44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/20/22 5:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course, it was actually the former Conservative government that implemented the polluter pay principle, and what Conservatives are saying is that the proper, affordable, accessible, feasible and real path toward environmental stewardship and lowering emissions is technology and not taxes. This is what is so confusing about the proponents of the Liberal model of carbon tax, who also want to shut down the oil and gas industry at the same time. Among private sector investors in renewable and alternative energy technologies, 75% of that investment in clean tech and innovation comes from traditional oil and gas companies in Canada.
Here is the issue: The Liberals need to justify their policy by showing that it works, but they have not met a single solitary target, so instead they are just being cold-hearted and cruel and are punishing Canadians.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:02:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague once again pointed something out, and it is not the first time I have heard it today. Apparently there is such a thing as clean oil, and apparently Canada buys oil from countries run by dictators.
I would just like to point out that, in September 2015, in the middle of an election campaign, Mr. Harper justified the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, whose human rights abuses are well-known, on the grounds that we needed to put jobs first.
That was just the introduction. My real question is about something else. It seems that Canada is exporting more clean tech. That generates lots of jobs. Many of our companies are leaders in this field.
Why not talk about clean technology, rather than remain mired in the past with fossil fuels?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:03:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I literally just talked about that in my previous answer 30 seconds before the member asked me that question. I specifically and proactively addressed private sector investments in clean tech and innovation. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to try to shut down the industry, as my colleagues from the Bloc want to do, which is simultaneously the single biggest private sector investor in renewable and alternative energy technologies and is a world-class leader in emissions reductions and innovation.
This is why the Liberals' policies are contradictory. This is why the NDP and the Bloc do not make any sense. They actually want to landlock, keep in the ground and shut down the industry that actually is the biggest investors in the private sector of the very technologies they say they want to come to fruition.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:04:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know the member quite well, and I know the member really cares about the cost of living crisis that is facing Albertans. I do too.
The community members I know in Edmonton Griesbach are being hurt by expensive goods. In order to get the “real, tangible” help to Canadians the member mentioned in her speech, would the Conservatives agree to amend the motion to ensure we can actually get something to Canadians? Would they agree to remove the GST from home heating and get that help to Canadians?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member, and I am proud to represent his friends and relatives in Fishing Lake Métis Settlement in Lakeland.
Here is the reality: In 2019 the Conservatives ran on removing the GST from home heating, but really the solution is just to axe the carbon tax completely instead of that proposal. I would just urge the member of Parliament, since he shares our concerns about the cost of living even though he is propping up the Liberals who are the cause of it, to support our motion today and give that immediate relief to Canadians.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:05:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the current inflationary crisis is affecting everyone and putting millions of households in hopeless situations. Families must make agonizing choices to be able to continue making rent or mortgage payments. Many low-income Canadians are cutting back on food and going hungry. The same is true for many middle-class households that are heavily in debt. Such a huge increase in prices, especially for food, energy and housing, creates considerable hardship, and that is not something to take lightly. My thoughts are with the millions of seniors who were already struggling to make ends meet before prices started going up. They are now facing an impossible task, making choices or making cuts to their budgets.
The inflation crisis is one of the most worrisome issues in the world, and I commend those who are trying to address it and find solutions.
As members know, the current increase in prices we are experiencing is essentially a global phenomenon and analysts generally agree that the situation is primarily attributed to a decrease in aggregate supply. The supply chain problem led to a significant drop in supply. It is the same thing with the war in Ukraine. Crop failures due to droughts or floods are also reducing supply in the food sector. Labour shortages, which existed before the pandemic but have gotten worse since, are limiting business activity, leading to a decrease in total supply, and so on.
On the demand side, we have seen more of a change than a significant increase in demand. During the pandemic, people shifted their usual consumer choices to new sectors. Supply was unable to adapt quickly enough, so we saw new price increases and often shortages, resulting from the imbalance.
We are seeing the same type of imbalance in the real estate market, where the construction of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Inflation in that sector is also being spurred by the labour shortage and the increase in the price of building materials, which is itself explained by the current inflationary situation and the change in consumer habits during the pandemic, not to mention the impact of the war.
