- Sep/19/24 6:51:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for the member to insinuate that I do not care about residents in my community who are low- or middle-income is pretty awful and pretty shameful.
This Liberal member has made the Liberal Party position very clear about the carbon tax, well, unless it is carving out exceptions due to fear of losing elections, like it did in Atlantic Canada.
Conservatives and most Canadians, including those in my community, do not want to keep paying the carbon taxes. The facts are clear that Canadians are forced to eat less, they are skipping meals and they are buying less healthy food. There is lots of information on this. There are more lineups at food banks, in the millions, just to make ends meet. Just recently, Food Banks B.C. reported that it had served 100,000 food bank users in a single month for the first time.
Canadians cannot afford to endure 12 more months of this cost of living crisis. They should be given the choice to axe the tax and have a carbon tax election.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 6:43:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
After nine years of the NDP-Liberals, housing, gas and groceries cost more, and hard-working Canadians increasingly cannot pay their bills, yet the NDP-Liberal government wants the carbon tax to continue to rise to add 61¢ per litre, driving up the cost of almost everything. When we tax those who farm, who transport, who warehouse and who retail, we tax the one who buys. Families will already be paying $700 more for food this year than in 2023.
The carbon tax has already been such a costly disaster for Canadian small businesses and for family pocketbooks that there are fewer politicians in Canada now defending it. In their latest desperate publicity stunt, both the leader of the NDP here and the NDP premier of British Columbia have tried to make Canadians believe that now, on the eve of, or with the possibility of, an election, they were opposed to the carbon taxes, which they have strongly supported their entire political careers. Who can believe their baloney? The NDP voted to defend the carbon tax 24 separate times in the House, even though 70% of Canadians wanted to cancel the increase earlier this year.
The Fraser Institute reported that a carbon tax that continues to increase to 61¢ per litre would cost the average Canadian worker $6,700 by 2030. It is estimated that it will also reduce Canada's GDP by 6.2% by 2030, resulting in 164,000 fewer jobs. The federal carbon tax will also have a negative economic impact on Canada's real gross domestic product, the GDP, of $25 billion by 2030, according to the government's own figures, numbers the government tried to hide even from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is just carbon tax one.
Recently, Conservatives forced the government to turn over documents on its second carbon tax, which show carbon tax two will cost the Canadian economy an additional $9 billion by 2030.
The carbon taxes are not an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Forcing carbon taxes on Canadians has not stopped a single natural disaster. Meanwhile, the NDP-Liberal government killed green energy projects, such as Sustainable Marine Canada's tidal energy project and continued to import dirty oil from foreign dictators with poor environmental standards. Canada fell to 62nd out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index.
Canadians are not going to be fooled. The phantom finance minister, carbon tax Mark Carney, may now be writing government policy from the boardroom of the Liberal Party of Canada, but it was just one year ago that he wrote that the Prime Minister was wrong even to exempt home heating fuels from the carbon tax.
Canadians face a clear choice between a continuing cost-of-living crisis with the costly coalition or a Conservative government that would axe the tax.
493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 2:40:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is not a fairy tale that people cannot afford to feed themselves in Canada. The NDP leader has voted 24 times for the carbon tax. The NDP members talk a big talk, but they cannot be trusted to do what is best for Canadian families. The NDP-Liberals tax people's food, punish their work, take their money, double their housing costs and unleash crime and drugs in their communities. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Time is up.
When will we have a carbon tax election so Canadians can choose their future?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 2:38:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years under the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. The Liberals and the NDP believe in quadrupling the carbon taxes to 61¢ a litre. This is at a time when two million Canadians a month are going to food banks, seniors are turning down their heat and people are living in RVs at truck stops. Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition.
When will Canadians have a carbon tax election so they can decide between the costly NDP-Liberal coalition and common-sense Conservatives?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the summer, I would like to take a brief moment before starting my speech today to recognize the small businesses, in particular the farmers in my community and region, who work hard seven days a week, toiling the soil and pruning the orchards to feed our residents and beyond. They have had a particularly hard last few years due to many factors, and I want to recognize them and encourage everyone to support our farmers and small businesses and to buy local.
