SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 203

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
  • May/31/23 11:57:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we saw at committee. At committee, we had a lot of testimony but also a lot of written submissions, an extensive number of written submissions. They were not all by the large groups that are quite often represented. We heard from individual child care providers from across the country. We also heard from parents. We heard about very specific, real situations that are playing out in families' lives. That is the type of input we need when we are developing legislation so we can develop the best legislation possible, try to capture the different situations and maybe try to mitigate unintended consequences. This is a gap that happened before the government signed all of these agreements. It went ahead and signed the agreements without all of this input from parliamentarians and the public.
139 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/31/23 11:58:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Uqaqtittiji, there are a couple things that I really appreciate about Bill C-35: the inclusion of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as requiring informed consent, as accorded in UNDRIP. Those two provisions, in and of themselves, are very important to supporting Bill C-35, and I wonder if the member agrees with my statement.
60 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/31/23 11:59:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, yes, and we supported that at committee. In addition to that, as I mentioned during my intervention, we put forth a motion that would have captured all different types of child care providers, but unfortunately that was not accepted. Part of that did include different cultural and indigenous-type providers, but unfortunately our motion was not accepted by the other members of the committee.
66 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/31/23 11:59:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, it was great working with my colleague on the HUMA committee and listening to so much testimony. I think the take-home message tonight is that Canadians are seeing, realizing and speaking up, and it is being covered in the media. This bill is promising something the Liberals cannot deliver. We have seen it time and time again. It is not just us saying that. Everybody is now coming forward. I would like to know my hon. colleague's position on this in terms of her own riding. Does she have a story she can share about how people cannot access child care?
105 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:00:33 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I will give one example. During one of our last constituency weeks about a month ago, someone from my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country met with me. She was taking about a family she is familiar with that wanted to immigrate to the area. Both parents are doctors. They have actually gone through the process and it is all working really well. However, they are having a tough time deciding whether they are going to come to Canada and come to my region, because they realize that they cannot access child care. Here we have two potential doctors who might come into my area in Canada, and they may chose not to come because they have realized there is no child care available for them.
128 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:01:49 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the Trudeau Foundation. It is timely that this question has come up because Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal. The Trudeau Foundation has been at the centre of it, and the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, has been trying to get to the bottom of what happened, but has been repeatedly stonewalled by the Liberals and their friends at the foundation. To set the stage a little bit, as Canada has been rocked by this foreign interference scandal, a foreign government interfering repeatedly in Canadian democratic elections, Liberals have repeatedly tried to cover this up by turning to so-called independent people to investigate this, such as people from the Trudeau Foundation, not just once but twice. The government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate the problem of foreign interference, even though the Trudeau Foundation itself had been subject to foreign interference. The Trudeau Foundation received a massive donation from a CCP-affiliated individual, who we know about, and it said that it had returned the money, even when they had not returned the money. Conservatives on the public accounts committee said that we needed to get to the bottom of what happened to the Trudeau Foundation, the foreign interference that it had been subject to, even while the government asked people from the Trudeau Foundation to investigate. The call for an investigation from the public accounts committee responded to particular problems created by the structure of the Trudeau Foundation, which is a Frankenstein hybrid between public and private. It is a public institution in many respects. It is tied in with the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister remains a member of the foundation. At the same time, it is organized in a sense as a private organization. It is both public and private, and this creates big problems for holding it accountable. The Auditor General has said that she cannot study private donations that go to the Trudeau Foundation, as it is not part of her mandate. The CRA was asked to investigate, but it cannot talk about any of this. Liberals opposed our motion initially in the public accounts committee to investigate it. Eventually, they agreed to allow two meetings on this, but the public accounts committee continues to be stonewalled. We have had virtually no witnesses agree to testify. Conservatives have tried to summon witnesses who will not appear, and that includes David Johnston, but Liberals have tried to block that. We have tried to request additional documents from the CRA that would allow us to do our work, but Liberals have been, for an extended period of time, filibustering our request for documents. At the core of this is the fact that David Johnston will not testify. David Johnston, the Prime Minister's good friend and ski buddy, has been named the so-called special rapporteur for foreign interference and is affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation. He has written a report on foreign interference that, surprise, surprise, makes no mention of the Trudeau Foundation. Supposedly, he is looking into foreign interference, but there is no mention of the Trudeau Foundation, of which David Johnston was a part. He should testify, and he should explain that. We have a situation today where David Johnston, the Prime Minister's special rapporteur, who refused a request by a majority of the House of Commons to resign, is refusing to appear before the public accounts committee. The reality is that David Johnston has shown a dangerous disdain for our institution. When Parliament asks a person to resign from a public position, the least they could do is show up to testify about what their activities have been. The Trudeau Foundation has been involved in foreign interference, and it has been subject to foreign interference, but it is not mentioned in his report.
