44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is an unruly, motley crew over there on the Conservative benches. We will see how unruly they get as the evening rolls on.
The reality is that all Conservatives should be supporting the bill with the NDP amendment, and here is why: The Conservatives have not spoken one iota about this throughout this debate. They always talk about having more debating time. They never seem to actually read the bills that we are debating. Not a single one, not a single Conservative commented on these facts in any of their speeches. What the bill does is to add two additional days of advance polling, which includes a total of seven advance days and polling days, including election day. That is a good thing, to have more access for elections. In addition, it enshrines in legislation the vote on campus program for post-secondary students. We want to have young people voting. Not a single Conservative talked about that. Why would Conservatives oppose having post-secondary students and people on campus actually voting?
The bill also makes voting easier in long-term care facilities across the country. The elders of our nation, those who have given so much for this country, often have difficulty voting. Why would Conservatives oppose ensuring that long-term care residents actually have the right to vote? One would expect that this would be the first thing that would lead them to support the bill. I imagine that not a single Conservative has even read the bill, because if they had read it, one would expect them to mention that it increases protections against election interference and foreign financing during election campaigns. With all of those provisions, things that the NDP pushed for and that we have in Bill C-65, why would Conservatives oppose the legislation?
I believe that Conservatives are taking their lead from what we are seeing happening with the deplorable Republican Party south of the border. What Republicans have noticed is that they cannot win a free and fair election. We have seen the extent to which MAGA Republicans are actually willing to usurp democracy. It has shades of what we saw a century ago, in Europe, when the far right movement basically threw out elections and destroyed democracy in one country after another. MAGA Republicans, knowing that they cannot win a free election, have decided that they are going to exclude wide swaths of the population from actually having the right to vote. They are trying to limit voting, in the way that we saw in the 19th century, when large groups in the population could not vote.
This, as well, comes back to the deplorable record of the Harper government. What the Harper government did, when the member for Carleton had the lead in that file, was to try to restrict and limit voting, to try to make it more difficult for groups of Canadian citizens to actually vote. They succeeded in putting up so many roadblocks and obstacles that it made it harder for poor Canadians, for younger Canadians, for racialized Canadians and for indigenous peoples to vote. They put restrictions on that sacred right to vote in democracy.
When colleagues hear the Conservative opposition say that they are not going to pass the legislation, that they are going to fight it tooth and nail, it is because this is a tradition in the far right. We see this with the MAGA Republicans, who cannot win a free and fair election. The MAGA Republicans are trying to cheat to win victory, to usurp democracy, to try to ensure that they can win, regardless of the cost to our institutions and to our democracy. We have seen the foreign interference that is writ large.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: I am hoping that means the Oilers have just scored, but I am sure somebody will rise on a point of order and perhaps update the House. If anybody is aware, if anybody has any information, I would be more than pleased to be interrupted.
Does somebody know what is going on, even you, Madam Speaker?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
695 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:32:09 p.m.
- Watch
I think the hon. member just got his answer.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the sweetest point of order I have ever heard from a Conservative in the House. I thank my colleague for raising that point.
Madam Speaker, getting back to more serious matters, our democracy is not to be trifled with. We all think back to the days in 2015 when the current Prime Minister promised to overhaul our electoral systems and make them even more democratic. With proportional representation, we would have a much different House, as members know. There would not be 24 or 25 NDP MPs, but nearly 70. There would be fewer Liberal MPs, Conservative MPs and Bloc MPs. There would be more Green Party MPs.
What it would do is change the composition of the House. That is why so many countries around the world have adopted proportional representation. The idea would be to have a fair electoral system where votes count and where there is, through mixed member proportional, the ability to cast one's ballot both for local candidates and also for a larger percentage that is divided up. It would reflect, in the House of Commons, more faithfully how Canadians actually vote.
The Prime Minister, at the time, in 2015, undertook that solemn commitment. He said that it was the last election that was first past the post. We saw the results: He reneged on that when it suited him. We know that if in the next election, whenever that comes, the New Democrats become the governing party in this country, we will bring in proportional representation. We will make sure that it truly is the last first-past-the-post election, because that would be in the interest of Canada. That is why we and our leaders have campaigned over the years to make sure that we have a fair electoral system.