Even though the central bank's injection of money into the economy and the government's support to maintain consumer spending during lockdown were more generous than necessary, because they were not always well targeted, the effect of those interventions on the increase in global demand and on prices is generally secondary. The government's actions are not the main reason for the global inflationary crisis.
Unfortunately for us, and especially for those impacted the most by the current rate of inflation, there is no simple solution to a decrease in aggregate supply. The best solution is to support businesses as they adapt to the new reality. It is a long and complicated process, but as I said, even if the effect is not felt immediately, it is the best solution.
For example, let us look at the labour shortage. The government could provide support for the automation of some economic activities. The government could also change the tax system to entice young retirees who want to remain in the labour market, perhaps with part-time work. The government could provide support for companies that invest in resilience, for example by making decisions that cut their energy consumption. The government could also do this for households, of course. That is the primary solution for addressing the supply side of the issue. Unfortunately, this government is doing very little about it.
It is said that the central bank is well positioned to use monetary policy to counter inflation. The Bank of Canada must ensure that the overall economy is in good shape. To that end, its main policy objective for the past 30 years has been to keep the average annual increase in prices within a range of 1% to 3%. As we know, we are well past the upper limit now.
Although the central bank is extremely well equipped to control inflation when the economy is overheating because of an increase in demand, the situation is very different in the event of a decrease in supply. That is because successively raising its key interest rate does not allow the central bank to influence supply. It simply reduces demand.
In other words, since production is insufficient to meet demand, equilibrium prices rise. All the Bank of Canada can do is lower demand to reduce the price increase. However, at the end of the day, there are not more goods and services available, only less room to manoeuvre and borrow to make consumption or investment choices.
The risk of such a monetary policy is that if we are not in an overheated situation when the policy is implemented, the central bank's action could also slow down the economy or even plunge it into recession.
Again, there is not much that either monetary or fiscal policy can do to respond to a supply crisis. These policies aim to reduce demand in order to lower prices, but they do not allow for increased production in the short term.
I want to reiterate that the best government policy is to support businesses and help them adapt and become more resilient in order to push supply back up, even though that does not happen automatically.
We should also take advantage of the current situation to accelerate the shift to a green economy. We can kill two birds with one stone. The government's response to the current crisis must be tied to the goal of reducing pollution.
I also want to reiterate that we need to avoid falling into the very tempting trap of responding to a decrease in supply by giving everyone money. That kind of policy may appear to meet people's needs, but it will quickly fuel inflation. It is therefore a futile, ineffective policy, especially if it drives society as a whole into debt. It is a good solution, but not for a supply-side crisis. In the same vein, the inflationary crisis should not be an excuse to shirk our much-needed climate change commitments.
I would like to remind the House that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has its own approach using a carbon exchange. I would also like to remind the House that very few households in Quebec heat with oil. They heat mainly with electricity, which is renewable.
Finally, let us not forget that the provinces, such as Newfoundland, are free to set up their own environmental plan and can choose to waive taxes on home heating fuel. Provinces like Newfoundland that are fortunate to have significant hydro power capacity can also offer incentives for people to switch from oil to electric heat.
Finally, with respect to the current inflationary crisis, again, there are no simple or easy solutions. We can help companies pivot. We also have a moral obligation to help the most vulnerable people and the hardest-hit sectors cope. Think of individuals and households with low incomes. Think of seniors who depend on small, non-indexed pensions. Think of sectors that are bearing the brunt of inflation, such as agriculture.
The European Central Bank's chief economist reminded us that a good way to fight inflation is to redistribute wealth rather than go into debt to support households and individuals. This means targeted measures for the less fortunate financed by a special tax on the wealthiest. Let us seriously consider that suggestion. The one thing we must not do is react to the crisis by once again abandoning our efforts to fight climate change.
1272 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:14:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a reflection on a commitment that was provided by the Conservative Party in the last election. It made a platform commitment that it supported the principles of a price on pollution.
