House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 218
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 218
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota
[Statements by Members]
[English]
It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Hockey Achievements
Mr. Speaker, there is something special in the water in Sault Ste. Marie, especially when it takes the form of ice. This year's Stanley Cup final had two Saultites battling for that coveted prize. At the end, it was Michael Amadio who hoisted Lord Stanley's cup. Michael played a fabulous game and made the Sault proud.
Of course, we cannot forget the runner-up, which many pundits did not predict. The Florida Panthers, coached by Sault Ste. Marie's Paul Maurice, did a stellar job this year. I congratulate him.
We also had Jack Matier. Jack Matier played in the World Juniors and brought home the gold this year with his team. We are celebrating him in the Sault as well.
We had three stellar hockey people. We know they are stars today, and they will be stars tomorrow. I congratulate them. We have a very special hockey tradition in the Sault, and this is where hockey stars are made.
[Translation]
End of the School Year
Mr. Speaker, this week, young people in my riding are celebrating their last days of school before the summer break. Some will even be celebrating their high school graduation.
[English]
The end of students' high school studies can be an exhilarating experience, as well as a daunting one. Some may move on to post-secondary studies at CEGEP and then move on to studies at a college or university. Others may find their passion in the trades or in the workforce. Regardless, this is the start of the rest of their lives.
To all graduates across Canada, I leave them with this: They should never stop learning. Whether it is in school, at home, at work or in the community, they should never lose their willingness to learn and passion for learning. Education is the open secret to success. In its many forms, it is an essential part of our daily lives.
They should go into the world and do well, but, more importantly, they should go into the world and do good.
[Translation]
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, today is National Indigenous Peoples Day. On this day, we celebrate the traditions and cultural wealth of the first nations and Inuit peoples, and acknowledge the tremendous debt that we owe them.
Quebeckers acknowledge this debt. They realize that more must be done. When it comes to residential school victims, murdered and missing women and access to resources, rhetoric is not enough. What we need and what we lack is concrete action. All of us have a duty to act.
Today is a day for celebrating the beauty and diversity of indigenous cultures. It is also a day for discovering indigenous art, music and lifestyles. Let us all join in the many activities being held across Quebec. Let us reach out and get to know one another better. This is always the best road to a true reconciliation.
I wish everyone a wonderful National Indigenous Peoples Day, and send special wishes to the Huron-Wendat Nation, of which I am a proud member.
Tiawenhk.
LGBTQ Community
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an increase in hate speech against the LGBTQ community in Canada. This is happening in a global context that has authoritarian regimes targeting LGBTQ communities with cruel and draconian laws. We are fortunate to have many organizations in Canada that are standing up to fight hate and discrimination. I would especially like to highlight the work of the Centre de solidarité lesbienne in my riding.
[English]
We proudly raise the pride flag on Parliament Hill, but around the world and even in communities here in Canada, we have seen these displays come under attack and even be cancelled. In the face of this reactionary backlash, I am more than ever looking forward to marching alongside the community in Montreal's pride parade once again to celebrate our 2SLGBTQI+ community.
[Translation]
I encourage all Montrealers to join the pride parade in full force on August 13, to take part in this solidarity march with our Liberal team and join us in expressing our commitment to love, acceptance and equality.
[English]
Community Churches
Mr. Speaker, every week Canadians attend worship services across this country. I had the opportunity to visit St. Joseph church in Whitecourt recently, which was hosting evacuees from across the country. Children were playing in the church hall, and parents were consuming meals that were given by the community. We thank the community for its support.
That same week, I also had the opportunity to visit the community of Grouard, where St. Bernard church, one of the oldest churches in Alberta, had burned down. Community members were gathered there and remembered the funerals, the baptisms and the weddings that had taken place in that community. This community is mourning.
Since 2021, 68 churches across this country have burned down, but we should not fear. Churches will continue to be places where people can gather, come together to worship and enjoy communion and fellowship.
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, on January 4, I was honoured to participate in the first Ribbon Skirt Day on Cote First Nation. Chief George Cote, Isabella Kulak and her parents, Chris and Lana, chose to come together with students and teachers at Kamsack Comprehensive Institute and Good Spirit School Division to offer forgiveness, reconciliation and ongoing learning experiences about their way of life.
I was the only woman not wearing a ribbon skirt that day. They were beautiful and worn so proudly by all the women, daughters and granddaughters. I did not know what was expected, and I was apprehensive about possibly doing something inappropriate by wearing one.
As we shared a meal following the ceremony and circle dance, Tribal Chief Isabel O’Soup said to me, “Hey, you need a ribbon skirt.” Today, my colleague and I wear our ribbon skirts in the House of Commons as we join with first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada in celebrating their cultures, histories and heritages on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Mr. Speaker, approximately 3,000 Canadians live with ALS. One is a constituent, Matthew Brown, who was moved when his 13-year-old son, Colin, recently organized a walk at his school. That walk is for research funds and for equipment. Colin epitomizes youth leadership in this country. At the most trying time his family has experienced, no doubt, he is on the front lines, helping his father and helping those with ALS.
To Matthew, on another issue that is close to his heart, I was so pleased to see recently that the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance successfully concluded negotiations for the drug ALBRIOZA. I hope provinces and territories will now follow suit and make a positive decision, so the drug can be eligible for reimbursement under public health plans.
It is an incredible story and an incredible family. I wish them all the best at this very difficult time.
End of the School Year
Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of our session, students across Canada are graduating and opening a new chapter in their young lives. I congratulate all Richmond students from Palmer, McNair, McRoberts, Cambie, McMath and MacNeill secondary schools. I give a special mention to my fellow Super Colts from Richmond high; the grade 7s from Kingswood, my old elementary school; and all graduating students across the city.
I had the opportunity to hear outgoing student messages at a graduation ceremony, and I was so inspired by all the motivators, dreamers, workers, critical thinkers, innovators, creators, academics, athletes, communicators, technologists, community builders, artists and future lifesavers. I say congratulations to McNair graduate Kevin Bhangoo, the recipient of the Bains Family Scholarship, which is given to a student who demonstrates community building through academics, athletics or arts; Gerardo Mejia, a Cambie secondary graduate and recipient of the 2023 Loran award for integrity, courage, compassion, determination and a high level of maturity; and finally, young Logan Choi from Mia Montessori, who visited Parliament Hill in the spring.
I am convinced by the young students in Richmond, British Columbia, that the future of Canada is in good hands.
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, tansi. Today is National Indigenous Peoples Day, a day to celebrate and honour the cultures and contributions of more than 1,800,000 first nations, Métis and Inuit people.
Indigenous peoples have rich and diverse traditions, music, art and a history that predates European arrival by thousands of years. The indigenous peoples of Canada were integral to the development and overall prosperity of this nation. Commerce, such as the fur trade, depended upon the collaboration of indigenous peoples. A new people, the Métis, now over 600,000 strong, was born in the west, the offspring of indigenous women and fur traders. I am proud to be one of them.
There remains pain as a result of the Indian residential schools and government policies, but there is also much hope. Ours is a growing population and a young population that wants to participate and benefit from resource development, business and tourism.
I specifically acknowledge the Katzie and Kwantlen first nations, in the area where I live in British Columbia.
Meegwetch, Huy ch q'u, all my relations.
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of National Indigenous Peoples Day, the summer solstice is traditionally a time when indigenous peoples celebrate their culture, achievements and heritage. Today we join them in honouring the strength and resilience of these cultures. This symbolic time of year represents optimism, light and reflection; it represents reflection on our colonial past and optimism towards rebuilding broken relationships through reconciliation and trust.
In Niagara, the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre, along with the Niagara Regional Native Centre, will be hosting festivities and telling stories today. I encourage all people of Turtle Island to go out and participate in their local community gathering today to strengthen their community relationships and foster a brighter future, all tied together by trust and togetherness.
Happy National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians are losing hope. Millions are lining up at food banks every month. Canadians are paying thousands more for gas, groceries and home heating because of the Liberal carbon tax. Families can no longer afford their mortgages because out-of-control government borrowing has driven up interest rates. Our streets are unsafe and our once quiet rural communities are targets for violence and thefts. Canadians are dying at unprecedented numbers from government-aided overdoses, and many are losing hope of ever recovering.
The good news is that it does not have to be this way. Conservatives have a positive plan that will allow everyone, every Canadian, to get ahead. We will bring forward powerful paycheques, bring home safer streets, bring home lower prices, bring home recovery for our loved ones and bring home freedom for every Canadian. It is your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, food, fuel and housing are basic necessities of everyday life. Carbon tax increases are increasing inflation and raising the cost of basic necessities. After eight years, the Liberals refuse to see the light on how their inflationary carbon tax has made life unaffordable for many families while doing nothing for the environment. After eight years, Canada now ranks 58th out of 64 countries on climate performance, according to the climate change performance index.
The Liberals have a tax plan, not an environmental plan. The cost to Canadians has been enormous, yet the Liberals are not happy with just carbon tax 1, and now have carbon tax 2 coming on July 1. Happy Canada Day with a new tax from the Liberals. Carbon tax 2 will cost the average household over $1,100 per year once fully implemented. The combined carbon taxes will cost families 61¢ on every litre of gasoline.
Conservatives will axe the carbon taxes and protect our environment through technology, not taxes, and give families hope.
[Translation]
Quebec's National Holiday
Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 24, the ground of the riding of Hochelaga will shake under the dance steps of everyone celebrating the national holiday. Across Quebec, from Gatineau to Gaspé, we will be celebrating Quebec's National Holiday. This year, the people of Quebec are showcasing their love of dance and its place in Quebec culture.
Fans of jigs, square dancing, modern jazz and others will all be able to celebrate their zest for life together. Quebec is a strong, welcoming nation, open to diversity and proud of its heritage. Let us celebrate an inclusive Quebec where everyone is welcome.
On this national holiday, I must salute a monument to our Quebec culture, the immeasurable Michel Côté. Today he is being posthumously awarded the Ordre national du Québec and will be knighted. He was one of the most important figures in our popular culture. From Broue to C.R.A.Z.Y. and Omertà, he inspired a whole generation of Quebeckers.
Happy national holiday!
[English]
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, on this National Indigenous Peoples Day, we join in celebration and are reminded of the need for federal action on reconciliation.
First nations here require major federal investment in housing. In Shamattawa, Oxford House, Pukatawagan, Garden Hill and many others, families struggle in third world living conditions because of a lack of federal funding and because of ongoing federal neglect.
First nations like Tataskweyak Cree Nation desperately need a new school for their young people. It is time for the Liberal government to build the school.
First nations deserve economic justice. As the fishers of Grand Rapids lost their fish shack to a fire, many are forced to pay out of pocket to truck their catch even farther. They must be compensated. These are family- and community-sustaining jobs.
Finally, first nations and Métis youth in our north deserve investment. From recreation like soccer to after-school programming, indigenous youth are leaders today and we must support them.
On this day, let us see the Government of Canada not just celebrate but also, more importantly, act.
[Translation]
Quebec's National Holiday
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Quebec will celebrate its national holiday. Quebec is a proud nation. Soon there will be nine million Quebeckers, and Quebec will still be one nation. While many languages are spoken in Quebec, its common language is French. Quebec sings many songs, dances many dances, colours many canvases as a single nation with diverse backgrounds, with a rich and vibrant diversity going back tens of thousands of years, to the time when many peoples were already living on this great land that would become Quebec.
This nation hosts all kinds of debate, seeks out what is best for everyone, and manages its diversity like all democratic nations. This Saturday, however, our nation will sing with one voice, put away for now the blueprint for building a greener future, set aside uncertainties, share smiles in the sincere friendship of common convictions and in its ever-richer identity of what could well become the country for everyone.
Let us be proud, sing, dance, laugh and love each other for who we are, and for all that we are.
I hope everyone has a wonderful time on Quebec's national holiday.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal scandals and ethics issues, there is a laundry list of wasteful spending growing by the day: $27 million in bonuses for federal housing bureaucrats as housing costs double and the building of new homes is dropping; $116 million in consulting fees to the Prime Minister's buddies at McKinsey; $210 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which we will never see again after the Liberals have admitted the bank is being controlled by Beijing; and $54 million for the arrive scam app. How can we forget the stunning $4.6 billion in COVID program abuse that the Liberals could not be bothered to recover?
After eight years, the wasteful spending has added to endless Liberal deficits and painful inflation, and now to skyrocketing interest and mortgage rates for Canadians who are struggling to get by.
Conservatives will bring down inflation, get spending under control and scrap the Liberal tax hikes punishing Canadians. After all, it is just common sense. Let us bring it home.
Graduation and Retirement Congratulations
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the beginning of graduation for our grade 12 students. I want to take a moment to congratulate the 1,821 graduates from Orleans' 10 high schools.
[Translation]
This morning I attended the graduation ceremony at École secondaire publique Gisèle‑Lalonde, where I had the privilege of presenting the Governor General's Academic Medal to Anaïs Gibbings. Congratulations to the class of 2023.
On behalf of all parliamentarians and House of Commons staff, I would also like to pay tribute today to Nora Daigle, a Parliamentary Protective Service constable who is retiring after over 20 years of service. Nora has left a lasting impression on us with her unwavering dedication, good humour and perpetual smile. As a former boxer, she embodies strength and determination, and her love of photography and fine wine adds a touch of elegance to her personality.
We wish her a long and happy retirement and extend our deepest thanks for all her work.
[English]
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Following discussion among representatives of all parties of the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence to commemorate National Indigenous Peoples Day and mark the discovery of the remains of 215 children at a former residential school in Kamloops.
[A moment of silence observed]
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister and his anti-construction inflationary policies, the cost of housing has doubled.
In fact, we learned today that, in Quebec, the average rent increased by 19% in the past year. In some areas of the province, it went up by 44%. In British Columbia, nearly 100,000 people could be out on the streets because of rent hikes.
Will the Prime Minister finally reverse his anti-construction inflationary policies that caused this housing crisis?
Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the official opposition were actually taking the housing crisis seriously, he would have supported our investments in that area rather than going after municipalities.
Our plan involves working with the municipalities, particularly by investing $4 billion to speed up residential construction approvals and create 100,000 new homes, by tying infrastructure investment to housing, by helping Canadians save money to buy their first home, by providing support for low-income renters and by converting surplus federal lands to affordable housing.
We will continue to be there to help with housing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it now takes 25 years for the average Torontonian to save up for the average down payment on a house. It used to be that one could pay off a mortgage in 25 years; now, that is what it takes just to get a down payment, after the Prime Minister's anti-construction inflationary policies have doubled the cost of housing. He has done this with deficits that drive up interest rates and drive down salaries, and by funding bureaucracies that block home construction.
Will the Prime Minister reverse the policies that caused the housing crisis, so Canadians can put a roof overhead?
Mr. Speaker, we have one of the strongest recoveries after the pandemic of all our peer countries, including seeing the creation of 900,000 new jobs across the country since before the pandemic.
Our investments in supporting Canadians have made a real difference and have created growth in the economy. At the same time, we have continued to step up to support families in the construction of new homes by working collaboratively with municipalities to improve densification, to accelerate zoning changes and permitting, and to work to build more housing.
As the Conservative leader chooses to pick fights with municipalities, we are going to work collaboratively to get housing—
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells Canadians they have never had it so good, but in reality, housing costs have actually doubled under his leadership. In fact, they are among the worst in the world. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced market, and Toronto is the 10th. Both are worse than New York City; London, England; and even Singapore, a tiny island. In fact, the average house cost is almost double in Canada what it is in the United States, which has 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass.
The Prime Minister's anti-construction inflationary policies are not working. Will he reverse them so that Canadians can get a roof overhead?
Mr. Speaker, we across the House floor all recognize that Canadians are struggling with the cost of housing. The Conservative solution is to cut the programs that are supporting Canadian families, cut the programs that help municipalities invest in accelerating housing, cut the programs that help Canadians save up for a first down payment, and cut the programs that are delivering housing solutions for Canadians. We recognize there is more to do, but it does not start by cutting the existing programs that are helping Canadians.
We are going to continue to work in partnership with the municipalities and help Canadians through these difficult times.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's $80-billion worth of programs are not working. They have led to a doubling in the cost of an average down payment, double the necessary monthly mortgage payment, and a 120% increase in the average rent. This is way out of line with what is happening in other countries. Meanwhile, he continues to drive up interest rates on mortgages with his deficits, and to give money to local bureaucracies to block home building.
Will the Prime Minister get off the backs and out of the way of Canadians so they can finally afford a home?
Mr. Speaker, not only would the Conservative leader cut programs that are helping Canadians in what is, yes, a difficult housing market, but he also is choosing to pick fights with municipalities when we should be working with them, as the Liberals are doing, to increase densification, to accelerate permitting, to change zoning, and to make sure we are tying infrastructure investments, like the transit investments we are making in record numbers, to concentrations of housing and increasing housing stock.
We know we need to continue to deliver more housing supply, and we are working with municipalities and provinces to do just—
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can say all the right things, but he does not get anything done.
I will give a perfect example. I know that the Prime Minister is trying to plagiarize my message on housing, but he cannot actually deliver on it. The reality is he brought in a $4-billion housing accelerator fund that has decelerated home building. Home building is actually down 19% versus what it was before he brought in this acceleration program.
Instead of just spending money irresponsibly, why will the Prime Minister not tie dollars to houses that are actually complete?
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly accept the compliment that we are saying all the right things, and I will add to it because we are doing the right things.
As we step up with the first-time homebuyers tax-free account, as we work with municipalities to deliver on accelerated housing construction, in partnership in the ways that we get things done, instead of picking fights like the Conservative leader continues to do, we will continue to deliver on helping Canadians through these difficult times.
[Translation]
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, northern Quebec and the north shore are grappling with major forest fires. That is also true for other parts of Canada. Businesses are suffering. Although big businesses may have the financial means to get through this, many small and medium-sized businesses have been dealt a serious blow from which they might not recover.
We have proposed measures to help these businesses. I want the Prime Minister to tell us if he is prepared to sit down with us and the industry now to quickly put in place urgent programs.
Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with all those in Quebec and across Canada who have been affected by these fires. Safety is obviously our number one priority. That is why our government responded immediately to Quebec's request for help.
We will continue to work with the provinces and territories throughout this difficult period and the recovery, and we are taking steps to support workers in Quebec's forestry sector and other sectors affected by these forest fires. We have put measures in place with substantial investments in the 2023 budget.
Mr. Speaker, since we are running out of time, I will ask the Prime Minister to be more specific.
Businesses and, obviously, many workers are faced with a short-term challenge that might force them to hide the key under the mat. They need measures, and they need them soon. To facilitate the process, we took inspiration from some of the pan-Canadian measures used for small and medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. The model and the structure already exist. We can apply it quickly because the summer is not over and the threat is very serious.
Can we work together to take immediate action?
Mr. Speaker, we reacted to a pan-Canadian crisis with pan-Canadian tools. In this situation, it is businesses in certain provinces that are affected, and that is why we are working with the relevant provinces.
The Government of Quebec knows full well that Canada will be there as a partner, including with our disaster assistance programs, which it will certainly be able to use. We will be there, and we will be there to work with the Government of Quebec, which will be there to help local businesses.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, this morning I was honoured to attend the raising of the survivors' flag.
I thought of Monica Ittusardjuat, Ernie Bernhardt, Marie-Lucie Uviluq, the late Marius Tungilik and especially my mom, Carmen Idlout, who survived these horrible institutions.
