House of Commons Hansard #88 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program Members debate a Conservative motion to review the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), citing its quadrupled cost and projected rise to $1.5 billion by 2030. Conservatives argue the IFHP provides deluxe benefits to failed asylum claimants, while Canadians face healthcare crises. They propose restricting benefits to emergency care and expelling foreign criminals. Liberals condemn the motion as divisive and fearmongering, highlighting government reforms like copayments and Bill C-12. Bloc and NDP members oppose the motion, stressing federal processing backlogs and humanitarian obligations, while criticizing Liberal copayments. 47500 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a point of order concerning the similarity of government Bills C-2 and C-12. The Speaker allows Bill C-2 to proceed due to its broader scope, despite acknowledging extensive overlap. 1000 words, 10 minutes.
Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act Second reading of Bill C-219. The bill strengthens Canada's sanctions regime against human rights abuses, foreign corruption, and transnational repression. It seeks to define transnational repression, ban sanctioned officials' family members, and revoke broadcasting licenses for state-controlled media from regimes committing atrocities. While supported, Members express concerns regarding the safety of political prisoners' families and administrative burdens, aiming for amendments in committee. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Message from the SenatePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-242, an act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
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 honoured to rise in the House tonight, in Adjournment Proceedings, to pursue a question I asked on a memorable date, November 17, 2025. It was a day on which we were going to vote later in the day on the budget itself.
My question pertained to the budget. It was for the Prime Minister. In that instance, I asked him if he would agree that there was a deficiency in the budget, in that our legally binding Paris Agreement commitments were not mentioned and that we had not yet seen what was described as a nature strategy: Canada's commitments under COP15 of the biodiversity convention, otherwise known as the Kunming-Montreal agreement.
It was a very strong answer, but there have been some inconsistencies. The Prime Minister did respond, and it is important to repeat it for the purpose of the Hansard.
He stated:
I can confirm to the House that we will respect our Paris commitments for climate change, and we are determined to achieve them. I can confirm with the House that consistent with our Kunming-Montreal commitments, the nature strategy will be released in the coming weeks.
The Prime Minister also mentioned that it was important that we be “on the path for real results for climate, for nature and for reconciliation.”
My question at this hour is this. Now that we are looking at the answer that was received, and since then the changes that have been made in government planning, we are still, according to all reports, not on track to meet our Paris Agreement targets. We can measure things in weeks, but certainly “the coming weeks” suggested that we would see the nature strategy relatively quickly. This was November 17. We are now almost four months later and have not yet seen the nature strategy.
I certainly hope that someone representing the Prime Minister here this evening can update the House on when we are on getting the nature strategy brought forward. It is critical if we are going to meet the commitments that are due by 2030, it now being 2026, that we see action, that we see commitments and that we see funding.
It is also important to mention, and I look for any kind of an update on climate commitments, that the budget that was tabled that day and that we voted on shortly after this exchange in question period included, at page 348, a clear commitment that what are called enhanced oil recovery measures would not qualify for investment tax credits. However, some days later, not that long thereafter, a commitment was made to the Government of Alberta in an MOU that such investments to increase oil production would in fact qualify for further subsidies to encourage further oil production. This was contrary to the exact wording of the budget we had voted on that day, which said “Eligible uses include” and then listed some, but not enhanced oil recovery.
That left us in this place, and across Canada I might add, with some significant questions about where we are as a nation. What can we make of the commitment of November 17 that we will act to avoid exceeding a 2°C global average temperature increase and will take steps to ensure that the nature strategy and our commitments globally are observed?
I note at this hour, as my time is running out on putting forward my argument in this late show proceeding, that time is also running out for the climate. We are dealing with atmospheric changes that are irreversible and can be self-accelerating without quick action.
I look forward to this debate.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to engage with my dear colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The government does and will always take climate change commitments very seriously. In 2015, Canada, alongside 194 other countries, adopted the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The agreement sets a global goal to limit warming, strengthen resilience and align financial flows with low emissions and climate-resilient development. In addition, almost every country in the world, including Canada, has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the impacts that climate change presents.
