SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/24 5:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member said, we had a taste over the past year of the frightening new reality brought about by climate change, with 15 billion hectares having burned down, as she mentioned. Does she not think that her government should change course when it comes to the oil industry, so that we can turn things around as quickly as possible? Obviously, it is the main cause of climate change.

71 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/30/24 5:08:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work being done by SOPFEU to fight forest fires in Quebec. I want to tell my colleague that investing in clean energy is important too, like Hydro-Québec, which is doing an outstanding job. Quebec is a world leader in clean energy. I think that investing in wind turbines and solar energy is a good idea. I know that my colleague will say that Quebec is a leader in Canada and the world when it comes to clean energy.

89 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/24 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I concur that I have an element of confusion about what the Conservatives' intent really is here and how they measure people's needs. That being said, I know that climate change is having a huge impact on British Columbia. In my riding, what I have been hearing repeatedly from the tourism industry is that a lot of people are withdrawing their trips because they are afraid of forest fires. As we all know, part of British Columbia has already been on fire. People are scared they would be risking their life. That has really changed. I am actually supportive of carbon pricing, but I think it is one small step in moving toward climate safety, and we are far from that. I am just wondering whether the member has heard anything from the tourism industry in her riding. What next steps should we be taking, and we should be taking a great deal more, to combat the climate crisis?

162 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/30/24 5:10:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River, who has been an advocate for her community for as long as I have been here. Her colleague also has talked a lot about the damage from climate change to the vineyards. There was a snap freeze in January in which a lot of the crops froze, and growers are not quite sure yet whether they are going to be permanently damaged. However, fighting climate change is so important for the tourism industry. This is something I did not speak about, but if people are staying away, that is absolutely impacting the tourism industry so many communities rely on for generating revenue and creating good jobs. It is really important, and I am glad to see colleagues around the chamber are willing to work together to make sure we are supporting those industries and also fighting climate change.

152 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/30/24 5:11:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, after nine years under the Prime Minister, Canadians are being forced to cancel their summer vacations, as the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda has made even a simple road trip unaffordable. Parents can barely afford basic necessities, much less a summer vacation. The Prime Minister may be able to jet off on a $230,000 luxury vacation, but most Canadians are having to scale back and cancel their summer plans after the Liberal carbon tax made gas and groceries unaffordable. Like all MPs in the House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. I am hearing from seniors who worked for decades to save for their retirement, only to see inflation eradicate their income and their financial security. As someone who represents a large, rural constituency, I know how the carbon tax disproportionately impacts the people who call Westman home. At a time when life is costing far more for my constituents, the Prime Minister's recent budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the costs of groceries, gas and home heating continue to increase, the NDP-Liberal government fails to listen to Canadians. I am glad to be splitting my time with my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. As my constituents back home know, the Liberals have voted down numerous calls from our Conservative team to scrap the carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals increased it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling. The reality is that more and more families are struggling to afford basic necessities. When people find themselves in financial troubles, as they are today, even simple pleasures end up falling by the wayside. For many, a summer vacation is not a big, dramatic, expensive getaway. It could be a long weekend at the cottage, a week-long road trip or simply a few days of camping. It is a treasured opportunity to get away from business as usual, unplug and recharge with loved ones. Kids need time with their parents and grandparents; they need the chance to experience the outdoors and appreciate the beauty of our great country here in Canada. Unfortunately, thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike his carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike; moreover, 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase, and for good reason. Canada's Food Price Report predicted an additional $700 annual increase in food expenditures for the average family this year over 2023. The most significant increases range from 5% to 7% in the categories of bakery, meat and vegetables. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits in a single month, with a million more visits expected in 2024. Homeless encampments are now common in every city across Canada, and their number continues to increase. The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019, created by the Liberal Prime Minister, means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While the American GDP per capita has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison with our United States neighbours since 1965. We have already seen the real-world impact of this in our own backyard. In Brandon, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000. As I have said in the chamber a few times, this was 50% above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the country, showing that families are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. We recently found that more than 50,000 Manitobans are now regularly using a food bank. That is the highest number ever recorded. While we can get bogged down in statistics, we must never forget that we are talking about people: our relatives, our neighbours and our friends. Food banks are being used by full-time workers more and more. In some communities, one in six visitors says they are employed, which is an 82% increase over 2016. That number continues to grow. More than 60% of visitors are first-time food bank users. It is heartbreaking. There are hundreds and thousands of Canadians who have been forced to stay in line in food banks only because the NDP-Liberal coalition is determined to make life equally miserable for all Canadians. Let us be clear: The rising cost of food and other necessities cannot be divorced from the NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend policies. The carbon tax alone is driving up the cost of everything. It is contributing to the cost of growing our food and other expenses along the entire food supply system. It gets passed down until everyday Canadians get stuck with the bill. Despite numerous claims by the Prime Minister and his radical environment minister, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that families are seeing a net loss under this ideological policy. People pay more in the carbon tax than they receive back from the rebate. Conservatives have been pointing this out for years. Nothing is more insulting to the millions of Canadians trying to heat their homes in the winter than when the Prime Minister decided to temporarily pause his carbon tax on only 3% of households. It is no wonder that provincial governments are up in arms. The most recent example of how out of touch and stubborn the Prime Minister can be is his position on Bill C-234. This is a Conservative bill that aims to remove the carbon tax for farmers, thereby lowering food costs that are passed on to consumers. Instead of using an opportunity to lower food prices by passing the bill, or at least letting it pass with no political interference, he did everything possible in the House of Commons and the Senate to delay change and undermine it. Moreover, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners decided to hike the carbon tax by 23% in April. That was just one step in their plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive at the worst possible time. At the same time, their inflationary spending and ever-increasing taxes are already taking their toll, and paycheques are not going as far as they once did. While the NDP leader is trying to save what is left of his political legacy, we must not forget that every NDP member voted 23 times to keep the Prime Minister's carbon tax in place. I will not stop calling on them to do the right thing and support our Conservative motion this time. This year, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Manitobans an extra $1,750. This summer alone, it will take more than $600 from family budgets. These costs add up, and even the most basic summer vacation plan suddenly becomes out of reach for people. The constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. The riding covers more than 17,000 square kilometres. It is the ninth-smallest riding in Canada. Brandon—Souris is roughly the same size as three Prince Edward Islands put together. That may be hard to picture for the finance minister, who lives in downtown Toronto. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently. We know the Liberal carbon tax is playing a role in raising the price of everything, so we are fighting to axe the tax and bring relief to Canadians. Let us save $603 this summer for Canadians. They need it. People know better how and where to spend their own money, and the Prime Minister must recognize this fact. Let us put a pause on the carbon tax, the federal gas tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel for the summer. We must do it now. If we want to help young people, families and seniors deal with the rising cost of living, I implore all my colleagues to vote in favour of our Conservative motion. A future Conservative government will axe the tax on everything for everyone in a carbon tax election, but until that can happen, the Prime Minister must adopt this common-sense measure to give Canadians a break this summer.

