SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 204

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2023 10:00AM
  • Jun/1/23 5:06:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a brief question, but first I have a comment. The member mentioned electric cars. I do not think electric cars are the solution for climate change. I think they are one of them. I live close to a big city, so I drive an electric car. I enjoy it very much. Madam Speaker and I were talking about an electric car purchase and I hope hers is going well. That is not the point. The point is that there are ways that all of us can participate in this. By the way, I looked it up, and Prince Albert has quite a few car charging stations already, so the next time I come through Saskatchewan, I will stop and charge, we will have a coffee and he will realize it is not all that bad. My question is around what I was saying before about picking and choosing. He has referenced a certain number, some $1,000 amount. I looked at the fiscal and economic impact for Saskatchewan in all five economic quintiles. That is how much people earn. In the first three quintiles, it is net-positive or net-neutral. When I ask my colleague who he is standing up for when he is saying this is going to cost people in Saskatchewan a lot more money, I want him to acknowledge that this is in the top two quintiles. The top 40% of earners are the ones he is saying should pay no or less price on pollution. The money is going to people who really need it. Will he acknowledge that he is really only standing up for the highest 40% of income earners?
281 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:08:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is that it is not actually revenue-neutral. What he is saying is it is turning revenue to somebody else. My numbers come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an average family in Saskatchewan. That is where my numbers come from. If he wants to parse them differently he can go ahead and do that. The reality is that the average family in Saskatchewan is going to receive some $1,480 less than what they pay. That is the reality. When he talks about charging stations in Prince Albert, he is right. I have nothing against electric vehicles. I think it is something I am going to own somewhere down the road too. However, the reality is that in Nipawin, Shellbrook, Tisdale, Melfort, Smeaton, Kinistino and Carrot River, there is very little charging capacity. These people all have to drive an hour and a half to two hours to get groceries in some cases, so this does not work. Let us put some thought into that before we mandate it.
177 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:09:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, today, during a Conservative opposition day, I heard and carefully listened to many unreasonable arguments. I have to say that, like my colleague, I represent an agricultural riding, and even though I do not share his conclusions, there are several interesting elements in his speech. However, he told us that the carbon tax was a bad thing for our farmers because our international competitors do not have a carbon tax. He gave the example of Europe, which has an emission permits trading system. His argument, therefore, does not really hold water. Moreover, he is making up a second carbon tax based on the biofuels regulations. In that regard, in addition to the California standard, there is a U.S. federal standard, and both Great Britain and Europe have a standard. Everyone has standards. Based on his arguments and his logic, I conclude that he approves of the biofuels standard.
151 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:09:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no problem with standards provided that standards are equipped right across the world and are not set in such a way that they create an unlevel playing field for our producers. That is what this has done. We have done it to ourselves. Nobody has imposed this on us. The reality is that there is nothing wrong with standards, but let us have the same standards as the U.S., the same as Europe and the same as our competitors. We do not have that. We pay more. We compete in a marketplace with our hands tied behind our backs because we get charged more by the government than anybody else does around the world.
119 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:10:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Uqaqtittiji, as I said earlier, oil and gas companies are showing record profits. As an example, Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price in the scheme. I agree that carbon pricing is not the only solution. There have to be many potential solutions, and we need to do better to help protect the environment. I wonder if the member agrees that protecting the pockets of billion-dollar corporations is not the right approach for addressing this issue.
80 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:11:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand the challenges the hon. member must face in the north and that the carbon tax must present to her. However, the reality is that those companies are spending billions of dollars on carbon sequestration. They are changing their businesses to get to net zero. That is where those profits are going. Those profits are going to pension funds that get paid out to people right across Canada, like the CPP. Those profits are distributed to the economy in different ways through investment and reinvestment in Canada. Saying we are going to grab them and give them to the government is a no go, sorry, because the government is horrible with money. I would rather let companies pay it out in dividends and pay it out in pension plans and have it distributed to Canadians that way. I would rather see them spend some money on the environment than give it to the federal government.