Our government recognizes that climate action is both a moral responsibility and an economic necessity. Budget 2025 sets Canada on a path to meet our legally binding commitments, while building a strong, resilient economy. This includes cutting greenhouse gas emissions and addressing the impacts of climate change. Our climate competitiveness strategy in budget 2025 drives these outcomes while building a resilient economy. As the Prime Minister has stated, this budget puts us on a path for real results for climate, for nature and for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We respect our Paris commitments, and we are determined to achieve them.
Industrial carbon pricing is central to Canada's climate strategy. It is designed not only to reduce emissions but also to unlock investment in clean technologies, support Canadian industries and maintain our competitiveness in global markets. By putting a price on pollution for large industrial polluters, we drive decarbonization, support innovation and create good jobs, while keeping energy and goods affordable.
Strong industrial carbon markets also help Canada maintain trade relationships with partners like Europe and the U.K., ensuring that our exports meet the growing global demand for low-carbon products.
We are also investing in adaptation. The national adaptation strategy, supported by the Government of Canada adaptation action plan, lays out more than 70 actions to protect communities, improve health outcomes, safeguard nature and support a resilient economy. Since 2015, Canada has invested over $6.6 billion in adaptation, including new funding in budget 2025 for community infrastructure and youth-focused initiatives.
The Government of Canada has a fundamental commitment to reconciliation and respects indigenous peoples as equal partners in the country we are building together. If I did not believe that, I would not be standing on this side of the House. The government supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and invests in indigenous-led climate solutions. Since 2020, over $2 billion has been committed to indigenous climate action, including funds for clean energy, energy efficiency and resiliency. Indigenous knowledge and leadership are critical to achieving meaningful, long-term and long-lasting change.
The Government of Canada is fully committed to delivering on its climate obligations, supporting adaptation, advancing nature protection and working with indigenous peoples across this country to ensure a sustainable, resilient and prosperous Canada for all.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. colleague is aware that recent studies, including by the government-appointed experts in the Canadian Climate Institute, have shown that Canada is not on track to meet any of our targets. That includes that Canada is not on track to meet the climate targets put in place by former prime minister Stephen Harper and that Canada is nowhere near the targets under former prime minister Justin Trudeau that we are supposed to be meeting, because we have, as the Climate Institute report pointed out, weakened more actions than we have strengthened.
It is a foregone conclusion that without much more robust actions to reduce emissions, we are going to risk hitting tipping points in the atmosphere that put us on a path to unstoppable, self-accelerating climate change that threatens future generations and human civilization itself.
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the fact that Canada's climate strategy is about more than meeting commitments; it is also about building a safer, stronger and more prosperous country. By putting a price on pollution, investing in clean energy and supporting indigenous-led solutions, we are reducing emissions while creating jobs and economic opportunity.
Our national adaptation strategy and action plan help communities prepare for climate risks, protect biodiversity and build resilience. Canada remains fully engaged internationally, reporting under the Paris Agreement and working with partners to ensure that our climate actions are effective. We are committed to measurable results for climate, for nature and for reconciliation. That is not only for today, but that also is for many generations to come.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks about youth unemployment, the subject of my question, I want to share with members of the House that I am dressed for our victory at Adwa celebrations happening right now on the Hill. I invite all members from all parties, including the Speaker, to come join us for some great Ethiopian food and community spirit after the House adjourns. The Adwa Victory Day is actually celebrated on March 2, but the House will not be sitting at that time, so we are hosting the event today. It is a celebration of Ethiopian victory over colonial forces and, indeed, a time to celebrate the right of self-determination of peoples and the critical defence of Ethiopia's sovereignty. Again, I invite members to come for that important event as we celebrate with each other and the Ethiopian community.
I am following up on a question that I asked about the metastasizing crisis in terms of low youth employment levels. In tracking the month-to-month job numbers, we now see this trend of more people, youth and the middle-aged, dropping out of the labour force, giving up on job searches. While the unemployment rate, which is the percentage of those in the workforce who are not employed, goes down, we see that the employment rate, the number of people working, is going down. That is a really concerning indicator as people give up and drop out of the labour force. Young people are worried about the opportunities they are going to have in the future. They are concerned about their ability to afford food, afford a home and find a job that allows them to meet their basic needs.
