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. 378
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 28, 2024
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 378
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, November 28, 2024
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 898)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 175
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fortin
Gallant
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Perron
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 145
PAIRED
Members
Duncan (Etobicoke North)Plamondon
Total: -- 2
Orders of the Day
[Privilege]
[English]
Privilege
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Winnipeg North talking about the security clearance, which would imply that only one person should know the names. We as Conservatives believe that every Canadian should know the names, just as every Liberal should be entitled to speak out.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North sure is excited. He must not like what we have to say. Just last week, when the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition left, we gave him rousing applause because he did a great job. The Prime Minister made a seal motion from his seat, as though implying we were all seals, although he talks about Conservatives being muzzled. Then we find out that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was told there would be consequences if he did not fall in line.
During question period yesterday, all we heard was why were those Conservatives being muzzled? We take pride in not being muzzled on this side of the House. We take pride in being able to ask questions.
The member for Winnipeg North asks just about every single question when there are people behind him who are more than capable of asking them. On this side of the House, we believe that people should be unmuzzled. We are free to speak in our caucus. We are free to speak our mind. This is not something the Liberals can claim.
The Liberals may say we are muzzled, yet that very day, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said he could not vote for and serve his constituents as he wished because the Prime Minister wanted to muzzle him. I believe the term used was shackles.
The Liberals do not like shackles. They hate mandatory minimums. They have allowed people to serve sentences of house arrest for violence, gun crimes like extortion with a firearm and drive-by shootings. People can serve those all now on house arrest because of the Liberal government. We know the Liberals do not like shackles, but the Liberal caucus is shackled in so many ways. There are encumbrances everywhere on the government benches. We cannot list how many encumbrances there are over there. Who gets to speak?
I spoke about the member for Winnipeg North, who has asked just about every single question in this debate. I think there have been maybe two people. There have probably been a thousand questions asked in this debate. For the Liberal side, I have seen that member ask probably 99% of them. The government has 158 MPs, yet only one member has asked most of the questions. It used to be two members. It used to be the member for Winnipeg North as well as the member for Kingston and the Islands. I guess the member for Kingston and the Islands has lost his mojo after that whole defamation thing. However, now the member for Winnipeg North is the only one being allowed to speak, yet we are the ones who are being muzzled? We cannot write this stuff. The Liberal caucus is just so muzzled.
I am looking over at the Liberals and there is so much despondency. We see them when they are in question period and have to give their rousing applause. We can see the thought bubble above their heads, “Please put me in cabinet.” That is what is going through their heads. Only a select few have asked questions.
Then we will go back to what we saw two weeks ago, which was the crossing of arms by the 24 who will remain nameless. However, they are absolutely united. They are absolutely muzzled while they are united. Why can they not tell us they are not united? Because they are muzzled. They are shackled. Finally, somebody like the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek gets to tell us about the shackles.
We are talking about a privileged debate being led by one person from the Liberals. We are talking about massive fraud and the Liberals, particularly the member Winnipeg North, love to tell us that the Conservatives did this or that. As I said yesterday, it is like the ghost of Stephen Harper is hiding under somebody's bed. They do not want to focus on the last nine years of complete and utter failure. The member keeps going on with his wink and nudge conspiracy theories as to what happened in the past with a security clearance. Never mind what happened with a reporter in the Kootenays. They will leave that one alone because they do not want to talk about that. I wonder if it would come up in a security clearance.
In any event—
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Maybe it was a bad date, who knows.
Mr. Frank Caputo: Mr. Speaker, did you hear what the member for Winnipeg North just said, that maybe it was a bad date? I am not usually speechless, but I am now.
We can say these things in jest, but somebody said that they were groped by the Prime Minister and the member for Winnipeg North just said that “Maybe it was a bad date.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the member quoting me, but I was referring to his leader, not the Prime Minister.
This falls into debate again. I want to caution members that when they accuse each other of doing things, it sometimes causes a little disorder in the House.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Mr. Speaker, there is a year in review, but let us do a little speech in review. I said something, called out the member for Winnipeg North for talking about his conspiracy theories of what was in the background and then asked why we were not talking about things in the background of the Prime Minister, like the reporter in the Kootenays. In response, the member for Winnipeg North said that maybe it was just a bad date. Then he stands and says that this is not what he meant. Canadians are not stupid, the Speaker is not stupid and I think the Liberals know, but there might be consequences if they speak out. In fact, the member should stand and apologize. I will stand here for five seconds and let him do that.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the member interpreted it, and I believe he is being honest, then I would apologize, but that is not what I was referring to; I was referring to his leader.
I thank member for doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the Liberals are allowed to at least apologize when they do wrong, because we know they are not allowed to speak their mind.
We have a $400-million fraud. In question period, we see the Liberals hang their heads in shame when people say this, especially on the backbenches. The Prime Minister can show as much fight as he wants. He will do his thing, where he points at the ground and says that Liberals will not stand for that. Clearly, they do not stand for much when it comes to their MPs speaking out. We know now that Liberal MPs cannot disagree on things. Frankly, reasonable people can disagree on the GST holiday and the GST cheques. That is something on which reasonable people can disagree, and it is obvious that reasonable people can disagree on this, yet the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek disagrees and is told there will be consequences.
How many times have the Conservatives spoken up? On this side of the House, we are allowed to talk. This goes for the NDP and the Bloc as well. Every single one of their members is free to stand up and speak up. On this side of the House, we compete for who gets to ask questions. Often, two or three Conservatives will stand when it is time to ask questions. What do we see on that side of the House? We see the member for Winnipeg North consistently stand and ask questions when he has capable people behind him.
Just last week, I called him out. I told the member that there were three strong women behind him and asked why they did not get to ask a question for the government. Are they muzzled as well? Why is that? I remember when Candice Bergen was here as interim Conservative leader. She noted that there were four strong, capable women behind him and she asked the member for Winnipeg North why they did not get to ask a question. Perhaps it is because of the shackles. Perhaps it is because of the muzzling. This is after nine years of the government. It is so tired that it expects one person to carry all the baggage, all the weight and wink to all the conspiracy theorists.
As Conservatives, we will not stand for it. The Liberals should hand over the documents and release the names. Let us bring it home.
Mr. Speaker, the unmuzzled member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I would add. I would ask my hon. colleague if he is convinced that the entire Conservative caucus was willing to stiff Ukraine when the vote came up on the free trade agreement. Not once, not twice, but maybe three or four times they all voted against that. Even though I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is a very strong supporter of Ukraine, he was bullied into voting against it.
Does the hon. member believe that everybody in the Conservative caucus voted against that based on their own feelings or based on the influence of their leader?
Mr. Speaker, I do commend the member for staying off social media for a little while. I have not had as much fun with his social media posts of late.
I am happy to answer the question. The Conservatives are united, and we voted based on a carbon tax. If we want to get into Ukraine, where are the weapons that the member's leader promised? Where was that member, and all those members, when a turbine was sent back to Russia for repair, something that would have stymied the Russian economy? That member has no moral high ground on Ukraine to talk about this. I will always stand in support of Ukraine, as will Conservatives, as will the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that often that I would rise and thank the Prime Minister, but he came to my riding, to East Gwillimbury, with the member for Newmarket—Aurora. He could not even do an announcement in a Liberal riding. He had to set-up a mock grocery store above a grocery store because he could not do an announcement in the store. Every time he comes to my riding, I get so many lawn sign requests, and I thank him for that. I would love to have him back again, but I wonder if my colleague could comment on this tax trick for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is here and not in Lake Simcoe right now. I would be remiss if I did not ask him where his rural top-up is, because he is often saying this in the House.
On the tax trick, the Liberals like temporary relief; the Conservatives believe in permanent relief. That is why we will axe the tax. The Liberals want to take the GST off a small number of things for a small amount of time. As a Conservative government, we would take that Liberal-proposed 61¢-a-litre carbon tax off permanently.
Canadians have a choice. We can have a carbon tax election where they decide whether we take off the GST for a couple of months on a few things or whether we take off 61¢-a-litre permanently. That is the choice. The government should call a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide. In the meantime, the government should release the names.
Mr. Speaker. my hon. friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, spoke in error in saying that to request all opposition party leaders fulfill their obligations in applying for top secret security clearance has the implication that only one person then knows what potential foreign influence has affected current sitting members of Parliament. As someone who has top secret security clearance, I remain baffled that the leader of the official opposition has declined to apply for such.
I ask my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to reflect on what he said and correct the record of his own statements. Clearly, a federal party opposition leader having top secret security clearance does not mean that only one person knows the top secret information. I would also ask him to consider whether he really means that top secret information that is illegally shared under our federal legislation should be sent to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I spoke in error. The point I was trying to make is that the government is implying that only one member of the Conservative Party should see the names and then should be muzzled. We, as Conservatives, will not be muzzled.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is talking about top secret information. That is how the information was derived. It is what we call evidence. We are not talking about that. We are saying that, if there are people in the House who have been compromised to such a degree that NSICOP has put it in a report and that our intelligence authorities have said that there are issues, then why is it that Canadians should be going to the ballot box without knowing whether the person's name they are putting an X beside may be compromised? That is a cloud over every single member of the House until those names are released.
With all due respect to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will not retract a thing; I stand by what I said. There should be more than one member of the Conservative Party getting those names because every single Canadian should have those names before the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment from my colleague from the Green Party. Even if the Leader of the official opposition did not want to get the names from the report, which very clearly talked about the fact that the Conservative Party leadership race was compromised, would he not want to get his security clearance anyway so that Canadians do not feel that he is hiding something from them? That is my point.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we believe in acting. We do not believe in being silenced. When we act, we will act decisively to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is something Conservatives are committed to doing. That is exactly how we will act. We will not be muzzled in doing those things. Unlike the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, we are entitled to speak out and to say these things. When we get information that is of interest to Canadians, we will speak out about it. The members of His Majesty's loyal opposition will not be silenced.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with one thing the member opposite says: They do know how to act. They act constantly when they say those slogans and put them out there.
I would like to understand this: The member was talking about NSICOP, but I believe the motion being debated in the House is actually regarding the SDTC. I am wondering if the member opposite is confused. On the documents that the Conservatives are asking to be released, both the Auditor General and the RCMP have asked us not to release those, and the Speaker ruled that this should go to PROC to be discussed. I understand that the Conservative leader has said that he would use the notwithstanding clause in order to override Canadians' rights and freedoms. However, we are worried about Canadians' rights and freedoms, and we want to make sure we are doing this correctly.
Could the member opposite address why he feels that it is okay to override Canadians' rights and freedoms and to not be careful that we protect those essential rights?
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack. The member started with SDTC, the green slush fund, and then she went to overriding rights and freedoms, and whether the documents should go to PROC. Here it is: Crimes were committed, and $400 million was potentially stolen from Canadian taxpayers. The member wants to talk about rights and freedoms. What about Canadians' rights and freedoms? What about the taxpayers' right to know what happened, through unredacted documents being tabled? Those documents should be tabled. It is the right of every Canadian to know.
What are the Liberals so afraid of that they will not table those documents unredacted?
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 899)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 179
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fortin
Gallant
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 150
PAIRED
Members
Duncan (Etobicoke North)Plamondon
Total: -- 2
Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
When we left the debate last time, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil did get only a few words in, so we will accept a 20-minute speech now.
Mr. Speaker, it was the shortest speech in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system, I would argue, but we will have to do some research on that. I thank you for adding the extra second to allow me 20 minutes to speak about the important issue before us.
If someone were writing a Hollywood script, they could not write a better script than this. It has everything, and I am going to touch on that in a few minutes. It has intrigue, fraud, crime and a criminal investigation. All of it would make for a blockbuster Hollywood movie, yet here we are in the House of Commons playing this one out because of a minister who was using his position to further himself and his business with business partners who are suspect at best.
I would like to revisit how we got here. As you know, in your ruling on the question of privilege that was brought forward by the committee, you agreed that privilege had been breached. An appropriate motion was moved at that time, effectively calling Mr. Anderson, the former minister's business partner, to the bar to answer the questions that he refused to answer at committee.
In the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I was obligated by the committee, as its chair, to present the report to Parliament. It had to do with the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. It was really, in essence, about failure to respond to an order of the committee.
Of course, through the SDTC scandal and the fact that Parliament has been seized with that privilege motion as well, we understand that the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. When we at committee, or members, ask for documents to be received, the expectation is that those documents will be received, because, again, the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. We have the right to compel documents when we feel that they are not being provided to us.
To revisit this, I will quote from a report I wrote to Parliament:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), to undertake a study of the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. In the course of this study, on Thursday, June 6, 2024, the committee adopted the following motion:
“That, in light of media reports, [the minister]’s testimony at this committee, and the Ethics Commissioner’s confirmation that he is considering opening another investigation into [the minister]’s actions, the committee call on the following witnesses to appear before the committee and testify for one hour:
That includes Stephen Anderson, the character in question, and Kirsten Poon, who was a partner with Global Health Imports.
The report continues:
And that the committee request that Stephen Anderson and [the minister] produce for the committee all of their phone records, text messages, iMessages, and all instant messages and call logs from all applications from September 8, 2022, within seven days of this motion being adopted.”
The date of September 8 is critical in the context of the information that the committee was seeking in relation to the minister's actions in conducting business that he was not allowed to conduct.
The report goes on to state, “Mr. Anderson mentioned that some of the information requested was personal in nature”, which is fair enough, and he “requested that this information be guaranteed to be kept confidential and that, in the absence of a guaranteed confidentiality, he would not submit some of the documents. In the end, he did not submit any documents”, despite the fact that, through an order, the committee had compelled him to do so.
It continues:
Pursuant to the same motion, the committee invited Stephen Anderson to appear before it. During his appearance on Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Stephen Anderson repeatedly said that the “Randy” referred to in many text messages was an auto-correct....
Somehow there was a mistake made, and on more than nine occasions by his count, the “Randy” in question in the text messages was, in fact, an autocorrect. There were also some suggestions that it could have been somebody named Randeep, but there were only three directors of the company, and two principals, Mr. Anderson and someone named Randy, so it is highly improbable that there was a Randeep involved.
However, “Mr. Anderson”, and this is important, “repeatedly refused to answer members asking for the name of the individual referred to in the text messages.” He said that he would consider providing that information on a confidential basis if the committee were to move in camera. Fortunately, despite the obstructionist efforts of the Liberal members of the committee, the committee, in its wisdom, decided not to go in camera, and it asked Mr. Anderson to provide the name referenced by “Randy”.
Further, the committee noted the Speaker's ruling that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd edition, 2017, at pages 1078 to 1079, reads, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them”. It goes on, but I am not going to read it as it is in the manual, but the committee also noted that at page 1081, the following is noted in relation to a witness: “Refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.” This is really the point we are at right now.
The report continues:
As a result, and in response to Mr. Anderson’s refusal to provide the name of the individual referred to during the meeting and other documentation requested, the committee adopted the following motion:
“That, the committee order Stephen Anderson to produce all of the previously requested documents, in addition to the name referenced in today's testimony, and if those documents are not received by Friday, July 19 at 12:00 p.m., the Chair prepare a report to the House outlining the questions that Stephen Anderson refused to answer in writing and during testimony.”
That is the report I am reading from. It goes on:
Mr. Anderson provided documentation to the committee; however, much of the information requested by the motion was not included. More specifically, the name of the individual he was referring to during his testimony was also not provided to the committee.
Pursuant to the Order adopted by the committee, the committee having not received the documents requested from the witness, and, most significantly, the name referenced during the committee meeting of Wednesday, July 17, 2024, continuing to be withheld, your committee [as I reported] feels it is their duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House may take such measures as it deems appropriate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the measures are to have Mr. Anderson, in a humiliating fashion, come before the bar of the House to answer the questions that were posed by the committee members. Once we dispose of the motion and vote on it, despite, as I said, many obstructionist attempts by Liberal members of the committee to not get to this point, we are at the point where Mr. Anderson will be called before the bar to provide answers to the questions that have been demanded of him, more specifically who the other Randy is. That is what we need to get to the bottom of.
As I said earlier, one could not write a Hollywood script better than this. It has it all, including the chance meeting of the former minister and Mr. Anderson on a flight coming out of Montreal, striking up a conversation about how it would be great if they got into business together. I bet that the former minister sure regrets that decision at this point, given the character he was aligning himself with.
The company was set up after the chance meeting, and the connections are critical because the former minister was not in government at the time. He had been so previously, and he had gained a tremendous number of connections within government that could elevate and escalate the business into dealings that it would not otherwise have had.
Certainly over the course of the last nine years, the extent of insiders, the connected cronies who have benefited as a results of their connections to the Liberal Party, is well documented. Not the least of the issues are the SDTC scandal and Frank Baylis. The list of the insiders connected to the Liberal Party who have benefited as a result of that connection is as long as the day.
There was an opportunity for pandemic profiteering. We had gone to the height of a pandemic, and procurement was being done all over the country to try to supply PPE, for example, with contracts that were being sole-sourced. The opportunity was there for pandemic profiteering, a perfect storyline for a Hollywood script.
There was fraud, which we have found out about since. Seven lawsuits have been filed against the former minister's company, of which he was a director, seven civil suits for fraud. He was not supplying material that had already been paid for. One of the last straws, but not the only last straw, was the sworn affidavit just filed a couple of weeks ago that names the former minister as the Randy in question in one of those civil lawsuits. That sworn affidavit is certainly an indictment on who was involved.
Then there was the famous fire at the company that still to this day remains unsolved. How was the warehouse set on fire that housed many of the products that GHI was storing?
There is a cocaine connection. One of the people involved with this company was found to be transporting cocaine on an airplane and shared a mailbox with the company. It is almost laughable.
Then there was the cover-up and the extent to which the cover-up went on. I mentioned this briefly in the information that I provided earlier. There were text messages that were not submitted after they were asked for. Those text messages are important because Mr. Anderson was directly communicating with the former minister while he was at a ministerial retreat in British Columbia. There was denial after denial on the part of the former minister and on the part of Mr. Anderson, yet it has been proven through the text messages that they were communicating while the former minister was sitting around the cabinet table. It is more intrigue, as if it were a Hollywood script.
I mentioned this earlier, but I think it is worth mentioning again. We saw many Liberal members trying to obstruct the committee's work by filibustering certain motions. The role of the ethics committee as an oversight committee is to get to the bottom of ethical breaches and violations, whether related to the code of conduct or the act itself, and the Liberals were obstructing that in every way. I finally had a sidebar conversation with the vice-chair, and I said to him that if he was willing to stake his political career and capital on defending that guy despite the amount of evidence that has been produced before us, with the text messages, the civil lawsuits and the sworn affidavit, it was not a hill that I would die on, quite frankly.
We have seen in recent news that he was let go, but, again, there is more intrigue. There is also the money, almost $110 million in contracts, and the half-million-dollar fraud case going on for not supplying PPE to a company that had already forwarded the money.
Of course, we have heard about the indigenous connection too. The company claimed an indigenous connection in order to submit bids for indigenous procurement and contracts. The mighty OGGO has been dealing with that, as have other committees. The former minister embarrassingly had to step down, in large part as a result of the false claim of the indigenous connection.
I think the icing on the cake, and the last straw, was the police investigation. Given that the Edmonton police are now involved and engaged in a criminal investigation into this company, I think the Prime Minister had no other choice but to force the former minister's resignation and have him stand down as a result of all of those things.
It is a beautiful Hollywood script that would probably be a money-maker if it were to be produced. Of course, if we were to produce a movie like that, we would need a cast and an ensemble. Who would some of those cast members be?
Perhaps for Randy, we might look at Stanley Tucci or Jason Alexander from Seinfeld. I saw Stephen Anderson at committee, and I think he thought that he was auditioning for a reality TV show. Honestly, he lacked credibility, and the indifference he showed to our committee in requesting this information was quite something. Who would play him? Maybe it could be Brad Pitt or Charlie Sheen. Who would play the chair of the committee? Who would play me? Well, I think Mike Pence would be a good choice, but I am not sure that the former vice-president of the United States would go for that. I would settle for Tom Cruise, if that were the case.
For the Prime Minister, maybe Kevin from The Office would be a good choice. For the other ensemble members, Rosie O'Donnell would be there, along with Gérard Depardieu and my favourite actor, Denzel. Ryan Reynolds would be part of it, and we could get Cher in there, as well as Macaulay Culkin and Jude Law. I suggest that they would perhaps be good choices of actors for the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Of course, Dog the Bounty Hunter would be himself because the committee has summoned both Mr. Anderson and the other one, Papineau, to the committee. We summoned them the other day, so we are hoping to see them. Maybe Dog the Bounty Hunter can find them because they are nowhere to be found on the radar.
Seriously, the minister has been forced to step down as a result of all of the things that I have listed, which would make this a perfect Hollywood script. He said he wants to clear his name, that he is going to take time to clear his name, and he has not. I have not seen him since. I suspect that he is probably out there. I would like to give the former minister an opportunity to clear his name.
Once this motion gets approved, Mr. Anderson will be appearing before the bar. The motion indicates how many members on each side would be able to ask Mr. Anderson questions. If the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre, truly wants to clear his name, I cannot think of a better way to do that than in this place, facing his accuser. That would be a perfect opportunity. He should get out of the fetal position, lick his wounds, come in here and face his accuser. I want to give the member for Edmonton Centre that opportunity.
Therefore, I move:
That the amendment be amended, in subparagraph (f)(i), by adding the following: “followed by an additional 10 minutes which shall be allocated to the Member for Edmonton Centre,”.
That would give him an opportunity to face his accuser in this place, at the bar, in an attempt to clear his name. That would make for an interesting ending to this movie.
Madam Speaker, staying with the theme of Hollywood productions, I am thinking of Homer Simpson and the leader of the Conservative Party. When I think of Homer Simpson, I think of the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party continues to thumb his nose at getting a security clearance.
Every leader in the House of Commons has recognized that foreign interference is such a serious issue, yet the leader of the Conservative Party believes that he does not require it, even though there have been allegations that his own leadership was interfered with by foreign interference. Among other issues related to foreign interference, we still have the leader of the Conservative Party refusing to deal with the issue.
While the Conservatives are on the issue of character assassination, would the member reflect on the character of his own leader and indicate why he believes his leader does not have to get a security clearance?
Madam Speaker, in the vein of The Simpsons, I would like to thank Montgomery Burns for asking that question. I prefer the character of Homer Simpson to the Prime Minister any day, too, by the way.