Survivors, without intention, pass on trauma to the next generations. The Liberal government's inaction allows intergenerational trauma to continue.
When will the government act to ensure that future generations can live with pride, dignity and respect?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for being there at this important celebration this morning. I was touched to see so many people there, as well.
Today, June 21, is a celebration of indigenous language and culture as, at the same time, we recognize the terrible intergenerational trauma and the impacts of residential schools.
It is with mixed feelings that we continue to work together in partnership with indigenous communities across the country, whether it is on housing, whether it is on health, whether it is on resolving land claims, and continue to support indigenous leadership.
We will continue on the path of reconciliation in partnership, as we have for the past seven and a half years.
Uqaqtittiji, all I heard is empathy. What indigenous peoples need is action. Grassy Narrows is still waiting for the government to fulfill its promise to build the mercury poisoning care home in Grassy Narrows. After decades of toxic drinking water, just like countless first nations across this country, people in Grassy Narrows are left waiting for the government to keep a promise it made years ago. Indigenous peoples have heard empty words for decades. Will the government finally deliver the treatment centre that Grassy Narrows desperately—
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with indigenous communities right across the country on responding to their needs. The situation in Grassy Narrows has gone on for far too long. It is one that we continue to engage in, working closely with local leadership and moving forward on giving the kinds of supports necessary. We recognize the scale of the challenges across the country and we will continue to walk the road of reconciliation, in partnership, in meaningful, serious ways as we always have.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister expects to be judged on his promises rather than his results.
The results are these. Eight years ago, housing was affordable, taking a modest 40% of average income to pay mortgages on an average house, which is something that is now up to 60%. The average cost of a house has nearly doubled. The cost of a mortgage payment has doubled. The cost of monthly rent has doubled. It is double trouble after eight years of this Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister wants to keep doing what caused the problem in the first place. Will he instead stop funding gatekeeping that blocks construction and bring down the deficits that are driving up mortgage rates?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite talks about what happened eight years ago because when we formed government, we realized that the previous federal government had done nothing on housing for close to 10 years. It had removed the federal government from any leadership role or partnerships around housing, which is part of why we have faced real challenges over the past decade in responding to the growth and needs of housing across this country. It is why we also put into place in 2017 a national housing strategy that has led millions of Canadians to get into new residences and refurbished homes across the country. It is why we have continued to invest and step up—
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's main criticism seems to be that the previous Conservative government did not hold enough meetings or spend enough money. What we actually delivered was affordable housing. The average house cost was $450,000 at the time. The average rent back then was about 50% of what it is today.
Now, Canada has the fewest houses per capita in the G7. We have fewer houses per capita than when the Prime Minister took office eight years ago at a time when house construction actually dropped off. Therefore, will he get out of the way, let Canadians build and let them put a roof overhead?
Mr. Speaker, we all remember well that the previous Conservative government did not spend enough money investing in Canadians, did not support our veterans, did not support builds and infrastructure, cut and slashed programs, cut programs for seniors and for youth and raised the retirement age to 67 so that they could balance the budget in a fictional way for an election. Canadians saw through that and had the Conservatives lose that election. We have stepped up to continue to invest in Canadians, continue to invest in housing and continue to invest in supports that have seen the economy grow. I have seen record job creation and record numbers of people—
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that his real criticism is that our programs were not expensive enough for the taxpayers. The fact is, it is bad enough for him to fail; it is even worse for him to fail expensively and that is what he has done. He does have an $80-billion housing program that has left us with the fewest houses per capita in the G7, even though we have the most land to build on, which is fewer houses per capita than when he took office. We now have almost double the house price in Canada versus the U.S., where they have 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass. Why does the Prime Minister not stop judging himself by how much he can spend instead of judging by how much he can get done?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives consistently get up and say that what we really need to grow the economy and help Canadians is cuts: cuts in the investments we are making for Canadians, cuts in the programs that are helping Canadians afford new homes and cuts in the programs that are incentivizing municipalities to increase density and accelerate house building. The reality is, that proposal of cuts and austerity is exactly why the Conservatives had such an underwhelming night on Monday night in those by-elections. Canadians know they need a government that has their backs. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, just because the Prime Minister makes housing more expensive to taxpayers does not excuse the fact that he has made it more expensive for homebuyers. I will give an example: He has tried to plagiarise my message on the need to get housing built by inventing a $4-billion accelerator program. Since that time, housing construction has decelerated.
This year, according to the Prime Minister's own housing agency, there will be fewer houses built than last year: 19% fewer. Why will he not actually take my policy, which is to link the number of dollars cities get to the number of houses that get completed?
Mr. Speaker, the $4-billion housing accelerator fund was actually a corner piece of our last election campaign, but apparently the current leader of the official opposition was too busy sharpening his knives to pay attention to our platform in the last election. We have demonstrated a level of commitment and focus on delivering for Canadians, while he continues to propose cuts.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The noise level is starting to go up; I understand this is like a year-end for students in a classroom, and everyone is excited, but I am going to ask everyone to just take a deep breath.
We will go to the Leader of the Opposition, and let us keep everything respectful.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says there is no room for savings in his sumptuous government spending, but I found some. For example, he gave CMHC $26 million in bonuses for making housing less affordable; he gave $181,000 for the Governor General's travel; $116 million to McKinsey, a company that supports him but actually helped cause the opioid crisis; $54 million for the ArriveCAN app; and $6,000 for one night in a hotel for the Prime Minister.
Does he not think we can pass on that spending and put the money back in Canadians' pockets?
Mr. Speaker, what the Conservative leader continues to put forward is a program of cutting programs for Canadians. Whether it is billions of dollars for child care at $10 a day right across the country that he continues to campaign against, or whether it is investments in a climate action incentive that both puts a price on pollution and puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians that he would cancel, that is money in the pockets of families in his riding that he would he cancel.
Whether it is by moving forward on things like a grocery rebate or the doubling of the GST tax credit that has helped out 11 million Canadians and will continue to support seniors and young people, we will—
Housing
Mr. Speaker, here is a real plan to make housing affordable: Balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates on Canadians' mortgages; require that cities increase the number of permitted homes by 15% in order to get more infrastructure money and pay the money out once the houses are completed and the keys are in doors; require every federally funded transit station to have high-density housing all around it; and sell off 6,000 underutilized federal buildings to convert them into affordable housing and use the proceeds to reduce the deficit.
How is that for a plan?
Mr. Speaker, many of the elements in his supposed plan are things that we are already very much working on. The one place we disagree is his proposal to cut programs, to cut supports to low-income Canadians and to cut supports like the housing benefit that he not only voted against but delayed passage of in the House, when we were offering a $500 top-up to low-income Canadians. He has consistently stood against those kinds of supports and investments in Canadians, offering instead cuts and austerity at a time when Canadians need continued support.
On fiscal responsibility, we are still at the top of the class in the G7.
[Translation]
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, the environmental motion that the Bloc Québécois got the House to adopt was about the forest fires.
The Prime Minister himself supported the motion, which recognizes that the federal government must do more to combat climate change. I would like to remind him how he voted before we talk about oil and gas. Right now, his government is assessing whether it will approve 16 Suncor projects to drill for oil off the coast of Newfoundland.
Does the Prime Minister agree that doing more to combat climate change also means saying no to these types of oil and gas projects?
Mr. Speaker, it is not like we are in the process of approving drilling in places like Anticosti Island. We are here to keep defending the fight against climate change, and we recognize that the world will still need oil and gas for a number of years.
Striking that balance has helped us reduce emissions for the first time in the Canadian government's history. We are on track to meet our Paris and Glasgow targets. We will continue to show leadership and responsibility by fostering green economic growth for—
Mr. Speaker, we moved that motion so that Parliament could rise on a note of consensus and awareness.
We need to do more to ensure that the natural disasters we are experiencing do not become the norm. To do that, though, we need to make some tough decisions. Everyone knows that the main factor speeding up climate change is fossil fuels. However, the federal government is still allowing oil companies to look for new deposits to develop. We need to reduce production, but Ottawa is still thinking about increasing it.
Can the Prime Minister at least say that new oil and gas projects in Canada are a thing of the past?
Mr. Speaker, the main thing is to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. In that respect, we have demonstrated our ability as a government to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for which Canada is responsible, and we continue to do so.
We know very well that the world still needs energy. That is why we are investing in hydrogen, nuclear, wind, solar and other projects that will enable us to create the net-zero energy the world will need.
In the meantime, we are still working to reduce our fossil fuel emissions.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, instead of cutting red tape so that Quebec can generate more green hydroelectricity, the Prime Minister, with the support of the Bloc, wants to impose a second carbon tax on Quebeckers, which will jack up the price of gas by 20¢ a litre. It will also make food more expensive, because farmers will have to pay more for the energy they need to produce it.
Instead of going after consumers in Quebec and across Canada, why not eliminate barriers so that Quebec can provide more green electricity?
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Conservative Party is demonstrating that he does not understand what is happening in Quebec. First of all, there has never been a federally imposed price on pollution in Quebec, because Quebec has its own approach to fighting emissions.
Second, in budget 2023, we proposed generous tax credits to encourage green energy generation in Quebec and across the country. This is the kind of thing that will make it easier for Quebeckers to have a thriving green economy in a net-zero world.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is not only Quebeckers who will have to pay more. On July 1, the Prime Minister plans to hit Atlantic Canadians with a massive new tax hike at the pump. Happy Canada Day, everyone. The Prime Minister wants us to pay more.
Now, the Newfoundland Liberal premier has said that this will do nothing for the environment, but it will make his people go cold in the winter and hungry all year long. Why will the Prime Minister not axe the carbon tax and finally come up with a real environmental plan?
Mr. Speaker, we put a price on pollution, and we are now seeing the emission reductions right across the country. Canada is reaching its targets both for 2030 and towards net zero. That is what we have done by putting a price on pollution.
However, at the same time we are putting a price on pollution right across the country, we are delivering more money back to Canadians in the jurisdictions where the federal backstop is in place. That is more money in the pockets of Atlantic Canadians starting this July as we fight climate change, which is having an impact, whether it is hurricanes or forest fires, that Atlantic Canadians hear of too strongly.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not hit a single environmental target with his tax, and Canada ranks 58th out of 64 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index. His plan is not working; it is just costing more.
In fact, the premier of Newfoundland said that the Prime Minister's claim that we need to tax to save the environment is “completely illogical, it's a false dichotomy, it's a false dilemma, and it's as insulting to us as it is simplistic.” The unanimous opinion of Atlantic premiers is that this tax will hurt their people without helping the environment. Why will the Prime Minister not axe his plan to raise gas prices by 61¢ a litre?
Mr. Speaker, while energy companies are making record profits right now across the country, Canadians need support, and that is why we are delivering a climate action incentive that delivers more money every three months to Canadians than the price on pollution costs them.
Everyone, except apparently the Conservatives, understands that building in price signals on things we do not want, like pollution, is one of the most efficient ways of reducing emissions and of incentivizing behaviour. That is why our emissions are going down, and we are hitting our targets.
Mr. Speaker, he has not hit a single climate target since he brought this tax in. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom he appointed, in every province in Canada this tax will cost families more than they get back in these phony rebates. In fact, it will be over $2,000 for the average family per year. The plan is to raise the tax to 61¢ a litre.
Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves. Why does he not axe the tax so we can bring home lower prices?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is desperate to demonstrate why not taking action and not fighting climate change is the best solution for Canadians. Canadians only have to look out the window at wildfires, atmospheric rivers and intense hurricanes such as Fiona to know that we have to continue to step up in the fight against climate change. What we have been able to do is not only return more money with a rebate, including $1,000 a year in the riding of Carleton for the average family of four, but also move forward on drawing in investments like Volkswagen, Rio Tinto, Stellantis and others that continue to invest in growing the economy of Canada—
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, a CBC report card on the government's progress in implementing the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gave a failing grade. Only two of the 231 calls for justice have been fully implemented to date. This is unacceptable.
The Liberals must implement all the calls for justice now and put in place a red dress alert system to keep indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks safe. Why is the Prime Minister not acting with urgency in the face of an ongoing genocide?
Mr. Speaker, our hearts are with survivors and families of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Addressing this ongoing violence requires living up to our goals as a country and all the calls for justice. We are taking a whole-of-government approach, including $125 million to implement the national action plan for MMIWG, the appointment of a special rep to consult on the creation of an indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, and $4 billion to support indigenous housing needs. We are also working to implement a red dress alert.
We agree that there is always more to do, but we are taking this seriously and working in partnership with indigenous peoples right across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I have had enough with the platitudes. We need action now. The Prime Minister acknowledged this as an ongoing genocide. The House unanimously recognized the violence against indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks as a Canada-wide emergency. It has been almost four years since the national inquiry. Only two calls to justice have been addressed.
When will the Prime Minister implement the red dress alert and the remaining calls to justice? We are a target. Our lives are on the line. Our lives matter.
Mr. Speaker, I understand how much more there is to do, but to dismiss $4 billion in housing investments for indigenous people as platitudes is not doing justice to the incredible indigenous leaders who are working across the country to deliver for their citizens, in partnership with the federal government. It dismisses the hard work indigenous leaders are doing to create more housing, more safe spaces, and more shelters, with $100 million to create 22 new indigenous shelters and transitional homes. Those are not platitudes.
We are working seriously, and we look forward to continuing to work with all members in the House on reconciliation.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Canadians clearly rejected the Conservative party’s failed approach under their new leadership and instead opted in favour of delivering real results for Canadians today and for generations to come. Whether in Quebec, the Prairies or southwestern Ontario, we see Canadians supporting the Liberal government’s approach to creating jobs and creating and ensuring a clean, growing economy of the future.
Can the Prime Minister inform constituents—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. I am going to have to interrupt.
The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle can begin from the top.
Mr. Speaker, I can bring it home.
On Monday, Canadians clearly rejected the Conservative Party's failed approach under its new leadership and instead opted in favour of delivering real results for Canadians today and for generations to come. Whether in Quebec, the Prairies or southwestern Ontario, we see Canadians supporting this Liberal government's approach to creating jobs and ensuring a clean, growing economy of the future.
Can the Prime Minister inform the constituents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount and Winnipeg South Centre of what their new Liberal members of Parliament will fight for?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and for her hard work. I would like to congratulate all the candidates in the recent by-elections. I look forward to welcoming Anna Gainey and Ben Carr—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and for her hard work.
I would like to congratulate all the candidates in the recent by-elections. I look forward to welcoming Anna Gainey and Ben Carr to the House.
[English]
Communities in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba had a choice between the Conservative Party's divisive rhetoric, austerity and cuts, or our plan to continue to strengthen the middle class, make life more affordable, fight climate change and so much more.
There is a lot more hard work left ahead of us, and our team will be even stronger with these two new, strong voices in Ottawa.
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, last year's exorbitant increases in interest rates were incredible and unprecedented. They were caused by this government's inflationary deficit. Canadians are worried about losing their homes. According to the Bank of Canada, the average Canadian could see a 40% increase in their mortgage payments. The International Monetary Fund says that Canada is the country most at risk of experiencing a default crisis.
Will the Prime Minister finally eliminate his inflationary deficits to lower interest rates on mortgages and ensure that Canadians can keep their homes?
Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and we still have a AAA rating from rating agencies around the world.
We are taking a fiscally responsible approach to protecting our economy and creating growth. At the same time, we are investing to support low-income Canadians, to help people buy new homes, and we are also investing with municipalities to create more housing and to build more new apartments and housing units.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, it now takes well over 60% of a family's pre-tax income to make monthly payments on an average house. That is mathematically impossible, but it is possibly about to get worse.
The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are driving up interest rates faster than at any time since any of us have been alive. This means that Canadians could face 40% increases in their monthly payments. There may be another bank rate increase this summer that could push Canadians to bankruptcy.
Before Canadians lose their homes, will he get rid of his inflationary deficits to bring down those terrible mortgage rates?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the lowest deficits in the G7. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio, and the lowest one in the G7 as well. We are one of the three largest economies in the world, along with Germany and the United States, to have a AAA credit rating from the bond rating agencies.
Our fiscal plan is sustainable, even as we continue to invest to support low-income Canadians, to support municipalities in building more housing, and to move forward with a plan, while the Conservative Party, once again, continues to talk about cuts to programs, cuts to services and cuts for Canadians.
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the worst household debt in the G7, by far the worst, and that debt risks blowing up when rates rise.
One of the ways the Prime Minister has been wasting money is that he gave $210 million to the Asian infrastructure bank, which is controlled by Beijing and designed to build the infrastructure of Beijing's Communist empire throughout Asia. We warned him five years ago and now some of that bank's own executives are speaking out against it. He claims he is stalling his involvement in the bank, but the real question is this: When will we get our $200 million back?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been involved in investing in infrastructure around the world because we know that it creates growth and opportunity in the global south. It continues to contribute to fighting climate change, as people are building more resilient infrastructure and indeed energy infrastructure. We are part of multilateral development banks all around the world.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we are reviewing our participation in the Asian infrastructure bank, and we will make the decision that is right for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, he is defending the $200 million he gave to a bank, one of whose executives said, “I didn't find a single, tangible benefit to communicate back home here to Canada of what this bank does that is consistent with our values in a way that would benefit Canadians.”
While Canadians are starving and cannot heat their homes, he is forcing them to give $200 million to this bank controlled by Beijing to expand a Communist empire in Asia. When will Canadians get their $200 million back from this Liberal-friendly bank?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are evaluating our continued participation in this multilateral development bank controlled by Beijing. We continue to look very carefully at how we are having a positive impact around the world with investments in infrastructure and how we are delivering for Canadians in the fight against climate change, in growth around the world that benefits Canadians and in participation in supports for the global south.
[Translation]
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, observers of federal politics have come to the same conclusion about this session. They call it four months of time wasted by the Liberals on trying to avoid an inquiry into Chinese interference.
A waste of time is what everyone is taking away from this government's stubborn defiance of the will of the people and of the House. It is high time we moved on to the next steps. The government says it is open to ideas, and the Bloc Québécois is co-operating.
Will the Prime Minister finally announce the launch of an independent public inquiry into foreign interference?
Mr. Speaker, the fight against foreign interference in our democratic institutions is and must remain a non-partisan issue.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities has spoken to the Leader of the Opposition about a way forward. Once we reach a consensus on a way forward, free from political overtones, we will be able to take steps together.
Mr. Speaker, everything is already in place so that we can move on to other things. The Bloc Québécois is collaborating. The Prime Minister knows that he can count on the NDP to do whatever he wants. We have the public's support. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is having constructive discussions with the opposition parties, which we commend. If the Prime Minister really intends to launch a public inquiry, the stars could not be better aligned to do so.
Will the Prime Minister finally announce that he is launching a public inquiry so that the work can finally be done and we can all move on to something else?
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work to counter foreign interference, mainly through the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and other bodies.
Yes, we want to work with the opposition parties. I thank them for their co-operation to date. However, Canadians are well aware that we need a process that will not end in partisan attacks and toxicity, as it did on the last attempt.
That is why we are coordinating with the other parties to come up with something that will work so that the issue can be taken seriously.
[English]
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just admitted that the Asian infrastructure bank is “controlled by Beijing”. He says he is not going to get our money back. He is just going to review our participation.
While Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves, he is forcing them to give almost a quarter-billion dollars to this Beijing-backed bank.
[Translation]
I am asking the question: Will the Prime Minister take back our $200 million from this bank, which he admits is controlled by Beijing?
Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to building infrastructure around the world, particularly in emerging southern nations.
We are there for investments, for roads, for power plants and other things across the south, and we will continue to be. Yes, we are in the process of reassessing our participation in this Asian investment bank. We will share our findings with Canadians when we complete the assessment.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Beijing's interference in our democracy, I have already spoken to the minister to indicate the Conservative Party's support. We are ready to provide the names and mandates as soon as the Prime Minister announces a public inquiry. Tomorrow, the minister wants to have a call with members of the opposition.
Will the Prime Minister finally announce a public inquiry into Beijing's interference so that we can protect our democracy before the next election?
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the opposition parties are now in a position to work together to establish a process that will work well.
Given how the opposition parties have behaved in recent months toward an esteemed former governor general, we want guarantees that everyone agrees on the framework and the individual who will conduct the work so that we do not go back to personal attacks that will undermine Canadians' trust in our institutions.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister jetted off to New York for a weekend with celebrities, and now we know the price tag. While Canadians cannot eat, heat or house themselves, he stuck them with a $61,000 bill just for hotels for himself and his entourage. It was one weekend and $61,000 of fun.
Canadians cannot pay their own bills and they certainly cannot afford to pay his. Will he commit to paying for his own vacations this summer?
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be in New York to meet with Ursula von der Leyen and Mia Mottley to engage in important conversations about the future of our economy and the fight against climate change. These are things that matter. It was a mid-week trip, and I happen to know that former prime minister Harper was also attending meetings, at the same time we were down there, with the same organization.
These are things that matter in terms of Canada's leadership in the world. They matter in terms of outcomes for Canadians. We will continue to do the work that Canadians expect of this government to lead on the global stage.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative Party no longer resembles that led by Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney or even Stephen Harper. The leader of the official opposition is taking the Conservatives into the ditch on the far right to outflank Max Bernier by spewing conspiracy theories about the World Economic Forum, supporting candidates who are against reproductive rights and promoting hate against LGBTQ+ communities. It is the same playbook we have seen in the United States.
Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents, including those who identify as Progressive Conservatives, that our Liberal government is the best vehicle to drive Canada forward?
Government Accountability
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has presided over a 32% increase in violent crime under the government. The public safety minister misled hunters when he planned to ban their rifles. The public safety minister sat on information about the transfer of one of Canada's most notorious killers to have more freedom and comfort by getting him out of a maximum-security prison when he could have passed a law to prevent it.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to firing his incompetent public safety minister?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader talks about freedom, but he is all talk, no walk on freedom when he hand-picks candidates who want to take away Canada's freedoms.
Let me be very clear. In Canada, everyone has the freedom to love who they love, everyone has the freedom to choose what they do with their own bodies, with safe access to abortion, and—
I am sorry. It is starting to get noisy in here again. We are getting close to the end, and I am wondering whether I should start bouncing around with whatever is left.
I think everybody is excited to get out of here, and I understand that. Let us start again from the top, and I want everyone to just take a deep breath and listen to each other, listen to the questions and listen to the answers.
The right hon. Prime Minister, from the top, please.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is all talk, no walk when it comes to freedom when he hand-picks candidates who want to take away Canadians' freedoms.
Let me be very clear. In Canada, everyone has the freedom to love who they love, everyone has the freedom to choose what they do with their own bodies, with safe access to abortion, and everyone has the freedom to move safely in their communities without damaging blockades.
On this side of the House and in our candidates, we will always stand up for Canadians' freedoms.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister has done is free Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary into relative freedom in a place where he can have access to other people and where he has more comforts and can put guards in danger.
The Prime Minister interfered with Corrections Canada's decisions by introducing Bill C-83, which allowed this kind of transfer to go ahead. The Minister of Public Safety knew of the transfer, or his office knew at least, for three months while he claimed that they could not walk down the hallway and tell him.
He is incompetent. Will the Prime Minister fire him, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult this decision is for families of the victims. We share the deep concerns that Canadians have been expressing.
The decision to transfer incarcerated persons is an independent decision made by the Correctional Service of Canada. Following outreach by the Minister of Public Safety, the commissioner ordered an additional review, which is under way and will be completed soon.
Mr. Speaker, the minister can actually order reviews, which means he can also issue directives to ensure that all mass murderers are kept in maximum-security penitentiaries. He could also adopt our law today, which would require that every mass murderer stay in a maximum-security penitentiary. That would be an apolitical way to solve the problem, but the Liberals have not done that, even though the minister knew about this problem, or ought to have known, three months ago.
Can the Prime Minister confirm this: Will the public safety minister still have that job when we come back here in the fall?
Mr. Speaker, being there and supporting victims is always top of mind for this government.
After learning of the transfer, the minister was in touch with the commissioner, and the commissioner has ordered an additional review, which is now under way and will be completed soon.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, today on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we recognize and celebrate the important contributions of indigenous peoples to our country, as well as the diverse culture, language and heritage of indigenous peoples.
In my riding, I think of the work of the Lil'wat Nation to restore language to their education programs, the shíshálh Nation becoming the first self-governing nation in Canada and obtaining justice for day scholars, and the transformative developments of the Squamish Nation with the Senakw housing development, done in a way that highlights their heritage.
While much work has been done on the road to reconciliation, much remains to be done together. Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the forthcoming release of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his hard work.
Today, on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we released our action plan to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, developed in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis. The Conservative leader voted against that bill and associated himself with those who deny the realities of residential schools.
Canada cannot go backwards. We must always choose to confront the truth and strive to right these wrongs.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton, 58% of those currently houseless identify as indigenous. Under the Liberal government, indigenous people are now 11 times more likely to use a shelter or live in inadequate homes than non-indigenous people.
The New Democrats have been calling on the government to address the housing crisis that first nations, Inuit and Métis communities have had to deal with. When will the Liberal government finally start to invest properly in a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy so that everyone can live with safety and dignity?
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of “when” is in budget 2023. That is exactly what we did. We committed to working with indigenous peoples to co-develop an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. Budget 2023 includes an additional investment of $4 billion in this indigenous housing strategy, on top of the $6.7 billion since 2015.
Housing remains a top priority as part of reconciliation. We will continue to work with partners on this right.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, Canada Day is quickly approaching. To celebrate, the Liberal government is giving the gift to Canadians of another tax, the clean fuel regulation, but the only things being cleaned are Canadians' pocketbooks, as independent analysis has found that it actually increases net greenhouse gas emissions, this time with no rebate.
Thanks to the NDP, British Columbia already has one in place, which is costing British Columbians 17¢ per litre. Can the Prime Minister share with Canadians how much the rest of the country will have to pay for his overspending and for his latest tax grab?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen across the country, whether with Hurricane Fiona on the east coast, with forest fires raging across the country with greater intensity than in previous years or with the atmospheric river that B.C. was hit with just a few years ago, that the cost of inaction on climate change would be cataclysmic.
That is why we put forward a price on pollution that is bringing down our emissions and is going to allow us to reach our targets at the same time as we put more money back into the pockets of Canadians with the climate action incentive four times a year.
We are supporting Canadians while we fight climate change.
RCAF Helicopter Crash
That is all the time we have for question period today.
Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence to honour the Royal Canadian Air Force members who lost their lives near Petawawa and to honour those who were injured.
[A moment of silence observed]
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) on the last allotted day in the supply period ending June 23, 2023, the proceedings on the opposition day motion shall conclude no later than 10:30 p.m., the House shall then proceed to the putting of the question on the motion and then, if required, the taking of any division or divisions necessary to dispose of the motion, and the Speaker shall then put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motions to concur in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and for the passage at all stages of any bill based on the said estimates;
(b) notices of opposed items in relation to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, listed on the Notice Paper be deemed withdrawn;
(c) the recorded divisions on government legislation currently deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions today be deemed further deferred to the conclusion of all proceedings in relation to the estimates tonight;
(d) the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) be deemed moved, a recorded vote be deemed requested and deferred after the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts;
(e) in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the amendment to the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill be deemed withdrawn and the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed adopted;
(f) Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be deemed read a third time and passed;
(g) Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;
(h) Ways and Means Motion No. 18, notice of which was tabled on June 16, 2023, be deemed concurred in, a bill based thereon standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, entitled “An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and
(i) the written questions dated June 20, 2023, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, for the purposes of Standing Order 39.
Judges Act
(Bill C-9. On the Order: Government Orders)
June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.
(Motion respecting Senate amendments agreed to)
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(Bill S-8: On the Order: Government Orders)
June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)
(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)
June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Translation]
An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
(Bill C-53: On the Order: Government Orders)
June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties. I think that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Given that (1) according to the report of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, thousands of children have been forcibly deported by Russia from Ukraine to the Russian Federation; (2) the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova‑Belova—
Some hon. members: Nay.
We will continue.
[English]
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope is rising on a point of order.
I am afraid we cannot hear you. Do you want to try that again?
We have quite a few other points of order, so we are going to come back to you as soon as we have the technical issues resolved.
Next we are going to the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I stand here in a bit of disbelief. Following some very difficult questions asked by my NDP colleague and friend from Winnipeg Centre, I watched, along with other members and colleagues, as the Prime Minister sat down and directed an F-bomb at the member for Winnipeg Centre, and a little bit more of that. Honestly, just play it back. I would ask for a formal apology and for the Prime Minister of Canada to stand and apologize to my female colleague and friend from Winnipeg Centre, especially on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to let my answer to that question stand and say that I said absolutely nothing after finishing that answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister a question. I started my question with a preamble and I supported it by facts, and then I asked the Prime Minister if I could hear how his government would administer differently the policies that are being articulated from the official opposition.
I know this made the House leader quite upset, but I just want to see if I can have some parameters around how best I should frame my question. If I am not able to ask it, I would be very interested in hearing the Right Hon. Prime Minister's response.
In this House, we all make mistakes. We all do things that we are not aware are against the rules. I always like to see them as a learning opportunity. This is not to explain my answers but so everyone here will know why I said it was not a valid question.
The point I was looking at is on page 509 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.”
Now let me explain why.
The reason I did that is there was a long preamble that really had nothing to do with administration. I hear this from both sides, so I am not pointing fingers at one side or the other. However, sometimes these things go on forever, and then it is kind of hard to determine whether there is going to be a question tied to the criticism or preamble that goes with it. That is why I called it an illegal question.
That is the reason I said it was not a valid question. When members are putting their questions together, I ask both sides to put something together that has to do with administration and, if they can, to make my life easier, to make it clear that it has to do with administration right from the beginning.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: That has been settled. I do not want anybody challenging the Chair. If you have any questions, I invite you to make an appointment and come to my office afterward, and I will explain what happened in here.
Now we will go to the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Mr. Speaker, an Ottawa police officer, Sergeant Eric Mueller, was ambushed with two of his colleagues three weeks ago. Eric Mueller lost his life. An Ottawa police officer was attacked this past weekend. A London fire chief was viciously assaulted while attending a fire emergency on the weekend. A nurse was punched and kicked this past weekend.
On the last day of this session, we need to send a message to our first responders and frontline heroes that violence against them is unacceptable.
Therefore, there have been discussions among parties, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to pass the following motion.
I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of this House, Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to assaults against health care professionals and first responders, be amended by replacing the term “health care professionals” with “health care workers” throughout the entirety of the bill; be amended by replacing the term “first responders” with “public safety personnel” throughout the entirety of the bill; be amended by adding after clause 269.02 on the definition of a health care worker, for the purpose of subclause (1), “health care worker includes any individual employed in a health care”—
Some hon. members: No.
I am hearing “no”, and I do not want it to go on any longer than it has to.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent that the Minister of Public Safety appear before the Standing Committee of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for two hours no later than Friday, June 23, regarding—
Some hon. members: No.
I am afraid that there is a long list of points, and in order to get through them, as soon as I hear “no” from some members, we understand that the consultation that really should be taking place beforehand maybe did not quite work out the way it should.
We will now go to the member for Oshawa.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have all agreed on the importance of victims' rights. Today I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to adopt the following motion: I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act on disclosure of information to victims—
Some hon. members: No.
I am afraid we do not have unanimous consent on that either.
We will now go to the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in the House, I used language that was deemed unparliamentary. I would like to withdraw those remarks and apologize to the Speaker for the disorder that they caused.
I thank the hon. member for his apology. The apology comes through the Speaker to the House. I want to clarify that it is not to me but to the House.
The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, this is on the point of order from my colleague for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
I was also witness to the Prime Minister saying the F-word in question period today after his response to an opposition party member. This is shocking and unparliamentary language. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to apologize, because he—
Mr. Speaker, during question period today, the Prime Minister kept deflecting on how the second carbon tax is going to hurt our farmers and put our food security and safety at risk. I would like unanimous consent to table the Parliamentary Budget—
Some hon. members: No.
It sounds like we do not have that right now.
The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, given the rising tide of hate and violence directed toward the 2SLGBTQI—
Some hon. members: No.
Once again, we are not getting any consent. I just want to make sure people understand that when they are seeking unanimous consent, they would normally check around to make sure that they have it beforehand. It does not sound as though it worked out.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling made yesterday, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, the house direct the government to provide complete answers to members—
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that there will be agreement on this one, because I would like to table a quote from the speech from the Minister of Finance from the fall economic update. She said that the government should not—
Some hon. members: No.
I am afraid there is no unanimous consent. I realize that sometimes, some of the rules are used to help us gain what we want in the House and then just postpone things, but at least let the hon. member get a few words in before, so that we are sure; I am very specific on “a few”.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Speaker, apparently the government members do not want me to thank you.
As the House knows, I serve as the chair of the industry committee in the House. Through that role, I have had access to the two Volkswagen contracts that have been—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent? What is he asking for? I cannot make out what the member is saying. I will let him start over.
Mr. Speaker, I will reinform the House that I serve as the vice-chair of the industry committee; as such, in that role, I have had access to the two Volkswagen contracts. Those two contracts, as we know the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, are already $3 billion over budget, so—
I believe we are getting into debate.
We will go to the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who got up on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have intercepted what looks like the Liberals' plan to balance the budget, and I would like to table this document with the House today.
Are there any other points of order that we are going to go to?
The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
Mr. Speaker, the 10th time is the charm. I am seeking consent from the House that an order of the House to issue all memoranda, briefing notes, emails—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
There was not the consultation done beforehand, so I am going to have to shut that one down.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
I rise on a point of order directed at you, Mr. Speaker. Uncharacteristically, you may have let your emotions get the better of you today, and you yelled something unparliamentary towards one of my colleagues across the way here. I thought maybe you would want to apologize.
I do not remember shouting anything that was undeserved or unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to allow the member for Edmonton Griesbach to read his unanimous consent motion to the House.
Some hon. members: No.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Health of Animals Act
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
It being 3:40 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-275 under Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
Call in the members.
[English]
Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is rising on a point of order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 393)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gallant
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Yip
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 313
NAYS
Members
Erskine-SmithMay (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Morrice
Total: -- 3
PAIRED
Members
ChampagneGaron
Hoback
Joly
Total: -- 4
Criminal Code
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 394)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gallant
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 320
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
ChampagneGaron
Hoback
Joly
Total: -- 4
[English]
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act
The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the third time and passed.
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-282 under Private Members' Business.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 395)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Caputo
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Dowdall
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Falk (Provencher)
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gallant
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kramp-Neuman
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 262
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Arya
Bezan
Calkins
Carrie
Chong
Cooper
Dreeshen
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Fast
Gray
Hallan
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kurek
Lantsman
Liepert
Maguire
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Ruff
Seeback
Shields
Soroka
Steinley
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Vidal
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Total: -- 51
PAIRED
Members
ChampagneGaron
Hoback
Joly
Total: -- 4
Mr. Speaker, with all of the different events going on for National Indigenous Peoples Day, I was unable to change my vote on Zoom. I would like unanimous consent to change my vote on Bill C-321 to be in favour.
Points of Order
Order and Decorum in the House—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on June 20, 2023, by the chief opposition whip concerning the enforcement of the rules of decorum.
In her intervention, the whip explained that she was rising with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak in debate on business then before the House. Earlier in the sitting, a series of exchanges led the member for Lethbridge to accuse the Minister of Canadian Heritage of lying. The member was called to order by the Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole. The chief opposition whip indicated that she accepted this decision. However, she felt that, given the member subsequently apologized, there was no reason to continue to bar her from participating in the proceedings. The whip finished her intervention by emphasizing the need for an “even-handed application of the rules”.
[Translation]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader countered that the Assistant Deputy Speaker acted appropriately. He pointed out that she made several attempts to bring the member for Lethbridge to order, before informing the member that she would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. The members for New Westminster—Burnaby and Elgin—Middlesex—London also made interventions.
When this point of order was first raised, I committed to review what occurred. I have now done so.
[English]
The member for Lethbridge, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage was responding to her question during debate, persisted with the heckling, ultimately accusing him of lying. The Assistant Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at the time, repeatedly asked the member to cease with the heckling. The Assistant Deputy Speaker informed the member of the consequences she would face, namely that the member would not be recognized for the remainder of the sitting. Since the heckling did not cease, the Assistant Deputy Speaker indicated that this sanction would be applied. Moreover, following a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, she was asked to apologize for using unparliamentary language, having accused the minister of lying.
The member did make an apology but qualified it by using a different formulation of words. The Assistant Deputy Speaker commented on the nature of the apology. She reiterated that the member would not be recognized for the rest of the day, as had been decided prior to the request for an apology for the use of unparliamentary language.
[Translation]
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 646 states, and I quote:
Members rarely defy the Speaker's authority or risk evoking the Chair's disciplinary powers. If a Member challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker's call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member, or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes. As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker's disposal.
[English]
As a result, I cannot find fault with how the Assistant Deputy Speaker handled the situation. Having called the same member to order four different times in the space of about a minute, it should not come as a surprise that she chose to apply a sanction. The chief opposition whip may find the sanction excessive, but I trust each chair occupant to do what is appropriate in the circumstances. I also trust members to do their utmost to maintain order and decorum at all times, and when it has been given, to heed the direction of the Chair.
[Translation]
I note that later in the sitting yesterday, some members equated the sanction applied with censorship, which only serves to undermine the Chair's authority. If members wish to participate in debate, they need to respect the rules that we have all agreed to.
[English]
Presiding over the House can be a challenge even at the best of times. The chair occupants, to whom members have entrusted the conduct of our proceedings, depend on the co-operation of all members in maintaining order. Over the course of the past weeks, we have seen examples from both sides of the House of how various accusations quickly devolve into a difficult work environment, which borders on bullying, I might add. In each instance where the chair occupant has been called to intervene, they have attempted to restore order and ensure our rules are respected. Once a ruling is delivered, the matter is considered closed.
I take the remark seriously of the need for the Chair to be always even-handed, as voiced by the chief opposition whip. I will take the opportunity to state firmly that I and all chair occupants strive to be fair, balanced and equitable when presiding over the business of the House. We endeavour to do this every day. We will continue to do so.
