fuels on the grid and to fail to move to ensure that the Atlantic Loop proceeds so that we can shut down coal in Nova Scotia, still its number one source of electricity generation.

Is the government serious about clean electricity and a functional north-south-east-west grid or is it just a bumper sticker?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the clean electricity systems we are building across the country are very concrete. They will be the backbone of Canada's net-zero economy, allowing us to be more competitive.

The United States recently released its finalized clean power rules on April 25.

We already have one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. Approximately 84% of Canada's electricity is generated from non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, solar and wind. Regulations will help decarbonize the rest of our grid across Canada.

This will be an important part of our overall contribution to reducing emissions.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am back again tonight to continue calling on the government to fix the Canada disability benefit.

To sum up where we are now, this is critical because 40% of the people living in poverty across the country are folks with disabilities. This is the case because provincial and territorial programs are all below the poverty line. In the province of Ontario, for example, the Ontario disability support program totals just over $1,300 a month. In Kitchener, for example, that does not get most people one month's rent on an apartment, and it is about $1,000 below the poverty line.

Folks with disabilities across the country and the disability community advocated for the government to introduce a federal benefit that would supplement these inadequate provincial and territorial programs. It was promised by the government years ago. It was in the Liberals' 2021 election platform, which they campaigned on. It was to be called the Canada disability benefit, and they put forward that it would lift at least hundreds of thousands of folks with disabilities out of poverty.

Now, as a result of those commitments, we did see legislation get passed, and we saw the first version of a proposal for the Canada disability benefit in this year's budget. However, the issue is that what is being proposed is not what the disability community had been calling for. The Liberals are proposing it to be a maximum of $200 a month, or about $6 a day. They are proposing for it to only be delivered to folks who have access to the disability tax credit, which is an incredibly burdensome credit to get access to, and they are proposing that it not start until July of next year, which is about three months before the next fixed election date.

Here is what folks in the disability community have to say, and I will just share two briefly tonight. Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada said, “Our disappointment cannot be overstated.... This benefit was supposed to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, not merely make them marginally less poor than they already are.”

I have read the words from Kate before in the House. She said, “This budget announcement of adding a max of 200 more a month to a select few disabled people is The Most Liberal Party thing I've ever seen”.

As a result, at committee, I asked the minister a series of questions, including how many people with disabilities would be lifted out of poverty and who in their consultations asked for this.

Last week, we finally got some answers, and they were disappointing. The minister has not met with all of her provincial counterparts, including Ontario. Nothing is scheduled there. The benefit will not lift hundreds of thousands out of poverty, but it will be about 25,000, or about 2% of folks with disabilities living in poverty. Also, for all they talk about “nothing without us”, only 3% of respondents to the Liberals' online survey indicated support for the disability tax credit to be the sole eligibility criteria. It is clear now that the Canada disability benefit that they are proposing did not come from the disability community.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is the same that I asked months ago. If this proposal did not come from the disability community, who is it that asked for what the government is proposing to be in the Canada disability benefit after three years of supposedly consulting with the disability community?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to the thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his continued advocacy on behalf of persons with disabilities.

We are on track to deliver the first-ever federal disability benefit. The design and implementation work is in progress. We must get this additional support to the people who need it as quickly as possible.

The Canada disability benefit is a major milestone in a strong and unwavering commitment to create a more inclusive and fairer Canada. In budget 2024, we are committing to invest $6.1 billion over six years, beginning in 2024-25, and $1.4 billion per year ongoing. To repeat, budget 2024 has $6.1 billion, which is the single largest line item in the budget of 2024, so it is really important.

I want to thank all of those who have been relentless in their advocacy and their championing the needs and priorities of people with disabilities. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we will continue to listen and engage with the disability community in the next phase of delivering this historical benefit as we work towards the regulatory process.

Members can rest assured that, in July, 2025, eligible Canadians will receive their first payment. It will help over 600,000 Canadians with the cost of groceries, transit and equipment.

The Canada disability benefit has a clear objective: to help reduce poverty among working-age persons with disabilities. We have said it before and I will say it again: The benefit is intended to complement, not replace, existing provincial and territorial income supports for persons with disabilities.

We need to work with the provinces to make sure there would be no clawbacks. We aspire for the benefit to grow over time in a responsible and meaningful way in collaboration with the provinces. Our goal is that all persons with disabilities would be better off because of the benefit.

As everyone can see, the process is a huge undertaking, and we must ensure that it is done right. We cannot cut corners, and we need to let the consultation play out. Broad, meaningful and barrier-free consultation with the disability community is important, not just because it is required in the new Canada Disability Benefit Act but also because it is fundamental, and we believe it is the way to go to make sure that we improve the lives of people with disabilities. The work is ongoing. It is working well. We are on track towards providing the first benefit payment in July 2025.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is a friend, and I know he is speaking from the heart, but if he and others in the government are calling the benefit a major milestone but the disability community, the community that is meant to be supported by the benefit, is not, we have problems here. One of the problems is the consultation process the member mentioned.

The consultation is in there because it is an amendment I had added to the bill almost two years ago. The issue, though, is that for all the talk of listening, consultation and “we hear you”, the fact is that the disability community is trying to tell the government that the things folks with disabilities have been calling for are not in the benefit. What they are trying to get the government to understand is that it must do better.

There is talk that it might grow over time. What we need to see is that it is a matter of urgency to recognize that the number of people with disabilities living in poverty, in my community and others, is a crisis. I hope he is going to step up and do more about it.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015 we have cut the poverty rate in half in Canada. We have lifted more than two million Canadians out of poverty, including more than 650,000 children.