We are talking about $110 million in contracts. We are talking about seven civil suits that have been engaged against the former minister's company, a sworn affidavit in which he has been named by the person who is filing the lawsuit and a criminal investigation, which I touched upon in my speech. This is about having Mr. Anderson come to the bar and, once and for all, our finding out the truth, not just from Mr. Anderson but also from the former minister. We need to get to the bottom of this.
I know that the former minister has stepped down. I am giving him an opportunity, through the amendment, to face his accuser before the House. This is about the integrity of this place and the power of committees to compel witnesses.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I want to give a nod to my colleague. In his speech, he was comparing MPs to artists, but the examples that he gave were all American artists. If he wants, I can make him a list of francophone artists from Quebec of whom we can be very proud. Obviously, we could talk about Rémy Girard and Patrice Godin. I could name a lot of others like that.
I would invite him to take a look at the Union des artistes du Québec's website. That way, he can discover some Quebec artists and Quebec's wonderful artistic community.
Madam Speaker, I did mention Gérard Depardieu, but he is from France. I was born in Montreal. When I was young, I listened to René Simard and Céline Dion. I think that I am dating myself. I really liked Quebec music. I am very familiar with the song Bye bye mon cowboy.
I have a great deal of respect for Quebec. It is the province where I was born, and my parents were born there too. A family friend lives there. Every time I go back, I watch TV in French.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague, the chair of the incredible ethics committee, just made because I think it touches on an incredibly important point in this whole saga. We have a culture of corruption that has been allowed to flourish within the Liberal Party, to the point that Canadian news coverage looks like a Netflix, binge-worthy, Hollywood-type drama.
I am wondering if my colleague from Ontario could share some of the ways the ethics committee has been working to ensure that some answers are found regarding the lack of ethics that we are seeing in the Liberal government.
Madam Speaker, I have had a front row seat, for the better part of two years, to all the things that have gone on. The SDTC scandal, for example, although it has touched many committees, started at the ethics committee. Generally, the ethics committee has been working well, and actually working better recently.
I cannot even say that the coalition agreement has been ripped up because it seems like it has been taped back together. I know the NDP member has shown some consistency in his actions over these two years in wanting to get to the bottom of things. Sometimes he has sided with the Liberal side.
What we have seen, more than anything else, is obstruction from the Liberal members of the committee. They have, on many occasions, filibustered when motions have been presented. The ethics committee is an oversight committee. We know that. It has a majority of opposition members on it for a reason. Like OGGO and public accounts, it is designed to hold the government to account. We have been seeing more of that lately. I am glad, and this is the reason we are at this point with Stephen Anderson. He has been called to the bar. It was not unanimous, but it was the will of the majority of the committee to report this to the Speaker, and the Speaker found that privilege had been breached with the lack of information that was provided to the committee.
Madam Speaker, I think Canadians following along would rightly see that we have a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party blaming each other for being the most corrupt, which, of course, is not a very good thing for our democracy.
I wonder if the member would provide some insight on changes he would like to see within our legislative system that would make Canadians feel more confident that the next government, whether New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, would have some guardrails on corruption. Canadians today are looking at a government under Stephen Harper that prorogued and was plagued by scandal, and now a government under the current Prime Minister that has also prorogued and been plagued by scandal.
What would those fundamental changes to our legislative system be, from his perspective?
Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that the NDP, despite the fact that it is a fourth party, has never formed government and will likely never form government in this country ever, has been involved in corruption issues in the past. It is quite rich for them to talk about that and to lob, as they do, from the corner over there—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to ask the member to retract that. I do not think there is any way for him to have honestly said the NDP has caused any sort of corruption. As he mentioned, we have not formed government, so he—
The hon. member has made her point.
Is the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton rising on the same point of order?
Madam Speaker, yes, on the same point of order. I would remind the member for Edmonton Strathcona of one Dave Stupich, the former finance minister of British Columbia and member of Parliament, who stole from charities to puddle it into—
This is beginning to be debate, and I would like the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil to finish his answer.
Madam Speaker, I think the worst part of what the member for Edmonton Strathcona is talking about is that for the better part of two and a half years, the NDP has been supporting, through a coalition agreement, all of the scandals, corruption, expenses and everything, including the loss of civil liberties.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. John Brassard: Madam Speaker, if she does not like what I am saying, tell her to cite a standing order rule on this, because everything I am saying is correct.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 3 says that when a member repeatedly gives false information it can be ruled as unparliamentary.
I think that is a matter of debate and I am not prepared to judge because I have not been following the conversation.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
Madam Speaker, they can make those claims all they want. I will stand by everything I said. In 2022, the NDP signed a costly coalition agreement with the Liberals whereby they would support the government—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it is useful now and then for the Conservatives to be accurate. It was not a coalition. The member is misleading the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
We will proceed. I think the hon. member has given an answer.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.
Madam Speaker, I very much thank, as always, my entertaining colleague and the chairman of the ethics committee for his speech, although it really pains me deeply to be identified as obstructionist. I do not think I am obstructionist and I am sure the member would like to correct that on the record when he speaks.
I looked at the minutes of the July meeting where we reported Mr. Anderson to the House, and the vote was unanimous, but the hon. chairman said the vote was not unanimous. My feeling is it was a unanimous recommendation, because I do believe Mr. Anderson should appear before the House, so I wanted to correct that as well.
Madam Speaker, I believe what I was saying was with respect to going in camera. That was not unanimous and that is what I was referring to.
I do want to say that the hon. member conducts himself with great honour and great integrity at the committee.
The hon. member did not need to mention a point of order. He had the floor.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 900)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 179
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fortin
Gallant
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 150
PAIRED
Members
Duncan (Etobicoke North)Plamondon
Total: -- 2
Government Orders
[S. O. 57]
[English]
Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 43, I move:
That debate be not further adjourned.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I know many Canadians are asking themselves a question. The Liberals, supported by the NDP, are offering a small tax trick for a few Canadians, including on Christmas trees, but only if they are bought after December 14. If it is anything like in my household, the tree has already been set up for a few days.
The question is very simple: Why do the Liberals not reject the tax trick and instead vote to axe the carbon tax for all Canadians for good?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is always shocking to see how little the Conservatives have understood about climate change and how important it is to put a price on pollution. It is important now and it is important for our children and grandchildren.
What we are doing right now is recognizing that it is hard for families, seniors and Canadians in general. We have no control over the price of consumer goods, but we can eliminate the GST for a while to give Canadians a little break over the coming holiday season and the often challenging months that follow it.
[English]
Madam Speaker, during the holiday season, we have the opportunity to give a bit of relief to Canadians if all of us of all political parties agree and vote for a tax cut of the GST on a number of products. I believe most Canadians would see that as a positive thing. I find it shocking that the Conservative Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, wants to vote against this motion and continue the filibuster as opposed to actually debating the issue of giving Canadians a tax break.
Could my colleague provide her thoughts on how important it is to give Canadians relief?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague is absolutely right. We have seen this for weeks now, for years in fact. When there is a measure to be put in place, something designed to help Canadians deal with difficult situations, the Conservatives are never there.
We know things are difficult right now. We know that families and individuals are squeezed during the holiday season. While we do not have control over prices, we do have control over taxes. We can choose to remove the GST and HST for two months to give Canadians a breather.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if a page could provide me with some tape so I can tape together the coalition agreement that was apparently ripped up by the leader of the NDP. What a shame and what a sham.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, maybe you could remind the hon. member that we are not allowed to use props. He should remember that.
Members are not allowed to use props, as the hon. member well knows, and that includes slivers of paper.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
Madam Speaker, I want to tape this back together, but I will do that later.
What a shame and a sham. Instead of fixing the structural problems that exist in our economy, the government, through its NDP partner in this costly coalition, are throwing crumbs around.
The problem, as we have heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is this is going to create challenges for businesses at their busiest time of the year. How can the Liberals justify this at this point when businesses and economists are panning this plan. The Liberals are not structurally fixing things, which they could do by eliminating the carbon tax and other tax measures. They are just providing crumbs right now. Worse yet, they are undermining democracy, undermining Parliament, with a spending measure that has very little scrutiny.
The government and its NDP partner are circling the bowl right now. They are desperate to find anything of relevance in their existence. They are going to fail, and then we will have a common-sense Conservative government that is going to do the things that need to be done to fix this country and return normalcy and decency to it.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am stunned to hear my colleague's remarks. Seriously, how can he claim that we do not respect democracy when his party, the Conservatives, with the support of the other parties, I might add, have paralyzed Parliament for weeks? That is truly an insult to democracy. They are making a conscious effort to harm democracy and to flout our institutions.
We are introducing a great many foundational measures. Just think of all the measures we are putting in place right now for housing, including eliminating the GST on the construction of buildings containing four or more residential units. Just think of all the assistance we are giving to organizations that provide children with school meals, or all our initiatives under the green industrial strategy to encourage our businesses to invest in research and innovation. We are proposing lots of foundational measures to support our economy.
[English]
Madam Speaker, Canadians need a break right now. Giving them a break over the holidays is supportable, but the NDP, just a few weeks ago, proposed taking the GST off essentials permanently.
This is a small break for Canadians, and while NDP members want any break they can get, why not take the GST off essentials permanently?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question. It is indeed important and we are already offering a GST and HST holiday for the next two months, which is a particularly difficult time for Canadians.
Finding the right balance among all these measures is important. Sometimes we need to support the most vulnerable among us, while at other times we need to help workers, or persons with disabilities, or senior citizens. We need to find the right balance.
We know that Canadians will be facing a difficult period, and we believe it is appropriate to eliminate the GST for two months on certain products we all use during the holidays.
[English]
Madam Speaker, a fake Christmas gift is exactly what this GST holiday is. Christmas trees will be GST- and HST-free in Newfoundland and Labrador, but as for the decorations that go on them, hopefully people have some from last year because decorations will still have HST and GST in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Menorahs are not included, so is there some anti-Semitism going on? We know the government is anti-seniors and anti-disabled because those needy groups will not be allowed to receive the $250 cheques that people making $150,000 are going to receive. Also, the federal pension plan was just robbed of $2 million, and where did that go? Was it to this fake Christmas gift?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, my colleague is really hard to follow. I am not sure if he wants us to give more or less. It is not clear. One thing is for sure, we are not fake. When we announce measures, they are real measures. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not have the nerve to say that the dental care program does not exist.
What planet do they live on that they do not see that there are already hundreds of thousands, even millions of Canadians who are benefiting from the dental care program?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
I will ask the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier to leave the chamber if he wants to talk.
The hon. minister.
I can assure members that when we announce a measure, we move forward and it is absolutely real. That is the case with the Canada disability benefit that is going to be very real in a few months.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the CFIB was commented on by a Conservative colleague. The CFIB is calling on the Department of Finance to give affected small business owners a credit of a minimum of $1,000 in their GST/HST accounts to cover the program's administrative and programming costs for the holiday season. Certainly, the NDP is in favour of that. Is the government willing to do that to ensure that this is not hurting those small business owners?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, Restaurants Canada also says that this measure will be beneficial. It will give businesses the benefit of being able to promote this tax holiday. I was a business owner a while ago and I know what it is like to run a business. We know that when businesses see a benefit for their clients, it is a benefit for them too. Business owners have computer systems that are getting better all the time. I have confidence that they will be able to apply this tax holiday in the coming months.
[English]
Madam Speaker, because the NDP-Liberals are trying to fool Canadians with this tax trick, small business owners are forced to reprogram their point-of-sales machines and to find the time and money to pay for these changes. They are very much scrambling to do so. It is a shame that the minister did not care to think about the impact this change would have on the small business owners the government purports to help.
We all know an election is coming. Can we just stop with the desperation and call a carbon tax election now?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, once again, I think that SMEs and large companies across Canada are doing well. Companies are well equipped and the technology is there. Companies are perfectly capable of implementing this tax change. What is good for consumers is good for business owners, too. I am confident that it will be perfectly feasible and reasonable.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I notice that the opposition members are calling this a gimmick, a fraud and a trick. They cannot call it what it is, which is a tax cut. If the Conservatives called it a tax cut, they would have to vote for it because they have been asking for a tax cut. We are giving them this. The only gimmicky thing here is what the Conservatives have been doing for the last while in the House by blocking any progress.
In response to calling this a fraud, I would note that Restaurants Canada has said it is a big win for the restaurant industry: “[It] restores some much-needed hope to our industry and we are optimistic it will translate to increased spending at local restaurants across the country.”
Could the minister please comment on why the timing of this tax break is so important for restaurants?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the comment my colleague just quoted shows just how beneficial this measure will be for businesses. Businesses often see an increase in traffic in December, but January and February are tougher. By being able to offer a discount of between 5% and 13%, depending on the taxes levied in the various provinces, this will enable these businesses, particularly restaurants, to be more appealing to customers.
Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for the minister. Why is there a small GST break on Christmas trees, but not on menorahs?
Madam Speaker, there is a whole list of products that are especially popular during the holiday season. These include children's clothing and gifts for children. The intention was to ensure that as many people as possible could benefit from this tax rebate.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister for a little bit of clarity. I have been speaking to business owners in Edmonton Strathcona. I just spoke to a restaurant owner this morning.
The minister has said, over and over again, that there are computers and that it is easy to do. This business owner was telling me that it will be very difficult for her to do that. The problem is that it is at a moment in time when business owners are already very busy, because the Christmas rush has already started for many of these businesses.
She would have liked to have seen this come sooner, that this would not have been so last minute. I am wondering if the minister could comment on the fact that it took weeks after the NDP had called for this action to be taken for the government to finally take the steps and that it has not provided the information that businesses need to be able to do the job, to be able to get through the holiday season, the very busiest season of the year for them.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is true that the run-up to the holidays is a very busy time for our businesses, restaurants and merchants.
I can assure the House that we are working with the entire Canada Revenue Agency team, naturally. Just today in fact a link appeared on the agency's website to learn all about this tax holiday, which will be in effect for the next two months, from December 14 to February 15. There is already a lot of information available on the agency's website.
Of course, we remain in contact with the various business associations so we can answer their questions as quickly as possible. We will be updating this web page so that it provides all the information our businesses need.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am rising to ask a question on behalf of a business owner in my constituency who has three dollar stores. He has about 3,000 items per store that he will have to change. Given 30 seconds per item to go through, that is 90,000 seconds. That is 1,500 minutes. That is 25 hours. Between 9 p.m. that night and 9 a.m. the next morning, he has to pay somebody 25 hours, likely overtime, so we are going to call that $30 an hour times 750 hours, which is $1,500 per store because he has got to pay them to take the GST off and put the GST back on, times three stores, which is $4,500.
What is the government going to do to put $4,500 back into this business owner's pocket that he has to pay for its bad idea?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to learn that some of the employees working in these stores are earning $30 an hour.
I think that our merchants will be able to make the necessary change, thanks to all the systems they have at their disposal. It is important to give our fellow citizens, our fellow Canadians, this tax holiday during the holiday period. Merchants know that what is good for consumers is good for them as well. It attracts traffic and is good for our businesses. That makes this a worthwhile investment.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I have listened to this conversation a lot. Truly, it is a gimmick. When we are looking at this, we see money that will not be going out like they had promised. We are looking at people going to buy their Christmas gifts as of December 14. Ask any family member who is trying to get organized; that is already done. We know that the costs are being reduced for only two months and, as of February 15, it will not exist, so the impact on these businesses, long term, will also be difficult.
I want to go back to the businesses. Have they done a cost evaluation of how much it is going to cost small businesses with fewer than 10 employees? How much is it going to cost for this GST holiday?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, we are talking about a two-month GST tax holiday that will benefit all Canadians. It covers the goods we consume most during the holidays. It will carry over past the holidays, since the return from the holidays is always a difficult period as well. Our credit card balances are always a bit inflated by that point. The purpose of this measure, then, is to give Canadians time to catch their breath during a period where they want to make their loved ones happy, a period during which Canadian parents or grandparents are really feeling the squeeze.
This tax holiday is really meant to give Canadians a breather during this period.
[English]
Madam Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I understand full well that people are struggling to make ends meet right now. Anything we can do to help them make ends meet and add a bit to their pockets is a positive thing.
Something that has come up over over and again today is the impact on businesses regarding the items being chosen to have the GST removed from, and I agree there are some problems with that. I wonder if the member could share why she and the Liberal Party did not follow through with what the NDP was asking for, which was to have the GST removed from all essentials permanently, including home heating, cellphones, Internet and groceries. None of these problems that are being expressed by the Conservatives right now would even be at issue if they had just followed through with removing GST from all essential products for Canadians. Why did the Liberals not do that?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to strike a balance. Some want more, and others want less. However, I believe that this ad hoc measure at a critical time of the year will help us achieve the desired balance.
Earlier, my colleague said that officials from Restaurants Canada, which represents a large number of restaurants across the country, confirmed that it was good news and that they were prepared to adapt. What is good for consumers is good for business owners.
[English]
Madam Speaker, obviously, the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is alive and well, is keen to talk about its tax trickery, but we know it is not a tax cut because, of course, it is not permanent.
The other interesting thing is this. We know that two million Canadians are going to a food bank every month. We know that one in four parents are giving up meals to feed their children. We know there are cases of scurvy in this country. However, what is it that we will have the GST removed from? It is candies, confectioneries classed as candies or goods sold as candies, candy floss, chewing gum, chocolate, popcorn coated or treated with candy, chocolate, sugars or artificial sweeteners, chips, crisps, puffs, curls, sticks, popcorn, brittle pretzels, salted nuts, seeds, fruit bars, roll-ups or similar fruit-based snacks.
This is ridiculous. We have people starving in this country because of the bad policies of the NDP-Liberal government and it wants to give people chips and crisps. It is nonsense.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, there is nothing we can do to make the Conservatives want to support a measure that could help Canadians. Helping Canadians is against their religion. We saw that with the school food programs. They feel they can talk about food banks, but they do not support the programs we put in place.
These products that will not be taxed over a two-month period also include diapers, baby seats, and children's clothing and shoes. There are also prepared meals, which are still taxed at the grocery store. There is a wide range of products that are essential. We are talking about diapers, children's clothing and a host of other products that Canadians use, especially during the Holidays.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about businesses. I wonder whether businesses were also consulted before this measure was adopted. It will be expensive for small businesses to change how they do things for two months. We are talking about businesses and people in our ridings and, at some point, some may decide to close their doors because they will not be able to manage. Consider Christmas markets, for example. These businesses will decide to shut down because it is not worth keeping them open for those two months.
What are we telling these businesses? In the end, we are telling them that it does not matter. Also, might this not cause a kind of inflation down the line? After all, we will have to make up for all that missing tax revenue at some point.
Madam Speaker, that is the best overreaction I have heard all day. I am pleased to say that there are a lot of Christmas markets in the 35 municipalities I represent.
The tax holiday applies mainly to products for children, such as car seats, diapers, clothing and shoes. What we really want is to give Canadians some respite over the Holidays and during the weeks and months that follow. That is when they need a bit of a breather. There is a lot of pressure on parents and grandparents. They want to give gifts and take the kids out for a meal at a restaurant, for example. That is why we are trying to give Canadians a bit of a breather.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak to this important motion. This tax break for Canadians during the holiday season through Christmas will make a world of a difference. I sympathize with the Conservatives, who are being shackled and told they cannot vote for this measure for their constituents. They should stand up and support their constituents. They should support this important tax measure, this important bill.
How will this measure positively affect the residents of Mississauga East—Cooksville?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. The aim of this measure is to help Canadians. We should not expect the Conservatives to support it. It is against everything they believe in. They are against anything we want to do to help Canadians, whether giving benefits to people with disabilities or funding school food programs. We cannot count on them.
Now we want to pause the GST and the HST in the provinces to help make the Holidays more affordable, to help people do a bit more for their children. That is what we want. We also want to give parents, workers and grandparents a break during the period following the Holidays.
[English]
Madam Speaker, what we have here is the Liberal Minister of National Revenue, the person responsible for collecting all of our taxes in Canada, defending the two-month tax trick of the Liberals that reduces taxes on Cheezies, chips and beer. However, for most of today, the minister has been bragging about the lower-cost restaurant meals this measure will allow people to get.
The Minister of National Revenue has access to all the tax data in Canada. How many of the two million people a month who line up at the food bank will benefit from lower-cost restaurant food?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this tax holiday we want to give Canadians in the coming months applies to children's clothing, diapers, children's shoes and car seats, as well as books, games, puzzles, board games, prepared foods and take-home meals. All of that is in the spirit of our government.
Since we have been in power, we have sought to help the neediest people when they need it most. We did it with the Canada child benefit. Let us recall that, when the Conservatives were in power, everyone got the same cheque, regardless of household income or children's age. We changed things. Now money is distributed in inverse proportion to income. That allowed us to lift half a million children out of poverty.
What we want to do is to continue giving Canadians a bit of a breather during the Holiday period.
[English]
Madam Speaker, we are facing a very scary situation in Canada, with Canadians really struggling. As we know, one in five children is living in poverty, two million people are at food banks and homeless encampments are popping up all over our cities all over the country. What is really interesting about this measure is that it almost seems like the Liberals are finally admitting that Canadians are struggling after nine years of their governance. What makes it a trick is that they are selling it as some big, grandiose gesture to bring relief when really it is for relatively few items for only a few weeks.
How can they possibly justify expecting all this praise when all it amounts to is a few bread crumbs for Canadians? What they need is large-scale permanent tax breaks, like axing the carbon tax. That is what Canadians need, not a few bread crumbs from the Liberal government for a few measly weeks.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, such disdain for Canadians is mind-boggling. It shows nothing but contempt.
Right now, it is about a two-month tax holiday. My colleague talked about breadcrumbs. What does she have to say about the dental care plan, which is helping people and especially seniors? What about the new disability benefit, the Canada child benefit, or our many investments in housing, for example?
We are there to help people and to help Canadians. The Conservatives, on the other hand, certainly can never be counted on. They will be there to make cuts, if by some misfortune they end up coming back.
Madam Speaker, the issue under debate at the moment concerns the closure motion, not the bill or the effort to reduce the GST.
I would like to ask a question of my friend, the minister. I am always against closure motions, but now that the House has been brought to a standstill for nearly two months, I am going to vote in favour of this motion. However, I would like the minister to tell us whether changes will be made in future bills to protect the very poor in this country.
Madam Speaker, yes, for now we are debating this tax break, but as we have shown over the past few years, our government is there to help the most vulnerable. We have proved it in a number of ways, with the Canada child benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the school food program, and the list goes on.
