House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-39.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Electoral Integrity and the Alberta Referendum Heather McPherson (NDP) seeks an emergency debate on Alberta’s referendum, citing invalid mail-in ballots, accessibility barriers, a data breach, alleged foreign interference and separatist collaboration, and questions about electoral integrity and national unity. 400 words.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill proposes to streamline federal reviews and approvals for major projects, coordinate consultations, modernize transportation and trade rules, and amend labour-relations provisions. Liberal members say it will reduce duplication and provide decisions within a year while maintaining environmental standards and Indigenous rights. Opposition members raise concerns about ministerial discretion, environmental safeguards, Indigenous consultation, workers’ right to strike, accountability, and whether the changes will deliver projects. 59400 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Ukrainian Heritage Month Act Third reading of Bill S-210. The bill designates September as Ukrainian Heritage Month to recognize Ukrainian Canadians’ contributions, celebrate their culture and history, and promote education about their heritage. Members across parties support the measure, also citing the importance of acknowledging Ukrainians’ resilience and Canada’s ties to Ukraine. 6800 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
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.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
(Motion agreed to)
The next question is on the main 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.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, QC
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, October 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
I believe I see the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni rising on a point of order.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to see the clock at 12:43 a.m.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked on May 1. It relates to the science around the climate crisis. I am very concerned that we do not actually talk about the position we are in as humanity on a planet that is undergoing dramatic, irreversible changes due to our own conduct. Too often in this place, it is a throwaway line, or someone stands up and says, “Well, we could talk about climate change years ago, but that's over now.”
My question at the time was to say, “alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects.” Key experts say that there is a 50-50 chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating catastrophic results. I asked: “When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?”
At that moment, I was referring to the publication of a recent scientific report at the time, back last spring. For any insomniacs watching CPAC, it could not have a worse name than the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Its acronym is, appropriately perhaps, AMOC, because we might be running amok. It is the the major current, which people will know intuitively or from their science classes as the Gulf Stream. The ocean currents are vast conveyor belts throughout the oceans of the world. All the sea water anywhere around the world will eventually make the full circuit, which takes many years, all around the planet. However, what is happening is that with the shifting of temperatures with the overheating of the oceans in some parts of the ocean and the cooler water entering the system as we have ice melting in the Arctic, the cooler water depresses the warmer water so that the Gulf Stream is being depressed and slowed down.
I have been working on issues around climate science since I was a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment back in 1986, and so I had a lot of brilliant climate scientists explain things like this to me. I am not as good at explaining them after midnight, but it is critical that Canadians, particularly the cabinet of this country, understand the science, because we are running out of time.
There are tipping points, such as if we lose the Gulf Stream, if it stalls, if it stops, and it is very clearly slowing down. We used to think, back in 1986, that this was very unlikely to ever happen, but the most recent reports to which I was referring in this question said we are now at a 50-50 chance that it could happen by mid-century. If that happens, the effects are catastrophic and enormous.
This is directly related to the fiction that net zero by 2050 has anything to do with our Paris commitments. That is an invention for public relations purposes to avoid the fact that in order to avoid very significant tipping points that are irreversible, creating unstoppable changes, our emissions need to come down sharply. Last advice from the IPCC was, at the latest, before 2025. Here we are, it is 2026, and we are ignoring the alarm bells.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today during this early show.
We are taking action as we speak. We recognize that Canadians are living through a period of economic, geopolitical and environmental disruption. With the impacts of climate change, including severe wildfires, floods and extreme heat; growing pressures on affordability and competitiveness; and the rising demands on our energy systems, Canadians are facing multiple challenges at this time.
Climate action is a key part of how we build Canada strong. Achieving net-zero emissions remains our commitment and strategic economic interest of Canada, supporting the broader goal of building a stronger, more competitive, resilient and economically independent economy, and the strongest economy in the G7. We are advancing a cohesive approach to climate action that reflects today's geopolitical and energy security realities: moving pragmatically and at a pace to advance decarbonization while working to make climate-smart choices the most practical choices for improving affordability, competitiveness, resilience and quality of life for Canadians.
To us, climate action, adaptation and nature protection are interconnected. Canada's forests, wetlands, oceans and other ecosystems help support biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience and provide important economic and social benefits. Our focus is on creating the conditions for long-term transformation, mobilizing investment, accelerating innovation and building the infrastructure and industrial capacity needed to support a competitive, resilient and low-carbon economy.
We are doing this through other elements of our agenda. The national electricity strategy will electrify our economy while making life more affordable for all Canadians. The nature strategy is a $3.8-billion investment in protecting 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. Our plan is advancing climate objectives along with broader economic objectives, laying the foundation for a cleaner, more competitive economy. At the same time, Canada's national adaptation strategy emphasizes that reducing emissions alone is not enough. Communities must also be prepared for the climate impacts that are already occurring.