I thank the other chair occupants for their support and commitment to the House, and all members for their attention.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Unfortunately, similar to the member for Sydney—Victoria, I also voted incorrectly, or did not apply my intention to the vote correctly, for Bill C-321. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to change my vote from nay to yea.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's parliamentary assembly, respecting its participation at the 20th autumn meeting in Warsaw, Poland, from November 24 to 26, 2022.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the full reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation at the 67th annual session in Lisbon, Portugal, from October 8 to 11, 2021, and the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in Washington, D.C., United States of America, from December 5 to 7, 2022.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present a report to the House in both official languages.
[English]
It is the report of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, respecting its bilateral visit to the United Kingdom, London, England, and Cardiff, Wales, from January 18 to 20, 2023.
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, entitled “The Cyber Defence of Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
I want to commend all members who had such a co-operative and hard-working attitude toward the development of this report.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Health, in relation to Bill C-284, an act to establish a national strategy for eye care.
[Translation]
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
[English]
I would like to congratulate the sponsor, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek, for being perfectly impatient in guiding the bill to this stage, and committee members for their thoughtful and thorough consideration of the bill and amendments.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Arctic Security and Sovereignty, and the Emergency Preparedness of Indigenous Communities”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I would like to thank all committee members for their incredible work, our witnesses, our analysts, our clerks and our support teams. I would like to wish everyone a happy National Indigenous Peoples Day.
[Translation]
Constitution Act, 1867
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office).
He said: Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce, seconded by the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Bill C‑347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, with regard to the oath of office. This bill amends section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in order to provide that, before taking their seat, members of the Senate and the House of Commons can choose to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance or an oath of office, or both.
The fifth schedule to the Constitution Act, 1867, would be amended by adding the following after the oath of allegiance: “I A.B. do solemnly affirm that I will perform my duties in the best interest of Canada and in accordance with its Constitution”.
I want to be very clear. The purpose of the bill is not to detract from the monarchy's historic role in Canada but to provide an additional option for members and senators when they are sworn in. I therefore invite all parliamentarians to support this bill when the time comes.
I am wondering whether someone else can second the motion because the hon. member who was supposed to do so is not present in the House.
An hon. member: The hon. member for Willowdale will do it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. As we know, members must not pass between the member speaking and the Chair. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands walked in front of the member who was speaking and obstructed the video a little because his head appeared while the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche was making his remarks.
Madam Speaker, I would ask you to remind all members not to pass between the Chair and the member who has the floor.
[English]
Somali Heritage Month Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-348, an act to establish Somali heritage month.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill, which is an act respecting Somali heritage month. If passed, the bill would declare July of every year in Canada Somali heritage month. I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for co-sponsoring this bill with me and the member for York South—Weston for his counsel. I hope that all members of the House will support the legislation.
Canada's strength is reflected in the diversity of our—
There seem to be quite a few individuals having conversations. I would ask them to take their conversations outside so the hon. member can have the respect of the House.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.
Madam Speaker, Canada's strength is reflected in the diversity of our population and of our local communities, and Canada is home to many Canadians of Somali heritage. Canadians of Somali descent have left, and continue to leave, a historic mark on Canada, with contributions that span communities across our country that are reflected in our economic, political, social and cultural life.
If passed, Somali heritage month would give us a special opportunity to recognize that Canadians of Somali descent have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to Canada. It would also give all Canadians a special opportunity to learn more about Somali Canadians' contributions to Canada, by recognizing and celebrating them.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Strategy for the Eradication of Rabies Act
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce an act to establish national rabies awareness day and to develop a national strategy for combatting rabies.
Rabies is a much-feared and equally devastating disease for both animals and humans. Though frequently found in certain animal populations around Canada, rabies poses a particular risk in Canada's northern communities. Changing population patterns and the growing movement of people and animals between the north and the south, combined with influences such as climate change, means a continued and changing threat rabies poses to both northern and southern Canadian communities. In many northern communities, the risk of rabies is added to an ever-present risk posed by feral or semi-feral dog populations.
[Translation]
Canada's remote and rural northern regions do not have regular access to veterinary services that are taken for granted in some parts of the country. The lack of service in remote communities, coupled with the lack of a coordinated rabies prevention strategy in Canada, poses risks not only for people and pets across the country, but also to livestock. This has serious health and economic implications.
[English]
Seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, I hope this bill will support debate and action on this important public health issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Combatting Torture and Terrorism Act
He said: Madam Speaker, since the House voted five years ago to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity and shut down its operations in Canada, Conservatives have been pushing the Liberal government to actually list the IRGC, but it has not acted.
It is time to bring it home and protect Iranian Canadians and all Canadians from threats and violence from this vile regime. Today, I am tabling a bill that will list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and goes further to support victims of terrorism, torture and extrajudicial killing.
In addition to listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity, this bill would allow victims of torture and extrajudicial killing by Iran and other designated state sponsors of terror to seek damages. States' involvement in terrorism as well as torture and extrajudicial killing should not be protected from accountability for these actions by the State Immunity Act and, thus, will not be protected if my bill passes.
I know this bill will be welcomed not only by the Iranian community, but also by many other victims of crime. It requires the government to respond within 40 days to a request from a parliamentary committee to list a new entity as a terrorist organization or to list a new state as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The Liberals have had five years. They have failed to stand with victims of crime and with the Iranian community. A Conservative government will bring it home.
I hope this bill, the combatting torture and terrorism act, will become law as soon as possible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of petitioners who draw the attention of this House to the illegitimate military junta in Burma that continues to indiscriminately kill, torture, rape, imprison and displace civilians, particularly through air strikes, causing an increased need for vital humanitarian assistance.
Among other things, they also note that Canada has outlined its own obligations to aid in the Myanmar crisis as reported in “Canada's strategy to respond to the Rohingya and Myanmar crises (2021 to 2024)”, as well as our commitment under the responsibility to protect principle.
The undersigned call on the Government of Canada on a number of items, including the following: increasing humanitarian aid into Burma; calling on insurance companies to stop providing insurance coverage for deliveries of aviation fuel; imposing sanctions; and promoting ongoing dialogue among pro-democracy and diaspora groups with a view to helping the Burmese people develop an inclusive democracy with full recognition and representation of all ethnic minority communities, including the Rohingya.
Madam Speaker, people in Brantford—Brant and across the province have come together to urge the government to address the cancellation of Via Rail Train 82 and take immediate action to reinstate this vital commuter service.
Via Rail plays a crucial role in facilitating transportation for all Canadians. The cancellation of Train 82 has left hundreds of my constituents without a reliable mode of transportation to Toronto before nine in the morning. This decision has not only disrupted the daily lives of commuters who depend on this train line for work, school and appointments, but has forced individuals to face unemployment, creating additional economic hardships for many.
For those affected by this unjustified cancellation, I encourage all to join me for a rally at the Brantford train station this Saturday, June—
Members are to say what is in the petition. It is not for an hon. member to promote an event or to support the petition.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, because the Burmese people have shown such great courage in the face of the violence perpetrated against them, the Bloc Québécois wants to show its support for them. They continue to hope that their country will be liberated from the military forces subjecting them to an authoritarian regime.
In the interest of protecting democracy and human rights, the Bloc Québécois joins the other opposition parties in tabling this petition.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am here to table a petition on behalf of many people across British Columbia who are very concerned.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene in the marine environment. Foam from marine infrastructure is increasingly a source of pollution on Canadian beaches, and we know that the marine environment can be significantly harmed with this happening. The petitioners are asking for immediate action and hope to see marine life, seafood resources and ecosystems protected.
Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition today on behalf of constituents who are very passionate on the issues of the environment.
Among other things, the petitioners call on the government to reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030 and make significant contributions to emission reductions in countries in the global south. They also call for paying for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations, and financing through a public national bank.
Those are two points among many. I thank the constituents for their advocacy.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by 27 petitioners condemning the heinous acts committed by Russia in its unprovoked war against the people of Ukraine.
The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to Russian forces' attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets and the recent attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam, causing a major humanitarian and environmental disaster.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to immediately and publicly designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.
[English]
Madam Speaker, today I bring a petition brought forward from residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam in relation to acquiring necessary data to support changes to commercial flight paths in the Lower Mainland. Nav Canada seeks to consolidate flight paths into new paths that will pass over residential areas with increased air traffic and potential negative health impacts.
Nav Canada states that the consolidated flight paths will enhance efficiency for the airlines and their air traffic controllers. The petitioners say that people will be impacted. The petitioners state that the Nav Canada plans have not undergone independent review by a third party, which would ensure adherence to internationally recognized noise limits recommended by the Government of Canada's committee of transport.
The petitioners ask that the Minister of Transport prepare an independent environmental assessment of the noise and emission impacts of the proposed flight paths, including recommendations for minimizing such impacts prior to the proposed changes taking place. This environmental assessment should be based on the latest global research and recommendations for noise and emissions, which should be limited. This assessment should be independent of Nav Canada and made public when completed.
Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today, which is signed by roughly 300 Canadians who are calling for a harmonized approach to free parking for the disabled community in Canada. Specifically, they ask the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to make parking free for all accessible parking pass holders nationally.
Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of residents of Kelowna—Lake Country and surrounding area. To be brief, I will mention a couple of points in here. It refers to the fact that the first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41¢ to a litre of gas. The second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20¢ to a litre of gas. It refers to making life more expensive for Canadians and a cost of living crisis. Implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch the Liberal Prime Minister is.
Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to have the House recognize the failure of carbon tax 1 and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax 2, the clean fuel regulation.
Uqaqtittiji, I am so honoured to rise to present a petition signed by 758 people from Rankin Inlet and surrounding communities in my riding of Nunavut. They are petitioning to raise awareness that there needs to be support and equal access to quality health care and for it to be recognized by the Government of Canada.
Petitioners state that the midwifery and maternal child care in Rankin Inlet is unsustainable and almost absent and it is the right of all Canadians to have equal access to quality health care. Midwives, they say, play a critical role in supporting reproductive rights and health promotion for persons across their lifespan. In addition, midwives provide comprehensive care during pregnancy and delivery for low-risk pregnancies.
Without the consistent midwifery presence, many more pregnancies will be at high risk. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support consistent, equitable, sustainable and Inuit-led comprehensive midwifery services in Rankin Inlet.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the Liberal Party, I am presenting a petition on what is happening in Myanmar, or Burma, and to the Rohingya people. It deals with the illegitimate military junta in Burma and the indiscriminate killing, torture, rape, imprisonment, displacement of civilians and air strikes.
The petitioners are drawing the government's attention to this. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase humanitarian aid into Burma to support civil society organizations and vulnerable communities. They also call upon the Government of Canada to promote dialogue and pro-democracy groups that promote an inclusive democracy within Burma, or Myanmar, that include ethnic minorities such as Rohingya and others.
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of several constituents of mine from Saskatoon—Grasswood and surrounding area. They made a number of points and are concerned about the state of democracy right now in Bangladesh. Therefore, they call upon the House of Commons to take all possible measures to help Bangladesh restore its human rights and democracy and ensure a free, fair and credible next general election.
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to present e-petition 4447. This petition calls to address the threat of nuclear destruction and the fact that the doomsday clock has been set at 90 seconds to midnight. The nuclear peril to humanity necessitates the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as required by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty has been ratified by 68 countries and signed by 95 countries, but not yet by Canada. As well, Canada is in part accountable for creating and proliferating nuclear weapons.
These residents from across the country are asking the government to sign and commit to ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW, and to send an official delegation to observe the Second Meeting of the States Parties to the TPNW from November 27 to December 1 at the UN in New York.
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
In the first, the petitioners are calling the attention of Parliament to the fact that it has been over four years since Parliament published “Supporting Families After the Loss of a Child”, yet the government has still not implemented all the recommendations. As a result, families experiencing the loss of a child continue to feel a lack of compassion and support from their government.
I rise today to stand with these petitioners, who are calling on the government to finally implement all seven recommendations in the report, as well as to implement a bereavement benefit for all parents experiencing pregnancy and infant loss.
Madam Speaker, my second petition is on behalf of Albertans. The petitioners call on the government to finally recognize the clear difference between vetted, registered, law-abiding owners of legal rifles and firearms and criminals who smuggle guns into Canada, sell and obtain them illegally on the black market, typically for use by street gangs to commit violent crimes.
The petitioners note that the Liberals have failed to register this distinction; otherwise, their public safety measures would include replacing bail with jail for crimes committed with illegal guns as opposed to a costly confiscation of lawful gun owners' legal personal property.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the Liberals' gun grab.
Madam Speaker, my final petition is on behalf of petitioners warning that the Liberal government's promised rebates fail to cover the cost of the carbon tax on heating and transportation fuel. Not only that, but the average Canadian family is also out-of-pocket nearly $850 after rebates every year.
With the government set to triple these taxes on hard-working Canadians, these petitioners alert Parliament that the tax burden is becoming unsustainable. They ask members to do right by Canadian families and join with Conservatives to axe the carbon tax.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from several hundred Canadians, from coast to coast, calling on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1 for a made-in-Canada green new deal.
These petitioners raise the concerns around climate change. We have seen the forest fires that have ravaged much of this country, as well as the floods. The petitioners referenced the heat dome that killed 600 people in my region of the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. The petitioners are saying that it has never been more urgent that Canada reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy.
The petitioners are also calling for reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the recognition of inherent rights, title and treaty rights, fully implementing UNDRIP. They say that must be at the heart of Canada's approach in addressing the climate emergency.
The petitioners are calling for speedy action. They say that Canada should take bold and rapid action, and that the green new deal is before the Parliament—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect, given that it is the last day of this session, you will find unanimous consent to extend Petitions by two minutes to allow additional members to present. There has been an all-party agreement on a petition on Burma. I suspect that for two additional minutes, there would be agreement.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join colleagues from other parties in presenting a petition regarding the horrific situation in Burma.
The petition is an effort by various Burmese communities and contains a number of asks, including strengthening sanctions, calling on insurance companies to stop providing insurance covering deliveries of aviation fuel to Burma, oil and gas sanctions, support for the opposition, engagement with the opposition groups, and support for pluralistic and inclusive democratic development, including all communities, such as Rohingya.
I am pleased to join members of all parties in this important work and to advocate for the people of Burma and for democracy there.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present two petitions today on behalf of the Pakistani community in Regina and southern Saskatchewan. Petitioners are concerned about the turmoil in Pakistan, given the recent arrest of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan.
The first petition calls on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to meet with the Pakistani high commissioner immediately and inform him that it is completely unacceptable for the military regime in Pakistan to intimidate people living in that country based on the activities of their family members living in Canada. This is following multiple reports of such incidents based on social media posts made in Canada that were critical of the Pakistani regime.
Madam Speaker, the second petition concerns reports of politically motivated acts of violence against opposition parties in Pakistan in the lead-up to general elections in that country later this year. This petition calls on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to study the feasibility of imposing Magnitsky sanctions on members of the Pakistani military who are responsible for these acts.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present these petitions today in the House of Commons.
Questions on the Order Paper
Madam Speaker, I would like the House to join me in thanking the incredible pages we have. This is potentially the last day of this cohort, and we will see new pages come in the fall. Through you, Madam Speaker, to all the pages who make this place work behind the scenes and here, we thank them for the incredible work they have done over the last year.
The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1487, 1488, 1490 to 1494, 1501 to 1505, 1508, 1511 to 1515 and 1521.
[Text]
With regard to the government's Black-tailed Prairie Dogs recovery program and to the designation of the prairie dog as an endangered species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: (a) what is the population threshold that must be met for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog to no longer be considered an endangered species; (b) when listing the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as an endangered species, does the government consider (i) the large population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs outside of Canada, (ii) that southern Saskatchewan is only the northern tip of a much larger and more expansive habitat which runs through the continental United States and down to Mexico; (c) if the government does not take the factors in (b) into account, why not; (d) how much funding was allocated to research and programming for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog recovery program since 2021; (e) what parameters are put in to determine the success of the recovery program; (f) what progress has been made; and (g) has the implementation of the program had any adverse effects on (i) private property in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park, (ii) other wildlife within Grasslands National Park?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, is listed as threatened on schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, as recommended by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Its status is based on the threat of increased drought and sylvatic plague, which are expected to cause significant population declines if they occur frequently. Drought is expected to increase in frequency due to a changing climate. Although most of the Canadian population of the species is within Grasslands National Park, it is isolated and has no connectivity between or with other populations, all of which are in the United States. The national recovery of species at risk is determined based on whether population and distribution objectives are met as outlined in federal recovery strategies. The population and distribution objectives can be found in the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, found on the following web page: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rsap-Btpd-v00-2021Aug-Eng1.pdf
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada status assessments are determined by using quantitative criteria that are based on International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List criteria. Reaching a particular population threshold alone will not reduce the level of risk for the black-tailed prairie dog in Canada in part because they are found in a single small area and are isolated from the nearest populations found in the United States, thus the entire Canadian population could be critically impacted by threats.
With regard to part (b), when the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which is an arm’s length group of experts, assesses species in Canada, it examines neighbouring populations. It considers whether the other population can “rescue” the Canadian population. Rescue can only take place if individuals from the foreign population can join the Canadian one. In this case, the nearest United States black-tailed prairie dog colony was too far away to do so.
Canada applies the Species at Risk Act found at https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/ with the goal of maintaining our country’s biodiversity, recognizing that the rate at which wildlife disappears from our planet will only be slowed if the world’s governments take responsibility for the species within their own borders.
With regard to part (c), yes, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the federal government considered these things before identifying that this species’ status under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act should be changed from special concern to threatened.
With regard to part (d), from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023, approximately $129,000 was spent.
With regard to part (e), the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html in 2021, identifies the population and distribution objectives that will assist in the recovery of the species, and actions that can be taken to reach these objectives. A report on the progress towards meeting these objectives is required under section 46 of the Species at Risk Act and will be posted on the Species at Risk Registry in 2026.
With regard to part (f), progress towards the recovery of black-tailed prairie dogs within Grasslands National Park, and recovery measures that were implemented from 2016 to 2021, is outlined in the Implementation Report: Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park, found at https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/Rprdi-PnpGnp-v00-2021Dec-Eng.pdf.
With regard to part (g)(i), Parks Canada is unable to comment on any adverse effects on private property in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park, in part because we do not have any information on the distribution or numbers of prairie dogs found outside the national park boundary.
With regard to part (g)(ii), Black-tailed prairie dogs are a keystone species in the prairie ecosystem. Their benefits to the ecosystem are numerous, and include aerating the soil, providing habitat and burrows for other species such as burrowing owls, endangered, and prairie rattlesnake, special concern. Their burrows provide refuge for birds, amphibians and small mammals from predators and extreme seasonal temperatures. Sustainable black-tailed prairie dog populations are also critical, as identified within the Recovery Strategy for the Black-footed Ferret in Canada, as a species that is currently extirpated from Canada, listed as endangered in the United States and classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Black-tailed prairie dogs are food for predators including coyotes, badgers, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, and red-tailed hawks. Adverse impacts of black-tailed prairie dogs have not been extensively studied; however, the implementation of dusting colonies on a rotational basis to manage sylvatic plague can have negative impacts on local invertebrate and amphibian communities.
With regard to the government’s response to the decision by the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) that recommends to transplant centers and to provincial health transplant programs to deny transplants to individuals who have not received their COVID-19 vaccine: did the Minister of Health or anyone acting on behalf of the government suggest or advise this course of action to the CST or any transplant center and, if so, what are the details, including (i) who provided the suggestion or the advice, (ii) the date, (iii) the summary of suggestion or advice?