[English]
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Madam Speaker, because this is such an important issue for democracy, Conservatives ask for a recorded vote.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 901)
YEAS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Dance
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 177
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fortin
Gallant
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 148
PAIRED
Members
Duncan (Etobicoke North)Plamondon
Total: -- 2
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the House do now proceed to Statements by Members followed by Oral Questions, and that the usual allotment of time be afforded for each rubric.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Pakistan
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of concerned Pakistani-Canadian community members, including Dr. Babra Rana, Mr. Saif Pannu and Mr. Muhammad Akmal Gundhra, to address the alleged recent killings of unarmed protesters in Islamabad who were supporting Imran Khan.
A symbol of justice and democracy, Imran Khan inspires millions who are striving for transparent governance. Despite political persecution, his leadership has fuelled a movement for unity, accountability and electoral fairness. His supporters continue to advocate for human rights and democracy.
Canada must stand in solidarity with the people of Pakistan, who continue to stand up for their rights and freedoms. Ongoing human rights violations cannot be ignored. We must act now to demand justice and accountability, and to prevent the further loss of innocent lives.
Bruce Oake Recovery Centre
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre in my riding. The centre is a non-profit residential treatment facility located in Winnipeg, founded by Scott and Anne Oake. It provides addiction treatment and recovery services to individuals struggling with substance abuse disorders, and with a 57% success rate, the centre works.
I recently spoke with Shane Sturby-Highfield. Shane struggled with addiction since his youth, but thanks to the centre and to his own determination, he will be three years sober in December. He has his son back, and he has a good job working for Manitoba Hydro.
Success breeds success, so Scott Oake has now broken ground on a second centre in Winnipeg, the Anne Oake Recovery Centre, named for his late wife.
Treatment saves lives. Conservatives will not give up on those who are struggling with addictions. Common-sense Conservatives will stop taxpayer-funded drugs and will put that money into treatment and recovery to bring our loved ones home drug-free.
[Translation]
Lebanese Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Lebanese Heritage Month, a time to honour Lebanese culture and its incredible contributions to Canada through its varied traditions, delicious food, remarkable economic contribution and so much more.
Lebanese Canadians began enriching our society over 140 years ago. It all started in Montreal. Canada is now home to over 200,000 Lebanese Canadians, including 8,000 in my riding of Vimy.
[English]
We remember the difficult circumstances and journeys of many Lebanese families who sought new beginnings in Canada, including the challenges of conflict in their homeland. Their courage, determination and success in Canada inspires us all, and we are grateful for them.
Together, let us honour this heritage and our Lebanese Canadian fellow citizens, but also let us all wish and pray that a permanent peace takes a firm hold in Lebanon.
[Translation]
La Ressource Convenience Store
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the convenience store La Ressource. Founded in 1974 by André Desroches, who also founded the Association des gens d’affaires de Boucherville, this family business has become a true institution in Boucherville.
La Ressource is much more than a simple corner store where people go to buy a quart of milk, a bag of chips or a case of beer. Over 25 years ago, in fact, these entrepreneurs were veritable pioneers when they made the switch to homegrown products from Quebec, in particular microbrewery beers. Entering the store is like entering Ali Baba's cave. There, patrons choose their beer the way they might sort through bottles at the SAQ. After some wise tips from their beerologist, they can chat with members of the family about the latest goings-on in the neighbourhood. Frédéric Desroches, part of the third generation at the helm of the family business, is every bit as involved and engaged in the community as his grandfather.
Congratulations to the family on their 50th anniversary, and long live La Ressource.
[English]
Charter City Toronto
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most galling thing I have read in recent memory is a post by a Ford MPP celebrating tearing out bike lanes in my home city of Toronto by saying it will make roads safer for people on bikes. Where is the data?
Let us be clear. Bike lanes save lives. If someone has a problem with their design or location, they should take it to our mayor or to city councillors. That is why we elect them. It is time that we look at charter cities and look at how to better protect our cities from this kind of overreach.
I ran to make sure that our federal government was a strong partner to the city of Toronto, and we are. Strong partners do not roll over each other's toes.
The Ford decision is going to cost lives. It is going to cost taxpayers. It is going to take away an affordable way to get around our city, and it is going to add to traffic. How is that for a lump of coal for the holidays? Bah humbug.
Let us stand up for the city of Toronto. Let us stand up for charter cities.
Anthony “Tony” Sturgeon
Mr. Speaker, I am the proud nephew of Tony Sturgeon. Tony's recent passing brings a deep sadness to our family, along with major change. Tony leaves behind the love of his life, Aunt Christy, and daughters Mandy and Kyla. Our family will be forever grateful that Tony found someone as wonderful as Christy to share his life with.
Tony's love for Christy and his daughters was always evident in our family. He was deeply proud of both daughters and was always excited to spend time with his grandchildren. Toronto Maple Leafs fans are loyal for obvious reasons. We are all long-suffering, but few were as loyal as my Uncle Tony. We shared this passion, and it returned every fall, along with the common sorrow in the spring.
Tony leaves behind a great legacy of two beautiful daughters, their children and families, a lifetime of good humour and memories we will hold close forever. We will always miss Uncle Tony.
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Mr. Speaker, more than 3,000 Canadians live with ALS. One is my constituent. Matthew Brown's courageous battle over the years has inspired me to do more. In fact, just a few days ago on Parliament Hill, we saw ALS Action Canada organize an effort that brought together Canadians living with ALS, their family members and their supporters.
In fact, those supporters include members of the NHL alumni, in support specifically of Mark Kirton. Mark Kirton is a former Toronto Maple Leafs player. He played for the Detroit Red Wings and the Vancouver Canucks. He had a very good NHL career, and he shared with us his efforts to create the ALS Super Fund. The effort, in less than one year, has generated more than $1 million in support of awareness and research.
Efforts like that inspire us, across party lines in fact. As chair of the all-party ALS Caucus, I want to do more, and I know members in all parties feel that way. We will continue to advocate for people like Matthew, for people like Mark and for the 3,000 plus Canadians living with ALS. We are with our constituents and with Canadians.
[Translation]
Tax Relief
Mr. Speaker, with the holidays fast approaching, our government is taking decisive action so that Canadians can celebrate without worrying about the high costs associated with the holiday season. With the GST break, we are putting more money back into the pockets of Canadians. Starting on December 14, children's clothing, toys and diapers, along with prepared meals, restaurant meals and many other products, will be exempt from GST. This measure, which supports local businesses, will help the people of Alfred-Pellan and all Canadians to enjoy their celebrations at a lower cost.
Will the Leader of the Opposition get out of the way and allow his caucus members to put the needs of their communities ahead of his political ambitions by supporting this plan, which helps local businesses and families, or will he continue to silence them and block progress at every opportunity?
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, our once-safe towns and cities are now rife with crime and chaos thanks to the Liberal Prime Minister's radical catch-and-release bail policies that allow dangerous people, lawbreakers, to stay on our streets.
Our worsening public safety record has been made evident by a recent Fraser Institute study comparing our crime stats to those of the U.S.A. The numbers are in. Violent crime is up in Canada and is now exceeding the United States by 14%. There is also property crime, which is exceeding property crime in the U.S.A. by a shocking 27%. All of this is under the watch of the Prime Minister. It is nothing to be proud of.
We used to be proud of our public safety record. We used to think of it as one of our distinguishing features, something that was a source of national pride. That is no more. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. It is time for a common-sense Conservative government that is going to focus on public safety and that is going to bring back safe streets.
Robert Smythe
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remember Robert Smythe, a true pillar of Centretown who passed away on November 15. For over 50 years, Robert dedicated his life to preserving the character and history of our community.
As the founding editor of the Centretown BUZZ, Robert captured the stories and struggles of our neighbourhood with passion and care. He shared downtown Ottawa's history and architecture in a way that brought it to life, championing the preservation of not just heritage buildings but also the modernist and brutalist structures that reflect our city's evolution.
He was a tireless advocate for affordable housing, a community builder and a passionate pedestrian who knew every corner of Centretown. His memory will forever echo through downtown's streets, its cherished buildings and people's stories that define our community.
May Robert rest in peace.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberals are not worth the cost. Taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up, time is up. Now they have broken Canada's immigration system.
The Conservatives have learned that there are over three million people in Canada who need to leave by December of next year, and the government does not have a plan. When we pressed the minister on this at committee, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said that he expected people to leave voluntarily. At the same time, he also expects asylum claimants to grow.
He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The facts are that student demonstrators have said they will not leave voluntarily and asylum claims are growing. However, the NDP-Liberal government hopes this problem will just go away. Hope is not a management plan.
The truth is that the NDP-Liberals have no plan to ensure these three million temporary residents actually leave Canada. They do not have a way to know if they have left. They will not even prevent them from staying. They will not stop them from claiming asylum. They will not even control our borders.
Simply put, the NDP-Liberals broke our immigration system and do not know how to fix it. Where is the plan?
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are realizing the true role of the NDP leader and his entire caucus in keeping the Liberal government in power and shielding it from an election.
Even after President-elect Trump's unjustified threat of a 25% tariff on Canada's already fragile economy, the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to defend its harmful carbon tax, a tax that costs the average person in Manitoba $693 and over $900 in some other provinces.
No matter what the NDP-Liberals say, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that carbon tax makes most Canadians poorer. Unfortunately, the NDP leader does not care. Instead of voting with Conservatives to express non-confidence in the government and trigger an election, he is focused on securing his pension and is prepared to quadruple the carbon tax.
It is time to let Canadians choose a strong prime minister who will defend our economy. Let us fire the Prime Minister and call a carbon tax election.
[Translation]
Affordability Measures
Mr. Speaker, our government knows that, even though Canadians work hard, many of them are still struggling financially.
That is why we introduced the new working Canadians rebate last week. This tax-free $500 payment will go directly to more than 18 million Canadians. If people worked in 2023 and earned up to $150,000, this rebate is for them. This is meaningful support that Canadians who work hard every day can use to pay bills, buy groceries or save for the future.
In addition to our GST/HST holiday exemption for essential goods, such as groceries, diapers and children's clothing, our government is enabling Canadians to save a lot of money and get real relief at the cash register. I hope all members will work hard to get these important measures passed.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, Boyle Street, Bessell Centre, Tawaw Outreach Collective, 4B Harm Reduction, Water Warriors, Smile YEG, Bear Claw Beaver Hills House, Hope Mission and REACH Edmonton, these are the names of the frontline organizations in Edmonton helping our neighbours survive.
Houselessness is a crisis in Edmonton. Over the past few weeks, four people have already frozen to death. Things are so bad that last winter, over 100 people living on the streets lost a limb from frostbite. The majority of these people are indigenous.
These harrowing statistics put the work of Edmonton's local organizations into focus: compassionate and understanding care, supportive housing for those who need it most and wraparound services that go far beyond just putting a roof over people's heads. However, these organizations need help.
I urge the government to work with provincial and municipal partners to ensure that the people who support Edmonton's most vulnerable have the resources they need. Together, we can end poverty and houselessness.
[Translation]
Chancellor Pauline Marois
Mr. Speaker, the Université du Québec à Montréal, or UQAM for short, has just scored a major coup by appointing Pauline Marois chancellor. This is another first for the woman who was elected Quebec's first female premier.
Throughout her impressive career serving Quebec, it was her role as education minister that Ms. Marois says she enjoyed the most, because that is where she was able to make the biggest difference. She made meaningful changes by creating, for example, a network of public early childhood centres. It was largely thanks to her efforts that Quebec women now enjoy one of the highest rates of female employment in the world.
At a time when UQAM is facing new challenges, including contributing to the revitalization of the Latin Quarter and planning to create a faculty of health sciences, the woman who describes education as “a pillar for any nation that wants to grow” is the right woman in the right place.
Well done, UQAM. Congratulations to Ms. Marois, and long live the chancellor.
[English]
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of those Liberals, life has never been so unaffordable. Now, with Canadians struggling and his party languishing in the polls, the Prime Minister comes up with this two-month temporary tax trick. Even his own MPs are fed up.
The Liberal member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek called the plan “incomprehensible” and revealed he had been threatened with “consequences” for speaking out. He told the Toronto Star, “It says a lot about where our government is at right now and it says a lot about some of the shackles that have been put around MPs.” The Prime Minister silences anyone who dares to disagree.
Canadians deserve better than Liberal hypocrisy. It is a two-month tax trick today to distract from the Liberals' plan to quadruple the carbon tax. No wonder the Liberal MP for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek calls this plan incomprehensible.
Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax for everyone, everywhere, for good.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker,
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Children's scarves and warm woolen mittens
Books and newspapers tied up with strings
These are a few of my favourite things.
Restaurant meals and crisp apple strudels
Snacks and candy and schnitzel with noodles
Toys and board games and the joy that they bring
These are a few of my favourite things.
These things will be exempted from GST, starting December 14. This tax break will give Canadians more money in their pockets during the holidays, a time when the costs go up for many families.
When the dog bites, when the CPC stings
I simply remember my favourite things will soon be exempted from the GST.
It is good news for Canadians. I encourage members opposite to vote in favour of this tax break and let Canadians have more of their hard-earned money.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is weak and has lost control of our borders. He is the one who opened Roxham Road and kept it open for a year after the Americans offered to close it. He is the one who invited at least 700 international students here, implicitly promising that they could stay here permanently, and now they have to leave the country. He is the one who lost 500,000 people.
What is his plan for restoring order at the border and stopping U.S. tariffs?
Mr. Speaker, as our colleague is well aware, our relationship with the United States is our most important relationship of all in terms of security and the economy. We have been working very well together for years, for decades.
That is also what we have done over the past several years. My colleague knows full well that, just 18 months ago, we signed a new safe third country agreement that the United States has been very happy with ever since, and we are going to make sure our colleague is aware of that.
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister likes to encroach on provincial jurisdictions, he has lost control of his own responsibilities. In fact, he is being irresponsible about the borders, which fall under the most important federal jurisdiction.
The premiers have now lost confidence in the Prime Minister. The Quebec premier is sending the provincial police to protect the border. The Alberta premier is doing the same. The Ontario premier said exactly the same thing.
How can anyone have confidence in this Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, our colleague is talking about control, jurisdiction and confidence. I just answered his question a few moments ago.
One thing that is within his control is asking for his security clearance to protect himself from his own blatant incompetence. He is incapable of protecting himself and his own MPs. That creates a confidence issue. The confidence of Parliament and the confidence of Canadians depend on the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to control his agenda and get a security clearance.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the weak Prime Minister has lost control. He has lost control of immigration and he has lost control of our borders. Now we are facing massive threats to our economy.
Right now, there are as many as 500,000 people here illegally. There are 700,000 students who came here with the implicit promise they would be able to stay forever. Now they are being told they have to leave, with the temptation that they might head south for the much stronger economy than we have here, which would provoke a massive retaliatory tariff.
What is the plan to reverse all the damage the Prime Minister has done?
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people come to this country every year and then leave. They are called tourists. Hundreds of thousands of people come here as temporary residents and then they leave. Some become permanent residents. There is a plan to achieve that. They will migrate into permanent residency. However, not all can stay here and when they refuse to do so, they will be removed.
We cannot make this up. What the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is doing, with the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, is going around to these people, pandering to them, promising them visas and promising not to deport them. That is highly irresponsible and incompetent.
Mr. Speaker, the member hallucinates almost as badly as his weak leader, who refuses to stand and answer for his own border failures.
Let us look at his record. He opened Roxham Road. He kept it open for a year longer than the Americans required. He put out a tweet saying, “Welcome to Canada”, inviting people to come here illegally.
According to that minister's department, there are half a million people here illegally, all of whom could be tempted to go south of the border, provoking a massive retaliatory response.
Once again, what is the plan to fix what he broke?
Mr. Speaker, we will tweet out the video of him pandering to people, entertaining false hope, promising visas to everyone, promising they will not get deported. That is highly incompetent. Worse than that is that he is refusing to get his security clearance. That is irresponsible for any purported leader of our country or any responsible person in politics. He needs to grow a pair, get the briefing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
There is a lot of flexibility that the Speaker gives, of course, in terms of the language that is used in here, but I think that might be on the border.
I am going to ask the hon. minister to withdraw the words.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. On a day like this, I would say that the Leader of the Opposition is all flannel and no axe.
Mr. Speaker, once again, this shows the erratic, out-of-control government we have over there. The Prime Minister is hiding from questions. His minister is losing control of his words and his mind. The government is falling to pieces.
The Prime Minister has lost control of the border, lost control of immigration and lost control of our finances, and he has now lost control of his caucus, whose member are saying that they have been intimidated into voting in favour of his tiny tax trick. He has lost control, but he is holding on to power.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is talking about. On this side of the House we can have conversations. We can have debates, and we do not get shut down from speaking like the members opposite.
Let us talk about today. We are moving forward with a GST cut for every single Canadian.
What have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition? He is opposed to tax cuts. He is all talk, no walk. He is not there for Canadians. On this side of the House, we are going to support Canadians and let our members have debates and conversations.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Liberals for weeks to increase resources at the border. For weeks, they have been telling us, in their typically condescending way, that they have a plan and that the Bloc Québécois is fearmongering.
However, in a dramatic turn of events, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced to his Quebec and provincial counterparts that the Liberals were going to do as the Bloc Québécois had been suggesting for weeks and increase resources at the border. They have just proved to everyone that, until last night, they had no plan and there were not enough resources at the border.
Why do the Liberals always have to wait until the last minute to take action?
Mr. Speaker, our colleague is well aware that the relationship with the United States is the most important relationship that we have when it comes to economic and border security. That is why, for many decades now, we have been working actively and constructively with the Americans. That is what we have done in recent years, particularly with President-elect Trump's previous administration.
The Prime Minister had an excellent meeting yesterday with Canada's premiers, and we are going to continue to work together to deal with the issues raised during that conversation.
Mr. Speaker, better late than never. The Liberals have finally clued in to the fact that resources need to be increased at the border. However, they are still unable to tell us exactly when, how and by how much.
This is incredibly serious because, less than two months from now, Donald Trump is going to slap tariffs on the entire Canadian economy. The Liberals do not even have two months left to plug all the holes in the border, yet, until last night, they did not even know there was an issue.
Today, now that they have finally seen the light, can they explain their detailed plan?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know and we know that borders are important. It is in America's interest to protect them. It is in Canadians' interest to protect them. That is why we are working together on this issue.
I have had conversations with Premier Legault, and just this morning, I spoke with Minister Biron, Quebec's international relations minister. I have also had the opportunity to speak with several influential senators, both Republican and Democrat, who are all allies for ensuring that we can work together on protecting our two countries.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, just as Mariah Carey awakens from her long slumber every November to sing the same Christmas song, so did the Liberals wake up last Thursday with the brilliant idea of doling out $250 cheques. The NDP pointed out they were neglecting a bunch of people, like seniors, people with disabilities and people who were unable to work. In a panic, the Liberals delayed the measure.
It is all very well to punt the problem down the road, but the question remains: Will they fix their measure so it helps the people who actually need help?
With support from the NDP, we are going to vote in favour of a tax break for all Canadians, including seniors. We thank the NDP, because all we hear from the other side of the House is a party of Grinches who refuse to change and who do not want to vote for a tax break.
I thank the NDP, because it cares about Canadians as much as we do. We will continue to work with the NDP to make sure we support all Canadians across the country.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, they are not supporting all Canadians. The Liberals are letting Canadians down. Almost everyone is cutting back. Life is expensive, and that is especially true for students, seniors and people with disabilities. What is the Liberals' plan? It is to exclude them from the $250 rebate.
Even the Liberals' own MPs think it is absurd, and the Conservatives want to give tax breaks to billionaires like Galen Weston, but will not give a tax break to everyday Canadians. When the Conservatives show us who they are, we should believe them.
Will the Liberals fix their botched rebate, yes or no?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. We were the first to introduce a disability benefit. My brother has a disability. Our government was the first government to bring in direct help for people with physical disabilities.
The $250 cheque that we want to send out is a cheque that we want to send to workers. It is ironic to hear such a comment coming from a party that has been always said it stands up for workers. That being said, we estimate that more than one million working seniors will be eligible for this cheque. People with disabilities who are in the labour market will also be eligible for this cheque.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister has doubled the cost of housing, added an inflationary carbon tax to everything Canadians buy and given us the highest levels of debt in the G7, his plan is a temporary, tiny, two-month tax trick. However, not even small businesses are fooled. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that only 4% of small businesses expect a sales boost because of the latest, last-ditch effort for the Prime Minister to save his own job.
If the Prime Minister is so sure about his plan, why does he not call a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide?
Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member ought to look at what the Retail Council of Canada has said on the matter or at what Restaurants Canada has said on the matter as well. Small business owners in my community and across the country will benefit as a result of the tax cut. That is exactly what it is: a tax cut for workers and a tax cut for families.
What is also surprising—
An hon. member: Erin O'Toole says you're welcome.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the name of Erin O'Toole. That is exactly right. He put the initiative on the table in the summer of 2021. We are supporting it now. Who else supported it? The Leader of the Opposition did. He reposted a tweet from Erin O'Toole at the time but does not want to support the initiative now.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a tax cut; it is a distraction before a much bigger, permanent tax hike. Even the Prime Minister's own Liberal MPs are now opposing this. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek says that he was threatened with “consequences” if he voted against it. Rather than threatening his own MPs, muzzling them like he has accused others of doing, we have a weakened Prime Minister, terrified of facing Canadians.
If the Prime Minister is so sure about his own leadership, if he is so sure about his own plan, why will he not allow his own MPs to have a free vote on this one today?
Mr. Speaker, workers who are going for groceries, who want to eat out and who want to buy gifts during Christmas are the people on our mind, as well as families who want to buy diapers or clothes for their kids, or the young family that is excited about a new child coming into the family. Car seats are expensive, and there is a tax savings on them too.
The Leader of the Opposition supported the initiative in 2021 but does not want to now because it is a Liberal initiative. Will the real Pierre Poilievre stand up in the House of Commons?
The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member, and I am going to say to members that if they were able to hold their voices unless recognized by the Speaker, it would be easier for the Speaker to hear.
The hon. member apparently mentioned the name of another hon. member. I will ask the hon. member to rise.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, turning temporary two-month tax tricks will not save the desperate Prime Minister. After doubling housing costs, doubling the national debt and doubling food bank usage, now he is blaming Canadians for not feeling the vibe of the pricey gimmick. Now he is even threatening his own Liberal MP from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for not supporting the vote-buying scheme.