158 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:12:01 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my regards to you and all our dedicated colleagues who are here in the House with us. I very much like being surprised. Today, I was very excited because we knew there was going to be a Conservative opposition day. Yesterday, I scratched my head and wondered what they would talk about. I came up with three options: taxes, taxes and maybe taxes. In the end, I was wrong. The Conservatives are still talking about the carbon tax. So I will make it easier for me by keeping seven or eight speeches on file. When they have an opposition day, I will take out one of the speeches and that should cover it. This time, however, they invented a tax. They are talking about the carbon tax. This tax exists; that is right, it is not a conspiracy. They are saying that there are regulations on biofuels and that that, too, is a tax. Anyone who took first year economics knows the difference between a tax and a regulation because there is always a chapter called “taxation versus regulation”. We teach the very young that it is not the same thing. The Conservatives' speeches are so made up that they made up a tax. I wanted to take the time to thank them for their imagination. They made me laugh. Obviously, when we look at the motion, we see that the goal is to feed misinformation to the public. I showed how absurd that is. The Conservatives oppose any suggestion, no matter what it may be, that could actually have a positive effect on the environment and the fight against climate change. The reason is simple. It goes against the interests of the oil industry, and the two are not often reconcilable. The Conservatives do not want us to put corn oil in gas. Basically, that is what they are telling us. Before, they were saying that Canada was importing oil from dictatorships. They said that we needed ethical oil and that we should no longer import oil from Saudi Arabia and Algeria because that was bad. Now, in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, we almost exclusively use North American oil. However, the government wants to take it one step further. It wants to set a standard so that fuel contains fewer petroleum products and more material from renewable sources. However, the Conservatives are against that because they do not want anything mixed into their oil. The worst part is that they do not even realize that the people who will be asked to process the grains to make the ethanol that goes into the fuel are business owners in their own ridings and their provinces. Having said that, there are complaints about these types of regulations. There is truth to that. It is true that the environmental impacts of biofuels on the whole are modest because we have to grow the grain, use the raw material, use agricultural land, process the grain to produce, for example, ethanol. There are other formulations. Some countries make biofuel with palm oil, and so forth. The fact is that biofuels include elements that are renewable but that still pollute. This reminds us of the importance of reducing our dependence on fuel, whether or not it contains hydrocarbons. The impact of these regulations will be modest. The Conservatives are right about the Parliamentary Budget Officers' comments. They are right sometimes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this policy could be regressive. Why? It is because producing biofuels is expensive. At first, to comply with the standards, fuel distributors will have to produce these fuels, develop the infrastructure and purchase these biofuels. There will be an impact on the price at the pump. Several projections demonstrate that the cost will be passed on to consumers. They are looking at me. We are talking about a tax that will be passed on to consumers. Quite surprising, is it not? I am going to play the role of teacher today. It is Thursday evening and we are among friends. An economics course always teaches methods for assessing the effect a tax, a production cost increase, will have on consumers. Sometimes increased production costs, as is the case with ethanol, are fully passed on, as in 100%. Sometimes it is 75%. It is also possible that producers do not pass it on to consumers at all. There are reasons for that. The tax or increased production cost attributable to these regulations is passed on to consumers when they have no choice but to buy the product, when there is no other option. For example, if I decide to tax carrots but not turnips, those who like both will buy more turnips. In that case, producers will not be able to pass the tax on to consumers. However, in the case of oil, in some provinces, dependence is so high that consumers will have to pay the full tax. I have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report in front of me. It is odd, but the provinces where the tax is hurting the most are Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These are the places that have had successive Conservative governments, where few alternative sources have been developed, where the economy is dependent on the oil industry and where people are generally extremely dependent on the oil industry. If we do not want these standards to drive up consumer prices, or if we want it to be harder to pass these taxes on to consumers, there are solutions. We can increase public transit, finance infrastructure, electrify