In the midst of this crisis of youth unemployment, Conservatives have sought to be constructive. In the fall, we put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, which articulates specific measures aimed at helping young people get back to work. These measures are focused on unleashing our economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. We had proposed measures for the government to consider implementing as part of the budget. Unfortunately, the Liberal budget goes in the opposite direction, particularly as it relates to training. I want to highlight this aspect of the budget because it has gotten very little discussion, and I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary is willing to comment on it.
The budget says that students studying at private for-profit institutions, in effect, career colleges that provide many critical trade skills and skills for other professions for which they may not be able to train at public institutions, will lose their grants. The intention articulated in the budget is that all students studying outside of the public or the not-for-profit system would not be able to access student grants. Many students in many fields seeking trade skills, traditional Chinese medicine and most dental hygienists are trained at these private institutions. Students pursuing in-demand careers in these areas where we need people are facing the arbitrary cut-off of their student grants, not because their jobs are not required by our economy but simply because the government has made an ideological decision about the institutions they go to.
The problem is that if we say anyone who goes to any university program gets the grant, but nobody who goes to a career college gets the grant, that devalues critical skills that our economy needs and will exacerbate the mismatch in our economy between the training people have and what is actually needed. What is the government's response to these problems?
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to address youth issues. I welcome the comments of my colleague. I will disagree with a number of points that he has raised, naturally, but I do not discount his passion on these issues. I know he has been a member for a long time, and he has made it his focus in the past few months, as I understand it, to take up the issue of youth.
The member began with a point on the youth unemployment rate, which is unacceptably high. We did see a positive change in January. The youth unemployment rate now is at 12.8%. It was in excess of 14% in September. Still, it is unacceptably high. We must do better. However, he does not mention the context.
The reason the youth unemployment rate has been so high is the general uncertainty that Canadian businesses are facing with the dynamic that exists between Canada and the U.S. right now. That is a very troubling situation, to say the least. The U.S. and the imposition of tariffs that we have seen have created enormous questions about the future of Canada, specifically the economy and, I would say, youth as well. In fact, what the government is pursuing in terms of building this country up, looking at our natural resources, doing whatever we can to export those resources and building the infrastructure to make that possible is all part of an opportunities agenda that the government is putting forward.
Tomorrow, the Conservatives will have an opportunity to make clear where they stand on budget 2025, which is a clear articulation of where the country needs to go. I know my colleague has particular issues with the budget, but in the main, I wonder if he and his party will support it. There are so many good things there that I know Conservatives can get behind on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of our country.
The member raised a particular point on colleges, I believe. We are in what we call the late show here, in the parlance of the House of Commons. I would be very happy to engage with him afterwards to understand his specific concerns. He raised a number of other concerns in the potpourri of issues he brought forward tonight. It is not a criticism so much as an attempt on my end to understand what, exactly, he is pointing to. He has pointed to a number of issues. Can he centre on at least one so we can have an engaged discussion on that? I turn the floor back to him, so I can hear a rebuttal, which I look forward to.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government is always keen to blame events beyond their control and say, “Well, bad things keep happening to us. That is why we cannot control these outcomes.” Of course, Canada, like other countries, is subject to events beyond our control, but there are many things we can control. During our study on youth unemployment, we heard many concerns about the business environment, taxation, regulation and failures of immigration policy as well as failures of training that are within the government's control to remedy.
I do want to take the parliamentary secretary up on his willingness to engage further and maybe come back to the House regarding the concerns I raised about career colleges. This is at page 217 of the budget. There has not been a lot of discussion on it publicly, but it is a serious concern to those who are affected. Many young people studying to be dental hygienists, to be in acupuncture or to be in other fields have to study at private career colleges. That is their only option, and they would lose their student loans based on page 217 in the budget. I hope the parliamentary secretary will take that back and change the policy.
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to have a further conversation over coffee, tea or whatever the member wishes to have. He and I have worked together for over a decade now, so that is quite fine. It might be a bit too late with respect to the budget and an upcoming vote. Regardless, as I said before, he is interested in matters of education and those that pertain directly to youth. However, I did not hear anything in there about whether the member is going to support broadly the opportunities agenda that is in front of the House. We want to see that. I know we can do it. I know we can rally together on behalf of the country right now.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I asked in the House a few short weeks ago about an issue that has become a massive one, not just across the country, but in particular in the communities I represent across Elgin County, St. Thomas and London South, and that is the issue of food affordability.