Instead of threatening MPs to take cents off Skittles, call a carbon tax election now so common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax for good.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition knows a thing or two about threatening his own MPs, because if they do not speak in three-word slogans, we never hear from them again.
However, what I can say is that on this side of the House we are excited to deliver a tax cut for Canadians. For the mom who has to buy diapers, groceries and a car seat, this is meaningful.
Who it is not meaningful for is the Leader of the Opposition, because when it comes to supporting everyday Canadians, he would rather support himself than give them a break over the holidays. That is so disappointing, and Canadians across this country are disappointed in him.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals are cutting is moms who have to cut down on the nutritious food they can give to their kids, and they are sending them into food bank lines. After the temporary tax trick is done, the Liberals are going to jack up the carbon tax on April 1, making everything more expensive, and anyone who does not believe in the Prime Minister's radical plan is threatened with consequences. The inflationary vote-buying scheme will add another $6 billion to the Prime Minister's growing deficit.
Instead of taking chump change off chocolates, call a carbon tax election now so we can axe the tax for good.
Mr. Speaker, the GST that we are proposing to remove is going to be removed on essential items like groceries, children's clothing, diapers and car seats. I do not know whether the hon. colleague has children, but if he does, he would know just how expensive those items are for Canadians, and for Canadians who have to buy these essential items, the tax cut would make a difference.
I do not understand why Conservative members of Parliament do not get that, but I hope they change their mind and support the measure, because it is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I will ask the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to please not take the floor unless recognized by the Speaker.
The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is desperate for a distraction. He is baiting voters with a GST holiday that will last a measly two months, but everyone sees through him. This morning, a constituent came to my riding office to criticize this out-of-touch Prime Minister for his tricks. Everyone is done with this worn-out government.
Does it know that everyone wants an election in order to elect the Conservatives, who will be able to bring hope back to Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again, today is a good day. Canadians across the country, including Quebeckers, are getting a tax holiday.
I do not understand why my colleague on the other side of the House does not want to support Canadians. The Conservatives' hidden agenda involves austerity and cutting programs such as housing construction. Today, it is very clear that they do not want to support Quebeckers and give them a tax holiday during the toughest time of year.
Mr. Speaker, we openly said that the Conservatives will axe the tax and take the GST off new homes, which will save buyers up to $50,000 on the purchase of a new home and spur the construction of 30,000 new homes. This is a concrete idea to provide lasting solutions to the problems that this government created. Canadians are not stupid. They see what is going on. They will make this government pay the price when the time comes.
Do we want an election? Yes, we want one now.
Mr. Speaker, honestly, it is hard to accept the Conservative Party's question, because we have signed an agreement with la belle province, Quebec, to build more than 8,000 affordable housing units with a major investment of $1.8 billion. This agreement is a success.
The Conservative Party's position is to scrap the agreement and scrap the program that supports the construction of affordable housing, which is unacceptable. The question is not acceptable and neither is the position.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the government introduced its GST holiday bill and set aside the $250 cheques that it had promised to everyone except seniors and those who are struggling the most. It should take this opportunity to take a step back and seriously rethink its priorities. This government is prepared to spend $6 billion to buy votes, but it refuses to improve the old age security pension for seniors 65 to 74, even though this would address the injustice they are suffering, not to mention cost half as much.
Will it give Bill C-319 a royal recommendation instead of trying to buy votes?
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to buy votes today. I am just trying to give Canadians and Quebeckers a chance to buy essential items during the holidays. What I do not understand is why the Bloc Québécois does not want to support a measure that will directly help not only all Quebeckers, but also seniors during this period.
Today, I received an email from a constituent that said: “The Bloc Québécois just lost my vote, because their blackmail is insulting”.
Mr. Speaker, it has become standard practice for this government to ignore seniors. The government believes it has done enough for seniors, so it is hanging them out to dry. Some seniors will not even benefit from the GST holiday for Christmas, because all their income already goes towards their basic needs. The government can do something. If it can give $250 to everyone just to show how generous it is, if it can spend $6 billion to buy votes, then it can invest $3 billion in old age security.
Instead of giving money to lots of people who do not need it, why not simply increase old age security?
Mr. Speaker, where was the Bloc Québécois when we increased the OAS for seniors aged 75 and over? The Bloc voted against it. Where was the Bloc Québécois when we brought in a 10% increase to the GIS, a benefit for the most vulnerable and needy seniors? Where was the Bloc Québécois when we voted in favour of the Canadian dental care plan? The Bloc voted against it.
The Bloc Québécois has consistently voted against seniors.
Mr. Speaker, that says a lot about Liberal values. As they see it, giving money to a couple earning $300,000 a year and giving nothing to seniors is fair and equitable.
The Liberals see the Conservatives scoring political points without having any sense of social justice or solidarity with people who are struggling, so they decided they would copy that strategy, since it seems to be paying off.
The government needs to get its values straight. On the one hand, we have a $250 cheque that no party agrees with. On the other hand, we have Bill C-319 to increase the OAS, which all the parties agree with.
Why are the Liberals not making the right choice?
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Bloc Québécois members to go see their constituents and look them in the eye. Every time they tell them that they support a pension increase for seniors between 65 and 74, they should have the guts to admit that they also voted against every measure proposed for Quebec seniors.
Bloc members did not want a GIS increase. They did not want a dental plan. They did not want anything for seniors. They cannot say one thing to one audience and something else to another.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, because the NDP-Liberals are trying to fool Canadians with a two-month tax trick, small businesses are being forced, and are scrambling, to reprogram their point-of-sale machines and to find the time and money to pay for these changes. It is a shame the Minister of Small Business knew and did not care that this tax trick would hurt the very businesses she purports to help.
We all know an election is coming. Can we simply stop with the desperation and call a carbon tax election today?
Mr. Speaker, the only things the member and his party can offer small businesses are slogans on repeat, cuts to programs that are essential and cuts.
Our tax break is not just good for small businesses; it is good for their customers. This tax break is not just helping families; it is also supporting the entire community in boosting the neighbourhood independent grocery stores, restaurants, retailers and small businesses that power our local economy. CRA has provided further guidance on this today, which will help support small businesses, and small businesses can call the CRA hotline to get further support.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, 40% of Canada's economy is tied to our relationship in trade with the U.S., but after nine years, we have no softwood lumber deal. What has happened? Tariffs have doubled, and they are set to double again, if we have a first increase, and a second, if Trump gets his way, if we do not fix the border.
After nine years, we have lost 90,000 jobs in softwood lumber, 40,000 each in Ontario and Quebec alone. The last prime minister solved this in 79 days. It has been 3,311 days. Where is the plan for softwood lumber?
Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for forestry workers and our lumber industry. We stood up for Canada when the U.S. imposed aluminum and steel tariffs on us. What did the Conservatives say? They urged us to back down and capitulate. When we renegotiated NAFTA back in 2018, we stood strong and protected Canada's economy while the Conservatives asked us to capitulate.
We have a proven track record when it comes to negotiating. We will continue to protect Canadian workers and Canadian industry.
Mr. Speaker, there is no team Canada when the plan is to pile on taxes, make energy and production more expensive, and sideline our Canadian industries on the global stage. What kind of team has no game plan after nine years, loses 90,000 softwood lumber jobs, gets kicked out of CUSMA negotiations and sits on the sidelines while Mexico overtakes Canada as the U.S.A.'s number one trading partner?
Here is a Canada first plan: axe the tax, scrap the cap on oil and gas production, and fix softwood lumber. Why does the Prime Minister not use that common-sense Canada first plan?
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is a very important partner to our economy and our relationships with the rest of the world. The member talks about trade. We had $1.3 trillion of trade last year with the U.S., which is a record since we renegotiated NAFTA in 2018.
We will continue to be at the table with a team Canada approach as we continue to protect Canadian businesses and workers.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
I would ask the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to please not take the floor unless recognized by the Speaker.
The hon. member for Nunavut.
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, three first nations children have died since January due to this government's non-compliance with Jordan's principle. The Liberals are actively fighting against the Human Rights Tribunal's orders and allowing first nations children to die while in care. There are over 40,000 Jordan's principle requests in the backlog. Liberals are not even trying to fix this.
When will the Liberals stop fighting first nations children and uphold first nations' rights to care?
Mr. Speaker, we care deeply about first nations children.
Jordan's principle ensures first nations children can access the care they need when they need it, regardless of where they live. Since 2016, Indigenous Services Canada has funded approximately 7.8 million products, services and supports for first nations children. The number of requests has grown exponentially over the years, and we are increasing funding so ISC can meet the demand.
All governments need to do their part to keep first nations children safe, healthy and supported.
Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, here is the latest horrifying story involving the airlines' mistreatment of people with disabilities. Air Canada failed to secure a brain cancer patient in a wheelchair. She fell out and was left bleeding and bruised. We are talking about a failure to protect people's safety and dignity. We are talking about a failure to uphold their basic human rights and yet despite dozens of stories like these, people with disabilities have seen zero action from the government.
Either the Liberals do not think things in the air sector have gotten bad enough yet to act or they simply do not care. Which one is it?
Mr. Speaker, this government takes accessibility very seriously, ensuring all passengers are treated with dignity. In May, for example, we had a summit to listen to and learn from those who have accessibility issues. Of course, recommendations came out of those meetings to ensure we work with the airlines and, quite frankly, demand they address the issues as the member has brought forward.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear a lot of noise from members opposite about affordability but no real solutions. Last week, our government made an exciting announcement to support Canadians over this holiday season. Would the minister share—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear a lot of noise from members opposite about affordability but no real solutions. Last week, the government made an exciting announcement to support Canadians over this holiday season.
Would the minister share more details about our government's plan to put more money in the pockets of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians need more support these days and that is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, lifting hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty. We cut child care costs by 50% to help families and we cut taxes for small business.
Now we are giving all Canadians a tax break. We are eliminating the GST on essential goods for two months to support Canadians through the holidays. This means groceries, children's clothes and more will be tax-free, so Canadians will have more money in their pockets.
Conservatives oppose this, just as they want to cut all kinds of supports for Canadians. While they play political games, we are working for Canadians.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, “Canada's 3M temporary migrants do not appear poised to leave 'voluntarily'” is the headline from a major Canadian newspaper. The immigration minister naively expects they will leave voluntarily. Migrant advocates admit they have no such plans. This sets the stage for mass overstays and more illegal border crossings into the United States. This strains our relations with the newly elected U.S. administration, now threatening a 25% tariff if we do not secure our border.
What is the Prime Minister's plan to enforce the laws and ensure that people who need to leave will do so?
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite should get their facts straight. They float around numbers: three million, five million. They actually do not know what they are talking about in response to their own Order Paper question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Marc Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hear them heckling me, but who they really should be heckling is the Leader of the Opposition, who is pandering to all these groups, promising visas to everyone and not to deport anyone. That is not responsible. He really needs to grow up if he is going to be responsible.
I am going to ask the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie to please not take the floor unless recognized by the Speaker.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
Mr. Speaker, the minister had no answers at committee when I asked him the same questions. He does not know his numbers because he has no plan. It is really simple. The lack of a plan threatens the integrity of our immigration system. It wreaks significant diplomatic damage with this newly incoming U.S. administration.
Is the government deploying more police to the border? The Liberals do not know. Is the government deploying advanced technology and will the government use it for border surveillance? The Liberals do not know. Is the government going to use the CBSA with more resources and more agents on the border? The Liberals do not know. YouTube videos are not enough.
Will the Prime Minister present a Canada first plan that will make sure everybody who is required to leave will actually do so?
Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives are a little nervous about me responding, probably because I am going to point out the fact that they cut over 1,000 jobs from CBSA. They were warned that their cuts would lead to more guns, more human trafficking and more drugs at our border.
What did we do on this side of the House? We reversed those cuts. We invested in our police services. As a result, we have seen an increase of 600% in misrepresentation investigations and a 50% decrease in migrants entering the border from the south. That is because investments work.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, you can see how nervous I am.
After nine years of incompetent and ideology-driven decisions on immigration, the Prime Minister still has no plan to protect our borders or our jobs. Just two days before President-elect Trump threatened to impose tariffs, 16 people were arrested while trying to enter the United States from Quebec. Another 21,000 migrants have illegally crossed into the United States from Canada since the start of 2024.
What is the Prime Minister's plan to put Canadians first, protect our borders, and protect our jobs?
Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship in the world more important than the one between Canada and the United States. The reason we want to keep investing in this relationship is that we know Canadians want us to protect their interests. That is why the border is so important to us, and that is why border security is so important to us, as it is to the Americans.
In the past few days, I have been very involved. I have spoken with a number of my U.S. counterparts and U.S. senators. Naturally, we are going to have a very good plan, because it serves the interests of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, we are here because the Liberals have caused chaos and disorder in our immigration system and at the border. Nine years later, it is clear that the Prime Minister is much too weak to deal with Donald Trump.
Let me remind the House that in 2016, the Prime Minister flung Canada's doors wide open to the entire world. After promising the Canadian dream to all these people, he is now saying that three million of them will have to go home by the end of the year. How is he going to make sure that none of them go sneak into the United States? He has no plan to protect our border. When will he call an election so that Canadians can elect a strong leader who will put Canada first?
Mr. Speaker, we know very well that we need to protect the border. That is why we signed a safe third country agreement with the Biden administration. That is why we will, of course, come to an understanding with the incoming U.S. administration. It is in Canadians' best interest. I might also point out that our government is the one that has experience dealing with the Trump administration.
Instead of playing politics on the backs of Canadians, we need to work together. Together, we will be able to turn this situation to our advantage.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the GST Christmas holiday is a $1.6‑billion gift to people who do not need it. It is a reward for spending money. It will not make much of a difference to low-income seniors, minimum-wage workers or families that receive Christmas hampers, but it will certainly benefit people who have reservations at fancy restaurants or who buy their New Year's Eve champagne by the case.
How can the Liberals and the NDP subsidize rich people's spending while leaving those who have to tighten their belts at Christmas to fend for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in which, by the end of the month, people often have to buy their food at Dollarama. By downplaying the impact that the measure we introduced today will have on Canadians' and Quebeckers' wallets, some members are showing that they do not understand what people are going through, especially vulnerable people. We want to give them a break. This is a break, a tax holiday, that will help them have enjoy the holiday season more.
I do not understand how the Bloc Québécois can vote against this measure.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a good example since food is not taxed.
The GST holiday also burdens our small businesses. It is nothing for Walmart, Best Buy and so on to pay to adapt their systems to remove the GST. Our small businesses do not have the means to lose thousands of dollars adapting their systems or dealing with the logistical nightmare of figuring out which product is still taxable or not.
Some are warning us that it is more affordable to close for two months. Our small businesses should not have to pay the price when the Liberals and the NDP want to buy votes.
Will they at least compensate small businesses?
Mr. Speaker, this tax holiday is not just good for Canadians, but it will also give a boost to small businesses.
Restaurants Canada described this measure as a great victory for the restaurant industry and predicts that this tax relief would increase sales by 5%, which would give restaurants an extra $1 million in revenues. This tax holiday will allow more people to patronize small businesses, which will generate more revenues and improve their bottom line.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, a new study from the Fraser Institute shows that violent crime and property crime rates in Canada are exceeding those in the United States. In 2014, before the Prime Minister took office, crime rates were at their lowest. Now, violent crime is up 43.8%, which is 14% higher than in the United States. Similarly, our property crime rates are 27.5% higher than in the United States.
When will the Prime Minister admit that he should abandon his failed, soft-on-crime policies?
Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives use skewed data to talk down Canada, Liberals are investing in the brave police who do this hard work every single day. As a result of those investments, we are seeing massive success in our police services.
For example, on October 31, the RCMP announced its largest, most sophisticated drug seizure of over 95 million doses of lethal meth and fentanyl. That is what investments do, while Conservatives talk down Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that answer would suggest that the statistics are all in our heads. However, the data clearly reveals that Canada has become a much more dangerous place under the Prime Minister. Since 2015, violent crime is up 50% and gun crime is up 116%. Since that has happened, we have seen no urgency from the Prime Minister.
Where is there urgency? When will the Prime Minister admit that his dangerous, soft-on-crime policies have made Canada unsafe and that Canadians are now paying the price?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say we do not want to know what is in the member's head. On this side of the House, we are investing in the RCMP. We work with police right across the country. As a result, we are seeing some of the largest drug and gun seizures in this country's history.
Conservatives talk a big game, but they cut the RCMP's guns and gangs program. They cut resources at CBSA and our borders. What did that do? That brought drugs and guns into our country, and Conservatives made those cuts.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Canada's violent crime rate is 14% higher than that of the United States. Again this week, the media reported that a woman was kidnapped, beaten and strangled in Val‑d'Or, in Abitibi. This government has abandoned victims with the full support of the Bloc Québécois, which voted in favour of Bill C‑5, a bill that allows violent criminals to serve their sentence while they sit at home watching Netflix.
The Liberals and the Bloc would rather support criminals than victims.
When will an election be called?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about investments.
On this side of the House, we have made investments to protect Canadians, including Quebeckers. We have invested in border services. We have invested in scanners to monitor our borders, particularly at the port of Montreal. Here are the results. Auto theft is down 41% in Quebec. We have taken action to fight crime and protect Canadians.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, our government believes that working Canadians need meaningful support to help them manage the rising cost of living. Last week, we announced the new working Canadians rebate, which will provide direct, tax-free assistance to millions of Canadians.
Can the minister explain how this rebate will make a real difference in workers' lives?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Today is a very good day for Canadians, as we are announcing a tax holiday on food, restaurant meals and children's clothing to help families and workers.
It is quite something to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party is forcing his members to vote against this measure, when just two years ago, he himself supported it. It is the height of hypocrisy. Do members know what we say about someone like that back home in La Tuque? We say they are all talk and no action.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, the environment minister recklessly promised to quadruple the carbon tax, despite American tariffs that would cripple our economy. He gleefully stated that, of course, they are going to continue with the carbon tax. With 40% of our economy dependent upon trade with the United States, he should have just said that he is going to kill our economy. He has done it before, and he will do it again.
Why is the minister so hell-bent on vandalizing Canada's economy?
Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing in Canada is generating 25 billion dollars' worth of investment every year in our economy. It is putting more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians and helping us reduce our emissions for the first time in our history.
If it were up to the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, they would let the planet burn. They would bring the economy down. They would let Canadians down.
We do not do that on this side of the House. We are there for Canadians. We will fight climate change. We will support the economy. We will create good jobs for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's radical environment minister is willing to drive Canada's economy into the ground with no remorse. The carbon tax will cost the Canadian economy $25 billion by 2030. In the face of 25% tariffs, the minister can do something. He can cancel his planned quadrupling of the carbon tax. If he is unwilling to protect our economy, will the Prime Minister at least allow Canadians to protect our economy and call a carbon tax election?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada, when it comes to many things, including climate change, is extremely reckless. This is the party that has let the people of Jasper down. For four consecutive years, it invested nothing to protect Jasper from forest fires. From 2011 to 2015, there were zero hectares of fire removal and zero hectares of mechanical removals to prevent forest fires. The Conservative Party let Jasper down. Now it wants to let Canadians down in the face of climate change, but we will not do that on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, nine years of economic vandalism proves that the NDP-Liberals are not worth the cost. The radical environment minister's own department now admits the carbon tax will cut $25 billion from Canada's economy in the next six years, but he does not care. He said that the Liberals will quadruple it anyway.
Canadians already cannot afford to eat, heat, house or drive themselves, so with the threat of a 25% crushing tariff on Canadian goods, will the Liberals finally put Canada first and axe the tax for all goods so Canadians can actually afford to live?
Mr. Speaker, I am honestly not sure how Canadians can give any credence to anything the member and those folks over there say. The member on the other side of the House ran on a platform that included putting a price on pollution. It is the height of hypocrisy. At the same time, she and her colleagues are denying the science of climate change and condemning our children to a terrible future. From an economic perspective, they have no plan to build an economy that would create good jobs for our kids and our grandkids. It is absolutely shameful the positions that they take.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, last year, we announced a $471-million federal investment in Toronto through the housing accelerator fund to unlock nearly 12,000 new homes over the next three years and over 53,000 over the next decade. A few weeks ago, the Conservative leader announced his plan to shut down homebuilding by making dangerous cuts to federal housing investments.
People in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt cannot afford these kinds of Conservative housing cuts. Can the Minister of Housing update the House on how he is solving the housing crisis?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy on behalf of the community she represents.
We are putting billions of dollars on the table to help cities cut red tape, change their zoning practices—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
I am going to ask the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to please not participate if he is not recognized by the Chair.
I am going to ask the hon. minister to start from the top.
Mr. Speaker, we know that it takes investments to solve the housing crisis. We put billions of dollars on the table to help communities cut red tape, change their zoning practices and speed up permitting so they can build more homes faster. The Conservative response to this program, which is helping construction go up and rents come down, is to advocate for cuts to communities, including cuts in communities represented by 68 Conservative members of Parliament.
We are going to put money on the table to help cities build homes more quickly. It is a shame that Conservative members of Parliament will not even stand up for the communities they represent to get their fair share of this important funding.
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, the government's massive public sector pension plan surplus is so large that by law it has to be drawn on. This surplus was created by contributions from both employers and workers, yet the Liberals continue to leave workers out and follow the former Conservative two-tier pension plan, which forces 100,000 public service employees to work for five years longer than their colleagues.
When will the Liberals reverse this regressive plan and treat all workers fairly?
Mr. Speaker, we obviously recognize the very important work done by the federal public service. We want to make sure that we look into this matter very carefully. As to where this money will go, it will go into the general accounts for the moment.
We will be discussing this with different parts of the government, including the unions, and we will come to the right decision.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise with the Minister of Justice Bill C-63. We finally see some movement. It has gone from prestudy to committee. Legal groups that have looked at it and the many people who have reached me say that this four-part bill would help protect children from sexual predation online. Parts 1 and 4 have large degrees of consensus; parts 2 and 3 remain problematic.
Can the minister tell us what he will do to improve and expedite passage of this bill to protect our children and other vulnerable people from online sexual predators?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who often acts as the conscience of this chamber.
I would simply appeal to all parliamentarians: The issue of protecting kids from child sex predators should not be a partisan issue. Getting this bill into committee is of paramount importance for all of us who want to combat online sex predation by people who take vulnerable children and spread revenge porn about them. If we all simply listen to Amanda Todd's mother and Rehtaeh Parsons's mother, we can get behind this bill, get it to committee, get it off to the Senate and protect children. That is what Bill C-63 is about. I hope everyone in this chamber can support it.