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Transplant Consensus Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccine was written by the Canadian Society of Transplantation’s transplant infections disease group, reviewed by its ethics committee and endorsed by the board of directors. The Government of Canada was not involved in these guidelines.
The published document National Transplant Consensus Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccine lays out the reasons that patients should be vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to organ transplantation. Many transplant programs had already adopted this policy in principle. By way of the guidelines, the CST formalized the policy, while acknowledging that there may be cases where exemptions should be considered.
These guidelines do not recommend that transplant programs deny organ transplants to individuals who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.
In Canada, health care is provincially administered, which may contribute to the degree of heterogeneity in ways the guidelines have been applied.
With regard to the government’s deal with Volkswagen to build a plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, and the Prime Minister’s claim that “There were places in the United States that were putting up way, way more money than we put on the table”: (a) which specific places was the Prime Minister aware of that made such offers; (b) through what sources did the government become aware of each of such offer; (c) how much more money did each place in (a) offer, broken down by location; (d) for each offer in (c), what non-monetary measures were included with the offer; and (e) what non-monetary measures did the government offer Volkswagen?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has committed to facilitating the industrial transformation of the automotive sector to a net-zero future and taking the actions needed to remain competitive. The specific details sought were obtained in confidence during commercial negotiations and cannot be disclosed. The PowerCo. investment is a testament to Canada’s strong value proposition, including its highly skilled workforce, clean energy, abundance of critical minerals, access to markets, and a flourishing automotive and battery sector.
With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) enforcement related to elver poaching in Nova Scotia since January 1, 2023: (a) how many individuals have DFO authorities charged or taken other enforcement action against; and (b) what are the details of each incident where an enforcement action was taken, including the (i) date, (ii) description of what occurred, (iii) number of individuals having had an enforcement action taken against them, (iv) location, (v) enforcement action taken, including whether any arrests were made or charges laid, (vi) items that were seized, if applicable?
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1 to June 8, fishery officers in Nova Scotia have conducted patrols of known elver harvesting sites across the province that resulted in 68 arrests and the seizure of 122 fyke nets, 104 dip nets and six vehicles. During this time, the abovementioned arrests and seizures were related to fishing without an authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada or for fishing contrary to a fisheries management order.
As these matters are under investigation, no further details will be provided at this time.
With regard to action planned by the Minister of Transport to lower airline ticket prices and fees to improve the competitiveness of prices of flights departing from Canadian airports in close proximity to the United States: what action, if any, is the minister planning to take and on what date will such action occur?
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that Canadians rely on air transport more than many other countries to conduct business and connect with friends and family. Air transport also provides essential goods and services to regional and remote communities. Air transport in Canada is provided in the context of the country’s vastness and thinly distributed population, which make economies of scale more difficult to generate than other jurisdictions such as the United States, particularly with regard to many small, northern or otherwise remote communities.
Due to Canada's geography and the location of some of Canada's major airports, the catchment areas for the large airports sometimes overlap with those of the smaller U.S. airports located close to the border. Large Canadian airports often provide a wider range of services and attract passengers from small U.S. airports, which offer a limited range of services. Overall, some travellers may find it more convenient to cross the border to access certain services depending on the services being offered by the airlines at that airport.
Canada’s air carriers and airport authorities are private-sector companies, and, as such, make their own business decisions in order to remain viable and competitive. In Canada, the frequency of flights, the services offered and the prices charged by airlines are determined based on market forces. The government does not regulate air fares, and all airlines are free to set their prices in accordance with their business plans. Other factors contributing to air ticket prices include fluctuating currency rates, fuel prices and interest rates. Federal policy encourages competition between air carriers, which is ultimately the best way to establish a fair price for a service.
Similarly, airports are economically deregulated, and major airports are operated by private, not-for-profit airport authorities that are solely responsible for the operation, management and development of their airports, and that includes setting the fees that enable them to recover their costs. Like the rest of the industry, airport fees are economically deregulated. The federal government does not set or control the fees airports charge. The same applies to Nav Canada, the private corporation that provides air navigation services in Canada. It charges airlines for its services on a per flight basis, and Nav Canada's fees are also not subject to government controls.
Nevertheless, the government has introduced and will continue to introduce legislation and regulations that promote a healthy and competitive air sector. More specifically, the Transportation Modernization Act encouraged increased competition in the Canadian market by, among other things, allowing more foreign investment in Canadian air carriers. This measure should have positive impacts on competition and, ultimately, the prices paid by Canadian travellers. In addition, there are more ultra-low-cost carriers now than before the pandemic, which will provide Canadians with more low-cost options.
The government also supported the air carriers through the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure that services remain available to Canadians. While some large air carriers availed themselves of financial assistance under the large employer emergency financing facility, the government also provided funding to ensure continuity of essential air access to remote communities through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories under the remote air service program, which supported the provision of essential levels of air services to remote communities and complemented existing funding mechanisms for air carriers. The regional air transportation initiative was also created as part of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan to provide support over two years to eligible regional businesses, including air carriers that directly contribute to regional air transportation, and was designed to help ensure that regional air connectivity and services, which are critical to economic growth, are maintained and that regional routes are reconnected across the country. Finally, air carriers were also able to avail themselves of programs of general application such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy.
Please be reassured that Transport Canada continues to work with a range of air industry participants, the organizations that represent them and other government departments to assess appropriate options to support Canada’s air transport sector generally, thereby ensuring that Canadians have the services they need at a reasonable cost.
With regard to the Order Amending Schedules 2 and 3 of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 25: (a) has the consultation period length to receive feedback on the proposed regulations ended; (b) what is the timeline for the government to decide on final regulations for flavoured vaping products; and (c) is the government still committed to reducing youth vaping rates through a targeted ban on flavours, including mint and menthol, that appeal to youth?
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the consultation period for the proposed order closed on September 2, 2021. Health Canada received over 25,000 submissions and continues to assess the input it received from Canadians.
The Government of Canada remains committed to preventing youth vaping and has taken a number of measures to that effect. The Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, TVPA, prohibits the sale of vaping products to young persons and bans advertising that could be appealing to young persons. The TVPA also contains certain restrictions with regard to flavours to help protect young persons from enticement to use vaping products. Confectionery, dessert, cannabis, soft drink and energy drink are flavours that cannot be promoted or sold in relation to vaping products labelling, promotion or packaging.
Three sets of regulations came into effect between 2020 and 2021, the vaping product labelling and packaging regulations, the nicotine concentration in vaping products regulations and the vaping products promotion regulations. The labelling and packaging regulations require a standardized nicotine concentration statement and a health warning about the addictiveness of nicotine as well as a toxicity warning. The nicotine concentration regulations cap nicotine at 20 mg/mL of liquid. The vaping promotion regulations prohibit advertising and display of vaping products at retail locations, including online, that can be seen by youth.
Health Canada continues its efforts to improve compliance with TVPA provisions on youth access to vaping products and promotions. In fiscal year 2022-23, for example, these efforts included inspecting 1,180 vaping product retailers and seizing non-compliant products at 177 establishments; and conducting inspections of 255 online vaping product retailers and issuing 230 warning letters.
With respect to public education, Health Canada has invested more than $14 million to date in its “consider the consequences of vaping” campaign, which seeks to inform youth and their parents about the risks and harm associated with vaping. The campaign includes traditional and online advertising, as well as interactive learning tours in schools.
Finally, a new federal excise duty on vaping products came into effect on October 1, 2022. Health Canada is committed to working closely with the Department of Finance to ensure that Canada’s product taxation policy is consistent with the government’s health objectives. The Government of Canada will monitor the impacts of the excise duty to ensure its intended benefits are being achieved.
Protecting the health and safety of youth is a top priority.
With regard to the Skills for Success Program launched in May 2021, broken down by funding stream: (a) what are the details of all applications that have received funding, including the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) amount received, (iii) under-represented labour group represented; (b) on what dates were applicants informed of whether they were approved for funding; and (c) what metrics does the government use to measure the literacy, numeracy, and digital skills targeted through the program?
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ESDC reviewed all grants and contribution programs by conducting data searches within the common system for grants and contributions, CSGC, as well as through conducting internal consultations.
With regard to part (a), the skills for success, SFS, program launched a new model in May 2021. Following this, the department developed an investment strategy that included five investment approaches: the expansion of some existing projects; the funding of 12 unsolicited proposals that met the objectives of the program; a solicited call for organizations that was launched in 2021; a solicited call for provinces and territories that was launched in 2021; and a call for proposals, CFP, that was launched in January and closed in March 2022. The first three of the intake approaches are complete and all projects stemming from those approaches are now advancing. Funding decisions for the final two approaches are being finalized, i.e., projects are still being assessed. Therefore, a full list of applications that have received funding with additional details cannot yet be provided.
With regard to part (b), on the CFP specifically, funding decisions are being communicated at varying times, depending on whether proposals sought to support persons with disabilities, racialized Canadians or Canadians from one or more of the other identified underserved groups. As a result, some organizations have received a funding decision under the training and tools or research and innovation streams of the CFP; however, final notifications are expected to be fully confirmed by early summer 2023.
With regard to part (c), the SFS program uses the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey data results to help guide policy direction for the program. This survey includes measures of literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments on a scale of 1 to 5.
With regard to the re-negotiated terms and conditions of the Canadian North and First Air merger announced on April 21, 2023: (a) what is the current average passenger load for each route over the last six months; (b) what were the average annual fares for each route (i) at the time the merger was approved, (ii) as of May 3, 2023; and (c) how will the government protect passengers from rate increases for airfare and cargo rates?
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), the requested information is confidential due to its commercial nature.
With regard to part (c), as per the new agreement, Canadian North must limit average annual regional fare increases for both passenger and cargo transportation to 25% per region within a calendar year unless it can be demonstrated to the Minister of Transport that this limit would result in operational losses to the company. Further, the 10% profit cap on all scheduled passenger and cargo activities will in essence constrain the company’s ability to increase its fares and adherence to this cap will be monitored on an annual basis. These conditions will be in place for the next three years.
Additionally, Transport Canada will be retaining an independent monitor to report directly to the Minister of Transport on a quarterly basis ensuring that the airline is meeting its obligations. Furthermore, should the airline not be meeting its obligations under the new terms and conditions and unwilling to adjust its behaviour to become compliant, there are measures under the Canada Transportation Act, which can be fines of up to $10 million.
With regard to the Airports Capital Assistance Program and other investments meant to improve the safety of passengers and assets of airports in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, since 2015: (a) what are the details of all projects that have received funding, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many applications related to paving gravel runways were received for funding; and (c) of the applications in (b), which applications received funding?
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), under the airports capital assistance program, 39 projects have received funding in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon since 2015. The total value of these projects was $73.7 million. Any grants or contributions awarded are reported to Canadians through the federal proactive disclosure process, which can be accessed at the following web page: https://open.canada.ca/proactive-disclosure.
With regard to parts (b) and (c), no applications were received for paving gravel runways. Under the terms and conditions of the airports capital assistance program, gravel runways are eligible for funding to support the rehabilitation of gravel surfaces. However, this does not include paving gravel runways with asphalt.
With regard to the Canadian North and First air merger approved by the Minister of Transport in June 2019: (a) did the government identify any compliance issues with the original terms and conditions of the merger; (b) what are the details or all identified compliance issues identified by the government; (c) what are the details of all meetings undertaken to discuss compliance measures, including the (i) date of the meeting, (ii) attendees, (iii) compliance measures discussed?
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), no compliance issues were identified. However, it should be noted that Canadian North was exempt from its scheduling obligations from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, April 2020, to the implementation of the new terms and conditions, April 2023.
With regard to part (b), there were no compliance issues identified by Transport Canada.
With regard to part (c), there were no meetings to discuss compliance measures as the airline was never in breach of its commitments.
With regard to the commitment to lowering credit card transaction fees for small and medium-sized businesses in budget 2023: (a) on what date will the details of this commitment be released; (b) what is the total number of meetings the government has had with Visa and Mastercard related to the measures announced; and (c) does the government intend to introduce lower transaction fees for other payment options, including American Express or Interac?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2023, the government announced that it had secured agreements with Visa and Mastercard to lower credit card transaction fees for small businesses, while also protecting reward points for Canadian consumers offered by Canada's large banks, fulfilling commitments expressed in budget 2021, budget 2022 and the 2022 fall economic statement.
The government announced further details on the agreements on May 18, including the eligibility criteria for receiving lower rates with each network.
For qualifying small businesses, Visa and Mastercard have agreed to reduce domestic consumer credit interchange fees for in-store transactions to an annual weighted average interchange rate of 0.95%; reduce domestic consumer credit interchange fees for online transactions by 10 basis points, resulting in reductions of up to 7%; and provide free access to online fraud and cybersecurity resources to help small businesses grow their online sales while preventing fraud and charge-backs.
Small businesses will qualify with each credit card network individually. Specifically, small businesses with annual Visa sales volume below $300,000 will qualify for the lower interchange fees from Visa, and those with annual Mastercard sales volume below $175,000 will qualify for the lower fees from Mastercard.
It is estimated that more than 90% of credit card-accepting businesses in Canada will qualify for lower rates and see their interchange fees reduced by up to 27% from the existing weighted average rate.
In working towards the agreements, the government engaged with the credit card industry and businesses through a combination of in-person and virtual meetings, calls, and other exchanges. The comprehensive engagement approach included several touchpoints with small and medium-sized business groups, credit card networks, financial institutions and their industry association, acquirers, payment processors and external reward programs.
The government expects other credit card companies, such as American Express, to take similar actions to lower fees for small businesses.
Interac is a low-cost debit network and does not facilitate credit card transactions.
With regard to the Skills for Success Program: (a) how many organizations applied to the program prior to the closing date, broken down by stream; (b) what was the total value of funding requests received, broken down by stream; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by province or territory; (d) how many organizations have been approved for the program, broken down by organization type; (e) what was the dollar value of the funding (i) approved, (ii) transferred to the recipient, as of May 5, 2023; (f) what is the breakdown of (d) and (e) by province or territory; (g) how many approved organizations have already received funding through the program; (h) what are the details of all projects and entities funded through the program, including, for each, the (i) recipient name, (ii) location, (iii) amount of funding approved, (iv) amount of funding delivered, (v) project description, (vi) start date of the project; and (i) have any third parties outside of Employment and Social Development Canada been given any responsibilities related to the application process or administration of the program, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) name of the entity, (ii) summary of the mandate or work assigned, (iii) amount of financial compensation provided by the government?
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ESDC reviewed all grants and contributions within the skills for success program by conducting data searches within the common system for grants and contributions, CSGC, as well as conducting internal consultations.
The skills for success, SFS, program was launched in May 2021. The department developed an investment strategy that included five investment approaches: expansion of some existing projects; funding of 12 unsolicited proposals that met the objectives of the program; solicited call for organizations that was launched in 2021; solicited call for provinces and territories that was launched in 2021; and call for proposals that was launched in January 2022 and closed in March 2022.
The first three of the investment approaches are complete and all projects stemming from those approaches are now advancing. Funding decisions for the final two approaches are being finalized, i.e., projects are still being assessed. It has been assumed that the questions relate specifically to the call for proposals, therefore, a full list of applications to respond to parts (d) to (h) cannot yet be provided. Final funding decisions are expected to be confirmed by early summer 2023.
With regard to part (a), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, approximately 433 applications were received for stream 1, tools and training stream; and 120 applications were received for the stream 2, research and innovation stream.
With regard to part (b), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, approximately $904,092,567 was requested under stream 1, tools and training stream, adult learning literacy and essential skills program, skills for success, contribution; and $197,652,753 was requested under stream 2, research and innovation, national essential skills initiative, skills for success, employment insurance, EI, part II.
With regard to part (c), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, please note the following. The following funding was requested under stream 1, tools and training, adult learning literacy and essential skills program, skills for success, contribution: Alberta: $0; Newfoundland and Labrador: $23,360,911; Nova Scotia: $27,431,518; Prince Edward Island: $5,420,630; New Brunswick: $26,362,514; Quebec: $51,788,867; Ontario: $432,564,687; Manitoba: $35,862,467; Saskatchewan: $25,038,378; Alberta: $137,992,934; British Columbia: $116,716,438; Northwest Territories: $19,776,998; Yukon Territory: $1,566,225; and Nunavut: $210,000.
The following funding was requested under stream 2, research and innovation, national essential skills initiative, skills for success, EI, part II: Newfoundland and Labrador: $1,974,762; Nova Scotia: $4,697,655; Prince Edward Island: $755,111; New Brunswick: $2,362,673; Quebec: $7,562,772; Ontario: $112,304,390; Manitoba: $5,205,579; Saskatchewan: $8,147,682; Alberta: $32,978,421; British Columbia: $18,636,406; and Northwest Territories: $3,063,302.
With regard to part (i), no third parties, outside of ESDC, have been given any responsibilities for the skills for success program related to the application process or administration of the program.
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): what are the details and dates of all actions taken by the CRTC related to the implementation of measures contained in Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all details and dates of all actions taken by the CRTC related to the implementation of measures contained in Bill C-11 can be found here at the following web page: Regulatory Plan to modernize Canada's broadcasting system | CRTC.
With regard to government information on the impact of windmills on wildlife: (a) how many (i) birds, (ii) other animals, does the government estimate were killed in Canada from windmills in the last five years, broken down by species; and (b) what impact analysis has Environment Canada conducted on (i) wildlife habitat, (ii) migration patterns, and what were the findings?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, scientists have participated in a number of studies on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife in Canada. In 2013, the journal Avian Conservation and Ecology published a special feature called “Quantifying Human-related Mortality of Birds in Canada”. This included nine research papers evaluating the impact of various sources of mortality to birds, together with an introductory overview and a synthesis paper.
A paper in that issue by Zimmerling et al., 2013, studied the impact of wind turbines on birds. They estimated an average of 8.2 birds were killed per turbine per year after correcting for the number of carcasses that would be missed by searchers. Based on 2,955 turbines installed by the end of 2011, they estimated 23,300 birds killed per year across Canada.
Based on data from the Canadian Wind Energy Association, CANWEA, website, by the end of 2022, the installed wind capacity in Canada had increased to about 15,000 megawatts. Assuming average wind turbines are now 2-3 megawatts, this corresponds to about 5,000-7,500 turbines. Thus, if mortality rates remain similar, the number of birds killed would now be estimated at about 62,000 per year.
This number is much lower than the number of birds estimated by Calvert et al., 2013, to be killed by other human-related sources such as 200 million birds per year by domestic and feral cats, 25 million birds per year by power transmission lines, 22 million birds per year by collisions with windows in residential houses and 14 million birds per year by collisions with vehicles.
With regard to part (a)(i), Zimmerling et al., 2013, also reported data on the species composition of birds killed at wind turbines in Canada, based on available data from carcass searches. The most frequently reported species were Horned Lark, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Red-eyed Vireo, European Starling, and Tree Swallow all of which are abundant species in Canada. There was no evidence that mortality rates for any species were high enough to cause population-level impacts.
With regard to part (a)(ii), in a separate study, Zimmerling and Francis, 2016, estimated the impact of wind turbines in Canada on bats. They estimated an average of 15.5 bats killed per turbine representing about 47,000 bats per year in 2013. If mortality rates remain similar now, that would now represent 75,000-116,000 bats per year based on an estimate of 5,000-7,500 turbines. Most of this mortality occurred for only four species: Hoary Bat, 34%, Silver-haired Bat, 25%, Eastern Red Bat, 15%, and Little Brown Myotis, 13%.