We are not slowing down. We have focused our efforts on our social safety net to support the most vulnerable, including people with disabilities. It is unacceptable that people with disabilities should be more likely to live below the poverty line than people without disabilities.

The benefit would be the first-ever federal benefit for persons with disabilities, with extra financial security to over 600,000 Canadians who need it the most. By 2028, the Canada disability benefit would lift, as the member mentioned, 25,000 working-age persons with disabilities and 15,000 of their family members out of poverty each year. This is the next step in the progression of disability rights in Canada, not a destination. Our government will continue to champion the needs and the priorities of people with disabilities as we build a fairer and more inclusive Canada for all.

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, a short while ago, I asked the finance minister a question during question period and was completely unsatisfied with the response, so here we are trying to get some details from the tax-and-spend Liberal government.

We have now known for months, if not years, that Canadians are worse off with the carbon tax than with any rebate that the government claims that they would enjoy. We know this because we experience it. We all go out and fill up our cars. We pay our home heating bills. We see the prices in grocery stores of anything that has to be grown, shipped, refrigerated or heated. All of those extra costs get passed on to the consumer. This is what Conservatives warned Canadians about in the last few cycles. We said that the government would never be satisfied with the rate of the carbon tax, that the government would increase it. The former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, accused Conservatives of making that up. In fact, many of her friends and Liberal friends in the mainstream media, the government-funded, taxpayer-subsidized mainstream media, carried that message for her. Then she was caught on tape saying that if one wants to get people to believe what one is saying, one just has to keep saying it louder, over and over again. Even if it is not true, people will begin to believe what one said. That is the Liberals' attitude towards voters: Just repeat the lie louder and louder, more and more often, and eventually people will believe what they are saying.

However, the fact is that we cannot argue with numbers. We cannot argue with math. No matter how many times Liberals say something here in this House, on television, or out in the communities, it will never take away from the fact that every single time a Canadian family struggles to pay that grocery bill or gets hit by an even higher home heating bill, or winces as they see the fuel pump tick over $100 for that fill, they know what the math shows, that they are worse off with the carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at all of the costs of the carbon tax, not just what we pay directly, which are the fiscal costs of the carbon tax.

A person will see the carbon tax, that fiscal cost, on their fuel bill after filling up their car. A person will see the carbon tax on their home heating bill. In many cases it is rising to 25%, 30% or even 40%, of the total bill itself, meaning it is almost as expensive as the fuel that we are using, whether it is natural gas or otherwise, to heat our homes. Those are fiscal costs. That direct line item people see when they pay a bill is called a fiscal cost.

The economic costs are a little bit difficult to see, but they still have a cost, nonetheless. The economic costs are the cascading effect of all those price increases; the fact that the retailer who sells the food has to make up for the fact that they pay higher utility costs, the fact that the farmer who grows the food has to pay to get it shipped, has to pay to fertilize it, to combine it, to store it, to dry it and to ship it. All of those businesses have less money to pay higher wages or to make investments in expansions. When we factor those costs in, Canadians are far worse off. The government is trying to only look at the fiscal costs, only look at one side of the ledger.

Here is the thing. Canadians do not have a choice. They cannot pick and choose which costs they are going to pay. They have to pay all of them. There is a report that the Government of Canada has possession of. The government produced the report. It has studied the report. The government has shown it to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but it will not show Canadians the report.

My question last week is the same as it is tonight: Why will the government not just show Canadians what its own report says about the total cost of the carbon tax?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have met regularly with Canadians and their families who are struggling to pay their bills. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle never mentioned the Canada rebate to give more money to Canadians. He never referred to misleading comments that he made even today.

In budget 2024, we have taken bold actions to make life cost less, such as, for example, $10-a-day child care, dental care for uninsured Canadians and the first phase of the national universal pharmacare program, which the member and his party voted against. Budget 2024 also enables the government to lower everyday costs for Canadians. We are taking action on a lot of these measures, which include stabilizing prices for groceries, cracking down on junk fees to make prices fairer and lowering the cost of banking. We are also committed to launching a new national school food program and a new disability benefit program that the member and his party voted against.

To be clear, all proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system are returned to the province where they were collected. As we have said repeatedly in the House, the households most in need of getting money back will receive the Canada carbon rebate. More than eight out of 10 Canadians will benefit from this system.

In provinces where the federal program is in effect, including Ontario, eight out of 10 Canadians will get more money back than they spend, thanks to the Canada carbon rebate. Low-income households, which the member never mentions, will benefit the most from this rebate. They will be able to buy the things they need with this money.

Another important point to remember is this.

The Bank of Canada has already said that fuel charges contribute only a fraction of 1%. The member never mentions this. It is misleading Canadians again. It is 0.15% toward the increase. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said.

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

That is not true. It is incorrect.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is chirping again. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada said: 0.15%. It is really insulting that the member opposite continues to use carbon pricing as a way to scare Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills.

Carbon pricing is not the cause of the hike in grocery prices. The Bank of Canada confirmed this already multiple times.

There are also exemptions to support our farmers. There are also emissions, for agricultural support, that are not subject to carbon pricing. We provide exemptions for gasoline, diesel, fuel used by farmers in agricultural activities, and there is no price on emissions for livestock.

It is also partially refundable. There are a number of factors at play that the member always fails to mention. We have listened to Canadians and made adjustments for those who need it most.

I ask the member opposite to stop spreading misinformation in this House. Carbon pricing works. The member should listen to the experts. We have also heard clearly from citizen climate groups like Fridays for Future and students. We need to listen to the experts. Carbon pricing is a mechanism that reduces emissions, and Canada is benefiting from it.