[Translation]
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in nine weeks, the government House leader has taken control of the House agenda, and it has only cost taxpayers $2 billion, or $1 billion a day. I want to congratulate the leader.
Can she tell the House if she has any more deals with costly gimmicks up her sleeve for the rest of this week or next? If so, what will the House be debating? Perhaps the leader actually intends to do the right and inexpensive thing, which is to table the Liberal green fund scandal documents in the House?
After all, even Richard Nixon eventually tabled the incriminating tapes.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank my hon. colleague for his question because it was not exactly complimentary, but I am going to answer it anyway.
I am pleased to announce that later today, we will dispose of Bill C‑78, a very important government initiative that will provide Canadians with substantial savings through GST/HST relief across the country. Canadians will be able to buy necessities like groceries, snacks and children's clothing tax free.
[English]
Even if my hon. colleague does not not understand or appreciate how important this is for everyday Canadians, I can assure him that we do as a government. We are listening to Canadians, responding to their needs and helping them get through a tough economic time by providing a tax break as we move into the holidays, even if the Conservatives do not want that support to go to Canadians.
Furthermore, I would like to inform all hon. colleagues in the House that Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be opposition days. Earlier this week, I shared a unanimous consent proposal with the opposition parties that would pause the privilege debate so the Conservatives and the NDP could have their opposition days next week. I hope we can find agreement on this motion so that the House can debate and vote on the billions of dollars needed to fund the programs and services that Canadians rely on, depend on and expect us, all parliamentarians, to deliver for them into the future.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
It was an interesting question period today, to say the very least. As we understand, the Conservative caucus, led by its mighty leader, has done yet another flip-flop, one of great consequence, I would suggest. I want to take the opportunity to explain why we are here and why I say we have seen a flip-flop.
The reason there is a need for this motion is that the Conservatives have determined they want to enter an area that I would suggest is borderline contempt of Parliament, ultimately preventing the government from dealing with a wide spectrum of issues that would have a positive impact on Canadians. That is a direct result of their multi-million dollar game for the personal benefit of the leader of the Conservative Party.
The motion that we are debating is necessary for supporting Canadians. The recent announcement made by the Prime Minister deals in part with the issue of affordability, recognizing, with the holiday season approaching, that the appropriate action to take is to support Canadians with a GST tax holiday on numerous products. Ultimately, every member of the House should vote in favour of that. It would be a very powerful, collective message that every member could take to their constituents. I believe it is a wonderful idea. In fact, I have had the opportunity to express my thoughts on this issue for the last number of days.
An interesting fact came up today, and it is important to note it for people following the debate. Especially through social media, the leader of the Conservative Party has downplayed the tax break's significance and is very critical of what we are doing by providing it. The leader of the Conservative Party has made up his mind, and that is a powerful thing for the Conservative caucus, because as members will recall, what made national news last week was the manner in which he has absolute and total control over Conservative members of Parliament.
We can read what members of Parliament and Conservatives are saying about their leader. Let me recite a few of the statements. One is from a headline, which starts off by saying, “[the leader of the Conservative Party]'s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do”. I will quote from the article, and keep in mind that these are Conservative MPs who are saying this—
I will check if we have quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have quorum.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Madam Speaker, my feelings are not hurt, because I realize that this particular member likes to call quorum when I am speaking. I do not think he likes hearing the truth. He needs to understand that members of the Conservative caucus are out there speaking. They are talking about a leader that goes around Canada saying that he is going to make Canada a free place, but that does not apply to the Conservative caucus.
Here is the story. Here is what Conservative members are saying: “After two years of Pierre Poilievre as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.” The man who—
I apologize. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, no apologies to the parliamentary secretary are necessary. I think you will find, if you review his comments, that the member is intentionally and inappropriately using the proper names of elected members of the House, which, as you know, is a violation of the Standing Orders.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I said “leader”.
Mr. Michael Barrett: Madam Speaker, while he interrupts me, I will note that he repeated his name more than one time. He needs to withdraw it.
I want to remind members that, as all members know, they are not to address members by their first or last name, only by their title or riding.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
The story says, “After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.” It goes on, “The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada ‘the freest country in the world’ maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.” It goes on extensively. One of my favourite quotes from a Conservative MP shows what Conservatives are saying about their leader: “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself”. It goes on: “The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” That is the leader of the Conservative—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, you know as well as anybody that we often talk about different things when we are supposed to be focused on the particular topic at hand in this place, and you give us certain latitude. The member who is speaking goes on many rants, but he is far off topic. I am not sure what he is referencing that is on the table today.
Madam Speaker, on this point of order, I have listened to over 200 Conservative members stand up on a filibuster. I have seen the latitude that is provided. The number of cheap shots and character assassinations from the Conservative caucus directed toward the Liberal benches is truly record setting. I think the member needs to sit down, be calm—
I am sorry, the hon. parliamentary secretary's point of order is actually a point of debate.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies knows full well that there is some latitude. I hear it on both sides, it is not one or the other, where some of what is said is not quite related, but they eventually bring it back to the motion or bill before the House. I am sure the hon. member will mention the bill on a number of occasions while he is referencing his documents.
The hon. parliamentary secretary should make it relevant, but as I said, there is some latitude. He should please make sure to reference how it affects the legislation before the House.
Madam Speaker, I absolutely will. If members would just be a bit patient, what I am talking about is the character of the leader of the Conservative Party. He has made a decision in regard to—
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is rising on a point of order. This is becoming a regular thing. I ask the hon. member to quote the standing order he wants to raise.
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order because the member is talking about the character of members of the House. We know that is not appropriate language. He started out by speaking about misleading the House and stating that the Conservative Party was doing that. I want to point out that where we have been in the House for the past number of weeks is because the Liberal Party has misled Canadians—
I have not heard the standing order yet; from what I hear, this is a point of debate. Again, I would hope that members will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish, then he will take questions and comments. The hon. members will be able to elaborate on their thoughts at that point.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Madam Speaker, let us follow the line here. The leader of the Conservative Party has dictated to his caucus that they have to say whatever he says. By the way, according to Conservative MPs, they are being watched; if they do not say the right thing, they are in trouble. If they say the right things and they repeat the slogans, they get the gold stars. I am not saying that; Conservative MPs are.
When we talk about the GST, the decision has been made. This gets to the flip-flop. We now have the leader of the Conservative Party telling Conservative members of Parliament that the law is they have to say no to their constituents about giving them a holiday on GST products. I find that shameful. At the end of the day, every Conservative is going to stand up and vote no to giving that GST break on numerous commodities to their constituents.
They will come up with all sorts of lame excuses as to why they say no. However, before they think about those lame excuses, I will remind them of what Erin O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservative Party, said. He said, “We will remove GST for the month of December on purchases from retail stores to provide immediate relief for cost of living.” This is what the then leader of the Conservative Party said. Interestingly, the current leader of the Conservative Party not only liked the idea but also retweeted Erin O'Toole's tweet. For Conservatives who say they are not on social media, I trust they read their election platform book. If we look on page 51, it talks about a “GST holiday”.
On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying it is a bad idea today. On the other, not that long ago, they were telling Canadians that this is what they would do if they were in government. I want members to tell me something: How do we define hypocrisy? One only needs to take a look at this policy or the policy on the price of pollution. The price of pollution was also made reference to earlier today; we had 300-plus Conservative candidates going around to Canadians, just as they did on the GST break. They said that, in December, they were going to give Canadians a GST tax break; by the way, they also supported a price on pollution, which is a carbon tax. The Conservatives supported it.
The election came, and we got the Conservatives doing a couple of somersaults or flip-flops on the ideas. Now, all of them say no to the GST break we are trying to provide, which they supported in the last election platform, with their former leader tweeting on the issue. We see that every day. They are going to say no to that; at the same time, they no longer support what they told Canadians in regard to the price on pollution.
To add insult to injury, instead of giving that tax break to constituents, they are also going to be cutting the carbon rebates, taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that 80% of Canadians have a net gain when it comes to the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. However, the leader of the Conservative Party has dictated to his minions that they have to say what he is saying; if they do not, they are in trouble.
We can ask the member for Abbotsford what happened to him when he went offside after the leader of the Conservative Party said he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Where is he nowadays? What role did he play prior to that statement? Conservatives know that if they are not in step with the leader of the Conservative Party, they do not have a place within that Conservative caucus. At the very least, they will be sitting way in the back. There are examples of that.
Madam Speaker, I have a serious question about the bill, and I hope to get a serious answer.
Just today, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a statement after surveying their members. They said that a majority of small firms oppose the GST holiday that the member's government is proposing. Only 4% of small businesses believe it will improve sales; furthermore, “75% say it will be costly and complicated to implement the holiday [and] 65% say there is not enough time to implement the change”. The bill is putting pressure on small businesses to comply with onerous, back of the napkin changes when they should be concentrating on making a living.
Why will the government not stand with small business?
Madam Speaker, I explained in my comments how Conservatives are going to come up with excuses. Where was that concern when Erin O'Toole said that he would do it for one month? We are doing it for two months. Where was that concern then?
Maybe I should ask for leave of the House to table what Erin O'Toole tweeted and the leader of the Conservative Party retweeted, showing that not only did he—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member across the way was asked a very clear question. The only answer he seems to have is a diatribe about the Conservative Party. I wish he would just simply—
That is debate and not a point of order.
I would ask members, when they rise on points of order, that they quote the standing order they are rising on.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives ran on putting a price on pollution, but they forgot about that. They then ran on an idea of cutting the GST for Christmas, but they forgot about that too.
It really concerns me when the Leader of the Opposition says he will not allow any attack on a woman's right to choose. What are the chances Conservatives forget about that when they get the chance?
Madam Speaker, I truly believe that the more Canadians get to know who the leader of the Conservative Party is, the more they will leave the Conservative Party in a very real and tangible way. Canadians know that, on the one hand, Conservatives say one thing; on the other hand, they will flip-flop with no qualms at all. This is a very good example.
All I wanted to do is table a one-page document—
I have mentioned on a couple of occasions this week that the hon. member is not to point to a document. He can quote from it, but he cannot say he is quoting from it. I would again ask him not to do that.
I would also ask members who want to participate to please wait until the appropriate time. For those heckling, I will not recognize them for questions and comments if they continue.
The hon. member can wrap up; there are other individuals interested in asking questions.
Madam Speaker, I am here advocating for my constituents, who see a great benefit of having a GST tax break on numerous products during the holiday season. I would like to think that every member, no matter what political party they are from, would recognize the value of giving their constituents a break and, therefore, vote in favour of the legislation. That is the responsible thing to do. The Conservatives—
Madam Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is calling on the Department of Finance to give affected small businesses a minimum credit of $1,000 in their GST/HST accounts to offset the administrative and programming costs because of the impact this short-term GST cut will have on them. New Democrats are in favour of that and think that making this GST cut permanent is the way to go.
In light of that, is the government willing to move forward with that $1,000 credit for the losses businesses may have?
Madam Speaker, virtually from day one the government has been supportive of our small businesses, going through the pandemic to today. I would encourage members to look at their communities, the restaurants and many other companies that would have a direct economic benefit by this policy. Most important, our constituents, the people who we represent, would be given a bit of a break by our providing this GST break on numerous products at a time like December, because it is the holiday season and purchasing takes place, and January, which is a very difficult time of the year for many people. This is a wonderful thing to do. All of us should be voting unanimously for this legislation.
It is disappointing that the Conservatives have abandoned their support of this policy, because they did support it at one time. It was a good idea then, and it is a good idea today.
Madam Speaker, today, as always, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, especially since I am speaking on the positive measures that our government is implementing to support small businesses and restaurants, including the proposed removal of the taxes, GST and HST in some provinces, from groceries and other holiday items.
I would just note that many provinces, such as Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, have already agreed that they will be removing their provincial part of the HST. They see the benefit of this through their leadership, even though the Leader of the Opposition cannot see the benefit.
Now, I understand the holiday period is one of the most critical times for small businesses. They are making a significant proportion of their annual sales, helping them to achieve their annual goals. We had small businesses, and I know that the holiday season made a huge difference. Consumer spending and encouraging people to come out and buy things is very important to these small businesses.
Thanks to our government's efforts, I am glad to report that Canadians from across the country will receive a tax break from December 14 to February 15, helping both consumers and businesses. This will make a meaningful difference for Canadians by making all food, as well as other holiday provisions and children's clothing and toys tax-free, providing real relief at the cash register. Importantly, it will also contribute to improved sales and greater revenues for businesses and restaurants from mid-December through to mid-February, as I have said.
Many small business stakeholder groups have expressed appreciation and support for this. For example, Restaurants Canada has said, “This is a big win for the restaurant industry...restores some much-needed hope to our industry and we are optimistic it will translate to increased spending at local restaurants across the country.” Ultimately, this could mean a boost of up to 5% or close to $1 billion in additional revenue. That is significant.
The Retail Council of Canada also welcomed the sales tax relief announced from the government, stating, “The removal of GST and HST on a sizable list of goods will create major tax savings for Canadians, along with economic stimulus for our industry.” Notably, they also reported that this stimulus will support businesses both through the holiday season and in the first six weeks of the new year, which is typically the slowest period of the year for retail and restaurants.
We expect the tax break will help restaurants and other small businesses across the country. I am glad that we can offer this support through the holiday season. I encourage Canadians to take advantage of the opportunity for savings and to shop local as they purchase gifts for friends and loved ones, and to patronize local restaurants if they are planning a holiday outing.
I also want to speak to many other initiatives our government is delivering to support small businesses. We will always support hard-working entrepreneurs who contribute significantly to their communities, support good jobs and enable economic growth. Our small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of our communities, and it is essential they thrive.
From digital transformation to greening our economy while creating well-paying jobs, our government has an economic plan that will ensure businesses across the country continue to grow and thrive. That is why we are delivering $2.5 billion to close to 600,000 small and medium-sized enterprises by the end of the year through the Canada carbon rebate. In fact, the rebate checks have gone out earlier than anticipated and started to be sent out this past week.
Reports say that 60% of small businesses are directly impacted by climate change. From floods and droughts to closures and employee absences caused by extreme weather events and illnesses, small businesses are feeling the impact of climate change. We are going to continue fighting it while putting money back into the pockets of Canadians and small businesses.
I am also pleased to report that we have negotiated agreements with both Visa and Mastercard to reduce their interchange fees by up to 27% or $1 billion over five years. This means that small businesses, like the businesses in my riding, will be able to keep more of their revenue and be able to invest in their operations, creating jobs and strengthening our overall economy. This will make a meaningful impact for these businesses, improving their bottom line. These are in addition to and build on our government's work to alleviate the global economic pressures that businesses have been facing, pressures such as inflation, interest rates hikes and worker shortages.
Then, to help Canadian businesses thrive even more, we have invested in them through the Canada summer jobs program, which we are doing again this year, and, in fact, that has just opened. There is also the My Main Street program. One of the first things that this government did to support small businesses was to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. We cut taxes. This was done in recognition of the vital role small businesses play in our economy and our communities.
In 2024, estimates are that small and medium-sized enterprises will save $6.2 billion because of this decrease made to the preferred small business tax rate bias. To encourage Canadian innovators to turn their ideas into businesses, we announced the creation of the Canadian entrepreneurs' incentive that would reduce the inclusion rate on capital gains to one-third on a lifetime maximum of $2 million in eligible capital gains. Combined with the increased $1.25-million lifetime capital gains exemption, the entrepreneurs' incentive would make eligible business owners better off when selling business shares worth up to $6.25 million.
The government's 2024 budget devoted $200 million to renewing the venture capital catalyst initiative, or VCCI, with a goal of supporting venture capital for entrepreneurs who are part of equity-deserving groups and investing in underserved communities as well as in entrepreneurs who live outside key metropolitan areas. This investment builds on the previous $821 million the government has already invested in VCCI, as well as the multiples of that amount that came in through private capital attracted by these investments and supportive of innovative Canadian businesses.
Study after study show us that increasing diversity in business ownership responds to market needs, strengthens economic resilience and boosts the bottom line. We also know it is the best way to support economic growth, so we have created a suite of initiatives to ensure that all business owners have access to the capital they need to start or grow their businesses. We have given young people the option to choose entrepreneurship as a viable career path. That is why we invested $60 million in Futurpreneur Canada to help the organization increase its capacity to support young Canadian entrepreneurs. These investments will support shared prosperity long into the future. We are boosting government procurement in small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as supporting indigenous enterprises. We understand that the best products and ideas often originate here in Canada and we want to ensure entrepreneurs are equipped with the tools they need to bring their ideas to fruition.
I am confident that these combined measures will continue to make a real, tangible difference for all businesses from coast to coast to coast. In summary, this government has made unprecedented investments to support Canada's small business community, from important tax relief to a range of incentives to support business owners and entrepreneurs, to the extensive COVID support measures through the pandemic period. No other government has done so much for small businesses.
In closing, I urge all members of Parliament to vote for the legislation before them, quickly and unanimously, to ensure business owners and consumers can receive the benefits of these tax breaks and have more money and less stress during the holiday season. I ask members to not be a Grinch, even if their leader is. I ask them to think of all the Whos in Whoville or perhaps all the constituents in their own riding and give them a well-deserved break this holiday season.
Madam Speaker, I have a troubling comment. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was stating quite publicly that he is not going to support this. He was threatened with unspecified consequences, threatened with punishment, because he did not want to support this. He even said caucus was not even consulted. This is highly unusual.
Was the member consulted before the government brought this piece of legislation in, and which businesses in her community did she consult with? The business owners in my community are extremely worried about it, especially about the cost of reprogramming their computers and the costs that are going to be laid down on them. Could the member just let the House know if she was consulted, and then which business owners she consulted?
Madam Speaker, in our caucus, we have been talking weekly about the affordability issues that Canadians are facing. We discuss this constantly. In fact, last week, we had a very robust discussion about such measures as these. We are constantly talking about it and I have been talking to business owners and consumers in my riding on a regular basis. Every time I am home, I go out door knocking, I go to events and I make sure that I check in with them. I know that they want some relief. I know that they are looking for these kinds of breaks this holiday season and I am so glad that our government has taken action to decide to do this. I just wish the Conservatives would get on board and help support their constituents too.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, people have indeed been asking for lower consumption taxes for quite some time, but they were referring to a permanent, or at least long-term, suspension, not the two months we are getting.
As everyone knows, my family was disadvantaged for many years. For families like mine, buying new toys is often impossible. They buy toys at the thrift store. I had a $100 budget for my four kids. On that amount, a cut of 5%, which is what the federal tax is in Quebec, comes down to a savings of $5. That would not have been enough for me to even buy better food. I was not buying chips, beer or alcohol. There is no tax on groceries.
How exactly does removing GTS actually help the least fortunate?
I do not understand how that works.
[English]
Madam Speaker, Canadians buy a range of things. Every family is different, and we certainly want to help every family. We cannot look at just one purchase; we have to look at the basket of purchases, and certainly the tax break is going to help Canadians. We are trying to make sure our constituents have some relief, and this is a great way to do it.
We have chosen a number of different items that families generally buy over the holiday season, as different families buy different things. Tax relief on things like children's clothing, diapers, food and other holiday items will make a difference, I know, for my constituents.
Madam Speaker, New Democrats hold the belief that we need to ensure that the taxes people are paying are truly fair. The rich in this country, the super-rich mega-billionaires, pay almost next to nothing because the government continues to keep the immense tax breaks brought in by Harper. We need tax fairness. The measure is, of course, a temporary one. New Democrats believe that the GST should be removed permanently from all essential goods. Would the member comment on whether she believes the same?
Madam Speaker, we do need to look at our tax system overall. This particular measure, though, is not a tax overhaul, as the member knows. It is a specific program being put in place to provide relief for Canadians over the holiday season.
We understand that Canadians are struggling right now. Our economy is getting better and we have seen many signs of improvements, but it is still a time where people need help. We are putting in a temporary measure to help them for now, perhaps with a rebate cheque in the spring, and then we hope to see a better economic situation for all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I will be sharing my time with my great colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country.
The Liberals are so desperate, so worried about getting wiped off the electoral map, that they actually think they can buy Canadians' votes for $250, using Canadians' own money. It is all borrowed, too. Liberals have already spent all the tax dollars they have collected; therefore they are actually borrowing money from the banks to give cheques to Canadians, so Canadians will be stuck with the bill.
This reminded me of someone's taking their credit card to the bank machine, taking out $250 and thinking they are actually ahead by $250. That is exactly what the government is doing, all for the crass purpose of trying to buy Canadians' votes.
There is a point of order by the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. Maybe she could tell me which standing order she is—
Madam Speaker, I cannot. I am sorry, but it is the one that has to do with relevance to the topic, because we are debating a bill about an HST break and not a bill about rebate cheques.
The hon. member is only one minute and four seconds into his speech. There is some latitude, as members know, as there just was with the hon. parliamentary secretary.
However, I do want to ask members to please be relevant to the legislation that is before the House. I am sure the hon. member will include the relevance in his speech.
The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley has the floor.
Madam Speaker, as I said, it is all borrowed. It is like someone putting $250 on their credit card and then thinking they are ahead. That is what the government intends to do.
Canadians are not going to fall for it this time. They are just smarter than that, and after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, everything is broken. They have doubled housing costs, doubled the debt, doubled food bank use and doubled gun crime. Food prices have risen 36% faster in Canada than in the U.S., a gap that opened up after the Prime Minister put a carbon tax on farmers and on the truckers who bring us food.
Two million people are lined up at food banks, and our GDP per capita is actually lower now, after the government's having doubled the national debt to over $1.2 trillion. Our GDP is actually lower per capita than it was in 2015. Now Donald Trump is imposing crippling 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, yet the weak Prime Minister plans to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre.
Can members hear the sound? It is the sound of the mass exodus of Canadian jobs fleeing to south of the border. Donald Trump loves our carbon tax. He loves that the Prime Minister recklessly jacked up the capital gains tax too. People are popping the champagne at Trump Tower as we speak, celebrating the economic vandalism of the Prime Minister, who seems hell-bent on exporting good Canadian jobs to the United States.
I know that Donald Trump wants to put America first, and he should. What Canadians do not like and really do not understand is why the Prime Minister wants to put Canada second. We need a Canada first plan for our economy and our security.
The NDP leader made a grand announcement during the Elmwood—Transcona by-election. He was terrified that the New Democrats were going to lose, so he panicked and called a press conference, proudly announcing that he was tearing up the agreement and that he could not support the Liberals anymore. What happened? I recall that even yesterday he made a statement that he was not going to support the bill, and now he has made a statement this morning that he is supporting it. He just does not know what he is doing, and now he has taped the agreement back together, desperately hanging on until February 25, 2025, the day his pension kicks in.