This is a global issue, when we talk about inflation, but it is one that has a disproportionate effect in Canada. The figure of 7.3% is the one that came out between when I initially asked my question and now. That is the year-over-year inflation on just food products that Canadians are facing.
We have seen record demand in the food banks across my riding. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank has had, I believe, three straight years of increases, feeding 30,000 mouths last year. The Corner Cupboard Food Bank in Aylmer is on a very similar trajectory, and the London Food Bank is very similar.
On one hand, I am so grateful that the community has risen to look out for those who are dealing with food insecurity. There is a tremendous success story in my riding, in St. Thomas, called Harvest Hands, which is a service that rescues surplus food from farms, distributors and manufacturers and makes sure it goes to places in need, such as food banks.
Last week, I took a tour of the Ronald McDonald House in London, which feeds families that are dealing with children in hospital, in part because of contributions from the community and other partners, including Harvest Hands. However, the community's willingness and ability to meet this need is still because this need is there.
I am calling on the government in my question tonight, and our Conservative team has been calling on the government for quite some time, to put forward a real food affordability plan that does not just offer Canadians some temporary support but actually deals with the cost drivers.
I understand food prices are complex. There is no one single input to food inflation, which is why I believe the federal government and all levels of government must pull every lever available to them. I do not just come with a problem; I come with solutions. We have put forward repeatedly the idea of removing the industrial carbon tax, which makes it more costly for producers, manufacturers and shippers. We have talked about the importance of getting rid of the fuel standard, a 17¢-a-litre tax which cannot but drive up the cost of shipping food and drive up the cost of agriculture. We have talked about supports for our farmers.
The fact that the 7.3% food inflation rate is what Canadians are dealing with is especially important because it is a made-in-Canada problem. That is double the inflation rate for food we are seeing in the United States. It is the highest among G7 countries.
Where is the government's solution to truly bring down the price of food? That is my question.
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the member represents an area I know very well, just down the road from the constituency I have had the honour of representing for a decade. I have friends and family there.
These are very real issues, to be fair, that he raises. Food is expensive; we know that. We go to the grocery store and see those prices, particularly when it comes to meat and vegetables. I genuinely wonder, though, and this is not a straw man type of question, about whether he has had the opportunity to review the Bank of Canada report.
He first put this forward in a question a few weeks back. The Bank of Canada has authored a report, a very important report, that touched on food prices. I wonder if he has had a chance to look at that report, first of all, and I would love to hear his ideas on that.
Also, I will give the member an opportunity. I do want to hear from him, genuinely, on solutions. He touched on that, but his time came to an end. I will give it back to him to give an explanation of how those solutions could work. I think we will probably have a disagreement there, but I do want to hear it.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, there was an old improv game on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where a question was answered with a question. I was hoping my question would be met with an answer. I am sitting here in opposition. The member opposite is part of the government. They are the ones who have to meet this problem with a solution.
As Conservatives, we will continue to put forward more solutions in hopes they will take these ideas: driving down and removing the industrial carbon tax and driving down and removing the fuel standard tax. Another idea I did not get to in the initial question was removing some of the packaging and plastics regulations and taxes, all of which are part of this.
At the end of the day, we need to get serious about it, and we need to understand that when Canada is seeing food inflation at twice what is being seen in the U.S., we need to find solutions rather than just blaming global factors. This is a productivity and competitiveness problem in Canada, and the government has to provide a solution to it.
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because I made a genuine good-faith effort to put it back to the member as to what general solutions could be put forward. He is well read and knows very well that there has been no credible evidence that says the Conservative talking points, and that is exactly what they are, would do anything to alleviate food prices at the grocery store for Canadians.
Canada has imported fruits and vegetables, in particular, for generations now. We have a climate catastrophe taking place around the world. We see more drought and more flooding as a result of global warming. That is a fact. The Bank of Canada report, which unfortunately he clearly has not read, points to that.
When we import our food from areas of the world that have been impacted by drought and flooding, because that has an impact on supply, naturally we will see higher prices at the grocery store. That is just one point—
The EconomyAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The time has expired.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)