The strategy provides a framework for advancing resilience in areas such as disaster preparedness, infrastructure, nature and biodiversity, health, and the economy. The costs associated with climate impacts will continue to rise, reverberating throughout Canada's economy and driving up the cost of housing, food, energy, insurance and other essentials. This is why climate action cannot wait until future decades. The Government of Canada is moving with urgency to fight climate change while working together to build the energy security, industrial capacity and strategic autonomy that will define this century for Canada.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of urgency whatsoever except the urgency with which the Liberal government is turning its back on climate commitments.
As Steven Guilbeault said before he left the House, the platform on which all the Liberal members ran mentioned climate change 28 times but did not mention pipelines once, and in approving the pipeline recently, the Prime Minister claimed that the increase in greenhouse gases would not be material. My God, we are on track to be well above the Harper target that was selected in May 2015. We are miles from reaching the targets that are legally binding under the Paris Agreement, and we are running out of time that really matters.
I will not turn my back on future generations, and shame on anyone on the other side of the House who does.
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, climate change is already affecting communities across Canada through increasingly severe impacts, including wildfires, floods and extreme heat. This is why climate policy must continue to be informed by the best available scientific evidence. It is both an environmental imperative and an economic necessity in a world that continues to decarbonize. The Government of Canada continues to support climate science, modelling, data collection and environmental monitoring to improve our understanding of climate change and its impacts. They are fundamental to understanding climate risks and informing decision-making.
Canada remains committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. We are taking a long-term approach focused on building resilience, supporting clean economic growth, protecting nature and creating the conditions for Canadians to benefit from reliable energy systems, cleaner technologies and more resilient communities for the future.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know people at home are wondering, as it is 12:32 a.m., why we are here. A lot of people do not understand what a late show or an adjournment proceeding is. It is the opportunity for an MP in the opposition to ask for a 10-minute late night debate with the government on very important issues at the end of the sitting day. Of course, our sitting day finished at midnight today, so here I am.
I will note the reason this is so important and why I am here at this hour. I am sure the government did not expect me to show up. The Government of Canada formally recognizes its obligation to care for military veterans and RCMP veterans. It has a solemn obligation. I rise today because the government is about to dismantle an employment policy that has supported Canadian veterans for more than 80 years.
Since the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has had the right of first refusal on federal security guard contracts. This was never simply a procurement arrangement. It was created for a clear social purpose: to provide meaningful employment for veterans transitioning from military service to civilian life. However, effective April 2027, the Liberal government plans to end that policy and move approximately $330 million annually in federal security contracts into competitive procurement.
The Commissionaires is Canada's largest private sector employer of veterans, employing about 3,500 veterans across this country. This matters enormously, including in my riding. I recently met with Mark Breslauer, the CEO of Commissionaires Victoria, and Katelyn Anderson, the north island client services manager. In the Comox Valley alone, the Commissionaires employs over 100 people. They talked about the impact this is having on their employees' mental health and families. This is a community that is home to 19 Wing Comox and thousands of serving members, veterans and military families. These are not just numbers on a procurement spreadsheet. They are our neighbours. They are veterans. They are people who have served our country and found another meaningful way to continue to contribute.
I am calling on the government to not abolish the program. If it needs improvement, the government should work with the Commissionaires. The Commissionaires is Canada's only national not-for-profit security company. Its pure purpose is fundamentally different from that of a private security company, whose primary responsibility is generating profit for its owners and shareholders. If the federal government is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security services anyway, why would we not use that purchasing power to support Canada's veterans? After all, federal procurement should serve the public interest.
Every person who joins Canada's armed forces or police services makes a promise to give up their life if necessary to keep Canadians safe. The right of first refusal with commissionaires is one small way for Canada to thank them, ensuring veterans have a job that allows them to continue to serve if they need that job. The government is now breaking that commitment. It offers nothing to replace it. The government's own policy, public briefing materials and standing offer say that Veterans Affairs should work with the Commissionaires to study and modernize the right of first refusal. Instead, this 80-year promise has been broken without consultation, without a transition plan and without a replacement measure.
Canada's defence, intelligence, law enforcement, border, and corrections sites should be guarded by the best people. Why is the public interest being sacrificed? Canada does not benefit from cancelling the right of first refusal. Veterans do not benefit from it. Taxpayers do not benefit. Who does? It is time for the government to tell us who is benefiting from this and reverse this decision.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise early on a Thursday morning. There is no doubt in my mind that I knew that my hon. colleague would show up for this early show. I appreciate this opportunity to speak today on the government's behalf as we debate the very important issue of veteran employment.