The NDP leader has sold out Canadians yet again to the reckless Liberal tax trick that would push Canada even deeper into debt. The two-month temporary tax trick would be more than offset by the quadrupling of the carbon tax on heat, housing, food and fuel planned for next spring, so here is the trick, the scam: In just a few months, the Liberals will actually raise taxes on all the same things they are claiming that they are giving Canadians a tax break on.
Instead of trying to trick Canadians, our leader, the member for Carleton, is offering a common-sense solution. Conservatives would axe the carbon tax permanently on everything for everyone for good and take the GST off new homes to save people up to $50,000 on a new home purchase and stimulate the building of 30,000 extra homes every single year. Only common-sense Conservatives will bring home powerful paycheques and lower home prices so people can afford food and a home in a safe neighbourhood.
I want to talk about how we got to this point. Members can imagine, if they will, a prime minister's actually saying that the budget will balance itself, saying that they do not think about monetary policy or saying to let the bankers worry about the economy. It seems unimaginable that a prime minister, responsible for the economy of this country, would say such things. However, it is not unimaginable; our Prime Minister actually said these things. It is no wonder we are in so much trouble, but it gets even worse.
Just this week, the Minister of Finance, in her weak defence of our economy, said that she could not understand why Canadians were complaining about the great job she thinks she is doing. Her explanation was that Canadians are in a “vibecession”. Yes, for those watching, the Minister of Finance thinks they just do not get the vibe, and that they should feel great when they lose their job and when they cannot afford groceries in the grocery store, and that they should feel great about not being able to heat their home, gas up their car or pay their rent or their mortgage.
That is what the minister thinks. She thinks people just do not get the vibe. She does not get it. The truth is that Canadians are suffering and the Prime Minister does not believe it or understand it. He is weak. He is out of touch. His own Liberal members want him to resign, and it is time for him to go.
The quadrupling of the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre will stop our trucks from delivering parts to factories, clothing to stores and food to grocery shelves. Just last spring, the Prime Minister actually admitted he does know at least one thing about monetary policy. I will give him that. He acknowledged, when sending out billions of dollars in cheques, that “as soon as you do that, inflation goes up by exactly that amount.” According to his own words, with the planned $4.6 billion spend for $250 cheques, he is committing economic malpractice. It will cause inflation. It will force the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates higher for longer.
The Liberals like to say that most Canadian families get back more than they pay in the carbon tax. They completely ignore the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has said many times that when we take into account the economic knock-on effects of the carbon tax, 100% of middle-class Canadians pay more than they receive in the rebates.
On top of this, the inflationary effects of the tax mean that families will have to spend $700 more on food this year than they did in 2023. Since 2015, when the Prime Minister came to power, by the way, the price of food has increased by 35%. The price of gas is up nearly 50%. Rents are up 33% and mortgage interest is up 73%.
Canadians deserved tax relief before Donald Trump made his “I love tariffs” comment. He was elected three weeks ago, and the Prime Minister did nothing at all to head off the tariff. The killer tariff will devastate our economy when we have a weak Prime Minister who is panicking because he does not know what to do about it.
However, there is a leader who can stand up to Donald Trump and put Canadians first. The member for Carleton cannot become the prime minister soon enough.
Let us talk about small businesses. I mentioned this earlier in my question to the member for Winnipeg North. The CFIB released a statement just today, saying that a majority of small businesses in this country oppose the policy. Only 4% of small businesses believe their sales will improve; 75% say it will be costly and complicated to implement the holiday, and 65% of businesses say there is not enough time to implement the change. This comes from a group that represents small businesses in Canada.
The Liberals have also jacked up the capital gains tax. Economists like Jack Mintz say this will hurt way more people than just the 0.13% of tax filers who are directly affected, and will blow a $90-billion hole in our GDP, costing 400,000 jobs.
Of course, there is the so-called luxury tax. The head of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada was at the finance committee a couple of weeks ago. He said that it has cost $1.8 billion in sales to the aircraft industry and $90 million in GST revenue. The government has collected only $15 million in luxury tax, while it cost it $19 million to administer the tax. Leave it to the Liberals to create a tax and lose money doing it.
The bottom line is that this country needs a prime minister who understands economic issues. Enough is enough. It is time for a prime minister who, as Wilfrid Laurier said, will put “Canada first, Canada last, and Canada always”.
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member from Winnipeg. Today there was great news for the Canadian economy, because StatsCan provided information on our foreign direct investment flows. With that, Canada had $23 billion of foreign direct investment in and $9 billion out, which is $16 billion. It is the second consecutive quarter where the Canadian economy has seen foreign direct investment coming into our country. That means that companies and entities around the world are investing in Canada.
On top of that, we are meeting Canadians where they are at, and Restaurants Canada and the Retail Council of Canada are applauding our move. I would say to the member from the city of Winnipeg that there are over 5,000 employees in my riding who work in the restaurant industry and who would benefit from the increased hours and increased sales for restaurants. This is a great thing. Ontario has joined it.
Would you not agree with all the great data that has come out for the Canadian economy and our hard-working workers who work in restaurants?
The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge knows that he is not to address questions and comments directly to the member. It has to be through the Chair.
The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley has the floor.
Madam Speaker, that is what we get from the Liberals. They know this policy is a flop. They are just trying to put lipstick on a pig. That is the reality. This policy is a flop. Canadians know it is a flop. They cannot be bought with their own money.
As well, small businesses hate it. Hundreds of thousands of businesses responded to the CFIB survey. Only 4% of those businesses like the tax. I think that would answer that member's question.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. What would be the Conservative Party's plan to address the cost of living, which mainly affects families?
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member's question was about the Conservatives' plan to help families. Maybe the hon. member has missed this talking point in the House.
I know we have not been saying it very often. I will repeat it for her, so she has the information first-hand from me: We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Madam Speaker, my colleague and I come from the same city. I represent a riding with children experiencing some of the highest rates of poverty in the country. They should not be paying the bill for the billionaires and the big corporations. This is an opportunity for us to give some relief to Winnipeggers, and what are the Conservatives doing? They are voting against families. They are voting against single moms. They are voting against kids.
I share that because, when the Conservative leader was in government, the member voted for a $60-billion tax break for big corporations, yet the Conservatives will not even vote in favour of a two-month holiday on taxes for people who really need a hand-up during an affordability crisis. I thought the Conservative Party was the party that hated taxes.
I would like to ask why the Conservatives are fighting so hard to keep this tax if their party hates taxes so much.
Madam Speaker, I think the member might not have read the entire bill. This tax break benefits billionaires the most. They are the ones who spend more than anyone else. This is not a progressive move by her party. She is not going to be voting for a progressive tax change. She is going to be voting for a tax that benefits millionaires and billionaires. If she is concerned about that, I would suggest that she vote against this bill.
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
I rise today to discuss the Liberal government's two-month temporary tax trick, which looks like it was written on the back of a napkin as a knee-jerk reaction to seeing some new poll. Canadians are smarter than that. Residents in my community, and all Canadians, expect better policies to make basic necessities, such as food, fuel and housing, more affordable and to address the causes of cost increases. The measures the Liberals have proposed would not address the causes of affordability or bring sustainable cost reductions. Many people and businesses are struggling after nine years of the costly Prime Minister and his partners in the NDP.
We have to wonder how the Liberals came up with this out-of-the-blue policy, which would be implemented literally just before Christmas, on the evening of Friday the 13th, no less. The Liberals do not have a one-for-one rule like that the Conservatives have proposed. The one-for-one rule is when, for every dollar spent, we need to find a dollar of savings, or for every dollar less in revenue, such as this Liberal measure, we need to find a dollar of savings. This is how households and small businesses operate. This is the principle used for the Conservative commitment to remove the GST on new home sales under $1 million to bring savings to home builders and families. Conservatives were transparent in how this reduction in federal revenue would be offset.
The Liberal government does not operate or create policies like this. The measure we are debating today is not a tax cut and would only be inflationary, but the Liberals do not want to talk about that. Conservatives have real tax cut plans that would lower costs and spark production.
It is also unbelievable how much Canada will be spending on servicing our debt. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for it. It is clear that the Prime Minister has a spending problem. He also has no clue about fiscal responsibility. He stated that budgets would balance themselves and that he does not think about monetary policy. His latest statement is that bankers will look after the economy.
On addressing the rampant unaffordability we are seeing across the country, the measures we are debating today would not be a permanent solution. We know how bad things have gotten for Canadians after nine years of the Liberals being propped up by their NDP partners. The Liberals do not think Canadian families are struggling. They think that this is just in their heads and they are having a bad vibe. Statistics Canada figures show that food prices have increased by 35% since 2015. Grocery prices have jumped by 20% over the past three years alone. Food prices have risen 36% faster in Canada than they have in the United States.
This gap can be said to have started when the Liberals introduced a carbon tax. This has increased costs throughout the agriculture and agri-food supply chain. These rising costs, which have not increased this dramatically since the 1980s, will see families having to spend $700 more on food this year than they did in 2023. The price of gasoline has also soared. Housing unaffordability has also risen to levels not seen before, with housing, rent and mortgage costs all doubling since 2015. This is real. This is not just in Canadians' heads and it is not just a bad vibe, as the Liberals believe.
One thing with this temporary tax trick is that it picks winners and losers, this product over that product, rather than lowering the cost of everything. This Liberal measure does not acknowledge everyone's place in life or that their priorities are different. Another problem with this temporary tax trick is exactly that: It is temporary. It will not help address the causes of affordability over a longer time frame, and it is not addressing costs of basic necessities such as nutritious food, fuel or housing.
This measure will also not help hedge against the impending almost 19% carbon tax increase that will hike the costs of food, fuel and housing. That is right. On April 1, the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, will increase the carbon tax again. Over the next few years, it will increase to a whopping 61¢ per litre.
Even worse, to add insult to injury, the excise tax is also set to automatically increase on April 1, and this is on liquor. Again, the Liberals are giving a slight, temporary tax reprieve so Canadians forget that they will be increasing those taxes in just a few months. These April Fool's Day tax increases are not a joke. They are real.
Another thing the Liberals want to divert Canadians' attention away from is how the Canadian dollar continues to drop. It is now hovering around 70¢ compared to the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar is the lowest it has been in five years. This will make buying everything from the U.S. more expensive, whether it be a new refrigerator or food sold in Canadian grocers that came from the U.S. That is a lot of products, including everything from fruits and vegetables to cereal, which households, restaurants, senior homes, care centres, hospitals, day cares and everywhere else all buy. However, the Liberals and the NDP do not want us talking about that.
They also do not want us talking about the fact that there is GST on the carbon tax, a tax on a tax, which is so wrong. Last winter I had many residents send me screenshots of their home heating bills, asking why GST was charged on the carbon tax. I just responded to another constituent asking about this the other day. On the measure we are debating today, one resident wrote to me saying, “We don't want the added burden of debt. We want real change.”
I also have a message from a local business retailer in my community. I need to paraphrase what he said because I cannot use that type of language here in the House of Commons. He is a merchant, and he said that the Liberals have “no clue” how much of a huge administrative and costly effort these temporary tax changes on select items is going to be. His staff and customers are already confused.
Businesses and organizations from across the country have also offered critiques of these Liberal measures. The director of the Huron Chamber of Commerce stated the government has “downloaded the administrative cost of this tax cut onto small business owners - and it's going to cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars”. The Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce CEO stated that these measures will be “very onerous for small businesses”. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated that these measures “may add confusion and complexity for general retailers with both taxable and new exempt items.” They went on to state, “Canadians need permanent, not temporary tax relief.”
Ian Tostenson, the president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association, said that the tax relief will likely have little effect in stimulating the restaurant economy. He said, “If you look at a restaurant bill of say $100, you’re talking here about saving $5. I don’t think that people are going to rev up their cars and head out for that, I really don’t”. He continued, “I think it's a misguided policy”. As described in an article, rather than a limited GST reprieve, “he'd like to see governments do more to increase consumers' disposable income, so dining out is back on the table.”
It has been reported that a “co-owner of Orca Dynamics, which provides point-of-sale products and services to businesses on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, said it’s a 'hellscape' out there for retailers who will have to deal with a tax change on top of their regular work.” He said, “It’s going to cost a merchant a lot of labour hours to go through all these products to exempt the GST for just a few months of transactions.... The maintenance side of this is a nightmare, a living nightmare.”
In closing, I want to describe what bringing home the promise of Canada would look like. It would mean lowering the cost of heat, housing and gas. It would mean lowering the cost of food so Canadians can afford groceries. It would mean having a long-term impact on the ability of Canadians to afford what they need.
Let us axe the carbon tax on everything for everyone, forever. Let us axe the tax and bring home affordability for all Canadians. I have no confidence in the government. Let us call an election now so Canadians can decide.
Madam Speaker, I do know that Canadians are struggling with grocery prices. We are all experiencing it. I also know the part of the world the member is from, and I know that the scourge of the climate crisis has impacted her community. Vineyards that were once successful cannot grow grapes anymore because they have had such unpredictable freezing of grapes on the vine, as well as fires and floods. I know most people do not regard wine as a staple in the grocery stores, but climate change has also wiped out grain crops. It has had impacts all around the world, which have driven up the prices of things, such as vanilla for ice cream because there were storms that wiped out vanilla in Madagascar.
Could the member give us a sense of the connection she sees between the devastation in her own community and higher prices?
Madam Speaker, we have not heard anyone mention how high the carbon tax has to be in order to stop incidents like the member just described. This is why we are proposing to axe the carbon tax for everyone, forever, everywhere, because it is obviously not working. All it is doing is making Canadians poorer. We believe in focusing on technology, not taxes, because the Liberals and all of their partners have a tax plan, not an environmental plan.
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I do enjoy working with my colleague on the HUMA committee.
Our Liberal government delivered a battery plant for Windsor. There are 2,000 construction workers building the plant, and 2,500 local workers will be building batteries for generations to come. Conservatives voted against it.
We delivered a dental care plan that provided smiles for 15,000 residents in Windsor—Essex to date. Conservatives voted against it.
We are now providing a tax holiday. I spoke to a young family who said that this was going to help them purchase a car seat for their child. It is going to help them purchase clothing and other supplies for their child. However, the Conservatives are going to vote against that too.
The Conservatives are voting against jobs for communities like ours. They voted against smiles for seniors in communities like ours. Now they are voting against giving families the financial breathing space they so deserve.
Could the hon. colleague please address why the Conservatives are against those three things?
Madam Speaker, it is really interesting that the Liberals never want to step back and actually look at why things are so bad or why there are two million people going to food banks in one month. They do not know why there are record numbers of homeless encampments across the country or why there are record numbers of mental illness, addiction and crime. People cannot even afford basic necessities. Seniors have to go back to work because they cannot afford basic necessities or afford their own medicines. The Liberals do not want to step back and actually look at the causes.
Their policies and legislation have actually led to those causes, but they want to step up and say that they are there to help. A constituent of mine said it really well one time. It is like somebody trips us when we are walking, and then they put their hand out and offer to help us up. However, as we lie there looking at them, we know that we would not be lying on the ground if they had not tripped us in the first place.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I noticed yesterday when I looked at the bill that the tax was removed from games, but not video games. Later on, I saw that video game media, meaning cartridges, were tax-exempt. However, the game itself and the cartridge are not taxed separately because they are sold together. Is that not further proof of the government's lack of organization, planning, foresight and consistency?
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition member for her question.
[English]
This is exactly what I was saying. It is like the Liberals put it together on a napkin in one night. They are picking winners and losers, and there are some random things that they have chosen. This is not solid policy they have come up with. This is not solid legislation. It is something they just came up with and threw at the wall. It really was not well thought out at all.
Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in the House and discuss important matters. Today, we are discussing making life more affordable for Canadians, Canadian families and hard-working Canadians, and continuing to grow the economy.
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, whom I have known for many years, and I know he presents his view in a very eloquent manner every time the hon. member rises to speak.
I would quickly like to note that today is a good day for the Canadian economy. It is a really good indication of where we are. Foreign direct investment flows are something that, as an economist, I very much like. We are at $23 billion in Q3. Foreign outflows are at $9 billion. This is one of the largest-ever recorded foreign direct inflows into our economy. These are not securities. These are actually investment transactions by companies. This is confidence about where we are going as a country and where we are going as an economy.
This is really important to note because it is something I believe in, whether it is the $10-billion Dow project or the $2-billion Linde project in Alberta, whether it is the Stellantis plant in Windsor, near my hon. colleague down the aisle, or whether it is the Volkswagen investment, which is literally transforming southwestern Ontario, in the St. Thomas area. It is just incredible to see those types of numbers presented. Again, there is confidence in Canadian workers and confidence in our country.
We are here to discuss giving Canadians some help and meeting them where they are. When I was growing up, we had this saying within the family that every little bit helps. Every little bit helps a family that is working hard, saving for their kids and for their futures, and looking forward to celebrating the Christmas holidays. I know that in my riding, a lot of families will be getting together, of course, just like they will all across this country. A lot of them will buy prepared meals.
In the city of Vaughan, there are a lot of entities that have these prepared meals, and they are going to be saving, literally, hundreds of dollars sometimes, when it is a large family, on a prepared meal. Those are real savings for families. In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, there are 368 food service establishments employing over 5,000 hard-working Canadians, and they are going to get a boost, from December 15 to the day after Valentine's Day, especially during January. It is the slowest period of the year for many businesses, including restaurants. They are going to get a boost.
I can name a few: Romano's, Castello, Via Mercanti, Giro d'Italia, Funghetto Trattoria, Desserts Plus, That's Italian. Zafferano and pizza restaurants are near my office. There are so many wonderful restaurants.
In all of these restaurants, we are going to see groups of people before the Christmas holidays, during the Christmas holidays, having lunch. The Province of Ontario has signed on. That is for Ontarians, for the residents of Ontario. That is about $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion in tax savings from December 14 to February 15. These are real savings.
I am so proud. The day we made the announcement, Restaurants Canada was there to say that was great work. Its hard-working members need a break. Restaurants have faced higher costs from higher minimum wage, higher insurance costs and higher input costs. Of course, we are going to help them, and that is what it is about.
I have a three-year-old, and most of the time, to be honest, my wife takes care of her because I am here in Ottawa. She goes out to buy diapers, and they are not cheap. We do not control the price of diapers. However, for parents with kids at home, we made raising a child more affordable, much like we did with the national early learning and day care plan. We reduced fees by 52%, again, working with the Province of Ontario. We will see further relief in January, down to, I think, 60%. Then in September, it will be down to $10 a day on average.
We are going to give Canadians a break. We are going to help them out because every little bit helps. These are real savings for hard-working families across the country.
If the Conservatives wish to vote against it, that is their prerogative. We all make our own decisions. That is fine. With the Canada child benefit, for example, in my city, 49,400 children and their families receive the Canada child benefit, and $192 million flows to the residents of the city of Vaughan, to those collecting the Canada child benefit, and the Conservatives voted no.
Let us be frank. With the Canada workers benefit, there are 19,000 people in the city of Vaughan who get the Canada workers benefit. There has been over $21 million delivered.
Making life more affordable and growing our economy is what we are about on this side of the aisle, and we will continue to do that. Even in uncertain times, we will deliver for Canadians.
Regarding the Canadian dental care plan, when I first assumed office in 2015, I heard from seniors everywhere. The only place for a senior facing emergency dental work to go was York Region. There was no plan. However, over 21,000 seniors in the city of Vaughan, including nearly 12,000 in my riding, are on the Canadian dental care plan today. These are real savings. Canadians are saving, on average, $710. I have had seniors come to my office who, after nine or 10 years, have gone to a dentist. It was unfortunate to hear that one person had eight cavities, when I spoke to the dentist afterwards. That is real, tangible progress for Canadians.
We talk about our economy. In the city of Vaughan, we had a South Korean firm invest and create 300 jobs. It was a $100-million investment about a month ago. We had a food products company invest another $100 million. Every week I attend a new business opening, whether it is in Vaughan Mills or whether it is in my riding. I have probably attended 10 or 12 new business openings in the last two months.
Canadians have been through a lot. We know it. There was a global pandemic, and there was global inflation, which impacted everyone and elevated prices. However, we have had the backs of Canadians, and that is what being in government is about.
We are now debating a bill to give Canadians some tax relief. I am all for tax relief. They better believe it. I know those hard-working restaurant workers are going to get more hours out of this. Those owners are going to get more profits. They also received the small business carbon rebate, tax-free, which is being delivered today.
I know that Josie and Patricia at Il Castello, and Francesco at Via Mercanti are going to get their tax-free small business carbon rebates back. They are going to get tax-free money, and they will actually receive a tax deduction up front. They are getting a double benefit, and that is very important.
I will talk about the Canada workers benefit because it is not in this bill, but we look forward to it in the future. It will help hard-working Canadians, who work hard every day and who do the right things. They save, invest, create jobs, pay taxes and do the right things for their services.
I look at the other items, some essentials, and I go back to prepared foods. At Brettone Catering in my riding, Romano's, Aidas and all those bakeries, their customers are going to go in at Christmastime, Natale, Noel, and are going to get a tax break. It is great news. Again, regarding the 13% HST in the province of Ontario, the province has joined us in delivering savings for its residents. That is something I am so proud of.
This is about making life more affordable, laying the foundations on social programs that strengthen our social fabric while growing our economy. I think of the Canada child benefit again. It is tax-free, monthly. Almost $200 million flows to the families in the city of Vaughan. There is the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit, as I mentioned, and the national early learning and day care plan.
We also eliminated interest on student loans and on apprenticeship loans for students in university. We raised the amount they can get before they start to repay those loans to get them back in and get them working.
Canada is a work in progress, but we are the ninth-largest economy in the world. We have a AAA credit rating. Our debt-to-GDP is the lowest in the G7. Our deficit-to-GDP is around 1%, versus that of the United States at 7% or 7.5%, versus our European friends at between 3% and 5%. Ours is the lowest. That is being fiscally responsible, and it is something we need to celebrate. These are good foundations to continue to grow and to invest in our economy.
There is uncertainty in the world. We know that, and we will continue to deal with it. That is what strong leadership is about.
I always look forward to getting up and debating in the House about the issues of the day, with my three daughters at home and with the family watching. It is always an honour to rise. I look forward to questions and comments from my most hon. colleagues. I wish everyone a wonderful afternoon.