1438 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 5:21:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need to inform the House that Donald Trump has been convicted on 34—

24 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:21:36 p.m.
Watch

That has little to do with the administration of the Canadian government. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

24 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 5:21:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one concern that we have is the tendency of the Reform Party across the way to mislead Canadians. The issue here is that they are trying to give an impression that Canadians will save $670 over the summer. I suspect that this could be challenged. I do not believe there is any substantive, factual information that the Conservatives can present to clearly show that Canada's population would benefit by the full $670. I believe that fewer than 5% would achieve the maximum $670, yet the Conservatives go around and say they will. Can the member provide any evidence whatsoever that would show that I am wrong on that?

111 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, he has been questioning us all day on this particular issue. I guess one would have to say that the only thing that he has got is a dispute of the facts. If one goes by the Liberals' enunciation of why people are getting more back in the rebate than they are actually paying, it is because the Liberals only use a few simple things, such as the cost of gasoline, the carbon tax on gasoline for one's car and for heating one's home, when it applies to many other materials that are moved back and forth across the country. It is very easy to use the Parliamentary Budgets Officer's own analysis to come up with these numbers that we have provided today.

128 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/24 5:23:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could my colleague tell me on what scientific, financial or taxation basis his party made that choice?

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:23:51 p.m.
Watch

There is an issue with the interpretation. There might be a problem with the earpiece of the hon. member from Brandon—Souris. Is the interpretation working? Yes? Okay. The hon. member from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles may start over.

43 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

May/30/24 5:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives' proposal involves not an expense, but a $1.5-billion shortfall over three months. I would like to know what financial or taxation basis the Conservatives relied on to estimate that there would be savings of $400, $500 or $600 per family. How did they calculate that? That is my first question. I might have had a second question, but I have decided not to ask it.

75 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our leader very clearly articulated this morning that the savings could be made by better management of the government. One thing is the fact that they have hired 25% more consultants over the last number of years and paid over $100 million in accounting fees that are questionable with regard to the number of people that they have hired to do consulting for them. It is not hard. I think what the member from the Bloc is missing is that this is coming right out of consumers' pockets today; they have young families. We have a short summer season in this country, and it would be, very much, a break for all families in this country to be able to afford a small holiday this summer.