However, it is not just about the system itself; it is also about giving people access to voting. This is why the bill is important. The NDP pushed hard to make sure there were provisions in place in the bill that would actually ensure that the next election has the greatest participation possible of Canadians of all ages, all backgrounds and all colours and creeds, to make sure that every Canadian has a right to vote.
That is why we pushed so hard for additional days of advance polling. Canadians are working hard. As Conservatives have said, the New Democrats are the worker bees in Parliament. We work hard on behalf of our constituents and we know that they are sometimes working 12-hour and 16-hour shifts. On an election day, even though they do have the right to go to vote, it sometimes is impossible for them to do so. Therefore having additional days of advance polling would ensure that we do have in place the ability for every Canadian to vote.
In post-secondary institutions and apprenticeship and trade schools there are sometimes real challenges for the youth of this country to get out to vote. That is why we pushed hard to ensure that the vote on campus program for post-secondary students would be put into place. That, again, would be vitally important for the next election, to ensure that every Canadian has that right.
Making voting easier in long-term care facilities is something I feel particularly strongly about, because the last election, in 2021, was the last election that my father and mother voted in. They were in a long-term care facility. I took them to vote in that election. They both passed away shortly thereafter. A few weeks after the election, my father passed away. It was a year later that my mother passed away. I was able to take them to the polls to vote, but there were other residents of that long-term care facility who could not vote that day.
We need to make sure that long-term care residents who have contributed their lives to this country, to building this country and to ensuring that this country is the free and fair democracy that is the envy of the world, can vote. For long-term care facilities to not have special voting provisions to ensure that every resident could vote does a disservice to those incredible sacrifices that long-term care residents have made over the course of decades to our country, so we pushed hard for that to make sure it was in place.
That is why we are proud to see that in the legislation. We also need to ensure that we do not have the election interference and foreign interference that has been reflected in the NSICOP report. They are profoundly worrisome allegations of foreign interference, particularly around the Conservative leadership conventions and particularly in 2021. We need to find out about the extent of that foreign interference.
We have seen other democracies suffering under foreign interference, whether it was the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom or the election of Donald Trump in 2016. These are cases of documented foreign interference that had profound impacts on those democracies.
We need to make sure that this does not happen in Canada. That is why we pressed for these provisions in Bill C-65, to ensure that we increase protections against election interference and that we stop the ability of foreign financing of third-party campaigns or of the parties or candidates themselves. We all need to take that threat to our democracy seriously because this foreign interference does not come from countries that have a democratic tradition. This comes from foreign dictators who have control over their countries and who want to extend that control to Canada.
We need to ensure that we have full access for all Canadians in the next election campaign, that we open those ballots for advance polling early, and that we ensure that we have a free and fair election. That is why the NDP is supporting this bill.
993 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:39:22 p.m.
- Watch
It being 8:38 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 17, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:40:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry for the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑244, an act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act with regard to the Employment Insurance Council.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:41:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been consultation between the House leadership, and I suspect if you were to ask for unanimous consent to call it midnight so we could get to the late show, that it would be approved.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:41:52 p.m.
- Watch
I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government refuses to acknowledge that Canadians pay more into the carbon tax than they get back. However, over a year ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published his report, which showed that, taking into account the full economic impact of the government's carbon tax regime, most Canadians were worse off.
On top of this, the government has a secret report, which shows that the carbon tax regime also has a costly impact on our GDP, lowering future GDP growth by tens of billions of dollars. After it was revealed at committee that the Liberals had put a gag order on the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a desperate attempt to protect their false narrative and prop up their failed carbon tax, Conservatives put the pressure on, and the report was made public.
What is even worse is that they have hidden this number for years. Let us stop to think about that. The Liberal government has been hiding the fact that the carbon tax will cost Canadians $30 billion by 2030. This works out to $1,824 per family in extra annual costs. Despite both of these reports showing that Canadians are worse off with the carbon tax, the Liberals are doubling down, to the detriment of Canadians and our economy.