Madam Speaker, recently, I had the pleasure and the honour of canvassing in the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's riding with Michael Guglielmin and the member for Lakeland, Alberta. When we were knocking at the doors, that is not what we heard. The member's constituents do not trust him. He continues to say that he wants to cross the floor. Well, believe it or not, Conservatives do not want him.
Why is he continuing to bribe taxpayers with their own money? The owners of the restaurants he has mentioned, which I frequent, are fed up with the current Liberal government. They want a carbon tax election. I will tell members that Michael Guglielmin will be the next MP for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
Madam Speaker, I always say, “In life, it does not cost anything to be kind to someone.” The other expression I like to say is, “God is good all the time. All the time, God is good.”
I will say to the hon. member, the candidate who is running, and I encourage all candidates to run, had a pivotal role in my campaign in 2015 to beat the minister at the time, Julian Fantino. That is something Conservatives need to think about, and so forth.
I look at what I have delivered for the city of Vaughan: $59 million through the housing accelerator fund; the Jane Street investments; the brand new park in Thornhill; the investments in all the community centres across the city of Vaughan; and the FedDev investments in Northern Transformer. There are more coming and more to be announced in the coming weeks. The investments that grow our economy create the jobs of the future. All the auto parts suppliers in our riding depend on the electrical vehicle transition. They are transitioning and creating jobs.
That is the record I have delivered for my community, and I cannot wait. When I knock on doors, I know what the residents will say, including all the seniors who have the Canada dental care plan and that the opposition—
I am sorry. I have been trying to give the hon. member a signal to end.
I want to remind members, when they have an opportunity to ask questions, if they have other questions, they should wait until the appropriate time.
[Translation]
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Madam Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to remind my Liberal colleague that he is right to be angry, but he should perhaps refrain from banging on the desk. That can be dangerous for the interpreters, for their ears, as a working condition. We do not bang on the desks.
In the Conservatives' 2021 campaign, they said they wanted to pause the GST during the holiday season. They promised voters that. Today they are voting against the measure, as if it is the worst thing in the world. I have a very practical question. The NDP pushed for this GST holiday on essentials, such as groceries and children's clothing. The Liberals are proposing half-measures and, worse, they are temporary, for only two months.
What does my colleague have to say to the small retailers and small and medium-size businesses in his riding that will have to undertake a long and expensive process to change their entire tax procedure for two months only to do it all again eight weeks later?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very important to us.
[English]
To give the hon. member an example, prepared foods are a very big item. I know my wife and all mothers and fathers in the evenings sometimes do not have enough time to cook for their kids. They will go to a supermarket to buy prepared foods. Right now, on those prepared foods, Canadians have to pay the HST in Ontario. I would like to see that revisited.
This is a temporary two-month tax break. Every little bit helps, as I say. These are issues we need to talk about, how we can continue to help hard-working Canadian families, which we have done through so many measures and which we will continue to do because we always have the backs of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I cannot blame the Conservatives for having a little amnesia about the GST cut they proposed in 2021, because it was on everything, so somebody who treated themselves to a $25,000 watch would have saved about $1,250. That is a little different from the tax cut being proposed here, and I am wondering if the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge can pinpoint what the big difference is in what we are proposing.
Madam Speaker, I wish to say that the focus of our government is helping hard-working Canadians and hard-working Canadian families. This is exactly what we are doing in terms of those who love to dine out and go to restaurants all over the GTA, from Vaughan to Toronto, Burlington, Oakville and Scarborough, in all those great restaurants that exist. People are going to have time to spend with their families. They are going to go out over the holidays in Ontario.
It is a full removal of the HST. This would be $1.6 billion in savings. This would be providing relief to Canadians, meeting them where they are and helping them, because every little bit helps. We know that and we understand it. It is too bad the opposition members, who ran on a similar idea and voted for this a couple years ago, are now saying, “No, we do not like lower taxes.” We like—
I am sorry. I have been trying to give the hon. member a signal again.
The hon. deputy House leader has the floor.
Madam Speaker, I would ask for a couple of brief moments to report on some breaking news that came out of the public safety committee moments ago. Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton and former leadership contestant for the Conservative Party, has been summoned to the committee to talk about foreign interference and what he witnessed during the Conservative leadership convention. I think all members will be equally interested in hearing what—
There are a lot of members who start their speech with something else. I have seen it over and over again from both sides. It has not even been one minute since the member started his speech, so I want to allow the hon. member to continue. I am sure he will bring some relevance to it. He does need to make sure his speech is related to the bill.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Madam Speaker, I am not one bit surprised Conservatives are not happy to hear that. We should hear some earth-shattering testimony from the mayor of Brampton in relation to foreign interference during that leadership contest.
I will bring this to the issue we are talking about right now. We are talking about removing the GST on some essential items during a time when Canadians experience, and will be experiencing, a stretch in their wallet from paying for things over the holidays.
I heard from a Conservative member, maybe 20 or 30 minutes ago, who said the only people who will benefit from this are billionaires. I am sorry, do billionaires buy car seats in the dozens? Am I missing something? Do billionaires buy diapers at Costco in bulk? What am I missing here? Only a Conservative would get up and say an initiative like this would only benefit billionaires. It is absolutely ludicrous.
What I find most troubling, and it has been highlighted several times today, is another flip-flop by the Conservatives. All we ever hear from them is “axe the tax”. They will not even axe the tax. Literally, we have a tax here that we are ready to axe, and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton does not even want to axe it. This is the hypocrisy. Not only is it hypocritical in the sense that Conservatives are always running around talking about axing the tax, but this is a tax they proposed axing in the last election, literally. Now the member from St. Albert-Edmonton and the member for Carleton, the current leader of the Conservative Party, do not want to axe it.
Let us go back to 2021 for a second because it is really important to put this into context. Erin O'Toole was the leader, and I am sure we all remember what happened. His finance critic was the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton, now the Leader of the Opposition, had made a statement about the governor of the Bank of Canada. What did Erin O'Toole do at the time? He said to the Leader of the Opposition, “You're out, and I'm putting the member for Abbotsford in your position.”
This is important context and I will get to it in a second, but I think it is safe to say there was no love lost between those two. They did not get along. Even during the 2021 election, we could almost feel the animosity between the member for Carleton and Erin O'Toole. Notwithstanding that, when Erin O'Toole made his platform announcement about getting rid of the GST for one month in December, do members know who celebrated it, reposted it, talked about it and made it an issue?
An hon. member: Do not say Pierre Poilievre.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I would not say his name because I am not allowed to do that, but it was the Leader of the Opposition who did that. Just to put it into context, they were not exactly friends; I would argue that they did not get along. Yet the member for Carleton, the current Leader of the Opposition, liked that so much that he was willing to put aside his differences with Erin O'Toole to celebrate the fact they had brought that along.
Flash forward to now: Suddenly Conservatives do not want to axe the tax anymore. That is where we are. The Leader of the Opposition is saying this is a phony scam that will result in nothing and this is just a trick. He should talk to some of the businesses and restaurants in downtown Kingston about whether or not it will be beneficial to remove the GST from takeout and from eating in restaurants in January.
When I was younger, in my 20s, I worked in the hospitality industry in Kingston. The slowest month of the year is January, and February would probably be the next slowest. This is the time when we can genuinely impact those businesses. We are very proud of the number of restaurants we have in downtown Kingston. I am not sure if it is because we are heavily populated by all the Queen's students, but we like to think we have the most independent restaurants per capita in the country.
This will directly benefit them. This is not just about giving a break, although millions of people will benefit and will rejoice in it, not just the billionaires, as Conservatives would say. This is about helping our economy keep moving and helping those small businesses that would typically have a slower time.
I also hear Conservatives saying it is really difficult for small business owners to change the sales tax on their system for two months. Back in the 1990s, when I was doing it, we used to change it on a nightly basis based on drink prices changing every night. It is very simple to go in there and change what is currently marked at 5% to 0%. They can even do it now from a smart phone for all of the restaurants they might have throughout the country. They do not even need to physically be at the terminal to do it anymore. I am sure not everybody is using that technology, but the red herring the Conservatives are throwing around here, that it is just going to be a massive, complex thing for a restaurant or a small business to change the tax percentage from 5% to 0%, is nothing more than that: just a red herring.
It apparently was not going to be a problem when it was only going to happen for one month in December 2021, when Erin O'Toole proposed it and the member for Carleton, the leader of the opposition, celebrated it. It would have been simple to do in 2021, but I guess in 2024, the technology has reverted back to the 1950s or 1960s and it will be next to impossible to do.
Of course, I am dripping with sarcasm here because I cannot stand to listen to the hypocrisy over and over from Conservatives on this. They actively want to see something fail rather than try to support Canadians. They have a choice when we get to voting on this whether or not they want to give this tax holiday. By the way, we are not even the ones who most recently used the term “tax holiday”; it was literally in their platform in the last election.
Every Conservative sitting here agreed when they ran that for December 2021 that it was a great idea to give a tax holiday to consumers. Suddenly in 2024, it is the worst thing we could have ever thought up. It is literally the exact same program. This is just typical. It happens over and over. Conservatives continually do this. Every Conservative sitting here also ran on a platform of pricing pollution. What did they do there? They just completely flip-flopped on that. They suddenly said because they are not doing it, it is a horrible idea. That is not their job in here. Their job in here is to hold the government accountable, not make it their mission to see that absolutely everything fails to the detriment of Canadians. That is what they are doing.
Whether it is filibustering, or whether it is voting against measures for Canadians they dreamed up in the last election, they are always doing it. They just hate the idea. It is more important to them to see political failure on this side of the House rather than seeing Canadians get ahead. They are more interested in political failure and seeing the government fail than they are in helping Canadians.
I would encourage all members, including those who have been silenced by the leader of the opposition, to vote in favour of this later today. It is good legislation and it is legislation we know they like too.
Madam Speaker, the member has suggested that this is going to help small business. He said he has talked to businesses and that it will genuinely impact small business. This irresponsible inflationary tax trick will not help small business. In fact, today, there was a message from a local business, and I neighbour this gentleman's riding, from Justin Martin from McCormick’s Country Store in Camden East, He is extraordinarily upset by the negative impact this is going to have on his small business.
The member gets up here and talks about how this is going to help small businesses so much, but the government has completely lost control of spending, and the Prime Minister has lost control and is trying to cling to power. How can this member of Parliament suggest he is helping small business when we get comments like this from local small businesses?
Madam Speaker, what I said is that when I was in my twenties, I worked in the hospitality sector in Kingston, and I am fully aware of the fact that January is the slowest month. When someone is in the restaurant or bar business, they look for every opportunity to increase business in that month. That is just a fact. What people are looking for are ways to generate more business, and that is what this would produce.
The member says it is irresponsible policy. Suddenly it is irresponsible policy in November 2024, but when she ran on it in September 2021, it was revolutionary and amazing and it should be put in the Conservatives' platform. Just for the record, the member is calling a policy she ran on irresponsible.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I heard some surprising things in our colleague's speech, but I admit that I am getting used to hearing surprising things in the House. However, I would like him to explain his thoughts on two things a bit better.
First, he said that this bill has to do with essential goods and then listed a few. I saw that the goods covered under the bill include alcoholic drinks and video game consoles. I would like my colleague to explain to me how these things are essential to young families who are struggling to make ends meet. I am intrigued.
Then our colleague told us that billionaires do not buy diapers for babies. Just out of curiosity, I would like to know what they use. I am interested, because we might be able to save some money.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I want the member to go back and review Hansard, review everything I said, and if he can find where I said this is only about essential goods, I will buy him a GST-free beer in December. He will not find it, because I never said that. What I said is that this would cover a whole host of goods.
As it related to diapers, I was not saying that billionaires do not buy diapers. What I was saying is that the Conservatives said this only benefits billionaires, and I was just asking if billionaires buy diapers in mass bulk and in a way that the rest of society does not. I would assume billionaires buy diapers the same way I would buy them or the member from Winnipeg would buy them. If they do not and the member knows something I do not, then I would encourage him to tell me.
Madam Speaker, the last time the Conservatives were in power, they gave a $60-billion tax break to billionaires. Worse yet, they then hired them to go on their staff, their lobbyists for Loblaws. Today, they are here trying to stop a lot of Canadians from getting a break. Would the member speak to how hypocritical it is that Conservatives speak every single day in this place about axing the tax and now today, when the time has come that we are going to see some tax relief, they are saying no.
Madam Speaker, he is absolutely right. Conservatives always talk about axing the tax, but in reality, the only thing they want to axe are people's rebates. The only thing they want to axe are the rebates people get through the Canada carbon incentive. Everything else, they are fully prepared to keep in place, including the GST that they ran on axing when they ran on it back in 2021.
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Simcoe North and look forward to his remarks.
What we are debating is the outcome of a desperate gimmick announced by the government a few days ago, for which, somewhere on the back of a cocktail napkin, it cobbled together some kind of desperate ploy to buy Canadians' votes. The plan originally had more components than what is going to be voted on tonight. We are down to only voting on the GST elimination for two months because the Liberals blew it with the rest of the plan they tried to hatch.
They also have a promise that is still hanging out there to give cheques to working Canadians who earn up to a net income of $150,000. This part of this half-baked scheme fell so flat that not only do Conservatives oppose that plan but the Bloc and the NDP have both publicly opposed it, arguing that it does not go to enough people, and Liberal backbenchers are unhappy, too. As the government tried to spray money as far and wide as possible, it was not far enough for the backbench.
I do not know how, but the Liberals quickly whittled their bill down to that which they thought they could get passed tonight. Based on the comments from the NDP, it sounds possible that this bill will get passed later this evening, but I will vote against it because I have no confidence in the government's agenda whatsoever, or what even passes for an agenda these days. We see a desperate government desperately clinging to power with the NDP carrying it along as it limps through the final months of its mandate. We are dealing with an entirely unserious government that is not committed to real reform that would enhance the productivity of this country and deliver the powerful paycheques that people need to afford food, housing, transportation and, indeed, a few extra luxuries or a few Christmas presents for their families this year.
When the finance minister made the announcement earlier this week, which included not just the two-month GST holiday but the other parts that the Liberals cannot even get their own backbench behind, she talked about a vibe session. What is this? It is like she is saying that all the people lined up at food banks because they cannot afford food are really giving off bad vibes and if the government could take the GST off a certain laundry list of items, then maybe it could improve the vibe of the millions of Canadians who are struggling to afford the basic necessities of life, which, by the way, are groceries and residential rents. These are GST-exempt already, so the argument has been made that people with more disposable income disproportionately benefit from this particular tax removal, and I think that is correct. That is demonstrably factual.
Canadians are struggling and will take whatever they can get in terms of making life more affordable, but what they really need is a serious government that is prepared to tackle the very serious problems that this country faces. We are not going to get there by trying to shake off the bad vibes that have come about from a government that has presided over the doubling of the cost of residential rents and the more than doubling of an average mortgage payment in Canada.
People are struggling with day-to-day life and affording the basics. It is almost like the finance minister is blaming people for their bad vibes as they are struggling with what this country has become under nine years of the Liberal government's rule.
Taking the GST off a specified list of things through this bill is not going to increase productivity. It is not going to stem the flow of investment that is leaving this country and taking thousands of jobs with it. Despite the comments from the previous speaker, it will create a burden on retailers, which may carry hundreds or thousands of items that would be affected. It may be easy for a restaurant to just take 5% off everything, but what if we go to a dollar store proprietor with a handful of employees? Do we tell them they need to re-mark some but not all of the things in their store for two months and then do it again two months from now?
I spoke to a colleague who has a proprietor of dollar stores in his riding, and he knows what this is going to cost him. It is a true burden, and it is disproportionately felt by smaller retailers. Their systems cover less than those of a large chain, which might have hundreds of stores. That is just a minor digression about how this half-baked plan the Liberals came up with earlier in the week is not a solution for the affordability crisis and productivity crisis in this country.
Canadians need much bolder steps than that. They need a government that is going to axe the tax and fix the budget. We are going to axe the carbon tax when we form government. We will create far more affordability opportunities for Canadians by eliminating the carbon tax, which affects groceries, home heating, fuel, just about anything. These are necessities. We are going to axe that tax permanently for all Canadians.
We will also have to deal with the budget. The government's deficit is a moving target that can never be predicted. We can go through each budget and each fall economic statement since the Liberals came into power and see that they have disregarded or blown through every fiscal anchor, guardrail or whatever they want to call it in the moment, including the current one. As recently as this spring, the Liberals projected a $40-billion deficit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer already had it up to $46 billion before the current announcement. The current announcement is going to take it over $50 billion. If the Liberals get through the $250 payment they want to give to Canadians this spring, for which they will need to gain the support of all parties, including their own backbench, they are going to be way over that amount with no plan whatsoever to rein it in.
We need to get Canadians back to receiving the services they need from the government. It needs to get serious about national defence and about public safety. These things will require enormous investment from the government, but we have only seen the bloat of bureaucracy without an improvement to service. We see chaos in department after department, such as Immigration, Service Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency.
With that, I will yield the floor.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, here we are again with private members' hour, which there are very few of nowadays because of what is taking place. I will get to that, but I want to emphasize that this particular private member's bill takes a step backward when it comes to the environment.
All political parties, with the exception of the Conservative Party, recognize that our environment matters. Canadians are concerned about our environment, contrary to what the Conservatives might believe. However, interestingly, this is not the first time we have a private member's bill that would not do very much for the environment.
When we look at the Conservative Party's approach to the environment, the highlight, as the member opposite just made reference to, is, as he said, to axe the tax. However, the theme behind axing the tax is to attack the price on pollution, and it is a common thing the Conservatives say inside the chamber. There is a reason they do that. Members may recall that, last week, it made national news that Conservative MPs were complaining and providing comment in regard to their “freedom leader no more”, as we found out that the leader of the Conservative Party not only watches very closely what his MPs are saying and doing, but also rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour.
I say that because the member opposite just spoke about axing the tax, which is one of their slogans. What do the Conservatives have to say about slogans? I will quote directly from a news article that made headlines yesterday. Here is what Conservative MPs had to say: “If the leader invents a new slogan, ‘we know we'll have to use it’”. Reading further down in the story, it says, again coming from Conservatives, “‘If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded,’ said a Conservative source. ‘You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.’”
If one is in the Conservative caucus, one gets celebrated for repeating the leader of the Conservative Party's slogans. That is why we often hear them saying “axe the tax” and the other slogans, the bumper stickers.
An hon. member: It's embarrassing.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing; my colleague is right.
Now we have this private member's bill. Anyone who follows Parliament would understand that we do not get to debate private members' bills that often. That is because the leader of the Conservative Party is in essence holding the House of Commons hostage. It is unfortunate, even though I do not think that this particular private member's bill is that great. I believe the member might be trying to get a gold star from his leader, because what he is hoping for is that we allow and encourage plastic use in Canada.
I remember the days when I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. The thought at the time was that we encourage people to use fewer plastic bags. We tried to amplify that by talking about how long it takes a plastic bag to disintegrate. Members would be amazed by how long it takes. We are talking many years. The thought was that we should bring in private member's legislation to deal with it, to ban the use of plastic bags, as there are alternatives. I believe I even had support from some Progressive Conservatives.
There is a huge difference there: Members should not be confused by the current Conservative Reform Party we see opposite. There are Progressive Conservatives in the Conservative caucus today, just not very many of them. It is the progressive-minded ones who are designated to go to the back or leave caucus. However, there are still ideas there that are tangible and will make a difference.
We could google plastic bags and the nuisance and damage they cause to the environment. One of the pictures that come to mind right away is plastic bags in trees that stay there endlessly. When the wind picks up, they get carried into the trees and stay there for a long time. These are the types of things that I believe a vast majority of Canadians are very much sympathetic to. What can we do as a population to improve our economy and our environment?
When we watch some of the nature shows, especially anything dealing with water, we see how plastics are harming our environment in many different ways. I made reference to plastic bags in trees. Do members remember the old plastic rings that would hold a case of pop together? We see fish that have been strangled by this plastic item. If we look at storms that come in from the coast, especially in some countries, we see literally hundreds of yards of plastic being washed ashore. If we look at the type of plastic we see when the water recedes, it is a very serious issue, as is the amount of plastic waste we see when we drive out to rural communities.
We see different levels of government as well as citizens trying to contribute to cleaning it all up through recycling programs. There are initiatives we can all take, including looking at ways we can ban certain single-use plastics. There is so much potential in what we can introduce, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians would support it. However, I do not know to what degree we would get wide support for legislation that takes away from the value of protecting our environment from plastics. It seems to me that this is what this legislation is advocating for, which is consistent with what we see from the Conservative Party, as I said when I started to talk about the price on pollution.
There was a time when individuals like Erin O'Toole and other Progressive Conservatives saw the value in things like a price on pollution and looking at ways to deal with single-use plastics. That is no more under this particular Conservative Reform Party leader. Instead, we see the far right taking control of the leader of the Conservative Party's office, at a substantial cost to good public policy.
We have seen examples of that even today as we talk about the Liberals and the New Democrats wanting to give a GST tax holiday to Canadians on many products. We have the New Democrats and the Liberals saying yes to it, but the Conservatives, who said yes during the last election, are saying no today. It is because of the far-right attitude within the Conservative Party. It is more concerned with Conservative self-interest than about—
The hon. member is short on time.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I request unanimous consent to provide my speech on the bill.
Some hon. members: No.
Madam Speaker, I also rise on a point of order. I request unanimous consent from the House to let me do my speech. I just had a bit of a trip in the hallway, and I was late coming in by a matter of seconds.
Madam Speaker, the NDP has a long history of fighting against pollution and climate change. The NDP has been calling for plastic regulations and a ban on single-use plastic for years. We continue to lead the way when it comes to addressing plastic pollution. For example, my colleague has put forward a motion. Is it Campbell River?
An hon. member: North Island—Powell River.
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo: Yes, Madam Speaker, my colleague from North Island—Powell River has put forward motion M-80, calling on the government to ban styrofoam in aquatic infrastructure. It was the MP from—
An hon. member: Courtenay—Alberni.
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo: Madam Speaker, in 2018, it was my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni who proposed a national strategy against plastic pollution.
I want to thank my colleagues for helping me out on this today. I just had a little trip in the hallway, and it has me a bit flustered.