transportation and make the power grid more environmentally friendly. Of course, if we power electric cars with energy made from coal or oil, it will not do much good. What we can do is change behaviours. There are plenty of ways to offer consumers alternative solutions. The Conservatives told us today that people would no longer be able to live because of the cost. When we look at the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we see that provinces where there is less of an impact on consumers and households are the provinces where more alternatives have been developed. They are also the provinces that are less dependent on oil. We are talking here about Quebec and, to a lesser extent, Ontario and so on. This shows one thing. We have provinces where, because of Conservative way of thinking, they are chasing their tails, in the sense that they are not developing any alternative solutions, which makes people dependent on oil and gas. Since they are dependent on oil and gas, these people will be hit hard if the government ever imposed an economic policy against oil. Since these people will be hit hard, the Conservatives are saying that these policies should not be implemented. If these polices are not implemented, these people do not change their behaviours, and it goes on. We end up with the well-known Conservative model where the Conservatives are always right. That hurts households because the Conservatives are not doing anything, and they are not doing anything because it hurts households. They are against policies that take aim at both the supply of and demand for oil, so the carbon tax, which takes aim at the demand for oil, does not work. Then, all of a sudden the regulations do not work. To show how deeply ingrained this logic is in the culture of some provinces, we need only look at what happened during the election campaign in Alberta. The Conservatives won in Alberta, and a few NDP members took seats. Do my colleagues know how many days of the campaign were dedicated to the environment? The answer is none. How much time was spent talking about the environment during the leadership debates? Almost none. There was a left-wing Albertan who is pro-oil. I heard the NDP yelling “Calgary” and “Edmonton” at the Conservatives this week to irritate them, because the NDP won some seats. It is the pro-oil NDP. Those members are pro-oil. There are clans in the NDP too. That is the big Conservative contradiction. Their motions sometimes seem sensible, but one bad motion leads to another bad motion, which in turn leads to another bad motion, and so forth. This makes the Conservatives believe that they are always right, but they just keep going round in circles, as I just demonstrated. They are number one in the world for contradictions. The Conservatives are masters of contradiction. They are first in their class, perhaps even world champions, or, as we sometimes say, they look like real winners.
1444 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:21:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not so sure that I want to thank my colleague for his speech, because he handed out a lot of insults. He insulted the Conservatives non-stop. What is most fascinating about this is that he wanted to lecture us. He always wants to lecture everyone about economics, and he thinks he is better than everyone. One fact stands out, and he even admitted it in his speech. Whether we call it a tax or a regulation, these new measures will result in a direct cost to Canadians. Is it simpler to talk about a new tax? It is certainly easier for someone to understand it because we do not give every citizen an economics course before explaining a new item. Can my colleague confirm that, in the long term, consumers will be taxed or that the regulations will add an additional 17¢ a litre at the pump, yes or no?
156 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:22:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I really like, for his question. I think the Conservatives would probably have preferred a tax, because a tax has one benefit that this type of regulation does not have: It generates revenue that enables the government to make the policy more progressive. That is exactly what they did with the carbon tax, which is not perfect but does send money back to some households. The Conservatives are always whining about the carbon tax, saying it does not work. That forces the government to use other types of measures that do not generate revenue and are even more regressive. I have been teaching pretty much all my life, and, if my colleague does not appreciate my professional conditioning, I will forgive him. However, I think he might well benefit from an economics course.
141 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:23:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, for me, it is the principles behind a policy of a price on pollution. Often, the Conservatives say that the United States does not have it, but there are actually a dozen or more states that do have the principles of a price on pollution. Around the world, the principles of a price on pollution are very much real. However, the far right of the Conservative Party is now saying that the principles of a price on pollution are wrong. I wonder if the member could expand on the principles and how important it is to use those principles to protect our environment.