The Corps of Commissionaires has a long history with the Government of Canada, going back to 1945 when it began providing security guard services in federally owned or operated buildings across the country. Back then, with thousands of veterans returning from the Second World War, it was crucial for the federal government to help them translate their military skills into stable employment, while also meeting growing security needs across federal sites.
The Corps of Commissionaires addressed these dual issues as one. Its members were largely former service personnel whose training, discipline and experience made them ideally suited to safeguard federal properties and infrastructure. Thus was born the arrangement to give the Commissionaires priority access to federal guarding contracts, commonly called the right of first refusal, RFR. This reflected a post-war commitment to veteran reintegration delivered through the practical tools of federal procurement.
On April 1, 2023, Veterans Affairs Canada implemented the policy of procurement of guard services to continue the RFR until March 31, 2026. During these years, VAC completed a reassessment of the policy and its requirements, engaged with stakeholders and evaluated the RFR's continued relevance in supporting veteran employment. The policy was then extended for one more year, until March 31, 2027, with the understanding that it would end as of April 1 next year.
It is important to note that one of the main stipulations of the arrangement is that veterans are to work a minimum of 60% of all hours worked under RFR contracts. Since at least 2013 to 2014, the corps has not been meeting the standard. Reports it has regularly submitted have confirmed a continuous decline in the number of veterans working under the RFR and that they are well below the required 60% benchmark. In fact, in Q1 of the 2025-26 fiscal year, that number had fallen to only 27%.
The RFR was designed to respond to a very specific post-war context that has evolved considerably over the past 80 years. The government must therefore ensure that its approach to veteran employment reflects today's realities. We know that veterans are highly skilled. They are highly capable individuals whose service and experiences are assets to Canada's labour market. We want to keep tapping into that potential in ways that reflect the full range of opportunities available to veterans today.
Veterans Affairs Canada has a national veterans employment strategy for this very reason. It brings government employers and partners together so that veterans can better connect with meaningful employment opportunities and so that employers can better understand the skills that veterans can bring to our businesses. The department also supports targeted initiatives that provide education, training and career transition services to ensure that veterans are equipped to succeed across a wide range of sectors in today's economies, whether that is defence, technology, logistics or in security roles on federal properties. This approach reflects a continued commitment to veteran employment that recognizes the evolving nature of both the labour market and the needs of those who have served. The government will continue to work with partners, including the Corps of Commissionaires, to support veteran employment in meaningful ways.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a ton of respect for the parliamentary secretary for environment and climate change, but the bottom line is that this is exactly what we are talking about.
They did not send the minister in here for the debate. They did not send the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Commissionnaires have not had any meetings scheduled with the minister or representatives of Veterans Affairs Canada since the spring. I can assure members that the minister or representatives of Veterans Affairs Canada have met with GardaWorld.
The government has known about veteran numbers declining for over a decade. The government did not care. They renewed the Commissionaires repeatedly because Commissionaires do a good job guarding our critical public infrastructure. They could have worked with them. Cancelling the right of first refusal does not help veterans. It hurts them. It increases costs to Canadian taxpayers.
Who benefits? Have they met with GardaWorld since the spring?
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government understands and appreciates its long and valued relationship with the Corps of Commissionaires. The decision to not renew the RFR policy reflects the evolving labour market and the need to ensure that policies remain effective and aligned with today's realities.
With a national veterans employment strategy, along with other supports available through Veterans Affairs Canada, the government is broadening opportunities for veterans across the Canadian economy, helping them transition into meaningful careers and ensuring employers can fully benefit from their skills and expertise. We remain firmly committed to veteran employment and will keep working with partners, including the Corps of Commissionaires, to support this objective.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked during question period about the performance of the Canada Revenue Agency. As I pointed out in my question, the CRA shows no quarter to average Canadians while it regularly fails at its own metrics or even pays out millions of dollars to fraudsters. Most Canadians have a dim view of the CRA. At least, that is my experience. On the one hand, it is understandable; nobody likes the tax man. On the other hand, it does a pretty bad job sometimes, so some criticism is warranted.
I want to share two stories, and hopefully the parliamentary secretary will listen to them and perhaps give some answers. The first is from a resident in my riding, Carolyn. She was recently approved for a CPP disability credit. This required that she refile taxes going back several years. She did that, and she consistently followed up and looked at the status. It consistently told her the adjustment request was received, but there was no more information.
She called in, time after time. Eventually, she got to a CRA agent who told her she would just have to wait a bit longer, perhaps a couple more months. It could even be eight months, she was told, and if no one was assigned to her file, then she would have to file a complaint. How long should she have to wait to get a resolution?