There is growing evidence that mortality rates of bats due to wind turbines may be high enough to be causing population declines. Davy et al., 2020, found evidence of declines in populations of some migratory bat species in Ontario. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, recently recommended that Hoary Bat, Red Bat and Silver-haired Bat should all be listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. The reason for designation indicated that populations were declining by more than 50% over three generations, with the major threat the high risk of mortality at wind energy facilities. Please see the following web page: https://www.cosewic.ca/index.php/en-ca/assessment-process/detailed-version-may-2023.html. Portions of the populations of all three species migrate from Canada to the southern United States so they would be exposed to risk of mortality at wind turbines in both countries.
With regard to part (b)(i), ECCC has only participated in limited studies on the impact of wind turbines on wildlife habitat. Zimmerling et al., 2013, estimated habitat loss from wind turbines at about 1.2 hectares per turbine. Extrapolated to the current number of turbines, this would suggest a loss of 6,000-9,000 hectares of wildlife habitat based on estimated number of turbines in 2022. However, this study did not consider habitat loss that may be associated with new roads or transmission lines for turbines installed in remote areas, and data are not currently available on those potential impacts.
With regard to part (b)(ii), ECCC has not undertaken any studies on changes to migration patterns as a result of wind turbines.
Please see the following references: Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11.
Davy, C.M., K. Squires, and J.R. Zimmerling. 2020. Estimation of spatiotemporal trends in bat abundance from mortality data collected at wind turbines. Conservation Biology 35:227-238.
Zimmerling, J. R., A. C. Pomeroy, M. V. d'Entremont, and C. M. Francis. 2013. Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 10.
Zimmerling, J. R. & C. M. Francis. 2016. Bat mortality due to wind turbines in Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management, 80: 1360-1369.
With regard to the response by Parks Canada to the results of water samples received on January 23, 2023, indicating the presence of environmental DNA from zebra mussels in Clear Lake at Riding Mountain National Park: (a) what external suppliers, contractors, consultants were contracted by Parks Canada in relation to the response, and what are the details of each such contract, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) goods or services provided, including the type of information or advice provided, if applicable; (b) for each consultant or advisor contracted by Parks Canada in relation to this matter, what advice, recommendations, or results did the government receive; (c) who has the government consulted with on the future use of Clear Lake since the results were received; (d) which individuals and organizations were invited to Parks Canada’s aquatic invasive species information meeting, held on April 24, 2023, in the Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Centre; (e) how many consultations did Parks Canada host on the future use of Clear Lake that were open to the general public prior to May 5, 2023, including, for each meeting, (i) the date, (ii) the location (iii) how the public was notified, (iv) the date the public was notified; and (f) what are the details of all decisions made by Parks Canada on the future use of the lake since the results were received, including, for each decision, the (i) date of the decision, (ii) decision, (iii) summary of terms, (iv) date the decision was published?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Parks Canada did not contract suppliers or consultants related to Q-1512.
With regard to part (b), Parks Canada did not contract consultants related to Q-1512.
With regard to part (c), Under the Canada National Parks Act, the superintendent has authority over decisions related to use of Clear Lake. While a consultation process was not required, in recognition of the high public interest and potential implications to partners and stakeholders that decisions around seasonal operations at Clear Lake could have, the park undertook an engagement process with key stakeholders including: first nations partners from the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and the Coalition of First Nations with interests in Riding Mountain National Park, including leadership and band members; the local member of Parliament; provincial members of the Legislative Assembly; reeves and council representatives from local municipal governments; other federal and provincial departments and ministries; watershed districts; local business owners and chambers of commerce; cottage and cabin owners; provincial and local tourism industry representatives; environmental non-governmental organizations; volunteer groups; boaters; anglers; paddlers; and private citizens.
With regard to part (d), individuals and organizations invited to Parks Canada’s aquatic invasive species, AIS, information session on April 24, 2023 were the following: Coalition of First Nations with Interests in Riding Mountain National Park; Rural Municipality of Harrison-Park; Rural Municipality of Clanwilliam-Erickson; Clear Lake Cottage Owners Association; Clear Lake Cabin Owners Association; Clear Lake Country Destination Enrichment (Marketing) Organization; Clear Lake Marina operator; Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce; Erickson and District Chamber of Commerce; Travel Manitoba; Riding Mountain National Park Biosphere Reserve; Nature Conservancy of Canada; Friends of Riding Mountain National Park; former MP for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Robert Sopuck; Sandy Lake AIS Volunteer Program; Assiniboine West Watershed District; Camp Wannacumbac; and Elkhorn Resort and Spa.
With regard to part (e), three stakeholder engagement meetings were held: February 22, 2023; March 14, 2023; and April 24, 2023, at Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Centre, Wasagaming Townsite. Organizations were asked to share with their networks. The public was able to attend. The date the public was notified depended on when the organizations shared the information.
With regard to part (f)(i), discussions on potential enhancements to the aquatic invasive species program began when the eDNA results were received in January 2023. The decision to implement the enhanced program was formalized in late April, after consultations with indigenous partners, stakeholders and the public.
With regard to part (f)(ii), implementation of enhancements to the existing aquatic invasive species monitoring program, which consisted of boat and trailer inspections and a decontamination program prior to launching in Clear Lake. Additional measures in place for 2023 will include a tag process for trailered boats to lower the risk of transporting zebra mussels from other water bodies.
With regard to part (f)(iii), implementation of an enhanced aquatic invasive species program to include a tag process for trailered boats. Program enhancements are temporary. Permanent changes to the aquatic invasive species prevention program will be subject to further engagement.
With regard to part (f)(iv), interim measures for 2023 were communicated to local MPs, MLAs and municipal leaders on May 5, with information shared widely on social media on May 5 and 6.
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and Medicago on November 13, 2020, for the vaccine approved by Health Canada on February 24, 2022: what are the government’s reasons for not purchasing this vaccine?
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 13, 2020, Public Services and Procurement Canada signed an advance purchase agreement, APA, with Medicago for the supply of 20 million firm doses, with options for up to an additional 56 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine.
While Medicago’s COVID-19 vaccine was approved in Canada in February 2022, due to unanticipated manufacturing issues, Medicago was not able to market any lots of its COVID19 vaccine for commercial use.
On February 2, 2023, Mitsubishi Chemical Group announced its decision to cease all Medicago operations due to lack of global demand for COVID-19 vaccines and delayed production at scale as purchasers now expect bivalent vaccines. The Government of Canada is working together with Medicago to conclude Canada’s APA while protecting Canada’s interests.
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and Johnson and Johnson on November 30, 2020, for the vaccine approved by Health Canada on March 5, 2021: what are the government’s reasons for discontinuing the purchase of more vaccines from Johnson and Johnson after purchasing 9.98 million doses?
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic started, it was not known which vaccines would be successful or when they would be available. Experts therefore advised Canada to secure many different types of vaccines. To secure fast access to vaccines for everyone in the country, Canada set up advance purchase agreements, APAs, with seven manufacturers: Moderna, Novavax, Medicago, Pfizer-BioNTech, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), and AstraZeneca.
To date, Canada has received over 164 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 98 million doses have been administered, including 24,000 doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine. Most of the Johnson & Johnson doses were administered to individuals with a preference for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and/or with a contraindication to other types of vaccine. In April 2021, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, issued a preferential recommendation that a complete series with an mRNA COVID19 vaccine, i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, should be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine, while a viral vector COVID19 vaccine, i.e., AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines, may be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine to initiate a series when other authorized COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated or inaccessible.
Given NACI’s preferential recommendation for mRNA vaccines, the adequate supply of mRNA vaccines available in Canada, and a lack of demand from provinces and territories for viral vector vaccines, Canada has terminated its APA with Johnson & Johnson. A small reserve of frozen Johnson & Johnson vaccine continues to be held in inventory in Canada, should it be needed.
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and AstraZeneca on November 21, 2020, for the vaccine authorized by Health Canada on February 26, 2021: after purchasing 20 million doses, what are the government’s reasons for discontinuing the purchase of more vaccines from AstraZeneca?
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic started, it was not known which vaccines would be successful or when they would be available. Experts therefore advised Canada to secure many different types of vaccines. To secure fast access to vaccines for everyone in the country, Canada set up advance purchase agreements, APAs, with seven manufacturers: Moderna, Novavax, Medicago, Pfizer-BioNTech, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), and AstraZeneca.
To date, Canada has received over 164 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 98 million doses have been administered, including approximately 2.8 million doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Most of the AstraZeneca doses were administered early in the pandemic, when vaccine supply was limited, or to individuals with a preference for the AstraZeneca vaccine and/or with a contraindication to other types of vaccine. In April 2021, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, issued a preferential recommendation that a complete series with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, should be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine, while a viral vector COVID-19 vaccine, i.e., AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines, may be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine to initiate a series when other authorized COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated or inaccessible.
Given NACI’s preferential recommendation for mRNA vaccines, the adequate supply of mRNA vaccines available in Canada, and a lack of demand from provinces and territories for viral vector vaccines, Canada has terminated its APA with AstraZeneca.
With regard to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): (a) what measurable goals are projected to be obtained at the onset of this agreement; (b) what is the projected benefit from this agreement to the Canadian economy within the next five years; and (c) does the CPTPP conform with the World Trade Organization rules?
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, has been in force since 2018, and has now been ratified by all original 11 signatories, with Brunei Darussalam most recently notifying on May 14, 2023. It is an ambitious and high standard agreement that strengthens the rules-based international trading system. By eliminating tariffs and creating consistent and transparent rules and procedures for doing business, the CPTPP will generate long-term GDP gains for Canada.
These benefits are already being realized by Canadian businesses. In the fifth year since entry into force, total merchandise trade between Canada and all CPTPP partners was $123.6 billion in 2022, growing by 26.1% as compared to 2018. These results are significantly higher than the gains that were projected under the economic impact assessment, EIA, that was conducted by the Government of Canada based on the negotiated outcomes of the CPTPP, which projected Canada’s exports to other CPTPP countries to increase by only 4.2%. Canada’s merchandise exports to CPTPP partners reached a record high of $37.5 billion, rising by 31.1% in 2022, as compared to 2018. Canadian merchandise imports also experienced strong growth over this period, rising 24.1% to reach $86.1 billion in 2022. In 2022, Canada merchandise exports to Japan, a market that Canadian businesses gained preferential access to under the CPTPP, reached $18.0 billion, rising 38.8% compared to 2018. This is significantly greater than the 8.6% increase projected under the EIA. Further, in 2022, agricultural goods led Canada’s top exports to Japan at $5.4 billion, representing an 18.8% increase over 2018. Japan is the third-largest export destination for Canadian agriculture and agri-food products after the United States and China.
With regard to part (b), the CPTPP is expected to continue having a positive impact on the Canadian economy in the next five years and beyond, especially as it enters into force for all original signatories. With the recent conclusion of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s accession to the CPTPP and six other economies having applied for accession, the CPTPP has a high growth potential. Accessions will expand the benefits of the CPTPP that could lead to new investment and export opportunities for Canada. Accessions provide an efficient path for securing preferential access to new markets or enhanced access to markets already covered by Canadian FTAs. Further, accessions will expand the single set of rules between Canada, CPTPP members and accession candidates, making trade more predictable, transparent and accessible for Canadian businesses.
With regard to part (c), the CPTPP, like all of Canada’s free trade agreements, conforms with the World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. The three WTO agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property. The WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, and General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS, were established with the objectives of creating a credible and reliable system of international trade rules; ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all participants, principle of non-discrimination; stimulating economic activity through guaranteed policy bindings; and promoting trade and development through progressive liberalization by elimination of discriminatory measures and/or prohibition of new discriminatory measures. The CPTPP incorporates the requirements of GATS and GATT throughout the text of the agreement, including in article 1.1, which establishes that the CPTPP is “consistent with Article XXIV of [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] GATT 1994 and Article V of [General Agreement on Trade in Services] GATS.”
The WTO agreement on intellectual property, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, plays a critical role in facilitating trade in knowledge and creativity, in resolving trade disputes over intellectual property, and in recognizing the significant links between intellectual property and trade. The CPTPP incorporates the TRIPS agreement throughout the Intellectual Property chapter.
The CPTPP was reviewed by the WTO committee on regional trade agreements, CRTA, on June 21, 2021. The WTO CRTA considers individual regional agreements, is mandated to hold discussions on the systemic implications of the agreements for the multilateral trading system and undertakes to assess the compatibility of individual trade agreements with WTO provisions. WTO members submitted multiple questions to CPTPP parties regarding CPTPP provisions. No members objected to the CPTPP’s compliance with the WTO rules.
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 505, originally tabled on June 13, 2022, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1484, 1486, 1489, 1498, 1500, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1516 to 1520 and 1522 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately?
An hon. member: Agreed.
[Text]
With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects with a budget over $1 million: what are the details of each project, including the (i) project description and summary, (ii) total budget, (iii) estimated completion date?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the purchase of promotional products since January 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) what was the amount spent; (d) what was the price per unit; (e) if the products were purchased in relation to a specific event, what are the details of the event; (f) in what country was each product manufactured; and (g) what is the relevant file number for each purchase?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government advertising expenditures with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) how much did each department, agency or other government entity spend on advertising with the CBC, in each of the last five fiscal years, including 2022-23; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by campaign and location, or type of advertising (CBC television, CBC Gem, CBC website, etc.)?
(Return tabled)
With regard to land owned by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces which is currently not being used: what are the details of each location, including the (i) size of the land, (ii) geographic location, including the municipality or the proximity to the nearest municipality, (iii) future usage, if known?
(Return tabled)
With regard to repayable loans and repayable contributions over $1,000,000 given out by the government since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such loans and contributions, including the (i) date of the loan or the contribution, (ii) recipient’s details, including the name and the location, (iii) amount provided, (iv) amount repaid to date, (v) description of the project or the purpose of the loan or the contribution, (vi) program under which the loan or the contribution was administered?
(Return tabled)
With regard to buildings and office space owned or leased by the government, excluding the Department of National Defence: (a) how much office space, by square footage, is currently (i) owned, (ii) leased; (b) how much did the government pay to lease office space during the last fiscal year; (c) what are the annual operating costs to run government buildings and office space, broken down by type of cost (energy, building management, etc.); and (d) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory and municipality?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government information on digital assets and the Web3 sector in Canada: (a) what portion of the gross domestic product does the government estimate to be related to the Web3 sector; (b) how many jobs are tied to the Web3 sector; (c) what analysis or economic studies has the government done related to the size and scope of the Web3 sector since 2016, and what are the details, including, for each, the (i) firm who conducted the analysis, (ii) scope of the work statement of the analysis, (iii) date on which the work was completed, (iv) findings; (d) what steps is the government taking to foster the Web3 sector; (e) what is the assessed risk, to Canada’s economy, of creating a negative environment for the Web3 sector where large Canadian companies move to other jurisdictions; (f) how many blockchain applications has the government procured or is in the process of procuring; and (g) what are the details of all blockchain applications in (f), including, for each, the (i) applicant, (ii) date of the procurement, (iii) summary of the statement of work, (iv) contract value; (v) assessed risk of the government creating a negative environment for the Web3 sector to the procurement contract?
(Return tabled)
With regard to leases for office buildings and office space signed by the government: (a) how many leases for (i) entire buildings, (ii) part of a building, or office space within a building, are currently active, broken down by those within the National Capital Region (NCR) and those outside of the NCR; (b) what is the total square footage of the properties in (a); (c) what is the total annual value of the leases; (d) what is the average amount of time remaining on the leases; and (e) how many leases expire, or are up for renewal, in (i) less than two years, (ii) two to five years, (iii) more than five years, from May 4, 2023?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the report titled "PRC Foreign Interference in Canada: a Critical National Security Threat, CSIS IA 2021-22/31", dated July 20, 2021: (a) did Global Affairs Canada receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date; (b) did the Privy Council Office receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date; and (c) did Public Safety Canada receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets since May 1, 2019: for each expenditure, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) sport, (iv) league and teams involved, if applicable, (v) total cost, (vi) cost per ticket, (vii) number of tickets, (viii) titles of persons using the tickets, (ix) name or title of the event for which tickets were purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government expenditures on gala or concert tickets, since May 1, 2019: for each expenditure, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) event title and description, (iv) total cost, (v) cost per ticket, (vi) number of tickets, (vii) titles of the people using the tickets, (viii) name or title of the event for which tickets were purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity?
(Return tabled)
With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects with a budget of over $1 million: what are the details of each project, including the (i) project description and summary, (ii) total budget, (iii) estimated completion date?
(Return tabled)
With regard to contracts awarded since the 2015-16 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, since fiscal year 2018-19: what are all the federal infrastructure investments (including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.), broken down by fiscal year?
(Return tabled)
With regard to federal investments and communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay-Alberni, between the 2005-06 and current fiscal year: (a) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (b) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley, (ii) Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot, (iv) Powell River, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (c) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure; (d) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to (i) the Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects; (e) what are the federal investment funding of the Strategic Innovation Fund, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure (iii) project; (f) what are the funding of the Government of Canada's Sectoral Initiatives Program, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; and (g) what are the federal investment funding of the Forest Industry Transformation (IFIT) program, broken down by (i) fiscal year (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project?
(Return tabled)
With regard to government statistics on the causes of death in Canada: (a) what were the top 50 leading causes of death for each year and quarter since 2014, broken down by sex, age interval, geographic location of death, type of location of death (long term care home, hospital, etc.); and (b) for the statistics in (a), from 2021 onwards, what is the breakdown by COVID-19 vaccination status?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Directive 2009-09: (a) which agricultural groups were consulted on making the decisions within the directive; (b) on which dates did consultations take place; (c) in what manner did consultations take place; and (d) what guidance was provided on gene-editing for resilience?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Motions for Papers
[Translation]
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget
That, given that, (i) Liberal budget 2023 adds more than $60 billion in new spending — that is $4,200 per family, (ii) inflation in Canada increased following the introduction of $60 billion in new Liberal spending, (iii) following the increase in Canada's inflation, interest rates were increased to 4.75%, (iv) the IMF warns that Canada is the country most at risk of a massive mortgage default, (v) average mortgage payments are up 122% since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, (vi) Canadian households have the most debt as a share of GDP of any country in the G7, (vii) the solution is to eliminate the deficits, balance the budgets in order to bring down inflation and interest rates, the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
It is agreed.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bay of Quinte.
We are living through the same economic and scientific experiment that politicians dust off every 30 years, as soon as the last experiment is forgotten. The experiment I mean is the one where politicians approach the economy like this: if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.
This is exactly this government's approach. The government has turned Canada into the second-slowest country in the world to grant building permits. Under existing regulations, it takes 25 years to approve a mining project. This country imposes more taxes on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is slowing economic productivity. Then the government turns around and tries to subsidize all these things.
Let us talk about housing, for example. Since taking office, the Prime Minister has been running a country with the fewest houses per capita in the G7, even though Canada has one of the largest land masses. This is because construction projects sometimes take 10 years to be approved. What does the Prime Minister do? He hands out subsidies and big cheques to municipal politicians, who then stand in the way of this construction. That is why Vancouver is the world's third most expensive city, and Toronto is the second most expensive. Canada has a lot of land, however. The average house cost is almost double in Canada what it is in the United States, which has 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass.