105 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:24:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will depart a bit from my colleague's question, but not to avoid it, because it was excellent. We always come back to international comparisons, to what is done elsewhere and the fact that our competitors have or sometimes do not have taxes. That is indeed important. Let me come back to biofuels regulations. Many studies in many places have shown that it is a policy that does have a positive, but modest impact on the environment. In the case of Canada, it is important to make comparisons because if this policy is having a modest impact elsewhere, it is because biofuels are replacing traditional oil. The principle is that the dirtier the oil we use the more effective the biofuels standard will be. Given that Canada produces and consumes the dirtiest oil in the world, we may have the potential here of making this standard much more useful than anywhere else. That is why we need to take the time to compare ourselves sometimes. In this case, our dirty oil may well mean the standard will be better.
182 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:25:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it just incredible that we are here debating a motion brought forward by the Conservatives to remove the carbon tax. I find it so incredible because they ran on a platform to put a price on carbon, but they got elected, came into the House and then decided that was not what they wanted to do. It feels like Groundhog Day. This is the sixth allotted day that the Conservatives have used to bring forward the exact same motion. Meanwhile, the country is on fire. We are having fires in British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia right now. Again, the oil and gas companies are making record profits. If this were truly about helping people, they would want to charge an excess profit tax on oil and gas. My colleague talked about imagination. Instead of debating the same issue over and over again, can he share maybe six items that are more important that could be debated today, such as things that might help seniors or veterans, or things that might actually tackle the climate crisis or ensure that people have a place to live?
189 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:26:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is often criticized for the topics we choose for our opposition days. I am not going to pass judgment on the topic. What I said was that I was not surprised that it is always the same topic, but the Conservatives have the right to choose whatever they want to talk about. That being said, we are definitely feeling the effects of climate change. There are fires burning in Quebec today. I think we need to show leadership and stop saying we will tax carbon when all the other countries have implemented it. I think we can do better.
108 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:27:21 p.m.
  • Watch
It being 5:27 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. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to the House.] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:29:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we would ask for a recorded division.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:29:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:29:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:42 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
54 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/1/23 5:29:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
moved that Bill C-325, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and conditional Release Act (conditions of release and conditional sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here today to speak to my bill, which I think is very important. Bill C-325 is important because I know that many members of the House of Commons realize that we need to do something to address the violence in our once peaceful streets and communities. As parliamentarians, we work for the public and, of course, our role is to pass laws that seek to improve the quality of life of our constituents. I am sure that when he introduced Bill C-5, the Prime Minister was trying to do the right thing. I sincerely believe that his heart was in the right place, but we should all now realize that we need to backtrack. This country belongs to all of us. We are not only responsible for maintaining the quality of life it offers us, but we also have a solemn duty to protect it from those who flout our laws. Canada used to have an international reputation for being extraordinarily beautiful and safe. Shootings in broad daylight used to be an other-country problem, but now, gangs are trying to establish themselves all over the country. They know that laws like Bill C‑5, which the House passed, make their criminal activity easier. We are all politicians, but I am convinced that, when it comes to Canadians' safety and matters of life and death, order and chaos, justice and injustice, we all have the same point of view. All members of the House agree that violent criminals deserve tough sentences. All violence against women, children or any other person must be severely punished. The Prime Minister has 24-hour security. Everywhere he goes, he is surrounded by highly trained security guards. When he goes to bed at night, they stand guard in front of his house. The Prime Minister is probably the safest Canadian there is and, as Prime Minister, he understands the importance of security. He too must see that it is time to restore order in our society for the good of Canadians. My Bill C‑325 has two objectives. Under the first part of this bill, violent criminals would not have the option to serve their sentences in the community. It is unthinkable that a violent criminal would have the luxury of serving his sentence in the comfort of his home while watching Netflix, but that is exactly what is happening in Quebec and across Canada. The case of Jonathan Gravel is a good example. He received a 20-month sentence for sexually assaulting his former girlfriend, and the court allowed him to serve his