649 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:05:51 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would start by noting the original question asked in the House that has produced this follow-up at this point had nothing to do with David Johnston despite the fact the member has suddenly introduced David Johnston into the topic. He had a great display there. I am sure it will turn into a good fundraising opportunity later on. However, let us just reflect on what is really going on in this scenario. We have the Prime Minister's last name attached to a foundation, a foundation that was created in the name of his father. It is a foundation that accepts donations, and those donations are utilized for the following. This is straight from the Trudeau Foundation's website, which states: Through its Scholarship, Mentorship and Fellowship programs, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation focuses on the leadership development of our Scholars. The Foundation’s leadership program aims to empower Scholars to have meaningful impact in their institutions and communities. It does so by equipping Scholars with key leadership skills, instilling in them values crucial for Engaged Leaders, such as engagement with a plurality of perspectives, service to the community, audacity and innovation. This is an organization that the Prime Minister has not been involved with in over a decade. Conservatives know that, but Conservatives also know there is an opportunity to jump on here in that the Prime Minister's last name is also referenced in the Trudeau Foundation. The Conservatives would like to paint a picture that the Trudeau Foundation is some fundraising arm for individual donations, political or not, that somehow make it into the Prime Minister's own personal bank account. That could not be further from the truth. What they are trying to do here is cloud the issue and try to suggest there is some form of personal benefit to the Prime Minister, which quite frankly is not true. Everybody knows that, everybody who can look at the facts in a manner that is unbiased and does not come from this cloud of conspiracy theory we see from the other side of the House.
354 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:08:25 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, that was the kind of unmitigated nonsense the House has come to expect in this situation, unfortunately. I would submit to the member he should read the annual report of the Trudeau Foundation, which notes the membership of the foundation and which notes that the Prime Minister remains a member of the foundation. It is in the last annual report. There are fewer than 30 members. A substantial number of those members are appointed by either the Trudeau family or the Minister of Industry, and this foundation received $125 million from the government. I do not dispute the foundation aspires to provide scholarships to students, but the member should not dispute the fact there was a massive injection of foreign donations to the foundation when the government took office, and that there was a close ongoing relationship between the government, the Trudeau family and this foundation. The core point I raised in my original question and will raise again is the following. If all this is great work, then why the secrecy? Why will the people from the Trudeau Foundation not show up? Why are Liberals filibustering our motion to try to get documents? If it is all above board, why the secrecy?
205 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:09:28 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, his question goes to exactly my point. He is trying to suggest that somehow this side of the House or the government could possibly answer that question. Unless we had actual involvement in the Trudeau Foundation, it would be impossible to answer that question. Nobody on this side of the House has anything to do with the Trudeau Foundation. Sorry, one person might be—
67 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:09:55 a.m.
  • Watch
Order, please. I just want to remind the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan he had an opportunity to ask the question and an opportunity to listen to the answer. I know he is a lawyer by trade, and he knows the court of law would not allow this to happen either, so I would just ask the hon. member, who may not like the answer, to listen. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:10:21 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, somebody might be a member of an organization but certainly not in a role to make any decisions, and that is the point that has been made repeatedly. Conservatives would like to paint the picture that the Prime Minister is involved. He asked the question of why they will not come to committee. How on earth could I possibly answer that question when I am not involved in the Trudeau Foundation nor is anybody on this side of the House?