The government blocked the construction of two pipelines but then subsidized a third. This means that it is against pipelines that are built by the private sector with private money, but it is in favour of pipelines that are subsidized by the government. As a result, $30 billion is being spent to subsidize a pipeline in western Canada that could have cost taxpayers nothing. Meanwhile, these kinds of projects are being built for free around the world.
The Prime Minister boasts about subsidies under Canada's critical minerals strategy for materials needed for electrification. At the same time, the government is blocking the development of those same kinds of mines in northern Ontario that could produce those same products. Why is this government blocking something with one hand and subsidizing it with the other? Why not do neither and just allow investors, workers and entrepreneurs to do it on their own?
The answer is that it would take the Prime Minister out of the equation. He may seem inconsistent, but he is actually very consistent, because in all of these cases, he forces people to go through him and through the government to do anything at all. He puts himself at the centre of everything that people can do in the economy. It is Canadians, ordinary folks, the people doing the work, who should be at the centre of our country.
There are real consequences and real costs to that. Over the next 30 years, Canada is expected to have the worst economic growth in the OECD. The cost of housing has also doubled.
Food prices are rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. When the government prevents the market from developing naturally and organically, just so it can subsidize it, that means additional costs for ordinary Canadians who are forced to pay more.
There is another way. We need to remove gatekeepers so hydroelectric dams can be built and materials can be mined for electrification. We need to produce more of our own energy here in Canada, instead of importing it from elsewhere, by cutting red tape and reducing delays. We need to encourage municipalities to cut their own red tape so that we can build affordable housing for average Canadians.
The correct approach is to give Canadians the freedom to create a better quality of life that costs less. It is just common sense. Together, let us bring common sense home to Canada. That is our goal, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
[English]
We are now living through an experiment. It is not an unprecedented experiment; it is tried about every 30 years, as soon as the last experiment is forgotten. It is the idea that if the government sees something that moves, it taxes it. “If it keeps moving, [they] regulate it. And if it stops moving, [they] subsidize it.” That is, of course, a quote I took from a famous American president who took the opposite approach, but it is the approach we are living with right now.
What is the result of a government that interferes in order to block Canadians from building things for themselves and then tries to subsidize that very building after the fact? The result is that the cost of everything is rising. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. The government has produced half a trillion dollars of new money that bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Now, Canadians face the real threat of a mortgage meltdown when those rates rise further.
We see this approach, though, played out again and again. For example, the government blocked two pipelines but then subsidized a third. It is not that it is against pipelines; it is just that it is only in favour of a pipeline that can be built with 30 billion tax dollars. The government blocked mines. It blocked all the mines in northern Ontario's ring of fire, and now it wants to subsidize those very same mines.
The government taxes small businesses and then claims it is coming up with subsidies to bail out those very same small businesses for the costs the government made them pay. The government claims its carbon tax works like this. It will take the money away and give it back, and somehow it will be worth more than when it left. Of course, we now know that everyday Canadians are paying vastly more in these taxes than they get back in return.
The experiment fails. Every 30 years or so it happens, and it is allowed to happen only because enough time has passed for people to forget its logical outcome. The logical way out of it is to take exactly the opposite approach; instead of taxing and blocking our industry and then subsidizing it, we should do neither. We should have real, sensible streamlined rules that allow us to protect our environment and public safety but allow our entrepreneurs, investors and industrialists to get things done. That is what we will do when I am prime minister.
Let us set some wonderful, ambitious goals. Why do we not set a goal? Instead of being the second slowest in the OECD to grant a building permit, why can we not be the fastest place to grant a building permit anywhere in the OECD? Why can we not approve a mine or a small, modular nuclear reactor in two or three years, rather than in 25 years? What do we learn in years 23, 24 and 25 that we could not have learned in years one, two and three of these projects?
Why do we not incentivize our municipalities to do what some are trying their very best to do? For example, the mayor of Walkerton just streamlined and sped up the approval of housing so he could have three 60-unit apartment blocks finalized in several months. The great Squamish people, right inside the city of Vancouver, do not have to follow Vancouver's bureaucratic rules, because they control their own land. They were able to speed up and approve 6,000 units of housing on 10 acres of land. That is 600 units of housing per acre. People will now have homes because the Squamish know how to do what so many local government bureaucrats do not allow, which is to approve projects and get them built.
That reminds me of the great Aubrey Moodie, who was the reeve of Nepean. Jack May went to see him on a Sunday morning before he got up to go to church, and said he wanted to build a car dealership and he had a piece of land. The next day at the local town hall, the lawyers sat down with the engineers. Within 48 hours, there was approval, and within 72 hours, there was construction. The car dealership is still standing safely there, 70 years later. That is common sense.
That way, we can build homes that people can afford, build businesses that pay higher paycheques, lower the tax burden on the backs of the hard-working people and let them bring home more of their paycheques. That is the purpose of the government; it is to make Canada work for the people who do the work, by bringing home lower costs, by eliminating the carbon tax and the inflationary deficits, by bringing home powerful paycheques with lower taxes that reward hard work, by removing gatekeepers to build homes, to allow first nations to develop their economies and to allow our people to develop their own industry. We need to bring in homes people can afford, by removing gatekeepers, freeing up land and speeding up permits to build and build. We need to bring home safe streets for our people, with consequences for repeat, violent offenders, not by targeting our lawful firearms owners. We need to bring home our freedom again by eliminating the censorship and centralized control the government has attempted to impose on the people.
In other words, when we say “bring it home”, it means using the House to bring the power, the control and the money back into the hands of the entrepreneur, the worker and the everyday extraordinary people who know better than anyone in this room how to chart their own course and live their own lives. It is common sense. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.
Madam Speaker, at least we always know when a Conservative is wrapping up their speech. It is a good cue.
I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He has been very critical of the government, the government's responses to COVID and the various measures that have been put in place. However, I want to read what one of his predecessors, a previous leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, said. Brian Mulroney said that the Prime Minister and the premiers “conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world” in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called “the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with in Canada in 156 years.” The Conservatives are laughing at Mulroney. With respect to NAFTA, Mulroney said he saw first-hand how the Prime Minister made “big decisions at crucial moments” and won “a significant victory for Canada”.
How can the current leader of the Conservative Party differ so much from the leader of his party a few decades ago?
Madam Speaker, when we look at the record of the Prime Minister, he has doubled the cost of housing; he has doubled the cost of rent, mortgage payments and necessary down payments. He has massively increased lineups at our local food banks. There are 1.5 million people standing outside food banks every single month. They are lined up all around street corners in cities like Toronto. We now see 100,000 British Columbians who face possible homelessness because of the increases in rent that the government's inflationary policies are helping drive.
These are new problems; eight years ago, we did not have these problems. Housing was affordable. Canadians could afford to eat. There is no excuse for this failure. We have all the natural advantages. We live next to the most lucrative economy in the world. We have the most educated people in the world. We have four coasts. We can do it.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I thank the Conservative leader for his speech and for introducing this motion. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of tabling a plan to return to a balanced budget. I think that the least a government can do is to state its intentions.
I agree that the government or the Liberal Party may be spending too much money, but above all, I think that the money is being spent unwisely. It cannot expect to magically balance the books. To do that, it will need a better way to spend and invest, and the Bloc Québécois has some suggestions to make.
For example, we want to support seniors to stop their purchasing power from eroding. We want to ensure that health transfers are in line with what the provinces are asking for. We want a real plan for social and affordable housing and an EI system that works. Does the Leader of the Opposition support these measures?
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member wants balanced budgets. I agree with that. I have put forward several ideas for saving money.
For example, $35 billion of taxpayers' money was allocated to the infrastructure bank. However, it has not completed a single project in five years. This is an enormous waste of money. What is more, the amounts awarded to consultants keep increasing, even though we have a larger public service that can do exactly the same work. Buying back hunting rifles is another example of waste.
There is a lot of waste in this government. We will eliminate waste and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates.
[English]
Madam Speaker, of course, when we talk about what affects the power of Canadians paycheques, it is not just a matter of talking about taxation, because outsized price increases by corporations also affect the power of Canadians' paycheques. We have seen record profits by grocery companies and by oil and gas companies, which are raising their prices far more than the increase in the input costs they have seen. Just today, it was reported that Canada Bread Company pleaded guilty to price fixing with Weston Foods, in a scandal that goes back to even before the pandemic. We know Canadians are very concerned about unjustified price hikes during the pandemic, which some economists have said are responsible for up to 25% of inflation.
Therefore, why does the leader of the Conservative Party never address the question of corporate greed when he talks about inflation?
Madam Speaker, this is the paradise the NDP created. It is part of a coalition government, during which all of these economic outrages the member described have been able to flourish. There is no question that since the socialist policies of the NDP, with the government, have come into place, they have actually have helped corporate profits, as they always do, contrary to the false narrative. In reality, when big government controls all the money, those with the political influence do the best, and those who pay the bills do the work.
We want to put the money back in the hands of the hard-working people who earned it, not in the hands of the corporate oligarchs or the big government.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to follow and share my time with the future prime minister of Canada.
When I was a little boy, my grandfather used to read—
Madam Speaker, I do not recall hearing the Leader of the Opposition indicate he was sharing his time.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to share my time with the future prime minister of Canada.
When I was a little boy, my grandfather used to read to me a great Canadian poet, Robert Service. The poem that he would read to us was The Cremation of Sam McGee, which starts:
There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.
The greatest line from that whole poem was, “Now a promise made is a debt unpaid”.
When we said things are broken, what is broken the most are the promises to Canadians: promises for a better life and a way to boost the ability and the affordability of the middle class and those who hope to join it, a promise for a better life in Canada with ample affordable rent and housing, a promise for a good paycheque and a promise for law and order.
When we said things were broken, these promises were broken, and what is left are broken promises, empty promises that are leaving Canadians with empty wallets and the debt that is left unpaid.
Canadians deserve better. They deserve the best, and the Liberal government has failed to deliver. It is our duty to effect change and to ensure that our hard work in this House today ushers in a better tomorrow for all.
The Liberals have stood for far too long with years of hopeful policy that has only led to empty promises and empty wallets for Canadians, especially in the middle class. With more than eight million Canadians using food banks, it is plain that more people than ever before are finding themselves out of the middle class. Rising interest rates are hammering homeowners, renters and businesses as every increase takes more out of Canadians' paycheques and wallets and gives it back to the government. As a business owner, I can say it is hard to watch.
Milton Friedman said it best back in 1992, over 30 years ago, when he said that although printing money has some immediate benefits that seem desirable in the short term, it can lead to harmful consequences in the long term, causing deficits that lead to inflation. The good effects come first, and it feels good. The bad effects only come later. There is a strong temptation to overdo it, but when governments stop printing money, it is the opposite: The bad effects come first and the good effects only come later. It is hard to reverse and it is addicting.
After promising teeny-tiny deficit spending before COVID and before the election in 2015, the government spent $100 billion prior to COVID-19 on deficits. The government printed that money. Then, after COVID, it printed $200 billion of non-COVID deficit inflationary spending, and then in this budget, after the finance minister promised to get his house in order, we see that the government is printing $63 billion, saying that it is bringing it down to $43 billion because $2,400 of new taxes per middle-class-income family is going back to those households.
This is the invisible tax that is taking hold further. Inflation rates have driven food prices up more than 10%. This invisible tax steals from Canadian incomes and steals from Canadian wallets.
We know that the solution to inflation is to stop printing money and make more of the things that money buys. Doing this creates powerful paycheques by creating more of the stuff that we need in Canada that we are short of, and powerful paycheques mean more money in people's pockets.
The complacency of the current Liberal government has fostered an environment in which our nation's doers and dreamers are forced into a playing field that is anything but level, and it is harder than ever to create those paycheques. Companies in Canada find it increasingly difficult to operate in Canada because of increasing costs caused by inflation, higher interest rates on their loans and the complete inability to hire talent and workers whom they need to generate income for their companies.
We have red tape. We cannot get LNG out of the ground. Our leader talked about this. We need faster building permits. A mine should take two or three years, not 25.
Furthermore, we have big, bossy institutions that dominate our marketplaces with rules that protect them and not our small business owners, who find it hard to grow their businesses. Although the almost 1.2 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada make up 98% of all businesses in Canada and employ 10.5 million people, or 54% of the workforce, monopolies run this country.
In this game of Monopoly, Canadians lose. We pay $200 every time we pass “Go”. Every time we roll the dice in the game of Monopoly, and kids hate this game, we land on Telus or Rogers or Air Canada or VIA Rail or InBev beer or RBC or Bell Canada or Mastercard, and we lose every time. No one wins.
The simplicity of bringing down prices is that it is about something very simplistic. It is about freedom, freedom of choice for consumers in a free market that is not dominated by monopolies. It is about free and honest competition, about fostering our small and medium-sized enterprises and allowing them to grow.
Competition is anything but competitive in the Canadian telecommunications sector, where Canadians pay the highest cellphone rates on the planet, rates that are three times higher than they are in Australia and double those in the U.S. and Europe. Is this competition? I think not. The landscape has been gamed to favour the monopolies, leaving consumers without choice. Without competition, these telcos do not have to earn our confidence and our hard-earned dollar; they just demand it. We pay for it, as some of the highest prices in the world can be found on our bills every single month. Everyone in Canada has a cellphone.
The Liberal government campaigned on lower bills and more choices. It said they would be 25% lower. Today, those empty promises come with a significant price. The Canadian telephone monopolies have suffocated start-ups and silenced critics. If they cannot win by offering the prices that they do, they buy their competitors. They have bought more competitors to take them out of the market than anything else.
We must fight for freedom of choice for Canadians. We must create an environment that breeds competition in a fair and open market. We must fight to ensure that our hard-earned dollar is equal to the affordable and reliable service that we all deserve, because the Liberal Party’s empty promises just mean empty wallets.
It is the same in all sectors, and the solution to see Canadian paycheques grow is to have Canadian businesses grow. We need more homes. We need microchips. We need food. We need farms. We need food processing. We need LNG.
It is also about keeping Canadian IP in Canada. Canadians invented peanut butter, the zipper, the Ski-Doo, the Sea-Doo, the pacemaker and the WonderBra. Where are all of these inventions in the past decade?
We dedicated billions in funding to R and D, which gets pilfered by our foes and allies. We have put millions into battery research in the east coast at Dalhousie, but who owns that battery research? It is Tesla. We put millions into the Sidewalk Labs at Google. Who owns that research? It is Google. We are still paying for research from Huawei in our Canadian colleges and universities. Who is paying for that? It is Canadian taxpayers.
Again, we have not been smart at all with where we are putting our investments. When it comes to looking after Canadians’ money, it is all about one thing only: It is about investing in Canadians’ futures, and we have not been doing that.
People with good intentions make promises; only people with good character keep them. There were promises made and a debt unpaid, leaving Canadians with more debt owed than any generation before them.
The moral of this story is this: Do not make promises that you do not intend to keep. Perhaps the real lesson here is that promises made are only as strong as the person who gives them. If we cannot trust what someone is saying, we need to turn to a new voice.
A Conservative government will be that voice, a voice for all Canadians in a time of need. As families struggle to make ends meet and sacrifice daily to put food on the table, the last thing they need is more empty promises.
A Conservative government will rise above the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy that have stalled out in bringing about much-needed change. Action is what we offer, and bringing home paycheques to fill emptying wallets is what Canadians deserve. It is what the future deserves, and this future government will bring it home for Canadians.
Madam Speaker, over the last three decades, there have been 20 Conservative budgets introduced in the House. I am wondering if the member knows how many of those 20 Conservative budgets actually were balanced or ran a surplus.
I ask because when he discovers that the answer is only three, he must know that there is a reason for that.
Why is it that between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, of the 20 budgets that were introduced in the House, only three ran a surplus or were balanced? Why is that?
Madam Speaker, that is three more than the Liberals have ever delivered to Canadians.
The simple fact is that whenever Conservatives get in, they tend to clean up the mess from the previous government. We saw a pattern here. We talk about it. Every 30 years, we tend to learn those lessons. We saw that pattern after the current Prime Minister's father was in government. We are certainly seeing the pattern now.
The whole premise is that as Conservatives and as Canadians, we believe that the only people we need to be listening to are Canadians, but when it comes to fixing this mess, it is going to be Canadians who also fix it, resulting in powerful paycheques, businesses that get rid of red tape and lower taxes to create new jobs for workers who want a better paycheque and who want to work in those jobs, who want to make this country a better place.
Conservatives are going to do that. We look forward to many balanced budgets in the future.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, there are often peculiar components to the Conservatives' motions. The motion itself is interesting. It reads well. The Conservatives are asking for a plan and the Bloc Québécois agrees with that.
The disappointing part is that the motion is based on premises or whereases that are slightly sensationalist and off-topic. The Conservatives know it too.
Inflation and interest rates result from international forces. We can call out this government all day long—we could help the Conservatives call it out on a lot of things—but these factors are international.
It would have been nice if the content and premises had been based on the reality of the situation.
[English]
Madam Speaker, there is a perfect correlation in the fact that all governments that ran greater deficits ended up with higher inflation.
Something that we do not hear bandied around any more, although we used to in the beginning, is the modern monetary theory, this whole new proposition that we can spend our way out of a pandemic, out of a major problem, and that budgets would balance themselves. There was new thinking, although money has been around for thousands of years, that we could just keep spending and there would be no consequences. Well, the consequences are here and they are very real, and Canadians see them every single day.
This motion that we have is perfect, because it talks about going back to the table to return to balanced budgets. We have identified so clearly that Canadians know—
Madam Speaker, it is always really interesting to see what kind of freedom Conservatives are willing to defend and whose freedom they will not defend.
Today the Conservatives shouted down a motion to protect kids. A nine-year-old girl was threatened and attacked for having a pixie haircut, yet they will not stand up in protection. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan invited an MP from Uganda here who voted for the death penalty for LGBTQ people. He voted for the death penalty to kill people for their sexual orientation.
Also, in the desperation to hold back Maxime Bernier, the member in Stornoway was sending out pamphlets attacking the rights of gay people.
I would like to ask the hon. member why the opposition continues to undermine the rights of queer people, LGBTQ people and trans people and denies them freedom and the right to live their lives in dignity.
Madam Speaker, we stand up for all of those people.
I think the simple premise, though, is that this party over here is supporting a government that is failing Canadians in every single aspect of their lives right now, with the homes that they cannot afford and the rents that they cannot afford. We see it every time a single mother tries to fill up her car, pay her rent or get groceries. This party is propping up the government right now and not solving any of those problems. We are the only party in the House right now standing up for Canadians, standing up for their rights and their future, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is a pleasure to rise to discuss Canada's current fiscal position, our independent monetary policy, the current economic context and the 2023 budget, as well as to highlight a number of measures that are making life more affordable for Canadians while building a sustainable economy that works well for all Canadians.
This week, the International Monetary Fund reaffirmed not only that Canada enjoys the lowest deficit in the G7, but that this advantage continues for each and every year through its projected horizon. It said, “Canada is a strong fiscal performer”, with an enviable job market and a strong labour participation rate, which have been bolstered by the government’s investments in a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.