Given the very nature of having a price on pollution, we see a general acceptance in Canada, with the Province of Quebec being an excellent example of that, and see what is happening around the world. Take the Paris Agreement back in 2015. Does the member have any concerns with the official opposition changing its policy position and adopting the belief that there should not be a price on pollution, period?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:14:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think most members in the House recognize the connection between climate change and human activities. Strong, credible and expeditious commitments are needed.
For the Bloc Québécois, the Paris Agreement is the minimum. We really must not exceed those targets. We know from the natural sciences that, if we do meet them, the effects might be too much, so strong action is required.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:15:30 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to House]
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:18:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:18:08 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Monday, October 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:18:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private member's hour.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:18:45 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).
I want to thank the hon. senator from British Columbia, Yonah Martin, who brought forward this important bill. She introduced this originally as Bill S-230 in the last Parliament in the other place to address the lost Canadians whose citizenship was revoked without their knowledge and without warning simply because of the wording in the Citizenship Act.
I am excited to hear from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who will be sharing his experience of almost being a lost Canadian. If he chooses to do so, maybe he can share a picture of the card he carries around.
While Bill S-230 passed unanimously through the other place in the 43rd Parliament, the unnecessary and selfish election of 2021 killed the bill before it could get to first reading here. That is why I was happy and hopeful to see it pass unanimously once again in the Senate and reach second reading here in this place.
I want to thank Senator Martin for her continued work on this file, along with former Senate Speaker the hon. Noël Kinsella and former senators David Tkachuk and Art Eggleton, as well as Mr. Don Chapman. He has worked tirelessly with our colleagues in the other place to advocate for lost Canadians and this much-needed change to the Citizenship Act.
Canadians who lost their status or become stateless because of these changes to the act are Canadians in every way except technically under the law. They pay their taxes, contribute to their communities and uphold the values of what it means to live in our beautiful country.
From 1947 to 1977, the law of the land was that children born abroad received citizenship only if their parents registered them within two years of their birth. In addition, their parents must have also given birth to them in wedlock, with at least one of the parents being a Canadian.
In 1977, the then government introduced a new Citizenship Act, changing the law so that children born abroad on or after February 14, 1977, received their Canadian citizenship if one of their parents was a Canadian citizen, regardless of their marital status. However, if the Canadian parent was also born abroad, a child had until turning 28 to apply to keep their citizenship. If they did not, it would be taken away.
When the law passed in 1977, the government made no effort to inform Canadians affected by this change. No form was published, no instructions were given on how someone could reaffirm their citizenship and no one affected was told that this requirement even existed.
Finally, in 2009, Bill C-37 was brought in by the Conservative government to make changes to the Citizenship Act to rectify past mistakes. When it came into effect, the rules for citizenship changed for people born outside Canada to Canadian parents who were not already Canadian citizens. The changes saw the age 28 rule repealed, and Canadians caught up in the rule previously who had not yet reached that age were grandfathered into the amended law. However, the wording of Bill C-37 created an unfortunate gap for a small group of Canadians who were born between 1977 and 1981. Those who turned 28 before Bill C-37 became law in 2009 were also excluded.
In the committee review of this bill at the Senate's social affairs committee, senators asked IRCC officials how this could take place, what was being done to inform those who did not know they were lost and why the government was not being proactive in finding them. The answer from the IRCC officials was, “It’s fair to say that given the small number of applications...we are not out looking for Lost Canadians.” In reality, IRCC relies on lost Canadians to figure out they were stripped of their citizenship due to bureaucracy and paperwork.
Some lost Canadians knew about the change and either applied to keep their Canadian citizenship or let it lapse. These are Canadians who in many cases were raised here, who grew up attending school here and who have worked here their whole adult lives. These are Canadians who started families in this country and paid their taxes on time, but for one small change to the wording of the Citizenship Act, they lost their Canadian citizenship. When they turned 28, there was no letter from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and there was no warning. It was just gone.