This legislation before us is a Liberal private member's bill, Bill C-322. I serve as the vice-chair of the committee that studied this legislation, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Our committee had many witnesses appear with respect to Bill C-322 who are directly involved with providing food to people. During our questioning, Conservatives pointed out that Food Banks Canada came out with a report where it had seen a 50% increase in food bank usage since 2021. Witnesses who manage food programs that support families in need also told us that they had seen similar increases.
Mr. Carl Nabein, the president and founder of Kids Against Hunger Canada, stated, “There's enough food to feed everybody, but our limitation is the funding or the donations that we need to get the food to where it's needed.”
With respect to a question on the price of food, he stated:
Yes, dramatically.... It's a bit of a double whammy. Our food prices have gone up. They've pretty much doubled over the last six or seven years. The cost of transportation.... [and] transportation companies were providing us with the shipping of the food at no cost, which they can no longer afford...due to the increase in the price of fuel. Even the cost of our materials has gone up.
Mr. Nabein is right. In Canada, we are blessed with an enormous amount of agricultural capacity to feed Canadians. The problem this bill seeks to address stems from Canada's ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Farming, transportation and fuel costs on farms, whether to grow or process food, are all increasing, which ultimately increases the cost of food. Bill C-322 does nothing for any of these causes.
Mr. Nabein stated that he has seen the cost of food double over the last six or seven years, and we have seen the federal carbon tax increase, which makes the costs of growing or producing food in Canada increase. During his appearance on C-322, when Mr. Nabein was asked whether getting rid of the carbon tax would help Kids Against Hunger Canada, he stated, “It definitely would help.”
Conservatives at the human resources committee sought to amend the legislation to speak to this proposed solution and help Canadians.
To improve food security and reduce costs, I moved the following amendment to Bill C-322, clause 3, adding, after line 15 on page 3, the following: “examine the applicability of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to food and the transportation of food sourced under the school food program and, where applicable, examine ways to exempt them from the application of that Act.”
In addition, I moved an amendment in clause 4 of this legislation, replacing line 18 on page 3, so that the proposed national framework in this Liberal private member's bill “includes a projection of transportation and production costs that would be incurred by the school food program under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act”.
These amendments would have given the legislation real teeth toward reducing the cost of food being provided to families while exposing the real costs the carbon taxes are having on feeding children. Without these amendments, there is very little in this legislation except creating reports in government departments. Reports, reviews and more photo ops do nothing to help hungry Canadian families because none of these things can feed them. Still the Liberals, with the support of the supposed opposition parties of the NDP and the Bloc, voted against these amendments. This bill now contains no mechanisms for actually tracking costs or reducing the cost of food.
When this legislation was first debated here in the House last November, I noted many frightening food security statistics that proved how many Canadians are driven to food banks because of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary policies. Almost a year later, things have only gotten worse under the NDP-Liberal government.
According to Statistics Canada, nearly a quarter of all Canadians will use a food bank just this fall. In the report, it says that “findings from the current analysis show that certain groups are experiencing greater financial strain due to rising prices, including those with lower incomes, younger adults, households with children, and persons with a disability.”
In a survey of families with young children, the very group this legislation is meant to help, Statistics Canada found that “over half (55%) of households with children reported that rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses”.
Throughout this summer, I heard from many Canadians in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and across British Columbia who told me how the rising costs of groceries have put a strain on them and their families. Just recently, Food Banks BC reported that for the first time ever, it had served 100,000 food bank users in a single month. It warned that the high cost of living and rising prices of groceries are creating a “perfect storm” for record food bank usage.
The Greater Vancouver Food Bank reports a 30% increase in clients and a 24% increase in families since last year. The Central Okanagan Food Bank has seen similar numbers. Because of the increase in demand, food banks in Surrey are having to reduce the amount of food they give per person. Another report, by Feed Ontario, revealed that over a million Ontarians used a food bank this year, an increase of 25% from last year and a record-breaking number.
Feed Ontario said in a news release, “This represents a continued trend in the rise of food bank visits,” marking an eight-year all-time high. That is the same period the Liberals have been in office. These are the effects of the government's inflationary and high-tax policies.
