House of Commons Hansard #55 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-14.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill S-228. The bill amends the Criminal Code to explicitly make forced or coerced sterilization without consent an aggravated assault, aiming to protect women, Indigenous women, and marginalized individuals in Canada. 200 words.
Extortion in Canada Pierre Poilievre requests an emergency debate on an "extortion crisis" across Canada, which he blames on Liberal border and justice policies. He proposes mandatory jail time, stronger borders, and clear self-defence laws. 600 words.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Second reading of Bill C-14. The bill [xnP89S] amends the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act, and National Defence Act to tighten bail and sentencing rules. The government [X4TNeM] aims to strengthen public safety by expanding reverse onus provisions, adding aggravating factors for crimes against first responders, essential infrastructure, and retail theft, and restricting house arrest for serious sexual offenses. The Bloc [D0LKIk] supports sending it to committee but raises concerns about judicial discretion and the presumption of innocence. Conservatives [urGYcO] argue the bill is a "band-aid solution" that fails to repeal "soft-on-crime" policies [0kM28G] and restore mandatory minimums, attributing rising crime rates to past Liberal legislation. 49000 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Parliamentary Budget Officer Members debate a question of privilege regarding the government's delayed response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's request for information on proposed savings, with the government citing process and employee relations for the delay. 700 words.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-221. The bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that victims of crime receive not only eligibility and review dates for offenders' temporary absences, releases, or parole, but also an explanation of how these dates were determined. This aims to increase transparency and support victims, who often feel unheard or uninformed by the justice system. The bill builds on previous legislation that received unanimous support. 7200 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-221 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
It being 5:34 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I am happy to join today in the evening's adjournment debate. I asked a question a few weeks ago about food price increases, but I am sure my colleagues will give me one second to give a big shout-out and congratulations to our very own Saskatchewan Roughriders, the 2025 Grey Cup champions.
I had the opportunity on Sunday to watch the game with all three of my children. I am proud to report that this is the first time the Riders have won the Grey Cup when all three of them were alive, because they have not won since 2013. It was a joy for me to have the time to experience watching the Grey Cup victory by our Riders with my three children, Jameson, Clair and Nickson. It was a great family bonding experience.
I would like to get into the very crux of my argument. We have been talking for the last couple of years about the continued food price increases in our country. We know that there is data showing that food prices over the last 10 years have increased more in Canada than in the States, actually 48% faster. We know that inflation has been caused by several things. One is the industrial carbon tax, and a second is taxes on food packaging in grocery stores.
When we talk about the industrial carbon tax, some things my friends and colleagues from across the way do not understand is that it taxes each and every link along the transportation route. Food does not just magically appear in grocery stores; it has to get there. It has to get from the field to the grocery store, so the taxes paid by our farmers, by our truckers and by the grocery stores to keep the lights on and to keep food cool are also included in the ever-increasing cost.
To whoever will answer my question, I will say that I think food prices are a conversation across this country. I have been at home in my riding all week, and every time we have a conversation with someone who comes into our constituency office, they are talking about the ever-increasing price of life. There is an affordability crisis in our country, and it starts at the kitchen table. I know lots of families in which the parents do not eat any of the meat at the supper table until the kids are done eating, just to make sure there is enough for the kids to eat, and that is something that should never happen in our country.
We produce the highest-quality food, like great Canadian beef. We produce the best crops. That should be something that makes sure our country can and does have affordable food prices. I would also mention that in our country, food bank usage has doubled over the last 10 years. Canada is the breadbasket of the world, and if more people, especially in the middle class, are going to the food bank instead of the grocery store, it is an indictment of what the Liberal government has done over the past 10 years to food prices.
If we tax the farmer who produces the food and we tax the trucker who ships the food, we tax the consumer at the grocery store who buys the food, and I would like to have some answers. I remember the Minister of Finance's saying three years ago that food prices would drop by Thanksgiving. I remember his making that solid commitment, but food prices have continued to increase, and they see that, and there just is not enough paycheque at the end of the month for people to buy groceries.
That is something that has to be fixed in our country, so I am looking forward to the response from the member opposite.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, I too would like to start by congratulating the Saskatchewan Roughriders. It is a little-known fact that my stepmother is a born and bred Swift Current resident. She moved into our home in 1994, and she is a diehard Saskatchewan Roughrider fan.
I rise to address the member opposite's question and to set the record straight: There is no such thing as a food packaging tax in Canada, and there is no industrial carbon tax on groceries. These claims simply do not reflect the facts.
Canada has in place practical, evidence-based measures designed to reduce pollution, support competitiveness and build a clean economy for the future. Industrial carbon pricing, for example, applies only to large emitters, the biggest polluters in the country. It does not apply to farmers. It does not apply to consumers. It does not apply at the grocery store checkout. The system is structured to keep Canadian industries competitive while achieving emission reductions at the lowest possible cost.
