SoVote

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.)

May/7/24 6:58:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, there is a common misconception about carbon pollution pricing. It is not a tax. It is a measure recognized as one of the lowest cost and most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases, and therefore, of tackling the adverse impacts of climate change, which are very real. It is also a measure that the government has designed to make life more affordable for Canadians. Natural disasters are on the rise due to climate change, and we are all suffering the effects and the costs too. Last summer, forest fires forced tens of thousands of Canadians to evacuate their homes. There were also droughts in the Prairies, where the hon. member is from. There were intense hurricanes on the east coast, extreme flooding on the west coast, and melting permafrost in the north. What does that mean? It means we all need to accelerate climate action. Carbon pricing is core to serious climate action. It provides an incentive to innovate and reduce emissions, while allowing businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions. Carbon pricing is not about raising revenues. All proceeds from carbon pricing are returned to the jurisdiction they were collected from. The Canada carbon rebate, the CCR, returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadian residents through direct deposit or cheque every three months. Eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the CCR than they pay toward the fuel charge. Residents of these provinces living in small and rural communities also receive a rural top-up, which the government, under Bill C-59, is proposing to double from 10% of the base amount to 20%. The system actually leaves most families, especially low- and middle-income ones, better off financially. Carbon pricing is a fair system that does leave more money in the pockets of Canadian workers, and that makes life more affordable for lower-income families. The benefits go way beyond that. It is a tool to help us create healthier communities and usher in clean growth and a more sustainable future for our children and our children's children.

350 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/7/24 7:00:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the parliamentary secretary says it, Canadians are not better off under the carbon tax scheme. Canadians are feeling the weight of everyday costs going up, and we have seen that the carbon tax has cascaded through the economy, making life unaffordable. We also see it when a local school division has to pay $522,000 in carbon tax to heat its buildings and drive its buses. The carbon tax affects every area of our economy, wherever someone lives in Canada. No one is better off under the carbon tax. Conservatives believe in innovation, not taxes. We believe that we have the ability to solve the issues that we see in front of us without taxing and making Canadians' lives less affordable. The carbon tax drives innovation out of our country and makes people poor. When will the government listen to us and axe the tax?

152 words

Carbon

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/7/24 7:01:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, by putting a price on carbon pollution and returning the proceeds directly to Canadians, Canada is using the most efficient and affordable way to fight climate change and reduce emissions. If Canada is recognized internationally as a climate leader, it is in large part due to the robust carbon pollution pricing system we have in this country. We are seeing great progress. According to the World Bank, there are now 73 carbon pricing initiatives in place or slated for implementation across the globe, and they are following our example here in Canada. Together, these initiatives cover 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, Canada will keep promoting carbon pollution pricing. We cannot afford not to.

120 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/7/24 7:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it being May 7, I want to start by wishing my dear wife back home a happy anniversary. With five kids and one more on the way and through four election campaigns, it has been a wild 13 years. I am so grateful to her and to my whole family for supporting me in this important vocation. It involves far more sacrifice for them than it does for me. The process was rigged. The arrive scam process was rigged in favour of well-connected insider companies. We know this because the procurement ombud's report identified the well-connected insiders at GC Strategies, the small two-person company that the government loved giving deals to, over and over again. GC Strategies, the small two-person company, was actually founded in the same year that the Prime Minister took office. Fancy that. The company was founded the same year the Prime Minister took office, and it became a favoured go-to supplier for the government. A supplier of what? A supplier of nothing. This company did no work. It simply received contracts and subcontracted all of the work. If the government needed to pay someone to do nothing, GC Strategies was its go-to. The process was rigged because GC Strategies sat down with folks inside of the government who were deciding the terms of critical contracts. GC Strategies said what the specifications of the contract and the terms of the contract should look like, and that advice was taken. GC Strategies then bid on the contract, which it had informed the development of, and, surprise, it got it. GC Strategies was able to sit down with those developing the contracting process, fix the process by saying exactly what the specifications of the contract could be and then, surprise, it got the deal. I have continually asked the government why. Why did sketchy companies like GC Strategies develop this favoured stature within the NDP-Liberal government? Why did it continue to go to the same shady characters over and over again to give them these incredibly generous contracts? On arrive scam alone, this glitchy app that did not work, that sent over 10,000 people into quarantine on an error, that had real horrifying impacts on the lives of Canadians, this company got, according to the Auditor General, almost $20 million for nothing. It simply got the work and then subcontracted all of it to other people. Now that is a glorious gig. It got millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, from the NDP-Liberal government to do nothing. It had the process rigged in its favour when it was a two-person company working out of a basement. I am trying to understand. There is this systematic rot in the procurement process. This arrive scam issue is just the tip of the iceberg. We keep hearing new reports about broken contracting, contracting across various departments that clearly did not follow the rules. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. Why did the government rig the process in favour of the shady characters at GC Strategies? Why did the government do it?