It is no different from the announcement that carbon tax Mark Carney was appointed to do the work of a finance minister. He has been asked to create a report advising the government on the economy. I should mention that no member of Parliament will be able to question carbon tax Mark Carney on this forthcoming report, because he will be writing economic policy for Canadians from the boardroom of the Liberal Party of Canada instead of from a government office and will avoid federal ethics rules that would require him to disclose conflicts of interest or investments.
The Liberals continue increasing carbon taxes, making Canadians poorer, and they have missed emissions reductions targets while the Prime Minister's transport emitted 92,000 air kilometres' worth of carbon emissions in just the last three months. The Prime Minister, carbon tax Mark Carney and Bill C-322 are full of empty promises. Liberal ideology is their priority, rather than looking at the effects of their ideology, their policies and their legislation, including tax increases.
The government taxes the farmer who grows the food, taxes the trucker who transports the food and then taxes the stores that sell the food. Ultimately, the person who buys the food pays for it.
Under the failed policies of the Liberal government, Canadians are hurting from coast to coast to coast, and the shelves of food banks and many family homes are running out of food. There are more government frameworks and reports of reports, like Bill C-322 seeks to do. This can only be done through bringing down food costs by addressing the causes.
Hard-working Canadians want to feed their families. They want powerful paycheques to buy groceries, but the government and its high taxes impose more misery and suffering on them. Conservatives will axe the tax, stop tax increases and stop wasteful inflationary spending to bring down costs for Canadians.
1433 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to this. During his entire speech, he did not reference any of the causes of food prices going up. For example, there is the inflationary deficit spending that caused inflation to increase for food in double digits. There are the tax increases caused when we tax the farmer who grows the food, those who transport the food, those who warehouse the food and those who retail the food; we actually tax the end user of the food. I am wondering if the Liberal member can speak to the actual causes behind why food prices have gone up so much.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/24 5:49:21 p.m.
- Watch
The second petition is with respect to pulmonary arterial hypertension, which is a rare, life-threatening condition. Recent results from the STELLAR clinical trials offer new hope for patients, and the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to urge Health Canada to approve sotatercept, a significant milestone in the treatment option for PAH, without further delay.
The third petition is on the same topic of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The petition talks about patients needing timely access to new therapies. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the federal government to allocate funding now to the provinces so that new treatments can be made available quickly to Canadians living with this rare disease and that the federal government have a holistic approach to rare diseases that includes early detection and prevention, timely and equitable access to evidence-based care, enhanced community support, and the promotion of innovative research.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/24 5:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table.
The first petition I am tabling states that brain cancer, in 2023, affected 3,200 Canadians and claimed the lives of 2,500. Vorasidenib is a life-extending medication currently only available in the United States. It remains inaccessible to Canadians. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to improve access to brain cancer treatments by empowering Health Canada to expedite the use of patient and laboratory in vitro data to expand access to drugs for brain cancer treatment where clinical trials are not feasible and develop a regulatory model that would permit the approval of brain cancer treatment medications that can extend patients' lives.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/24 5:20:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Conservatives, I am tabling a supplementary report, in both official languages, on the report entitled “Promoting and Encouraging Intergenerational Volunteerism”.
During its study, the committee repeatedly heard from witnesses who serve vulnerable members of their community about the impact that inflation and the rising cost of living are having not only on their needs in their community, but also on their ability to recruit and retain volunteers. In fact, a representative from the Central Okanagan Food Bank, from my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, told the committee that they knew of seniors who were no longer able to volunteer because they had to go back to work. We even heard how some volunteers had to stop volunteering due to the rising cost of transportation.
The benefits of intergenerational volunteerism are tremendous. However, without a government that promotes tackling inflationary deficits and the affordability crisis in this country, Canada's not-for-profit, volunteer and charity sectors cannot truly overcome the challenges they are facing in recruiting and retaining volunteers.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 12:15:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the third petition I am presenting today discusses Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's clear service standards, which are publicly available on its website. They outline, in business days, the length of time IRCC expects to process applications for work permits, temporary passport applications and certificates of identity, among other things.