128 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 5:25:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing that I am really grateful for is that, earlier on in this debate, we finally had a Conservative MP from British Columbia acknowledge that the federal carbon tax does not have jurisdiction in British Columbia. Actually, only the British Columbia government can decide whether it is going to remove or continue the carbon tax, despite the fact that we have the leader of the Conservative Party, from Carleton, coming into British Columbia and saying that he will axe the tax; he would not have jurisdictional authority. The member said that, in British Columbia, they should vote for one of the parties that would get rid of the tax. That would be one of the parties that brought in the tax, actually. One cannot even make this stuff up. Maybe the Conservatives are considering getting rid of the GST, since they brought the GST in here federally. That is actually something they have authority for. It seems that they bring in policies, and then they run and hide from them when it seems convenient for them politically.

180 words

Gst
Columbia

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/30/24 5:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is pretty rich coming from the New Democrats, whose leader says that he now vows to get rid of the carbon tax.

25 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/30/24 5:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to get on the record in Ottawa my support for our Conservative opposition day motion, a common-sense motion to help provide immediate relief to those who are suffering from the cost of living crisis in every part of this country. What we are proposing is immediate fuel tax relief on the price of both gas and diesel from Victoria Day all the way to Labour Day. That would take the tax off on multiple fronts when it comes to gas and diesel, suspending it for the summer. It is not just the carbon tax, which is going to quadruple, but also the federal fuel tax. If the Liberals do not frustrate Canadians enough, remember that they taxed the tax when they put GST and HST on the carbon tax. We will save 35¢ a litre for Canadians this summer if our motion passes. That means Canadians and families could maybe afford a summer road trip, which is not possible now because they cannot make ends meet. It maybe helps somebody going to medical appointments from my part of eastern Ontario to Ottawa or Toronto on a regular basis, or somebody in northern Ontario, in Timmins, who has to drive three and a half hours down to Sudbury for routine medical appointments. They deserve to have 35¢ a litre kept in their pockets this summer. I want to spend a bit of time talking about the break that Conservatives would provide on not only the price of gasoline, but also the price of diesel. As many know, I was proud to be born and raised around Jet Express, a trucking company in eastern Ontario that my parents ran for many years. I want Canadians to know about the trucking industry and how billing works. If we were to take the federal taxes off the price of diesel for the few months we are talking about this summer, it would have an immediate and measurable impact on the cost of transportation in this country. The overwhelming majority of trucking companies, when they charge a rate, have a base rate and fee, but there is a flexible and rotating fuel surcharge put on that. The higher that gas and diesel prices go, the more a trucking company has to charge in fuel surcharge, adding to the cost of delivering something from, for example, the soup and salad bowl that is Simcoe County all the way up to northern Ontario and all the way out to the east coast or west coast. If federal taxes were taken off, the price to run a reefer truck would drop significantly with the savings from the federal tax on diesel. The fuel surcharge could go down, providing immediate relief on the cost of goods and shipping around this country. It is common sense. The Conservatives will keep advocating for it, despite opposition from the other parties.

490 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 5:30:14 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, 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. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

87 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

May/30/24 5:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote on this important issue.

11 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 5:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