The IMF went on to note the resilience of Canada’s financial system in the face of recent global financial challenges, pointing specifically to Canada’s robust regulatory framework and contingency tools to safeguard federally regulated financial institutions, as well as insurance deposits. The IMF praised Canada’s progress in strengthening our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing frameworks. It also noted our government’s efforts to increase housing supply and to address housing affordability challenges, including with the housing accelerator fund, which provides incentives for municipalities to bolster the housing supply even further.
At the end of March, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future. It comes at an important moment for our economy.
As we have seen, Canada’s economy has made a remarkable recovery from the COVID recession. There are 890,000 more Canadians working today than when COVID first began. In the first four months of 2023 alone, the Canadian economy has added nearly a quarter of a million jobs. We have now recovered 128% of jobs lost during the first months of the pandemic, while the United States has only recovered 117%. Also, universal child care has increased the labour participation rate for Canadian women to a record high of 85.7%, showing the success of that policy, and our unemployment rate remains close to all-time historic lows.
Global inflation, while still too high, has fallen in Canada from its peak of 8.1% last June to 4.4% last month, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will be 3% by this summer and 2% by the end of 2024. Canada’s inflation rate also remains below that of our economic peers. Inflation in the U.K. is almost double, at 8.7%; the OECD average is at 7.4%; the EU is at 6.1%; and the G7 is at 5.4%. We can see that at 4.4% we are way below those.
Since February, the average wage for Canadians has grown by more than 5%, meaning that paycheques are now outpacing inflation. That means more money in the pockets of Canadians after a hard day’s work.
Canada had the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the course of 2022, and that is projected to continue through to 2024. Also, in April, S&P reiterated our AAA credit rating, and we have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, lower than other major AAA-rated economies, such as the Netherlands and Australia.
It is this remarkably strong economic foundation that underpinned the investments we made in our 2023 budget. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe our commitment to invest $196 billion to improve Canada’s health care system over the next 10 years is a prudent investment to make, especially in a context where we are exiting the greatest global health emergency we have faced in more than 100 years. We also think it is prudent to invest in fighting climate change and to develop the net-zero technologies that our world will demand as we continue to confront the increasing costs of previous inaction on reducing emissions.
If investments in health care and the clean economy are the first two pillars of the budget, the third is our government’s focus on affordability. Let us not forget that our government reduced our debt-to-GDP ratio every single year before the pandemic. This allowed us to support Canadians and Canadian businesses through the pandemic, and it is what allows us to invest in making life more affordable for Canadians today.
While inflation is coming down, I think we can all agree that it is still too high and is making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put nutritious food on the table. That is why budget 2023 introduced a grocery benefit that will help support 11 million Canadian families, including more than 50% of seniors. It will be delivered by cheque or direct deposit on July 5, so Canadians should watch for that over the next two weeks. We also secured a deal to reduce interchange fees for credit card-accepting businesses. This will save small businesses more than $1 billion over the next five years.
At the same time, we are looking to reduce additional fees and charges for Canadians. This includes fees on their cellphone bills, event and concert fees, excessive baggage fees and unjustified shipping and freight costs. We are also cracking down on predatory lending. We are reducing the criminal interest rate from 47% to 35% and imposing a cap on payday loans.
We are also supporting low-income Canadians by introducing automatic tax filing so that individuals can get access to the benefits they are entitled to. For some families, this will mean tens of thousands of dollars that they might not otherwise receive.
Students are receiving better access to student loans with increased student grants. The average student is likely to save $3,000 as a result of our government's eliminating interest on student loans. This will help young workers and apprentices get the start they need when they are looking to first enter the workforce. I have not even mentioned dental care, which will benefit nine million Canadians, as well as our investment in creating high-paying sustainable jobs that will benefit generations to come.
These investments build on significant investments that our government has made to support Canadians since first being elected in 2015. Child care costs, for example, have been reduced by 50%, with $10-a-day child care on track to being fully implemented by 2026. Child care on its own used to be the same amount as a mortgage payment. A family with two children is now saving over $20,000 a year in many cases.
We have increased old age security and have worked with premiers to increase the average value of pension payments going forward. We have reduced taxes for the middle class while increasing them on the top 1%. We have also increased the amount everyone can earn before paying any federal income tax at all and have reduced taxes for small businesses not once but twice.
Of course, let us not forget the Canada child benefit. This benefit, like many of the programs I have already referred to, is indexed to inflation and supports more than 3.5 million families. This means that as the cost of living rises, so will the benefit that Canadian families receive. On its own, the Canada child benefit has helped to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and combined, these measures have lifted more than 2.7 million Canadians out of poverty, demonstrating that Canada’s first poverty reduction strategy is having a significant impact.
Finally, our enhanced workers benefit is supporting 4.2 million Canadian workers with higher paycheques. We have ensured, for the first time, that our investment incentives include measures to support workers with fair wages and benefits.
All of this together is happening because we believe that confident countries like Canada do well when they invest in themselves and when we invest in our people.
These are challenging times, but Canada is in an enviable position to be able to support Canadians who need it the most in a responsible and targeted way while ensuring that global inflation continues to decline in Canada. At the same time, we are securing health care and retirement security for the next generation while creating high-paying sustainable jobs for this generation.
There is obviously more work to do, more work to do on housing, more work to do on climate change and more work to do on affordability. Canadians are up to this challenge, and we are well positioned as a country to address those things. I hope that all members of this House will work together to bring forward the best Canadian ideas from right across the country, and that we will work to implement those ideas and positive solutions through the fall and through to budget 2024.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, we are talking about taxation, the budget, the management of public funds and, most importantly, how we are going to manage the money that Canadians give us through their taxes.
Just seven months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tabled an economic update and gave the following warning. She said that we needed to control spending and avoid deficits because deficits throw fuel on the inflationary fire. Those were the exact words used by the Minister of Finance. Now, here we are seven months later and she has completely changed her tune after getting a slap on the wrist from Liberal supporters who said that they wanted more deficits and that there was no problem.
How can the member explain the fact that, just seven months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister was saying that we should not run deficits, that we should control spending and that there was a plan to balance the budget, but now all of that has gone out the window.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate having another opportunity to address Canada's current fiscal situation.
We have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. That is what has allowed us to focus our investments in this budget on securing health care, with $196 billion invested over the next 10 years; investing in the future with sustainable jobs; investing in the clean economy; and of course investing in affordability.
There is global inflation, and while inflation in Canada has come down from 8.1% to 4.4% and is now likely, as forecast by the Bank of Canada, to hit 3% by the summer and 2% by next year, we need to make sure that Canadians who need our support are receiving that support. We have invested in very targeted measures to make sure that the most vulnerable Canadians who need support the most get it through these hard times, while we position Canada as a country, as a whole, to thrive going forward.
Madam Speaker, the member and I are neighbours; we share a border. Today in our local newspaper, one of the headlines said that rents are unaffordable for 40% of Coquitlam renters. While the Conservatives continue to try to deny children dental care, the NDP is working on solutions to get people in homes and stay in homes.
One thing that is happening in B.C. is a housing acquisition fund. The B.C. government has put forward a housing acquisition fund that would allow the province to work with not-for-profits and co-op housing to maintain housing in our communities. I wonder if the member can talk about whether the federal government is going to come forward with a housing acquisition fund, as has been requested over and over again by the member for Vancouver East.
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for her petition today. It is an issue that I have spent a lot of time on as well. I expect our issues are similar because we are neighbours. I also want to thank her for bringing up investments in housing.
I had an opportunity to meet with mayors and councillors from across British Columbia at the UBCM Housing Summit, where we were all working together to find solutions to make rents and housing more affordable. Part of the discussion was about reviewing what the federal government has done. We have to remember that the federal government had been essentially out of housing for almost 30 years. That was until we created the national housing strategy, an investment of over $80 billion going to a number of different things. That particular summit gave me the opportunity to review how that money has been invested. Some 39% of it that has been invested in projects across the country and 61% is still unallocated.
The investments in British Columbia on their own in the last six years already amount to more funding than the B.C. government has suggested it will put forward over the next 10 years, and we are continuing to invest on top of that. B.C. is a good partner. B.C. municipalities are a good partner. However, we can only get affordable housing if the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipal governments and indigenous governments all work together, and that is exactly what I propose we all do.
Madam Speaker, I noted that when the member was talking about the IMF, he was cherry-picking points from the IMF's report that strengthened his case. I have a chart in front of me of housing market risk indicators. It says, “Economies with high household debt and more floating-rate loans have greater exposure to higher mortgage payments, and a heightened risk of defaults.” Then it lists a number of countries. Do members know which country is rated as having the highest risk of all of them? It is Canada. I wonder if the member could explain why.
Madam Speaker, it is good to bring up the stress test measures that were brought up in 2018. We had historically low interest rates, and we were concerned Canadians might not be able to afford their mortgage payments if there was a sudden increase from historically low rates. We put that in place. What was the Conservatives' response? Not only did they speak against the stress test, but they actually suggested in the election that came after that we should extend amortization rates. They wanted Canadians to take on more debt and wanted to, in that action, increase housing prices at the same time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion that has been put before the House.
I will start by saying that I am concerned about the rhetoric in the preamble. However, the motion and the result clause is fairly short. It talks about a balanced budget and committing to a balanced budget immediately.
I found this very interesting because I asked the member for Bay of Quinte how many times Conservatives introduced balanced budgets in the House, and I even gave him the answer. It was three times in the last 30 years that Conservatives have introduced balanced budgets in the House, under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. There was a grand total of 20 budgets introduced, and three were balanced.
Do members know when they came? The first came in 2006-07. This was on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus, which was a $13-billion surplus. Stephen Harper axed that the next year, and in 2007-08, the surplus was only $9.6 billion. After that, he started to run deficits immediately. He blew away that surplus that Paul Martin had left for him and started running deficits immediately. Then, of course, there is the famous balancing of the budget in 2014-15, when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and sold off GM shares at bargain prices just so that he get himself in a position on paper that he was bringing in a surplus because he felt he needed to do that to solidify his base that was demanding it.
However, rather than dwell on the fact that Conservatives have done this historically, at least in recent history, I think we have to ask ourselves something: Why do governments run deficits?
There are two reasons. A government can run a deficit, one, because it is expecting the taxpayer to pay more to make up that deficit and plans to charge or tax them more or, two, because it is investing. The whole idea behind investing is assuming that a government will get something in return for that investment. When governments are running deficits to invest in Canadians, they are doing it with the expectation that something is going to come out on other end to grow our economy. When we grow our economy, people are better off and there is more wealth in our economy.
What about population growth? We are growing at historic rates. We are just past 40 million people in Canada. When we continue to grow in such a fashion, we need to make new investments, and we are seeing it on the other side through the growth, which is why Canada is continually rated to have one of the best credit ratings in the developed world. That is why we have such a low debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what people really need to focus on. However, I know that it is not intuitive for people to want to focus on that, especially when Canadians are managing a household budget, and they cannot look at it the same way, but the reality is that we have to look at our debt in relation to our GDP.
As our GDP continues to grow, if we are spending less than that growth, we have a net benefit at the end of the day, which is essentially what we see when we bring forward these budgets that are investing in Canadians. Quite frankly, that is something that Brian Mulroney understood. It is something that Stephen Harper understood, and it is something that former Liberals, such as Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, understood.
They understood that, if we invest in Canadians and actually use the money to invest in Canadians when running those deficits, we will get to a place eventually where Paul Martin got to, which was a $13-billion surplus, and a surplus the year after that as well. We will get to those places naturally. The point is that we can get to that place by investing in Canadians because we see the economic growth, see the opportunities, see people being better off and see the debt-to-GDP ratio. We see the debt specifically as it relates per capita to the lowest among the G7, as we are hearing.
There is one thing we should be concerned about, and I rightfully share it with so many other people. It is the debt level each household is experiencing right now in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves why. Why is that? Is there something unique about Canada and our spending habits that puts us in that position? It has a lot to do, I would suggest, with the age of our population.
In the G7, Canada has one of the youngest populations. These are people who are buying new homes and investing for the first time. These are people who do not have the retirement savings that other G7 countries have. Am I excusing anything? I am not. I am saying that we have to be mindful of this and we have to be vigilant in the approach and ensure Canadians do not put themselves into situations they do not want to be in.
I stress that there is a reason for the circumstances we are in, but regardless of all of this, Canada still puts itself in a position of being among the best in the G7, as it relates to the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio, and I think it is very important that, as we reflect on this, we consider that.
I have brought these up on a number of occasions recently, and I want to talk about them again. They are the recent comments made by former prime minister Brian Mulroney on the job this government has been doing. I mean no disrespect to any living Liberal prime ministers, but I have not even heard a former Liberal prime minister speak this highly of the current government.
Brian Mulroney said, “I have learned over the years that history is unconcerned with the trivia and the trash of rumours and gossip floating around Parliament Hill. History is only concerned with the big ticket items that have shaped the future of Canada”. The article continues, “He said [the current Prime Minister] and the premiers 'conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world' in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called 'the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with...in 156 years.'”
We have heard Conservatives tell us many times in the past how we failed the country on NAFTA, but here is what the architect of NAFTA, the Prime Minister who was the lead at the time and negotiated the original NAFTA deal, had to say about the job this government did. The article describes, “On NAFTA, Mulroney said that he saw first-hand how the current Prime Minister made 'big decisions at crucial moments' and won 'a significant victory for Canada'. He said, 'It's due to the leadership that we saw from the government of Canada'”. That is Brian Mulroney, a former Conservative prime minister, absolutely praising the work this government did in relation to keeping our economy in a good position when we had to renegotiate NAFTA.
I remember the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle at the time standing up in question period demanding the government capitulate to Donald Trump's demands, but we did not. The government stood firm. Our finance minister negotiated this, and we got a better deal at the end of the day. Brian Mulroney will even tell us that. Also, we can look at the various other things that have occurred.
I know that my time is running to an end. I think that once again we have an opposition motion in front of us that is troubling. I am getting tired of challenging the Conservatives day in and day out, but here we are. It is the last one. Hopefully when we return in the fall, we will have motions with perhaps a little more substantive measures to them than what we are seeing now.
Madam Speaker, the member was discussing the population growth to 40 million. In my riding, we have close to 60,000 people without a family doctor and a problem we have never had before, which is homelessness. I am wondering how his government can call it a success, when it is not balancing the needs of the newcomers and existing population with the inflow. It has to regulate it.
How does the government plan to do this so that, when newcomers arrive in Canada, they have what they are expecting, which is a place to live and a way to be cared for health-wise?
Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that homelessness did, and always has, existed in her riding. It is nothing new. Maybe she is just realizing it now, but I can assure her that homelessness in her riding is most likely something that is not unique.
What I would say is that we have an obligation to support Canadians in the best way that we can. We have seen the various different measures that have come forward, whether it is the grocery rebate, the housing top-up or child care. We have brought countless measures into this place to help Canadians.
I hope the member realizes that the Conservative motion put forward today calls on us to balance the budget, which means that a number of those measures would have to be eliminated. The Conservatives have yet to tell us which measures it would be. I certainly would like to know because I am sure that would impact those who are homeless in her community.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, for a skilled worker wanting to work in Quebec, the wait time is 20 months. Whoever needs a passport might as well bring a lawn chair to the Service Canada offices because that is where they might end up taking their vacation. Whoever has a passport and by some misfortune has been shortchanged by the airline, after waiting forever at the airport because the flight was cancelled or a suitcase was lost, then it takes a year and a half to get compensation if the claim is successful. Whoever loses their job and wants to get EI benefits from the fund they contributed to for years better have a six-month emergency fund because that is how long it can take to get the first cheque. Clearly, this government is no champion when it comes to providing services to the public.
Does my colleague think that a cabinet shuffle this summer will fix all that?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that had to do with the motion we are debating today. That sounded more like just a Bloc Québécois list of grievances that he wanted to express to the House.
We are committed to helping Canadians where they need those supports. That is why we have rolled out countless measures in the last number of months and years, and why we will continue to do that.
Madam Speaker, I have seen many extraordinary stunts in the House.
Perhaps one of the most spectacular was by the member in Stornoway, who has benefited from 20 years of free dental care and now has a 19-room mansion paid for by the taxpayers, as well as chefs and groundskeepers. He came into the House and said that he was going to stand and speak until the budget was changed. Then he ran out of gas three hours later. Now, the Conservatives want us to stay into the late night, until the budget is changed, all to deny children and seniors dental care.
I want to ask my hon. colleague a question because he has been accused of rhetorical hot air at times, but I would say that maybe that was just elevated temperature and talk. Why does the member think that the member in Stornoway could not sustain himself in his attack on dental care for seniors, running out of speed after a mere three hours? What does that say about his ability to drive the Conservative agenda anywhere, except maybe into the ruts?
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, came into the House and said that he had sent out fundraising emails about how he would filibuster forever or until he got what he wanted. Then he came in here and talked for about three and a half hours. That was it.
I have seen him filibuster for closer to 20 hours, since I have been in this House. To me, it just says that the member for Carleton is really losing steam. He does not have that spunk he used to have. This is really going to translate into how he is able to sympathize—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, my colleagues are applauding me because I am announcing that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Prairie, who is also my esteemed House leader.
Populism is proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems in order to pander to the population's most basic instincts. Today's motion is a good example of that. After giving an accurate picture of inflation, household debt and the housing crisis, the Conservatives are saying that the solution is simply to eliminate deficits. I guess that housing prices will then magically drop and households will have less debt. That is populist rhetoric.
Beyond the rhetoric, the motion asks only one thing, which is that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” That is what we are voting on today, and the Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports that, because governing involves planning and forecasting. Bringing forward a plan to return to balanced budgets is the least that we can do. Had the motion called for approval of the rhetoric of the Conservatives or the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois would vote against it in either case.
Canada is going through a tough time right now. On the one hand, a spendthrift and unserious Prime Minister is spending lavishly on one-size-fits-all programs to promote his ideology rather than to meet immediate and real needs, including in areas that are outside federal jurisdiction. On the other hand, the populist and somewhat mean-spirited Conservative leader is proposing nothing except to get rid of the Liberals. His sound bites serve as economic policy, and his vision of the economy and the environment is stuck in the 20th century, the century of oil.
Between the two, there is the Bloc Québécois, which proposes tangible measures. It proposes flexible and targeted programs to meet people's real needs. These are much less costly and more effective programs than the current one-size-fits-all initiatives. It proposes to bring some order to how the government operates to end waste and the chronic inability to manage properly. This is all related to my question.
The Bloc proposes to end interference by having a government that uses its flexibility to address matters within its jurisdiction rather than increasing initiatives in areas that are not its responsibility. The Bloc proposes to end support for oil companies and shift that money to programs specifically designed to transition to renewable energy rather than remaining trapped any longer in the 20th century of oil.
The Bloc proposes a federal government that stops spreading itself too thin and focuses on its fundamental responsibilities, which are the following: stopping the erosion of purchasing power, especially for seniors; providing a level of health transfers that ensures the sustainability of public services; creating a Marshall plan for the construction of social and community housing; and ensuring we have employment insurance that works.
In short, we are proposing a real plan to balance the budget, which will strengthen the core responsibilities of the government and avoid the full-scale austerity that could risk plunging the economy into a recession. A plan to return to a balanced budget is necessary, especially since the government is increasing its initiatives in areas that are not within its jurisdiction, which causes tensions, boondoggles and costly duplication of efforts.
A study by the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, a research group at the Institute for Research on Public Policy, analyzed federal spending since 2015 and came to the following devastating conclusion on June 7, saying, “the cur