sentence in the community. It is supposed to be a 20-month sentence, but he will actually serve 14 months. As MPs, we all have a responsibility to do what we can to keep Canadians safe. I do not know any woman who finds it funny that our courts grant violent criminals the right to serve their sentences at home. As we know, judges enforce the laws that are passed here in the House. Surely members have noticed that more and more notorious sex offenders are serving their sentences in the comfort of their homes while their victims are still psychologically traumatized and fearful of meeting their abuser on the way to work or at the end of an aisle at the grocery store. That is one of the reasons I am asking all members of the House to support Bill C‑325. Victims deserve justice; they deserve to see violent criminals put behind bars. Serving a sentence at home with access to Netflix or Disney+ is not the best route to rehabilitation, nor does it create the conditions necessary for serious reflection. The second part of my bill would create a Criminal Code offence for violent offenders who breach their parole conditions. It would also require probation officers to report these breaches, which is not currently the case. This provision would reduce recidivism among violent criminals. We all remember Marylène Levesque, who was murdered by a killer who violated his parole conditions with impunity. Bill C‑325 would have put Marylène Levesque's killer behind bars immediately, and a life would have been saved. Then there is the case of Myles Sanderson, the murderer responsible for the knife attacks in Saskatchewan last September. Despite being charged with 59 crimes, many of them violent, he was released and did not hesitate to violate his release conditions because he knew there would be no consequences. As a result, 10 people were murdered. He should not have been released, but the current law made it impossible to detain him, instead of ensuring the safety of those who became his victims. If members believe that victims and crime prevention should come first, and that our justice system should not allow violent offenders to serve their sentences at home, then I implore them to support Bill C-325 at second reading, as several organizations do. The president of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal, the founder of Montreal's Maison des guerrières, the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes du Québec, the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association and Communauté de citoyens and citoyennes en action contre les crimes violents, among others, have expressed their support for Bill C‑325. They all support Bill C‑325 Earlier this year, REAL Women of Canada insisted that it is time to reconsider the 1995 Criminal Code reforms on sentencing given their failure to address the high rates of recidivism among indigenous offenders and the ongoing threats to our families and to the communities in which violent offenders are released on parole with alarming regularity. This is what the organization said: In the spirit of reforming Criminal Code sentencing and offender rehabilitation, REAL Women of Canada welcome the introduction on March 10, 2023...of Bill C‑325, a private member's bill... Bill C‑325 provides a much needed opportunity for changing the way in which we protect our families and communities while also furthering the safe re-integration of offenders into society, which is ultimately the best way to protect our families and communities. A full and frank discussion on Bill C-325 provides the potential for much needed reforms and greater public awareness of the issues involved. REAL Women of Canada looks forward to making submissions to the committee once Bill C‑325 passes second reading and proceeding to a more thorough examination of the recent shortfalls of the Parole Board of Canada to properly carry out its mandate under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This includes parole as well as the failure of the justice system to properly protect society from dangerous offenders. This examination should also take into account the impact of the proposed amendments in Bill C‑325 on the existing statutory requirements under the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. What is more, the president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, said the following, and I quote: The need to effectively target repeat violent offenders is significant because, as front-line law enforcement officers know all too well, a defining reality of our justice system is that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. The Canadian Police Association has long advocated for statutory consequences for offenders who commit new offences while on conditional release, and this proposed legislation is a common-sense solution that effectively targets those very specific offenders. The Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal stated the following, and I quote: We welcome this bill which would strengthen public protection against violent repeat offenders and prevent dangerous offenders from serving their sentences in the community. The Montreal Police Brotherhood believes the justice system must prioritize the safety of law-abiding citizens and this bill is clearly aimed at that goal. I will close by saying that making Canadian streets and communities safe again should not be done through a partisan process, but a common-sense one. I hope that all members of the House will support Bill C‑325.
1439 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, as all members are aware, our judicial system is a joint responsibility between provinces and the federal government. In fact, we now have a bail reform bill before the House. There was a great deal of consultation that incorporated the provincial legislatures and others regarding the form the bill should take. As a result, it has widespread support from many different stakeholders. Has the member had any consultations with provincial jurisdictions in particular? If so, could he give us a clear indication of what they have been saying on this legislation proposal?
94 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border