82 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:10:58 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here tonight, after midnight, for this adjournment debate as a result of another non-answer from the government side. When I originally rose in question period, the government member's response to the question at that time was some non-answer about much money people in the member's province were going to get back of the money that his government had previously taxed from them, and then some incoherent words about conspiracy theories and cryptocurrency. Since I posed that initial question, we have learned that the minister plans to add carbon tax 2.0 to the backs of Canadian taxpayers. This new carbon tax will add an additional 17¢ per litre to the current tax, and with the sales tax on the carbon taxes, it will mean up to 61¢ per litre as a result of carbon taxes, another burden that Canadians are being forced to bear to pay for the government’s overspending habit. The second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household $573 per year, without any rebate, costing some families in some provinces as much as $1,157. These numbers are from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I want to put this into perspective. It has been 15 years since a carbon tax was implemented in B.C., a tax that initially started at 2.41¢ per litre. It originally started out as a revenue-neutral tax; the revenues would go directly toward reducing personal income taxes. That was until an NDP government decided the B.C. carbon tax would no longer be revenue-neutral, but would instead go into general revenue to help pay for the NDP government’s overspending habit. I think the members listening will see the similarities here in establishing a small tax initially, gradually turning up the heat, hoping people would be distracted by other crises, and then using those tax dollars to pay for bad spending habits. Once more, we have evidence of the indistinguishable ideologies of the Liberals and the NDP, as such, the NDP-Liberal coalition we are currently dealing with, which is making Canadians pay for the government’s bad spending habit. I am sure the Liberal member will come back with some comment about how the carbon tax and carbon tax 2.0 are somehow going to prevent wildfires or flooding, but they have yet to show how that is going to be accomplished. The government has failed to meet any emissions targets, and instead of facilitating the export of cleaner Canadian natural gas to high-emissions countries, they have left those countries to seek out coal and other dirty energy sources from countries with poor environmental and human rights standards, a poor, if not failed, record at best. Will the government take control of its bad spending habit, stop pushing higher taxes on Canadians, who are already struggling under its inflationary policies, and cancel the planned tax increases?
493 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:14:56 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brought up the Liberal-NDP coalition. Normally, I would say that there is a Conservative coalition with the Bloc Québécois, but not even on this issue does the Bloc agree with the Conservatives. As a matter of fact, every other party that is represented in this House agrees that putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do. The member said that the question was not answered during the debate or during question period when he asked, but it actually was. It goes to the heart of what the member neglected to mention in his speech and, indeed, what Conservatives continually neglect to mention. The answer was this: ...as much as the Conservatives would like to deny it, climate change is real. What else is real? Those cheques that are arriving in people's mailboxes beginning April 14. In my home province of Manitoba, people will receive $250 a quarter, over $1,000 a month. The interesting thing is that I would have thought that when the member was getting towards the end of his question, he would have said that I would have come back with some line on the rebate. However, he did not even do that. He should have been able to predict that I was going to do that. Instead, he said something about how I was going to try to justify that this stops wildfires or whatnot. No, what I have been saying all along, and what we have been saying all along, and what the Conservatives have missed all along is the fact that people are getting money back. This rebate has always been there. The whole point of the price on pollution was not to put money into the general revenues, as the member said. The point of the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as Conservatives like to call it, is to put a price mechanism on carbon, to put a price on pollution. In that way, people have to actually make a choice. In making that choice, they might be incentivized not to pollute and, instead, to try to find an option that does not pollute as much. Again, I would remind the member that I will answer the question the same way that the parliamentary secretary did during question period. This is to say that Conservatives continually neglect the fact that there is a rebate that comes back, because it does not suit their narrative. However, it actually is a reality.