In the 2022-23 fiscal year, IRCC consistently failed to meet its own publicly stated targets, with only 50% met.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately take action and ensure that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada meets or exceeds its service standards in all application categories.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 12:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today states that no airline is currently providing direct flight services between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Amritsar, Punjab, a logical route with the shortest physical distance. Reducing the kilometres needlessly travelled would reduce trip length, improve passenger experience, save fuel and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to leverage its ownership of Air Canada shares to encourage the company to explore the implementation of direct flights between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Amritsar, Punjab, should such a route become viable.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 12:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition I am presenting is on behalf of members of Kelowna—Lake Country and our region. The petition is calling on the government to immediately end its failed and radical drug decriminalization experiment in British Columbia, stop spending taxpayer dollars on dangerous drugs and, instead, fund treatment and recovery programs to bring our loved ones home drug-free.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 11:23:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. The Liberals have been hiding the truth from Canadians. At the finance committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.” The Liberals have been trying to muzzle the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the government is still holding much of this report from the public. The entire report must be released to expose the economic vandalism of the carbon tax. The environment minister is not worth the cost. Will he resign?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 11:22:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the truth is out about its punishing carbon tax. A partial government report leaked by the Liberals to the marketing arm of the Liberal Party of Canada, the CBC, revealed that, when factoring for inflation, the Liberal carbon tax will leave a $30-billion hole in our economic activity. The carbon tax will cost every Canadian household almost $2,000. The Liberals' activist environment minister tried to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer from exposing this report. This is unbelievable.
The environment minister is not worth the cost. When will he resign?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of parts. First of all, we know that the bail reform the government has done has just led to a revolving door in the bail system. We have citizens being traumatized in our communities by the revolving door of people breaking the law. On the other side, there are people being convicted whom we want to help, and of course within our jurisdiction, it would be in the federal penitentiaries. If we do not help them while they are in those penitentiaries, the recidivism and the revolving doors just continue. My legislation, the end the revolving door act, would have been one way to genuinely help people. We know that more than 70% of people convicted and sentenced to federal penitentiaries have addictions issues.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 10:26:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all the work he has done on this piece of legislation and for the work he does at committee.
It is very similar to what we see the Liberals quite often do. They will have some legislation where the title sounds good, and they will have sort of a purpose and will make statements on that. However, once we actually see the end result of the legislation, it is very different from what the concept is or what the title is. That is exactly what we are seeing in this particular legislation. The concept of it makes sense. There are many parts of this, as I mentioned, that we can support, but once we get into the details, there are parts of the bill that are very different from what was originally stated by the minister and the minister's office. It is quite a departure from what the legislation appeared to have been originally focused on.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting that particularly with my private member's bill, end the revolving door act, which would have gotten mental health assessments, and addiction treatment and recovery, in federal penitentiaries, the member, most of her NDP colleagues and the Liberals voted against it. It is really interesting when we hear questions like that. There was great legislation brought forth by Conservatives to help people get out of the revolving door we have in Canada and to help them get mental health assessments and addiction treatment, but the Liberals voted against that. It is really unfortunate that the legislation did not pass.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 10:21:17 a.m.
- Watch
The minister, in October 2023, stated, “I think there are built-in factors to avoid them getting all the way through the floodgates. You still need to meet the threshold criteria. You need to have exhausted your appeals, at least to a court of appeal or, in some instances, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.”
However, since that date, in October 2023, the government has changed its approach. It has removed that requirement altogether. What it originally stated last year, with this legislation, was in fact not what we have before us today. In particular, the amendments made at committee are very far apart from the original comments that were made in the original tabling of the legislation.
As I mentioned, Conservatives did support this at second reading to go to committee. The Liberals made amendments at committee. They are really going around the appeal system, and this makes it very difficult for us to support the legislation.