527 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.)

May/7/24 7:06:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all gathered in the House this evening wish the hon. member a very happy 17th anniversary and all the best to his growing family. Taxpayers' money needs to be treated with the utmost respect. Departments and agencies must follow contracting rules and handle all procurement processes in a fair, open and transparent manner and in accordance with all policies, regulations, guidelines and trade agreements. The gaps in management processes, roles and controls that the Auditor General of Canada and the procurement ombudsman have identified in the reports are unacceptable. We welcome the recommendations made in these reports. I want to remind the hon. member that the CBSA has already taken steps to strengthen its procurement activities and ensure proper oversight of these activities. The agency has established an executive procurement review committee, which is tasked with approving contracts and task authorizations. This is already providing additional oversight on all contracting activities, focusing on delivering value for money. Employees will be required to disclose interactions with potential vendors. Furthermore, Public Services and Procurement Canada will continue to strengthen all aspects of the federal procurement system and will use the findings of the Auditor General's report to improve the way the Government of Canada does business with its suppliers. The hon. member will certainly remember the unprecedented context in which the ArriveCAN application was created. After the pandemic was declared in March 2020, the app was developed and launched as quickly as possible by the CBSA at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The data provided by ArriveCAN was essential for the Government of Canada to monitor, detect and identify new COVID-19 variants of concern and to respond as these variants evolved. The CBSA worked as quickly as possible to replace a paper process that was not meeting public health needs. At the time, there were significant wait times at the border that disrupted the essential flow of people and goods. I wish to point out to the hon. member the Auditor General's recognition in her report that the government improved the speed and quality of information collected at the border by using the ArriveCAN app rather than the paper form. We should not forget that this app helped ensure the continued flow of essential goods, including food and medical supplies, for all Canadians. The CBSA also played a key role in facilitating the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in this country. The public health measures that were taken have supported Canadian businesses that depend on secure and timely cross-border shipments. They kept food and goods on store shelves and ensured our frontline workers were equipped with essential supplies, such as personal protective equipment. I would like to emphasize the efforts of frontline border officers and all CBSA personnel, who diligently served and protected Canadian citizens during the pandemic and continue to do so every day in Canada and around the world.

492 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/7/24 7:10:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that my hon. friend has read his pre-prepared statement about government procurement policy, but he has not answered the basic question. The question is why the government rigged the process in favour of this shady two-person company that was working out of somebody's basement. How did this company, which was just founded in the same year the Prime Minister took office, manage to get so much money from the government? If I started a company in my basement tomorrow with one other person, I suspect we would not be turning over tens of millions of dollars in government contracts, within a short space of time, for doing no work. It is pretty clear that there is some reason the government was constantly funnelling money to and through GC Strategies, and the process was, in fact, as we know, rigged in their favour. As such, why did the government continuously funnel money to and through GC Strategies? Why did it do that?

169 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/7/24 7:11:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that transparency and accountability are priorities for the government. We expect that procurement processes will be properly followed and that anyone accused of wrongdoing will face appropriate consequences. This has been and will always be the case. On the gaps found by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsperson in their reports, as I have said already, those findings are unacceptable, and we welcome the recommendations. The government is taking steps to ensure all government departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future. Some of the recognitions outlined in the report have already been addressed. The president of the CBSA has implemented measures to strengthen and improve procurement processes and internal controls. The government has full confidence that any investigation into wrongdoing allegations will be pursued with integrity and efficiency.