422 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:17:41 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member pointed out that there is going to be money going back to Canadians, because that is what it is. It is money going back to Canadians who have already paid it out. They have paid it to the government. That is the only way the government has money to give to Canadians, by taxing it out of Canadians' back pockets. Therefore, the parliamentary secretary has pointed out the major flaw with what they are doing here. The Liberals are simply taking taxpayer dollars to run their bad spending habits, then giving a little of it back. It just does not make any sense. Why has the country not taken real, concrete steps to export our clean natural gas to countries that are burning coal and other dirty fuels?
135 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:18:34 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, he is right. We are giving it back. He asks why, and I actually just told him when I was answering the initial question he posed. The answer is that this has never been about trying to collect revenue for the government. This has always been about incentivizing choice in the marketplace. When a price is put on something, it changes people's behaviour in terms of how they make their decisions on purchases. In terms of his point that people are just getting a little money back, that is not true. The majority of Canadians get back more than they end up paying. If someone is extremely wealthy, has many vehicles and a very large home that takes a lot of natural gas to heat in the winter, perhaps in that case, they will end up paying a little more than they get back. However, the vast majority of Canadians, in particular the middle class, will get more back than they are putting into it.
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:19:47 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening past midnight to debate a vitally important matter. We are here this evening again because we see the blissful ignorance of the government in permitting Chinese state-owned enterprises to acquire control over Canada's mining industry. It is more unconscionable when it is impossible for Canadian companies to acquire mining land claims or control over any Chinese company, especially involving critical minerals. According to Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada's former ambassador to China, “There's no level playing field for foreign companies in China, and many sectors remain closed to them, or access is similarly limited.” When appearing before a parliamentary committee, he added, “China does not play by international trade rules.” No kidding. It is quick to complain about perceived injustices of other countries toward it, but not so quick to provide fair treatment to foreign companies trying to operate in China. Like with foreign interference, Canada has again been reduced to being a doormat for China. Canada has given China free rein to do whatever it wants under pathetic oversight from Ottawa. The Globe and Mail reported in August 2022 that three years ago, Sinomine Resource Group Co. bought the Tanco mine in Manitoba. Tanco was one of the world's few sources of the critical mineral cesium. The mine previously produced lithium, a battery metal used in electric cars. The government had the authority to block the acquisition on national security grounds, but instead of blocking it, Ottawa did nothing. Later, the Tanco mine was acquired by China and started producing lithium to ship back home. Sinomine also secured an offtake agreement guaranteeing it all of the lithium, cesium and tantalum produced by Power Metals Corporation's Case Lake critical minerals property. Offtake agreements are just as good as ownership and do not create irritating media stories. The government also approved the sale of Canada's lithium development company Neo Lithium Corp. to a Chinese state-owned company, and in its infinite wisdom, the government decided not to order an advanced security screening of the deal. Mr. Jeffrey Kucharski, a former assistant deputy minister of Alberta's Department of Energy, stated before a parliamentary committee, “How can Canada build a lithium supply chain, or any other critical mineral for that matter, when it allows the assets of Canadian companies to be acquired by a country that seeks to cement its dominance in this sector?” Beijing supports its state-owned enterprises by providing subsidies, access to cheap capital and tax breaks that are much greater than anything that a western government can offer. While Canada has welcomed legitimate Chinese investment, there is Iittle or no reciprocity, as I alluded to earlier with the comments of former ambassador Saint-Jacques. China uses its dominant position in critical minerals to exert leverage over other countries. What has been Canada's response? It claims to want to scrutinize foreign takeovers. That is great. However, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security reviews. Canada should look to Australia for a road map. It has a tougher stand on proposed Chinese investments, and its government has rejected several transactions on national security grounds. Australia even strengthened its oversight by introducing a new “last resort” power, whereby it has the authority to review a previously approved transaction when national security risks emerge after the fact. Canada may need China to bail out financially struggling mining companies, but that does not mean we have to give up complete control over our vital resources. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening.