Canada's federal output-based pricing system gives company leaders options. They can innovate to cut emissions, purchase credits from innovators or invest in cleaner processes. It is not a charge on families. It is a framework that rewards cleaner operations and helps Canada stay competitive in a global economy that is rapidly decarbonizing.
Let us be clear about food prices. The federal fuel charge was removed from farm fuels on April 1 of this year. Experts agree that higher food prices are being driven primarily by global forces, supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine and energy price volatility. None of these factors stem from Canada's climate policies. In fact, it has been clearly shown that the industrial carbon pricing adds virtually no cost to commercial goods.
As for the so-called food packaging tax, the regulations on single-use plastics are not taxes at all. They are straightforward environmental rules that prevent harmful plastics, such as checkout bags, cutlery and certain types of food containers, from ending up in our rivers, oceans and streams. These rules are expected to prevent more than one million tonnes of plastic waste over the next decade. Many Canadian businesses have already adapted, often finding that reusable or recyclable alternatives save money over time.
Finally, the clean fuel regulations do not require fuel prices to increase. They are protecting the environment and human health by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is also spurring tens of billions of dollars of investment in clean-fuel projects across the country, creating good jobs and positioning Canada to compete globally. These are not taxes on food. They are smart, practical measures that protect Canadians from the rising costs of pollution and climate change.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the talking points from my colleague opposite, but Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor, who is well known on social media, would completely disagree with everything the member just said. He said that the member's government policy has been directly linked to food price increases. He said the policies that the Liberals have had, such as the industrial carbon tax, have increased the food prices. Therefore, the member opposite can forgive me if I am going to take the word of Professor Sylvain Charlebois over his.
The Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Prices have continued to go up. He cannot deny the fact that prices for food have continued to go up for all Canadians from coast to coast, especially in rural and remote areas, where they see that, because trucking companies pay an industrial carbon tax on shipping food, food is more expensive. It is more expensive to get it to rural and remote areas. How can the parliamentary secretary possibly deny that fact?
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to be clear: Canada's environmental policies are designed to reduce pollution and drive innovation, not to raise grocery prices.
Clean-fuel projects, such as Imperial Oil's renewable diesel factory in Alberta, Char Technologies' clean-energy projects in Ontario and Quebec, and Air Products' hydrogen complex in Edmonton are creating jobs and keeping Canadians competitive in the global clean economy. Eliminating these measures, as the member opposite suggests, would risk investment, cost jobs and increase pollution.
Canadians deserve solutions that protect affordability today and build a sustainable and competitive economy for the future.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the fiscally sane people of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.
Recently, I asked this reckless-spending government's minister if he could cancel the Liberals' plan to hike the price of fuel in the budget. Well, the budget is out, and the tax is still on. This tax is just one of many the Liberals have brought in that are hidden and quietly eat away at the purchasing power of Canadians.
The response from the Liberal Secretary of State, put up to shield the minister, shows how the Liberal Party, at its core, does not get it. Canadians spend more on taxes than anything else. They spend more on taxes than they do on housing. Government is the single most expensive purchase we make, yet the Liberals have the gall to stand here and tell us that making government more expensive is an affordability measure. I am not shocked. This is the same party that ran on the slogan, eat cake and have it too, but the brazenness with which they trick Canadians is shocking.
The Liberals promised a generational change, but what they meant is that it would be a generation before anything changes. They promised no cuts to the public service, but now frontline workers are being laid off and Canadians are left on hold. They promised no cuts to transfers for people or provinces, but now they are cutting veterans' benefits and student grants. Despite those cuts to people who did not vote Liberal in the last election, the Liberals are posting one of the biggest deficits in history. Their slogan should have been “more spending, fewer services”.
Canadians are rightfully asking where their tax dollars are going. Despite the Liberals' best efforts to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the truth is out. The Brookfield Prime Minister has reclassified corporate welfare as an investment. That is not a surprise, considering who he has running the government. Canada's Clerk of the Privy Council lives in a turnstile. One year, he is the top finance bureaucrat, bringing in corporate welfare for the electric utilities; the next, he is the CEO of an electric utility. One year, he is running Montreal's transit company; another year, he is head of Trudeau's Infrastructure Bank, giving money away to Montreal's transit company.
His is not much different from the résumé of our Prime Minister, who moved from an investment bank to a finance department, from central banks to investment firms. While some in the media have focused on the Prime Minister's significant conflicts of interest, when we look at the strategy he took at Brookfield, how could it not be? Under his watch, Brookfield targeted companies at the nexus of business and government. As CEO, he would invest in something such as a modular homebuilding company. Then, as a former central banker, he would lobby governments to build more modular housing. Now he is Prime Minister and holding photo ops in front of modular housing, which he will fund with our tax dollars.
This is what so many people get wrong about the World Economic Forum. There is no conspiracy; it is just a bunch of executives from public services playing a game of musical chairs with executives from global companies. They sit around in a circle like a bunch of good old boys, patting themselves on the back for being so clever. Then, they all fly home to implement bad policies or invest in bad companies. When it all fails, they use even more taxpayer dollars to bail each other out.