One other thing I want to mention is that unlike the current process where the Minister of Justice decides whether a miscarriage of justice has likely occurred, this new commission would decide whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and whether it is in the interest of justice to direct a new trial or to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Wording does matter. That is why it is very important that in legislation, especially when we are talking about judicial legislation, every word is really thought about very carefully. Some of the issues that I have brought forth are really problematic. There really is quite a gap from the statements by the minister, the statements that were originally from the government. It is really quite a departure from what the original intention was.
We support the intention of the legislation. We support the original direction of this and the concept of it; however, once we get into the details, there are some problematic parts of this, which I have mentioned. I look forward to any questions.
343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
Before I begin my speech today, I would like to mention that we will be rising soon, in this place, for the summer. I want to wish everyone a safe summer for travelling. I also want to thank all responders who might be out there, helping to save lives and keeping our communities safe.
I am rising today to speak to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, David and Joyce Milgaard's law. This is an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation, miscarriage of justice reviews, which will establish a commission dedicated to reviewing miscarriage of justice applications.
The current criminal conviction process is handled by the Criminal Conviction Review Group within the Department of Justice Canada, which then advises the justice minister on cases with grounds for review.
The justice minister was mandated, in 2019 and 2021, to work toward the establishment of an independent criminal case review commission to improve access to justice for people who have potentially been wrongfully convicted to have their applications reviewed. Of course, myself and the Conservatives are very sympathetic to people who have been wrongfully convicted, like David Milgaard, whom this bill has been named after. No one wants innocent people to be convicted and to be in jail. We also do not want guilty people on our streets.
It is important to have a wrongful conviction review procedure, which Canada has had for a very long time. The problem with the current system is that there is political intervention. It is cumbersome and bureaucratic. We were very optimistic that Bill C-40 could be the answer to addressing some of these issues. As is on the record, at second reading, Conservatives were in favour of this legislation, and it was sent to committee to look at potential amendments. There was one part in the legislation where we genuinely thought there was a drafting error, which can happen on occasion, and it was looked into at committee. I want to thank my Conservative colleagues who sit on the justice committee for their detailed work and their expertise on this.
The threshold for getting a review is very low. Right now, it is worded as if it has “likely occurred”, referring to a miscarriage of justice. This bill would change that to “may have occurred”. Conservatives on the committee thought that they could convince the other members of the committee to keep the higher threshold, which did not happen, so now, it has come back to the House at third reading.
One of the good parts of the bill is that it would take the political realm out of the process, which Conservatives like, to make it purely administrative. If that was all the legislation did, then we could very easily support it here in its present form. However, we believe that the lower threshold would open the door to all kinds of cases. We know that the court system is already very clogged and backlogged, but we were unable to convince members at committee to make the changes. The legislation that has come back to the House from committee is more problematic than what had been sent to committee. We think there are genuinely some clerical administrative errors with respect to the writing of the legislation. The original Bill C-40 application for review would use all available appeal avenues, such as a provincial court of appeal.
I do want to bring up a couple of quotes that I think are relevant to what we are talking about here today. David Lametti's speech, at second reading, on the miscarriage of justice review commission act, was on June 12, 2023, so it was almost exactly a year ago.
He stated, “It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the judicial system, nor is it another level of appeal. Rather, it provides a post-appeal mechanism to review and investigate new information or evidence that was not previously considered by the courts.” We agree with this.
As well, in the press release entitled, “Minister of Justice introduces legislation (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law) to establish an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission”, it stated, “The proposed new commission would not be an alternative to the justice system. Applicants would first need to exhaust their rights of appeal before requesting a miscarriage of justice review by the commission.”
We also agree with this. However, this is not what the legislation does. In addition, Minister Virani, at committee, in October of 2023—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
809 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 12:04:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to bring up that housing is incredibly important here in Canada. We know we are in a housing crisis. This has been identified. We are doing this housing study right now at the housing committee, and Conservatives are committed to continuing to work on this through the summer.
Is the hon. member's government, his Liberal group on the committee, going to be supporting the motion I put forth today, along with my Conservative colleagues, calling on our committee to sit over the summer? I will not read it in detail, but the motion basically outlines how we could have meetings. We have been very flexible with the dates so that it can work for everyone and so that we can continue this conversation about the housing crisis over the summer. It is very important.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