607 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:23:51 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, land claims are under provincial jurisdiction, and Canada continues to work with its provincial counterparts to further Canada's national interests in this area. Canada welcomes foreign investment as a means to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and increase innovation, competitiveness and long-term prosperity. However, the government also ensures that significant foreign investments by non-Canadians encourage economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada and that all foreign investments are consistent with Canada's national security. Foreign direct investment supports Canada's trades, skills and innovation ecosystems by expanding trade, advancing environmental co-operation, linking firms to global value chains, increasing access to global markets and attracting talent. In 2020, foreign-controlled multinationals contributed directly to Canada's long-term prosperity by being responsible for 20% of the jobs in Canada's corporate sector, 25% of the capital investment in 2019, 59% of the merchandise exports and 24% of global GDP of the corporate sector. Foreign direct investment is critical to the success of Canadian mining. It provides access to capital for natural resource projects and infrastructure; helps diffuse technology, knowledge and intellectual property; increases innovation through competition; and opens global value chains to domestic firms. Canada's abundance of natural resources, clean energy, global market access, as well as its commitment to emission-reducing technology, make it a prime investment location for forward-thinking companies in the minerals and metal sector. The mining industry is an important employer of indigenous peoples, providing jobs to over 16,500 individuals. Indigenous people account for 12% of our mining labour force, among the highest representation by industry. Canada is committed to advancing opportunities for meaningful engagement on potential projects at the earliest possible stage, in a culturally aware manner, among industry, indigenous peoples, and federal, provincial and territorial governments. One of the priority themes under Canada's critical minerals strategy, launched in December 2022, is advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Another priority under the strategy is enhancing global security in partnership with allies. This includes efforts to strengthen the global supply chain resiliency, recognize that critical minerals are a strategic asset and contribute to Canada's prosperity and national security. When it comes to China, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy clearly outlines the government's understanding of China as an increasingly destructive global power. We are not blind to China's pattern of using large-scale investments to establish its presence globally and tip the scales in its favour, creating dependencies in supply chains. This government has made it clear that Canada will always unapologetically defend our national interests. Canada's interests come first, and this applies to foreign direct investments as well. Canada has a robust foreign investments review process under the Investment Canada Act. It requires prior approval of significant foreign investment for likely economic net benefit. More importantly, it also calls for a multistep review of all investments by non-Canadians that could be injurious to Canada's national security. Certainly, types of investments, such as those in critical minerals, receive special scrutiny in accordance with the current policy. On October 28, 2022, the Government of Canada issued a policy to provide additional clarity regarding the application of the ICA to investments by foreign state-owned enterprises and private investors assessed as being closely tied to, or subject to influence from, foreign governments.
557 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:27:56 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important issue for our country, and I am really troubled that the parliamentary secretary would say mining is a provincial jurisdiction, so I want to use this opportunity to remind him of legislation and frameworks that are federal and apply to mining. There is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian minerals and metals plan, the chemicals management plan, the Explosives Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Fisheries Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Indian Act, Indian mining regulations, interprovincial movement of hazardous waste regulations, metal and diamond mining effluent regulations, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is to name just a few. The parliamentary secretary talked about the Investment Canada Act and national security reviews. I want to remind him that, over the past five years, fewer than 1% were subjected to security measures. This must be acted upon, and I implore him to please ensure the government acts to protect Canada's sovereignty and its industrial plan, which hinges on an integrated strategy and a supply chain with critical minerals.
185 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 12:28:59 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, if the only thing the member took from my previous comment is that land claims fall under provincial jurisdiction, it means that he did not listen to everything else that I said. Everything else that I said specifically spoke to what Canada does and what our federal government does to ensure our national interests are protected. I can assure the member, with respect to his plea toward the end of his follow-up, that we are always looking out for the best interests of Canadians, we will always take Canadian sovereignty seriously and we will always defend Canadian interests, at any cost.
104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border