Their claims are false. Canadians are not better off paying a carbon tax. The carbon tax has proved to be ineffective in reducing Canada's carbon emissions to targeted levels. The government has missed every target it has set. In fact, the environment commissioner has reported that the government will miss its targets for 2030. However, even if we reduced our emissions to zero, the natural disasters would not suddenly cease to happen.
We are not in a bubble protected by the government's carbon tax. In fact, the effects attributed to climate change would even continue to happen if Canada reduced its emissions to zero. Despite all these factors, the government continues to push its disastrous carbon tax, making Canadians poorer and tanking our future economic prospects.
Can the government explain why it refuses to accept the fact that its carbon tax has done nothing but cause misery for Canadians?
365 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:45:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to know where to begin after hearing a speech like that, but let me begin with the part about the secret report. There is no secret report. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself said today at committee that the government is not muzzling him. He specifically stated that. It makes no sense to say that documents are being hidden when all of the data, that information, was specifically provided to an independent costing officer to inform them as they prepared their public reports.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, like all departments of this government, routinely gives the PBO access to large datasets to support it in the creation of high-quality analysis. There is co-operation in preparing those reports. Just last week, Environment and Climate Change Canada published the data that was provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on carbon pollution pricing in relation to national and provincial gross domestic product for the 2022-30 period. That is the dataset we have been talking about.
We have disclosed the information, and the PBO has specifically said that he is not muzzled. He said there may have been a misunderstanding because he was speaking in his second language. It is very clear that everybody has the data now.
Let us talk a bit more about these pieces. I am so tired of hearing about carbon pricing costing more. Over 300 economists from right across our country have signed a letter to us parliamentarians specifically telling us that this is not true and that it works. Let us talk about both of those things.
First of all, pricing carbon pollution does work. It is simply incorrect to say that we are not meeting targets. We are on track to meeting our 2026 target. That was stated by the environment commissioner.
Let us go a few steps further. We put in a national inventory report with the UN last year for the 2023 inventory of our greenhouse gases. That report showed that last year, we had the lowest emissions in over three decades, except for the pandemic years. We are showing amazing progress in turning that ship around. It was a big ship to turn around because the Conservative government that preceded us did absolutely nothing. It did not have a plan to curb Canada's emissions.
We have put in place a plan. Our emissions are coming down. We are doing the hard work, and it is being done in a very efficient way with carbon pricing.
Let me talk briefly about the fact that carbon pricing includes a rebate. I am going to highlight that because I think we do not talk about it enough.
Most Canadians, eight out of 10 families, get back more through the carbon rebate than they pay in carbon pricing. As of April 15, 2024, a family of four will receive quarterly payments, which I am going to list here. It is $450 four times a year in Alberta; $300 four times a year in Manitoba; $280 four times a year in Ontario; $376 four times a year in Saskatchewan; $190 four times a year in New Brunswick; $206 four times a year in Nova Scotia; $220 in P.E.I.; and $298 in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is four times a year, plus a rural top-up to make it even more.
563 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:49:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has lost itself in its own ideological mess of narratives. Its insistence on misleading Canadians, despite their own lived experience dealing with the carbon tax, reminds me of a famous quote: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Canadians are not buying what the government is selling. After nine years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so expensive. His inflationary taxes have driven up the cost of everything. Mortgages have doubled. Rent has doubled. Food prices are up, forcing families to pay $700 more for groceries this year, while millions of Canadians are lined up outside food banks.
Canadians are tired of the government and its broken promises and failed policies. They are ready for change and a government that will actually take action for Canadians.
When will the government call a carbon tax election and allow Canadians to decide whether or not they want to axe the tax?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:50:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, over 300 economists and people from universities right across our country wrote to parliamentarians and said that carbon pricing does not cost Canadians more. They get more back through the rebate than they pay. Yes, it is effective. It is a market mechanism. It is effective and it works.
More to the point, climate change costs Canadians, and that cost is going to continue to go up if we do not tackle it now. That is what the Conservatives are going to do. They are going to let the planet burn, and they are going to force us to pay for it.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:51:03 p.m.
- Watch
The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 8:51 p.m.)
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