140 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/7/24 7:12:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, five months ago I asked the Prime Minister to acknowledge that the carbon tax was at the root of food inflation in Canada. The response I received was irrelevant. I will try to address inflation, its causes and the government's complicity in raising prices for Canadians again, and we will see if anyone is prepared to acknowledge and respond, given the Liberals have had some time to brush up on the economic challenges that inflation has caused in our economy and our society. Food, in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, ranks as the base physiological level, long before any self-actualization, or any need or desire for a government that constantly looks for ways of expanding government spending. Canadians see that spending, and the resulting tax grab, as an overreach and as being out of control. Inflation is measured in Canada by Statistics Canada, a government agency, which gives an approximation of how Canadians experience inflationary effects and reports it as the consumer price index, or the CPI. In 2023, the CPI was measured at 3.9%. In March 2024, that measure had fallen to 2.9% the way it measures it. The April CPI number will be available on May 21. What April's number will show is the 23% increase in the carbon tax, which was implemented on April 1. It is a tax on food, fuel, home heating and everything else. Let me help predict that there will be a hiccup in our supposed decline in inflation. The Bank of Canada will take its cue from this report for its June decision on interest rates. An inflation uptick would reinforce the decision to not drop interest rates, thus keeping rates high, primarily for mortgage holders. Real estate inflation is the worst effect of the government's failed fiscal policies. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has repeatedly spoken about how the government's policies are causing inflation, while the government is taking the lessons, as it always says. The Bank of Canada openly predicted last year that the carbon tax added 0.15 points to the interest rate, so inflation may have been 3.7% to 3.8% without the carbon tax increase last year. Inflation is the rate of increase, so last year's increase is baked into a new, higher base cost for food, fuel, home heating and everything else. What would happen to that base effect when this ineffective tax on everything is removed? Canadians would get real pricing relief immediately. Food price inflation peaked at the beginning of last year at close to 12%. Members can think about that. It is down now to about 2%, but let us acknowledge the base effect. The increased costs add significantly to continued increases in food costs across Canada. If the government wants to pay attention to the effects of the food inflation it is causing, I would ask it to pay attention to the increasing rise in the use of food banks. Last year, food bank use rose to over two million monthly visitors, up 32% year over year. This year that increase is expected to be an additional 18%. It is time the government started paying attention to the harm it is causing, which is very evident in food inflation. This carbon tax needs to be repealed.

558 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.)

May/7/24 7:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my friend from Calgary Centre. I enjoyed working with him at the environment committee on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where we agreed on many things. Unfortunately, on this particular matter, I disagree strongly and I think the evidence supports what I am about to say, which is that carbon pricing is not increasing food prices significantly. As of December, the grand total impact of carbon pricing on food prices for Canadians, according to independent researchers, was less than half a per cent. It goes without saying that all of us are very concerned about the increases in food bank usage and the increased cost of living being felt by families. Our government is taking this very seriously and taking action to address it. However, fearmongering about carbon pricing does nothing to address this issue. Of course, it carefully avoids mentioning the reality that, because of the Canadian carbon rebate, eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the CCR than they pay toward the fuel charge. Because these are average amounts, lower and middle-income households are particularly better off. Most emissions from farming are already exempt from the federal fuel charge, 97%, in fact. Biological emissions from crop and livestock production are not subject to pollution pricing. Exemptions are provided for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, and commercial greenhouse operators are eligible to receive 80% relief from the fuel charge on natural gas and propane. I would also add that the Government of Canada has also implemented a refundable tax credit to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds directly to farm businesses operating in jurisdictions where the fuel charge applies. The Canada carbon rebate is also available to eligible individuals and their families to help offset the cost of federal pollution pricing, with residents of small and rural communities, including farmers and their families, able to receive a supplement of 20% of the baseline amount. Of course, our government has committed more than $1.5 billion to support farmers with adopting new practices and technologies that can reduce emissions and improve farm performance. For example, almost $170.2 million has been committed across 415 projects announced to date, under the agricultural clean technology program, to support the development and adoption of clean technologies that can reduce emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change, including more than $50 million that is set aside for farmers to put toward the purchase of more efficient grain dryers. Pricing pollution is not affecting food prices significantly. It is not hurting our farmers, who know more than many about the importance of taking action on climate change. Using misinformation and scare tactics is irresponsible when many Canadians are struggling right now.

462 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/7/24 7:20:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, that was an oxymoron in many respects. There is fear because Canadians are suffering. We are actually talking about the issues facing Canadians, particularly the cost of living increases that the government is imposing upon them with consistent tax increases. Its whole time in office has been tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, particularly, in the case that we have talked about tonight, the carbon tax increase. My colleague across the way spoke about all of the agricultural rebates that are available for the carbon tax, but he did not speak about Bill C-234 and that is one that his government has held up intentionally from getting passed in the House of Commons. It is one of the ways we could help farmers actually benefit from a rebate on the carbon tax, but he ignores all that and pretends that the government is actually doing something for farmers in this respect. I disagree. If members take a look at the facts that we presented here, this is very factual. It is very clear that Canadians are actually suffering. It is not fear to indicate that Canadians are going to food banks. To not say it might be burying one's head in the sand. We are actually saying that, yes, Canadians are going to food banks at a record level. That is something the government has to address and has to consider in its response to the carbon tax and why it should be repealed.

250 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/7/24 7:21:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, by taking the lead on climate action, Canada can become a leader on many of the new technologies the world will need to adopt on a massive scale to fight climate change, unlocking economic growth and important trade opportunities. We are seeing these opportunities already, for example, the announcement last summer of a new $1.5-billion battery component plant in Ontario that will create hundreds of jobs. The new, cleaner sources of energy we have developed and are putting in place have many other benefits, such as reducing other types of air pollution from burning fossil fuels that can cause asthma and damage ecosystems.

107 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/7/24 7:22:18 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:22 p.m.)

38 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 310