All of us in this place know that Canadian citizenship is not identified by each person as one tangible idea. On the contrary, it is deeply personal to each of us. It makes up our identity and sense of belonging to a broader idea. For my community and me, Canadian citizenship is a goal. It is a marker for achieving the Canadian dream.
Being an immigrant myself and coming to Canada when I was five, I experienced first-hand the journey to achieving citizenship. My family grew up economically in poverty, lining up in the rain for low-income bus passes and having both parents working jobs just to survive. My family always had that goal to reach for Canadian citizenship. I saw my parents work themselves to the bone for my family. Because of their hard work, my brother, sister and I are where we are today. We achieved our dream of Canadian citizenship after having to work hard day and night, coming from little and knowing that the road is not easy. However, we know that the blood, sweat and tears we experienced on that journey were worth it. We are Canadian citizens.
That is why, standing here as a member of Parliament, I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose one's citizenship arbitrarily, especially for those who worked hard and even served in uniform for this country, to one day lose something they believed so much in. This is not just an issue for the many people this bill would help to reinstate citizenship to; it is an issue for all of us. As Canadians and representatives of Canadians, it is our responsibility to help preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian.
I ask my fellow colleagues to do the right thing and support this bill to reinstate citizenship for lost Canadians.
1122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. I really enjoy working with him.
The bill before us today, Bill S‑245, seeks to correct an injustice for people who did not deserve what happened to them. It is rare for a Bloc Québécois member to rise in the House on a matter involving Canadian citizenship. We are more likely to rise in the House on a matter involving Quebec citizenship. That will happen one day, I guarantee it.
The matter before us today is Bill S-245. An injustice occurred. IRCC is in the process of correcting it, but is this not proof once again that IRCC is taking far too long to correct the injustices? Is this not proof that IRCC has grown far too big, that there is a problem, that there is sand in the gears or water in the gas?
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I admire my dear friend from Lac-Saint-Jean, and I love his passion for human rights. We had a really good time on the immigration committee. I am going to miss that committee and working with everyone.
What we were doing on the immigration committee together helped to address some of the bigger issues that we have. We could work collectively for those who, in this case, were left out from citizenship, or for others who are being persecuted around the world. We can move in stride and work for them if we work together as a team and make sure our goal is to help those who need help the most. If we can continue to work collaboratively like that, we can accomplish a lot more in this House.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too am the daughter of an immigrant father and a Canadian mother. Interestingly enough, I also have a daughter who was born abroad and a daughter who was born here. Given the 2009 legislation that the Conservative government passed, I have a conundrum. My daughter who was born abroad grew up here all her life. If she for some reason is abroad, maybe serving our diplomatic service in other places, and her children are born abroad, they will not be considered Canadians, yet the children of my daughter who was born here will be.
While I agree with the member that these are important issues, the legislation at the time did not address those issues. Would the member be willing to discuss those issues in the future to make sure all Canadian families are included?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know we can share the pride of coming here as immigrants to be able to live the Canadian dream together now. I know that we can all continue to work together to make sure we are helping others to realize the Canadian dream as well.
To the member's question, when this gets passed on to the committee, the committee can talk about any types of amendments or changes it wants to make to the bill. Unfortunately, I am not on the immigration committee any longer. As a team, the Liberals could bring that forward and discuss it at the immigration committee.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and for sponsoring this bill. It is an important bill to bring forward.
However, to the point of lost Canadians, there are still many other categories of lost Canadians, and this bill would not help them regain their status. In fact, it was the Conservatives who took away second-generation born abroads' right to pass on their citizenship to their children. It was Jason Kenney who took away that right.
If we are going to fix this, would the Conservatives support amendments to fix all the problems of lost Canadians, including the problems that the Conservatives brought about with second-generation born abroad?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed working with the member for Vancouver East on the immigration committee. Sadly, as I said before, I am not on the committee, but is a great place where the member for Vancouver East could work together with all parties to address not just the issues she brought up but others, and work to amend this bill in the way they think it would help the most people. Again, I think the member could discuss that at the immigration committee.
Let us get this bill to the committee so we can at least get to that point.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
