Mark Warawa

[Privilege, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a matter that you will appreciate falls within certain enumerated rights and immunities for the House to treat as a breach of privilege.

Page 145 of Bosc and Gagnon states, “The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House.” My question of privilege today is in response to what sadly took place at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, known as HUMA. It happened yesterday afternoon between votes. I am bringing this issue before the Speaker at the earliest possible time.

Page 323 of Bosc and Gagnon states:

When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.

At the HUMA committee yesterday, three ministers appeared to answer questions about the main estimates. The main estimates, for Canadians' sake, are how the government plans on spending Canadian taxpayer money. The Liberal members control HUMA, which, in a majority government, is quite normal, and they obviously support the government's main estimates.

The purpose of having the ministers at committee yesterday was to give opposition members the opportunity to question the ministers. The government has said numerous times that the ministers will appear before committees and answer questions to be accountable. Sadly, that is not what is happening.

The HUMA committee started with copies of the ministers' speeches being distributed to all members. I immediately made a request to move to questions to the ministers because of the pending votes. This request was rejected by the chair and the chair assured all members that there would be time for questions after the ministers' speeches.

The chair then asked the first minister to speak, and he spoke for 11 and a half minutes. I then made a point of order reminding the chair of the time restraints because of the votes and that the minister had been permitted more time than what was permitted. I shared my concern that opposition members were being denied their right to ask the ministers questions. The chair again promised all members that there would be time for questions of the ministers after the speeches. The vote bells were ringing and the meeting was suspended, which means temporarily adjourned.

The HUMA committee reconvened at 5:20 p.m. yesterday. The chair asked the other two ministers to speak for five minutes each. The chair then abruptly adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Opposition members, who were waiting to ask questions, objected strongly, reminding the chair of his promise to let opposition members ask questions of the ministers. The chair acknowledged that he had the discretion to continue the meeting until 5:45 p.m. when the bells would begin to ring, but he turned and walked away with the ministers.

Page 1039 of Bosc and Gagnon states:

The Chair is a key figure on any committee. Chairs are so important that, when a committee does not have one, it is not considered properly constituted. Committee Chairs have procedural, administrative and representative responsibilities.

They are to be impartial. It further states:

Chairs preside over committee meetings and oversee committee work. They recognize the Members, witnesses and other people who wish to speak at these meetings as in the House, all remarks are to be addressed to the Chair. They ensure that any rules established by the committee, including those on the apportioning of speaking time, are respected.

The chair has the responsibility to remain unbiased, to ensure that the rights of all members in the committee are honoured and protected, and to fairly apportion the speaking times to the committee members. To deny opposition members their right to question the ministers was wrong and, I believe, contempt in this case. It has impeded my duties and responsibilities as a member of Parliament, my duties to Canadian taxpayers to represent them and question ministers. I believe the House can consider these acts of the chair, who I personally respect, as falling under the scope of contempt.

If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion and send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 22nd, 2018]

With regard to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in the House of Commons on March 27, 2018, that religious groups “were contacted and they know that they could very well apply for grants”, in relation to the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) what is the complete list of religious groups contacted; (b) for each group in (a), what are the details of the contact, including (i) date, (ii) method of contact (email, phone, letter); and (c) of the groups contacted in (a), (i) which ones signed the attestation, (ii) which ones were awarded funding under the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program?

[Foreign Investment, May 10th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the innovation minister promised Canadians that he had done his research before selling B.C.-based senior care facilities to China's Anbang Insurance.

Now we have learned that the company has been seized by the communist Chinese government, and that the founder has been sentenced to 18 years in prison. The Liberals never should have approved this sale, which allows these Canadian properties to be controlled by Beijing.

Why did the minister refuse to listen to our warnings? What is he going to do to get these properties back into Canadian hands?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I respect the member, my Liberal colleague to my right. We are on the same committee.

She heard yesterday at committee that the carbon tax is really hurting our aboriginal children and their ability to go to school. What we heard was that it will actually restrict them from going to school. My question to her is this: How else is this hurting the average Canadian family? What will this carbon tax cost the average Canadian family?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the public is on the side of protecting the environment and moving forward on good environmental practices. What the public does not support is the carbon tax cover-up, with prices going up to heat our homes and drive our cars. It is hurting fixed-income and low-income Canadians, particular seniors. That is what is happening.

I am hearing from my constituents that a gasoline price approaching two dollars a litre, which is what is being discussed, is not what they want. They want a carbon tax to be effective but they do not want an increase in what it costs to heat their homes and drive their cars. If the government's intent is to force people out of their cars, which is what we heard over the last week, and to force behavioural change, that is not what Canadians want or support. They want fair taxation.

Canadians are already paying way higher taxes than they should. Under the Liberal government, Canadians are groaning. They do not support what the government is doing.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he has acknowledged he did not support the bill that would have required the government to be revenue neutral on the carbon tax. He acknowledged there are hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of British Columbia alone. It is not fair for the federal government to be making money on its federally mandated carbon tax off the provinces. It is not fair, nor is it what the government said it would do, and it has misled Canadians.

I am not sure what the government is going to do about that, but it was wrong. It should have kept its promises, it should be revenue neutral, and it should not be forcing the provinces, including Saskatchewan, to accept a carbon tax when it will hurt a province.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to speak on this important issue. I will be splitting my time with the amazing member for Durham.

It is important we have this debate, and I will read the motion before the House:

That, given the government's carbon tax will impose higher gas prices, and making “better choices”, as the Prime Minister suggested, will not help most Canadians heat their homes and buy groceries, the House call on the government to cancel plans for new taxes that would further raise prices on consumers.