The Prime Minister's friends get six- and seven-figure salaries, while Canadians get laid off. The real Liberal Party slogan should be “spend less on Canadians; invest more with their corporate friends”.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, Canadians expect a government that protects affordability and secures their future and their children's future, not one or the other.
The opposition paints climate action as a bill Canadians cannot afford, but what Canadians cannot afford is inaction. Climate-driven droughts, wildfires and storms are already disrupting our supply chains, our agricultural sector and our communities. Those events raise costs more than the climate solutions we are putting in place.
Let us be clear: Climate action is not a luxury; it is an economic necessity. When we talk about costs, we need the facts. The opposition suggests that cancelling the clean fuel regulations would magically lower grocery bills or fuel costs. That is wishful thinking. Prices today are being pushed by global energy volatility, supply chain pressures and corporate pricing power. Eliminating climate policy does not make world oil prices drop.
The clean fuel regulations have helped drive tens of billions in investments across Canada in projects such as low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage. These projects support good-paying jobs for thousands of Canadians across this country. As announced on September 5, we are making targeted changes to the CFR to further support Canada's biofuel sector while maintaining the primary purpose of the regulation, to reduce emissions.
Canadians want leadership that protects jobs while protecting the planet. They want clean energy growth, competitive industries and secure, affordable futures for their children. That is why our government is committed to smart, fair, predictable climate policy that strengthens the economy rather than undermining it. This is about responsibly managing today's costs while safeguarding tomorrow's prosperity. That is the Canadian way.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, my favourite Liberal talking point is when the Liberals compare Canada to the other G7 countries. It feels like when a teenager comes home drunk for the first time and protests, “Well, all the other kids were drunker.” It is a bit like their claim that inflation was not their fault because there was inflation in other countries. I guess it was just a coincidence that all those other countries were running big deficits too.
I know that for some people, when a bunch of governments enact the same policies using the same propaganda, it can look nefarious. The truth is that these corporate progressive types are not very creative. They copy each other's policies and slogans in a desperate attempt to sell us the same corporatist, technocratic agenda.
We do not need Liberal protectionism, mandates or subsidies. We need to cut competition-killing regulation, enforce the competition promotion regulations and then just get out of the way so Canadians can build a brighter future.
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, affordability matters, and so does economic security. The government will continue to pursue policies that protect workers, strengthen competitiveness and ensure that Canada leads in the clean energy future. That is how we build an economy that works for Canadians today and delivers opportunity for the next generation, for my children's generation and for six or seven generations ahead.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. I am hoping the member does not just read the speech that was written for her by the Prime Minister's Office. Does the Liberal government believe that smoking fentanyl and meth should be legal or illegal?
Maggie Chi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Madam Speaker, at a time when every community in this country is grappling with the devastating impacts of the toxic drug and overdose crisis, it is profoundly disappointing to see this issue reduced to clips and outrage instead of serious dialogue. Canadians expect better from us. They deserve a conversation rooted in facts, not theatrics, and the facts are clear: It is provinces and territories, not the federal government, that decide whether safe consumption sites may operate.
Every provincial and territorial minister of health can issue or refuse exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Health Canada reviews applications only after applicants demonstrate full compliance with local, municipal and provincial requirements, and show robust safety measures to protect clients and surrounding communities. If they cannot do that, the application does not proceed.
Our role is to support communities through targeted investments, including the youth mental health fund, giving young people earlier access to care and reducing emergency room pressures; expanded funding to the substance use and addictions program for prevention, treatment and harm reduction; continued support through the emergency treatment fund for urgent provincial and territorial needs; and, through budget 2025, strengthened enforcement and border measures to disrupt the illegal drug supply poisoning Canadians. These are the investments that save lives and support communities; they are not shortcuts and not slogans.
Safe consumption sites are one tool in a much broader response. This crisis does not lend itself to theatrics. It demands seriousness and leadership. Families that have lost loved ones deserve to see us rise to that responsibility. Every community is hurting. Every family touched by this crisis is grieving. They are looking to this House for clarity, compassion and a thoughtful, evidence-based plan forward.
Our government understands that we can protect communities and care for people struggling with addiction. Responsible leadership requires both.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Madam Speaker, I guess the member picked the speech prepared for her by the Prime Minister's Office, so I will ask the question again: Does the Liberal government believe that smoking fentanyl and meth should be legal or illegal?
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Madam Speaker, the gravity of this crisis requires a measured and serious approach. We owe it to Canadians and to the dignity of this House to do better.
Our government continues to work closely with provinces and territories, supporting them through the emergency treatment fund and the substance use and addictions program, and strengthening enforcement to disrupt the illegal drug supply. These priorities are not mutually exclusive, and responsible leaders do not pretend they are.
This crisis requires empathy, evidence and action, not division. Let us bring more honour to this House by meeting this moment with the seriousness, compassion and integrity Canadians expect of us.
Mental Health and AddictionsAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)