My colleague proposed a national strategy against plastic pollution that was agreed to by all parties but has yet to be implemented by the Liberal government. Thanks to a motion by former MP Megan Leslie, in 2015, plastic microbeads are now banned in consumer products. In addition, Canada has made legally binding international commitments to reducing plastic pollution and to being plastic-free by 2030. This can only be done by advancing policies on plastic, not by tearing them down, which this bill does, but this is the culture of the regressive Conservatives.
Canada has a responsibility as a rich and developed country to reduce our waste and to be a climate leader on the international stage. We cannot let the regressive Conservatives, kowtowing to the petrochemical industry, set the tone for our international commitments to people. An NDP government would end all public financing and subsidies of petrochemical companies, meaning big oil and gas, that profit from producing more plastics. Corporations that are fuelling the climate crisis and our pollution problem should not be getting rich off their pollution, and they should definitely not be getting government handouts to help them do it.
Ending government handouts to fossil fuel companies is something the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam want. They want their government to take real steps toward putting an end to pollution. They are also concerned about the proliferation of plastics in their lives and in the ocean.
The last NDP MP for my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam was Fin Donnelly. He stood in the House over six years ago to share that it was Canadians who first proposed World Ocean Day at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. However, over 30 years later, the issues are more overwhelming than ever before. Climate change, plastic pollution, open-net salmon farming, illegal fishing and habitat destruction all need immediate attention. This cannot continue, and that is why New Democrats are moving forward to end plastic pollution. We are not going backwards as the Conservatives continue to do.
Canadians want their governments to take action, and they are also taking action by organizing beach cleanups, banning plastic bags and saying no to more plastic. It is time the Conservatives also get a climate plan and address this pressing issue, although solutions to pollution and climate change require a belief in science, which the Conservatives do not know much about.
It was the Harper government that attacked science and scientists. An investigation by the Information Commissioner of Canada showed that the Harper government muzzled scientists. The investigation came about after a complaint by the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre clinic and the advocacy group Democracy Watch. The group submitted a report detailing a series of examples of Harper government officials blocking media access to scientists. In one case, the government scientist was ordered to get permission from the minister of natural resources before he could talk to reporters about a flood that happened 13,000 years ago, even though this research had been published in the journal Nature. Another example is that it took 11 government employees and 50 emails to decide how to answer a reporter's request to interview a Canadian government scientist who was part of a NASA team studying regional snowfall patterns.
It was shown that most of the muzzling involved scientists researching climate change. We cannot go back to the Conservative era. We know Conservatives do not have a climate plan; they do not believe in reducing fossil fuel emissions to slow down catastrophic climate change. In fact, the Conservatives are trying to reduce the very important climate change discussions down to a dislike of paper straws and coffee cup lids. They are deeply unserious, and they are not up to the challenges of the 21st century. In fact, if they could get their way, they would roll us all back to the years of bench seats in cars with no seat belts and no concerns for the emissions they produce.
That is not the only thing they would roll back. They would roll back women's rights, the pension eligibility age for seniors, climate protection policies, affordable child care, dental care, pharmacare and indigenous sovereignty. We just need to look at what the B.C. Conservatives have already said: Provincially, they would undo commitments to UNDRIP. These are the realities that Canadians would experience with a regressive Conservative government.
I want to go back to the oceans. Oceana published a report in 2020 called “Drowning in Plastic”. It shares that Canada introduces millions of tonnes of plastic, and 87% of it ends up in landfills or in the environment. Much of the plastic we discard ends up in the ocean, threatening whales, birds, turtles and all marine life. Canada has a national and global responsibility to stop the damage and do more, not less, to stop this pollution.
Unfortunately, doing less is what the Conservatives always do. In the three years the current Parliament has been sitting, they have done nothing for Canadians; the NDP continues to bring about wins for Canadians, such as in housing, child care, anti-scab legislation, dental care and pharmacare.
With that, in closing, I ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the report I quoted earlier: “Drowning in Plastic” from Oceana Canada, dated September 2020.
Madam Speaker, the famous movie The Graduate had the well-meaning father-in-law whisper to the young Ben, played by Dustin Hoffman, one word: “plastics”. He said, “There's a great future in plastics.” In fact his advice was on the mark. The 20th century was dominated by plastics, which are light, versatile, inexpensive and inert. There was not a single country on earth that did not use plastics. There was not a human endeavour that did not benefit from this miracle material.
We have reached the point where we carry plastics with us daily. Think how many credit cards we have in our wallet. How about bank notes? How about our phones, our computers, or even our eyeglasses? If someone has had bypass surgery lately, what were the stents made out of? How did we get here? We got here in a car made with a massive amount of plastic. By using plastics in that car, we save more energy and create less pollution than it took to make the plastic in the car in the first place.
Without a doubt, plastics are the miracle material of the 20th century. Will they continue to be the miracle of the 21st century? They will not if the hysterical and ill-informed climate radicals sitting on the NDP and Liberal benches have their way. Their war against plastics is to our detriment. It makes Canada less efficient and less competitive, and as the federal court ruled, banning plastics as toxic was unconstitutional. This is why I am so grateful for the chance today to speak in support of my colleague's initiative.
Bill C-380 would be an excellent first step in defending a substance with many applications, one that makes modern life possible. Have members ever wondered why we do not find plastic banknotes littering the streets? What insight does that provide into human behaviour? The absence of plastic banknotes littering the streets is indicative of human behaviour and the intrinsic value assigned to certain forms of plastic. When plastic is perceived as valuable, individuals are more likely to dispose of it responsibly, contributing to reduced littering.
If we assign a value to plastic instead of viewing it as toxic, the waste problem becomes solvable by market forces. Scrap metal is not a problem, because it has value. People make a part-time job of picking apart appliances at the curbside and make extra money by selling the metal to salvage yards that recycle it. Therefore if there were a market value for old plastics, likely the same would occur with them.
Canada has the best engineers in the world, and the ones I have spoken to are working on and excited for recycling solutions. Recycling means plastics can be used over and over again without creating more waste, while protecting the health of our people and the safety of our environment. That is a common-sense solution. By establishing a market value for plastics, we incentivize recycling and responsible waste management practices, ultimately mitigating a waste problem.
Plastics related to food are not just the straws, the forks and the coffee cup lids the NDP-Liberals demonize. Plastics also play a crucial role in food production and preservation. Plastics like films are essential for extending the shelf life of perishable foods, reducing food waste and ensuring food safety during transportation and storage. They enable us to distribute fresh produce globally, maintaining quality and accessibility for consumers.
Canada imports over 80% of its fruits and vegetables. The distances travelled to transport this food are enormous. Plastics are indispensable in the agricultural sector, facilitating the transportation and preservation of fresh produce over long distances. Without plastics, we would see significant increases in food prices due to decreased shelf life and increased food waste. Additionally, compromised food safety could pose health risks to consumers.
Unfortunately, positive narratives about plastic recycling often go unnoticed amid sensationalized stories about plastic pollution. It is essential to amplify success stories and recognize the progress made in sustainable plastic management to inspire further action and innovation. For example, there is a small family-owned company in Woodbridge that I toured, Petro Plastics.
The company's stewardship initiatives help lead repurposing of plastic film and plastics, recycling roughly 100,000 pounds per month. It works with plastic recyclers in Ontario, and the recycled material is now being used in construction projects like building homes, something else the NDP-Liberal government is failing Canadians on.
There is still work to do in increasing opportunities to recycle. Recycling plastics in specialized sectors like health care presents unique challenges due to stringent safety and regulatory requirements. However, innovative initiatives like the PVC 123 program demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of responsible plastic recycling, contributing to both environmental and economical sustainability.
Plastics are ubiquitous in hospitals. In fact they seem essential for health and safety. Plastic PPE is life-saving. Eliminating or restricting plastic in the health care space would come at a devastating cost.
We should focus on optimizing plastic use, implementing recycling programs, and exploring sustainable alternatives where feasible. We know that plastics have become deeply embedded in our daily lives for food packaging and medical equipment, but banning plastics would undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, both economically and socially.
In Canada, food waste is already a $49.6-billion concern and growing, 60% of which is thought to be avoidable. Considering plastics as toxic and attempting to ban them would add an additional 50% in waste, further exacerbating the problem and driving up costs. The number rises to 150% once we consider the entire supply chain. This is without even going into the 44.2 million in GHG emissions related to food waste, to which banning plastics would add another 22.1 million in GHG emissions. For perspective, this exceeds 8% of total national GHG emissions.
Environmentalists' targeting plastics leads to regressive outcomes. It shows that they care only about sensationalism and not about substance. Instead of solving problems, they are becoming part of the problem. Chris DeArmitt wrote a fantastic book that sums up the issue perfectly. It is called The Plastics Paradox. Let me cite it:
...we need to recognize that...damage happens because plastic and other articles are in places where they should not be. There would be no problem at all if people were not intentionally dumping plastic and other waste.... The problem is clearly not with plastic itself, but with the unconscionable behaviour of some humans who [litter]....
Banning plastics would not solve the problem; it would create more problems.
In the same Deloitte study that I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that the government's P2 plastics ban would create a $1-billion annual revenue loss for the plastics industry, a 60% increase to packaging costs and up to a 55% increase to operational costs should the agrifood sector lose access to plastic packaging. Fresh produce costs would increase up to 34%, and availability of fresh produce could be cut in half. This would be devastating to every Canadian who buys food, which is every single one of us. It also would mean roughly a $5.6-billion detriment to the Canadian produce industry.
Waste concerns are generated from the prediction that bulk packaging would be required to mitigate cost increases to farmers, who are price-takers, leading consumers to dispose of excess goods. Additionally, value-added products like pre-made salads or cut fruit, even fruit and vegetable platters, would no longer be viable without plastic storage, as there are no comparable alternatives readily available. Fresh produce represents less than 3% of the total plastic usage in Canada, and the NDP-Liberals' continued assault against plastics through bans would have a negligible impact on recycling.
Once again, let us take the information into consideration as we look to understand why the Federal Court overturned the single-use plastics ban, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. We should also note that it is saying that there is “no reasonable apprehension that all listed Plastic Manufactured Items (PMIs) are harmful”.
While the NDP-Liberals commit to an appeal, Canada's $35-billion plastics industry is not safe. I encourage sharing perspectives on the multi-faceted issue, considering both the challenges and the opportunities that a plastics ban might present. It is evident that while plastic pollution presents a pressing challenge, our focus should be on practical, actionable solutions rather than on radical bans not based in evidence.
We should seek predictability and manageable regulations that foster innovation and incentivize responsible behaviour. By fostering a culture of responsible consumption and waste management supported by clear and consistent regulations, we can make meaningful progress toward a more sustainable future.
A vote for Bill C-380 is a vote for common sense, and my message to Canadians is clear: Only Conservatives are working to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and can the ban.
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly dangerous to be right when one's government is so wrong. The NDP-Liberal government is wrong, and it is ignoring Canadians. It is ignoring the science, common sense, the cost of living crisis it created and the courts, when it tries to ban plastics. The NDP-Liberal government hates the facts on plastics. If Canadians are suffering now with skyrocketing bills, wait until the full ban of plastics is in effect.
Plastics make modern life affordable, reliable, practical and enjoyable. There are no Canadians left who can say the same about the Liberals. Wet, limp and utterly useless are paper straws, which Canadians are forced to use. They suck. Paper straws have a higher carbon footprint than plastic ones, making them worse for the environment. All the environmentally conscious people on the other side of the aisle, and we are conscious of the environment on this side, should remember that emissions are higher with a paper straw, and paper straws are worse for people.
Square this one for me: Canadians are suffering with the high cost of heating right now, which was driven up on purpose by the carbon tax to lower emissions. Although it is not working, that is the Liberals' intent. The same government is banning common consumer goods that have lower emissions than their replacements. The government is driving up emissions.
Someone please make sense of this. Grandma is turning down the heat this winter to lower emissions so the radical left can force Canadians to increase emissions in other parts of their lives. Does this make sense?
It is not just for the environment that paper straws suck; they are worse for our health. The science shows that the chemicals that coat paper products, making them somewhat waterproof, also unfortunately leach chemicals into our food and drink and then ultimately into our body. This is what the NDP-Liberals are forcing Canadians to use instead of plastic straws: an inferior product that is worse for their health. Is that not wacko? What they are doing is completely wacko.
Even as the science shows that the policy would hurt the environment and Canadians' health, it is also bad for Canadians' pocketbook during a cost of living crisis. Paper products cost more money than plastic ones. The ban would also make food more expensive because plastic extends the shelf life of food. That is why plastic-wrapped cucumbers last over two weeks longer.
Banning plastics would only drive up food costs, sending even more Canadians to the food bank. We know that over two million Canadians have to rely on a food bank because of the situation they find themselves in with the policies from the Liberal-NDP government. Conservatives will stop this soon. Do we want to make things cheaper for Canadians? We need to stop banning more affordable products. What Canadians really want is a ban on banning things, and the courts agree.
For the millions of Canadians who are thirsty for a common-sense change, dawn is breaking. There is a failing regime that is desperate to attract the most radical environmentalists to its cause. It has gone too far. Common-sense Canadians will soon punish the Liberal government, during a carbon tax election, for ignoring the science, ignoring the facts, ignoring the common sense, ignoring the provinces, ignoring the Constitution and ignoring its citizens. I believe that is why most Canadians are ignoring the Prime Minister.
In the end, it is not really about straws that suck or do not suck, or about flat wooden spoons, weird forks or even plastic itself. It is about power and control and about an out-of-control Liberal government that does not want to find practical solutions to problems but wants to virtue-signal for its shallow political interests; that is all the government is about right now. It is using the heavy hand of government to get its way.
We need a new government that is about practical solutions and not about feelings and virtue signals. Does the government even care about the garbage in our environment? This is the most infuriating thing for me: There is an issue here, and the government is addressing it with a ban that obviously has had zero effect on our climate and our environment.
Between 88% and 99% of the garbage in our oceans comes from 10 rivers in the developing world. Instead of the millions of dollars that we have wasted on the ban, what if we took a bit of that money and tried to introduce a waste disposal system in the developing world, which has the 10 rivers that are causing the majority of the problem? That is a common-sense approach: not to ban waste but to manage it, reuse it and ultimately recycle it.
I have a couple of common-sense—
Madam Speaker, I believe I have one minute left. When I asked for unanimous consent, the clock continued to tick. I believe there is an error that caused me not to have the full five minutes.
I will verify that.
I have confirmed that the member had the full five minutes. That is the clock we guide ourselves by.
The hon. parliamentary secretary for the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Madam Speaker, what we have before us tonight, as I mentioned before, is part of a broader, desperate gimmick that the Liberals cobbled together on a napkin somewhere with the hope that the NDP, the Bloc and their backbench would sustain the government a little longer. They cannot, so we are down to this GST bill. I will vote against it. I oppose the government's agenda.
We need a serious government that will tackle serious problems in a meaningful and comprehensive way. We have a national security crisis, a public safety crisis and an out-of-control budget crisis. We need to axe the carbon tax that makes life more expensive for all Canadians and fix the budget.
Madam Speaker, the member said he is going to be voting against a tax break, the GST holiday. I will quote from the Conservative election platform from when he knocked on doors. Under the heading “GST Holiday” it says, “To help families and help our hard-hit retail stores recover, Canada’s Conservatives will implement a month-long GST holiday”. Ours is two months. The leader at the time, Erin O'Toole, tweeted that it was going to be in December, a GST holiday tax break. The current leader of the Conservative Party retweeted that tweet.
I am wondering why the Conservatives have had this road to Damascus turnaround, a huge flip-flop. It was a good idea when the Conservatives made it a part of their election platform, but it is a bad idea now because they do not want to help Canadians.
Madam Speaker, it was a heck of a lot easier to administer an across-the-board cut on all products for one month than this bizarre, cobbled-together laundry list the Liberals have created, but that is beside the point.
The point is that I have no confidence in the government. I will not vote in favour of a budgetary tax measure, a money bill. I am not going to vote for it and I am proud to oppose the government.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I asked the government members some questions earlier, but I did not really get any answers, so here is my question.
Does my hon. colleague think that the most vulnerable people, such as single mothers, low-income seniors and low-income families, are the people covered by this bill and those who can afford to spend money on catering and champagne?
I would also like my colleague to explain how he would define clothing for 14-year-olds. When my son was 14, he wore size 14 shoes and was over six feet tall. Would his clothes qualify? He was certainly the right age.
Perhaps my colleague could provide some details that the government could not.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It was an excellent but leading question. She suggested that this whole system is arbitrary and strange and will benefit wealthier Canadians. People who perhaps buy large quantities of things in January, such as a year's supply of beer or wine, and warehouse it, can do so, but these are the better capitalized Canadians who have more money, not the people who need it the most. The member is absolutely right about that.
I have no confidence in the government and I am not going to vote for its bill.
Madam Speaker, I have a question related to my hon. colleague's response to the last member on what is fair for Canadians.
I do not think it was necessarily fair for Canadians when Stephen Harper, the last Conservative prime minister, gave billionaires $60 billion in tax breaks. The Liberals continued that, unfortunately. The tradition in Canada seems to be that when one of the major parties does a great deal for billionaires, the next party that comes in keeps it and it goes back and forth like that. Liberals and Conservatives are always going to bat for billionaires.
Would the member comment directly on the fact that the Conservatives gave billionaires $60 billion? Will he actually address that question? Will he have the courage to address why Conservatives did that?
Madam Speaker, the previous government did no such thing. I reject the premise of the member's question.
Madam Speaker, I can see the member opposite is uncomfortable answering a reality and a truth, which is that when Conservatives are in power, they are always giving their rich friends a bunch of money, taxpayer dollars. Why?
Madam Speaker, I answered his question. It contains a ridiculous premise that I reject, and so there is no answer for that question. It is a non-question.
Madam Speaker, it is really wonderful to see you again. I thought the last time I would see you before the holidays was my last speech a couple of days ago, but it is a delight to see you in the chair again this evening.
It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents and residents of Simcoe North to talk about a very important issue. We are talking about tax relief for Canadians. If government members wanted to provide relief to Canadians, they would have done it in an easy way. They would have taken the GST off of everything. They would have made it administratively simple.
The Liberals want to talk about how in the previous election campaign, the Conservative leader at the time and the Conservative Party campaigned on a cut. They are trying to say this is the exact same cut the Conservatives ran on in the 2021 campaign. That is false. The Conservatives ran on a one-month GST holiday on everything: on fuel, on food, on every single item GST is charged on. That is not the same plan the government is proposing here today.
We should also talk about control. This is yet another example of the Prime Minister wanting to control our lives. He wants to give us a tax break, but only on the things he agrees we should get that tax break on. Let us go through the list. If I want to buy a hard copy of the Toronto Star, that counts for the tax break, but if I want to buy the renowned magazine The Walrus, I still have to pay GST. Christmas trees are on the list, thank God, but not decorations. I cannot buy that star to put on the top of the tree to get that tax break. I cannot buy that wreath to hang on the door to get that tax break.
Jigsaw puzzles are on the list. I can spend three weeks hiding out, putting that 1,000-piece puzzle together, but if I want to build something in my garage and use a jigsaw, I do not get the tax break on that. If I want to put my feet up and have a Coors Light, it is under 7% so there is no GST, but if I want to have a Boneshaker, at 7.1%, from Amsterdam Brewery, it is not going to be on the list. Maybe someone wants to go and talk to the Kingston brewery that makes Oats & Cream IPA, which has over 7% alcohol. It is not on the list.
Let us talk about some other things: candy and snacks. Why on earth would a government specifically single out sugar for a tax break, when many stakeholders, like Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society, have been promoting a special sugar tax? I do not think they are too happy with this tax break. Also, the Canadian Cancer Society came out publicly and said the government should not be taking tax off of alcohol.
Why are the Liberals picking and choosing these special things we might put in our grocery carts? Some are in and some are out. It is absurd. It is a list that only pointy heads in some government agency or department could put together.
I was at a local restaurant last night, a wonderfully run restaurant, and the proprietor said, “I do not even know how these rules are supposed to work. I called the GST line at CRA, and they did not even know how they are supposed to work. What if I am selling tickets to a party that has food and beverages, but some of the spirits do not have the the tax break and some do, and I am selling food, and I am selling those tickets today for a party that happens on New Year's? Do I charge the HST on those tickets today?” It is unclear. It is completely absurd.
The government should have either taken the tax off of everything or left it on everything. That is not to mention that we are in a deficit position. If the government had said it was going to spend $2 billion on this, and this is where it found the savings to pay for it, maybe that would have been a different conversation.
Let us talk about the NDP. A previous principled NDP stood in this place and decried, absolutely criticized, reducing the GST. Why is that? NDP members criticized reducing the GST because, as I will quote from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which the NDP likes to quote very often in the House, imagine a tax cut that you only get when you buy stuff. In relation to GST cuts in a previous government, it said that this was a tax cut that disproportionately favoured high-income families. For every dollar of this tax cut received by low-income families, $3 went to families who were not low income.
What could the government have done? The government could have just doubled the GST credit, which, by the way, had the support of all major parties in the House just two years ago. Every party in the House agreed to increase the GST rebate cheque that goes to low-income households. Eleven million people would have doubled up on the payment that they got.
We believe that we should help the lowest-income people possible, but this is not a measure targeted to low-income people. This measure goes to every single Canadian, whether they need it or not. It is costly to administer and it is also costly to the treasury. The government is already in a deficit position. It could have come up with a dollar-for-dollar rule, to say that this is how it is going to pay for it.
Let us also remember, just two weeks ago, that the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, “The fight against inflation is not over”. When a government runs deficits, that is fiscal stimulus. The Governor of the Bank of Canada also said, almost two years ago, that if you want to help people with the effects of inflation, or those that have a problem with affordability, those measures should be very targeted.
It would have been very targeted to give an additional doubling of the GST/HST credit that low-income individuals have. It would have only gone to 11 million people. It would have reduced the overall cost. It would have been administratively very easy to deliver. We would have just doubled the payment.
By the way, when we talk about the cheques that will be going out, guess what? The people in this chamber get the cheques. Why on earth would they design a program to give cheques to members of Parliament when there are low-income people who do not work, like seniors who do not work or people with disabilities who do not work, who get nothing?
It makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, economists said, just two weeks ago, before this announcement, that the Bank of Canada was on track to reduce the interest rates by 50 basis points. Those same economists now say that the Bank of Canada cannot reduce as much. It might only reduce by 25 basis points or hold interest rates steady.
That means that when politicians spend, Canadians pay more for their mortgages. Conservatives are for permanent tax reductions, shrinking the size of the deficit and making sure that Canadians have more money in their pockets long term.