The focus of the motion today is that Canadians are complaining about the high taxes that have been imposed by the Liberal government, and part of that is a carbon tax.

The introduction of carbon tax and new taxes that the government has imposed on Canadians have been carefully crafted and wordsmithed to make them sound good for Canadians. It is like a snake oil salesman saying that what is being offered will heal all our ills.

I carefully have made note of how the government and the NDP today are presenting putting a price on carbon. They say that it is important to have a market mechanism that will improve the environment, that will help business, that will build a new economy, that will be revenue neutral. It is going to do none of that, but that is what they are saying it will do.

Before I elaborate on that, I will reflect on past years.

I have have been honoured to represent Langley—Aldergrove in the House for the last 14 years. Before that, I was a councillor for 14 years. Every year, we would have our balanced budget. We were required by law to balance our budgets. Often there were opportunities to provide tax exempt status for different community groups. As this was discussed with the community, we would ask if a particular group should be tax exempt. Of course, everybody would say, yes, that it was a good group, that we should give it tax exempt status. The next question would be whether people would then support their taxes being raised a little, because that $30,000 or $10,000 collected in tax from that group would now be exempt, and the money had to come from somewhere. Canadians, British Columbians, constituents, would say that they supported the tax exempt status, but they were already paying enough taxes. If it meant their taxes would go up, then they would not support it.

From that paradigm, this is where we find ourselves now. If we ask Canadians if they support providing a good, clean environment for our children, our grandchildren, etc., then, absolutely, Canadians are willing to pay their fair share of taxes and do what is good for the environment. We all do, but how do we get there? Will putting a price on carbon achieve that?

What is putting a price on carbon? What does that mean? It means increase the price of energy fuel, such as gas to refill our cars, and make it more expensive to the point where a behavioural change is forced. It is also known as social engineering, when we force behavioural change. Changing to what? To a new energy-efficient economy.

The previous government made it a priority to create energy efficiency, and it did a lot in that way. The standards for motor vehicles were greatly improved. As of 2011, all vehicles came under totally new standards. Fridges, stoves, other appliances, and homes were improved. Home improvement grants were provided. The amount of energy that we used as Canadians was greatly reduced because we invested in Canadians to do a better job and use our energy more efficiently. However, a carbon tax would not do that.

A carbon tax will put the price of natural gas to heat our homes way higher, so people will use electricity instead of natural gas. That is a possibility, but it is a different challenge. In British Columbia, we create hydroelectric. Those calling for a transformation to new economies would then oppose hydroelectric. However, we need to create that new electricity in a new economy. We cannot have it both ways. It is ironic that those who say we need to have a new economy also oppose electricity. Hydroelectricity is a blessing to British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces.

If we put a price on carbon, how high does it have to go to force a change of behaviour? When we ask Canadians how high would they support gasoline prices going, they say prices are high enough now. When we ask them how much they would they pay to heat their home, they say they are high enough now. That is not what the government is supporting. That is not what the NDP is supporting. They want the energy prices to continue to rise until people stop using oil and gas.

The Liberals are using the taxes they collect from Canadians to fund protesters to oppose pipelines to move energy within Canada. They are wordsmithing when they say carbon pricing will improve the environment. It is not true. They say that carbon pricing will help new business. That is not true. It actually makes Canadian business less competitive when it costs more to manufacture in Canada. That is why, unfortunately, we see some of our jobs in Canada move to the United States where there is no carbon pricing.

The Liberals have said that carbon pricing will build a new economy. That takes time. Technological change in Canada and the world is good. Doing things more efficiently is good, but forcing the change through disruptive ways of enforcement and not letting it happen as it should is not. Again, Liberals have misled Canadians.

Carbon pricing being revenue neutral is not true. The government knows very well that it will be making billions of dollars of new taxes on the backs of Canadians.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, which I had the honour of being that position, is given talking points, sadly, the talking points are misleading. The carbon tax is not revenue neutral. The government is charging a tax on a tax, which Canadians have told me is very unfair. They asked me to introduce a bill, which I did, that would give the government an opportunity to truly make the carbon tax revenue neutral. The government voted against that.

What the government says and what it does are very different. There is proverb “A tree is known by its fruit”. We are known by what we do as parliamentarians, not by what we say. We can wordsmith and say things that are misleading, but we will be known for our actions. The previous government made a commitment for efficiency and we achieved that. We made promises and we kept those promises.

As we did in previous Parliaments, we took action on the environment, providing a trajectory of moving forward to a clean environment. We set the targets which the Liberal government adopted as the Paris targets for 2030. We were on target. and when we form government in 2019, we will be back on target, keeping our promises and improving the economy for future generations.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the member and his government have said that British Columbians and Canadians should be applauding these high gas prices, but he knows very well, if he is listening to constituents, that British Columbians are groaning with these high gasoline prices. It has been 162.9 and there is talk about it going to $2, $3, and $4 a litre. The higher it goes, the more they applaud. How high would the member support the price of gasoline going for the purpose of forcing behavioural change? They have said numerous times that they want to force Canadians out of their cars. How high does the member want the price of gasoline to go to force people out of their cars?

[Petitions, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in relation to impaired driving. It is from Families for Justice. The petitioners want to have impaired driving causing vehicular death called vehicular manslaughter, and they want mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first relates to conscience protection. It highlights that coercion, intimidation, and other forms of pressure intended to force physicians, health care professionals, or health institutions to be parties to assisted suicide or euthanasia is a violation of their charter rights. The petitioners call on Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code of Canada protection for the conscience of physicians, health care professionals, and health institutions to ensure that they would no longer be intimidated.