In the meantime, while she was waiting to get a decision there, the CRA reassessed her on another issue and said that she owed the government money. Like any good taxpayer, she paid when she had to, because the CRA shows no quarter to average Canadians. She had to pay on time or face the consequences. On the other hand, the CRA can wait for months and give taxpayers, residents, no answers on their issues. How long should she wait for a response?
The second example is from Justin, an accountant in my riding who was helping businesses during a sale of some assets. Several companies were involved. The CRA, unfortunately, made a mistake. The CRA capitalized some expenses incurred during the sale rather than expensing them. I am not an accountant. I am not an expert here, so I am going to take him at his word on this. Assuming the CRA did make this mistake, Justin estimated it would take 18 months and thousands of dollars to file the necessary objections to get the CRA to correct its very own obvious mistake.
My question to the parliamentary secretary, who I hope can provide some clarity here on the CRA's insufficient behaviour, is this. How long should residents have to wait for responses from the CRA, and who should pay when the CRA makes a mistake and costs taxpayers money?
Brendan Hanley LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the questions from my colleague, the member of Parliament for York—Durham. The stories he provided were very compelling stories. In my role as the member of Parliament for Yukon, I have heard stories as well and real cases involving real people and their frustrations with CRA.
First and foremost, I want to assure the member that the Government of Canada takes the concerns raised about the integrity of our tax system and the accountability of the Canada Revenue Agency very seriously. Certainly, recognizing the individual case frustrations is something that I am happy to bring back to the ministry to ensure that we continue to improve and work on the services and accountability of the CRA.
Upholding the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system is one of our top priorities, and on the flip side, combatting fraudulent claims remains a part of those efforts. The CRA takes this responsibility seriously and works tirelessly to uphold the trust placed in it by Canadians. The CRA actively pursues those who fail to comply with tax laws and takes action to recover funds owed, ensuring fairness for all taxpayers. Understanding the root causes of taxpayers who are non-compliant is essential to preserving the integrity of the tax system and protecting Canada's revenue base, which supports the public programs and services that Canadians rely on.
I also want to emphasize that the Canadian tax system is based on voluntary trust-based compliance and self-assessment, assuring that everyone contributes their fair share. In order to safeguard the integrity of the tax system, the CRA has implemented strong controls that are continually strengthened to address evolving risks.
I also want to highlight that the CRA has implemented additional safeguards to ensure greater consistency and accuracy in refund processing. These include strengthened controls, intensified quality assurance oversight and tightened authority levels. Another means of addressing evolving risk includes collaboration with multiple partners, such as law enforcement and financial institutions.
The CRA also employs technological tools, such as enhanced business intelligence and advanced data analysis, to improve risk assessments and to detect and deter the most serious instances of non-compliance. In fact, better data and more advanced analytics have allowed the CRA to better target its audits on the files with the greatest impact for Canadians.
The CRA also collaborates with international organizations such as the OECD, the forum on tax administration, the FTA, and the joint chiefs of global tax enforcement, the J5. These partnerships enhance the CRA's ability to combat offshore tax evasion and ensure that multinational corporations and digital economy participants pay their fair share of taxes. Furthermore, the CRA maintains a strict approach to non-compliance, which includes publishing all convictions on Canada.ca.
Despite these efforts, fraud tactics continue to evolve, which is why the CRA remains vigilant and committed to consistently enhancing its processes. When fraud occurs, the CRA has established processes to recover funds, including reassessing returns, recovering refunds, applying civil penalties and, when warranted, referring cases to the criminal investigations program. This commitment reflects not only the CRA's mandate, but also the trust that Canadians place in our tax system.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's acknowledgement and his sympathies for my residents, but respectfully, I would request better performance from the CRA rather than sympathy. He has tried to paint a picture of actions that the government is taking to try to make things better or get better, but respectfully, the data does not back that up.
Just this year, after the 100-day service improvement plan, which ended in December, the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson's annual report in June showed that the problem remains. It was the most complaints they had received in three years. They are up 27% from last year. The ombudsperson said that the complexity of the tax system is one of the biggest problems, and I see that all the time. They made one recommendation that the CRA itself could not accept. It was to expand automatic tax filing to taxpayers who are in simple tax situations. Will the government do that?
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I again want to reiterate that the CRA is committed to accountability, continually improving service delivery, addressing fraud and upholding the integrity of our tax system. The CRA has strong controls in place and continually strengthens these measures to address evolving risks. As fraud tactics evolve, the CRA remains vigilant in enhancing its processes to prevent unwarranted refunds and recover any funds lost to fraud.
Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this same day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:50 a.m.)