May/30/24 5:32:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-377

Madam Speaker, Bill C-377, introduced by the Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, raises extremely important but sensitive issues. The member is correct in saying that the current situation is not working and needs to be improved. When we talk about parliamentarians' access to classified information, there are two conflicting principles. Both of these principles are important, and so we must find a way to reconcile them before our deliberations come to an end. On the one hand, there is responsible government, which is the very basis of democracy. Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in their departments. Cabinet members are collectively responsible for everything that happens in government. They are not accountable to the Holy Spirit, but rather Parliament. We have a parliamentary system, and Parliament is the boss. The government must be accountable to Parliament, to the representatives of the people. To do that, Parliament must have access to all the information it needs, including documents that are to be produced. When classified documents are involved, the situation is more sensitive. Those documents are classified secret for a reason, and disclosing them can be dangerous. Doing so can expose the identity of confidential sources, which burns them. It can make impossible co-operation with the intelligence agencies in friendly countries, which is necessary for ensuring security both at home and abroad. It can set off an international crisis or even uncover military secrets that would make us all vulnerable; it could cause an ongoing investigation to derail. In the somewhat outdated words used in Bourinot, the old procedural guide that was consulted by the Chair during the Afghan prisoner crisis, it is important to preserve the roughly 140 years of collaboration between the House, the grand inquest of the nation, and the government, the defender of the realm. It is old language, but we understand the principle. When it comes to classified documents, there is no real mechanism that allows for this collaboration to work. This gap was made clear during the Afghan prisoner crisis and the Winnipeg lab crisis. The Afghan prisoner crisis occurred under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and the Winnipeg lab crisis under the current Liberal government. This is not a partisan issue. It is an institutional gap. I want to say a few words about the story of the Afghan prisoners. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States felt it had been the victim of aggression. It invoked NATO's collective defence clause and asked its allies for help. This marked the start of the Afghanistan campaign, in which Canada took part. In 2007, whistle-blowers made some alarming statements to journalists. Whenever the Canadian army took prisoners, it handed them over to the Afghan government, at which point they were tortured. This contravenes international law. Of course, it was extremely serious. In 2009, there was another leak. A memo prepared by Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan confirmed the 2007 allegations. The special committee on the war in Afghanistan asked to see the memo, but the government denied its existence. The committee asked to see all the documents relating to the affair, but the government refused. It was the start of a tug-of-war. The government eventually released 4,000 pages of documents, but so much had been redacted that it was impossible to know what information they actually contained. Worse still, new leaks showed that the redacted parts did not contain information that needed to remain secret. They contained information that was simply inconvenient to the government. The Speaker confirmed that the House had a right to know. The House declared the Harper government in contempt of Parliament and the government fell in 2011. However, this did not resolve the matter. The Harper government, which managed to win a majority because the Bloc Québécois had been weakened, created a committee of former judges and parliamentarians, all with security clearance. In the end, 40,000 pages of lightly redacted documents were made public in 2014 and confirmed the allegations. Canada had indeed handed over some prisoners to the Afghan government. They were subjected to torture. Canada knew it. Soldiers and diplomats had concerns about it. They are not to blame. However, the government turned a deaf ear. Seven years had gone by. The practice had long since stopped. The Canadian army's combat mission ended in 2011. It was too late to do anything. The Winnipeg lab affair is quite similar. In 2019, we learned that two researchers were fired and deported to China, but the government refused to say anything more. This was the start of another tug-of-war. The House asked for documents, and the government refused. The head of the Public Health Agency of Canada was found in contempt of Parliament and was admonished by the Speaker. The Liberal government, however, doubled down. Worse still, it took legal action against the Speaker of the House and then dissolved Parliament. Last week, after a committee composed of security-cleared former judges and parliamentarians reviewed the documents, the report was finally made public. Our worst fears were confirmed: These two researchers were spying for the Chinese government. Five years had passed since the information first came to light. Clearly, the system is broken. There is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which the government legislated into existence in 2017. However, the story of the Winnipeg laboratory, which occurred two years after the committee was created, laid bare its limitations. Not only are its members bound to secrecy, but it does not report to Parliament. It does not really allow Parliament to do its job. This is where Bill C‑377 comes in. When it comes to giving access to classified documents, the government has two requirements. First, individuals must have security clearance. Second, the documents must be required in the course of the individual's work. In the case of civil servants with well-defined responsibilities, it is fairly difficult to determine whether they need access to a particular document. In the case of parliamentarians, it is more complicated. The government is accountable to Parliament for all its activities and the government should not have the right to decide what Parliament can legitimately investigate, which is essentially the situation we have now. Bill C-377 proposes a simple solution. Proposed subsection 13.1(1) reads as follows: A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made. The bill respects the privileges of parliamentarians, so this is a step in the right direction. The government will no longer be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis and in a completely arbitrary manner, what a parliamentarian should have access to. However, Bill C-377 is missing something. Parliamentarians who have security clearance will have easier access to classified information. That is good, but they will obviously have to keep it to themselves. I do not know whether the House of Commons, as an institution, will be strengthened by this or how the situation will be any different from what we are experiencing with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, whose limitations we have seen. The United States has the Gang of Eight. The government regularly provides this group with confidential briefings and access to documents. Who is on that panel? For each house of Congress, it is the leaders of both parties, plus the individuals responsible for intelligence in both parties. They must keep the information to themselves, of course, but having access to it guides their work, both in Congress or in the Senate, and at committee. This approach, in addition to giving representatives and senators access to information, feeds the institution and guides its work. However, such an institutional mechanism is missing from Bill C-377. That is why I just said the bill is missing something. It is nonetheless interesting, and I sincerely thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing it. The debate on this bill is important, very important indeed. The Bloc Québécois is approaching this in a non-partisan, open-minded way, because we are all interested. We remain open-minded, as we reflect and listen, which is the hallmark of a healthy parliamentary system.

1425 words