44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 23, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and indeed my neighbour, and I congratulate him for introducing this private member's bill.
We have talked a lot in the House about labour and labour shortages, and it is a no-brainer to link a potential change here to addressing that. I would like to give my hon. neighbour the opportunity to comment on how he feels the impact of the bill would play out on labour shortages, particularly in the trades sector and indeed help our whole construction industry and other industries.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington, who is my neighbour and my friend. Our ridings match up, and this is a huge envelope of opportunity for local trades. I know it would be beneficial.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure, a great honour and a privilege to rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Halifax West.
It is always a privilege, a pleasure and an honour to rise here on behalf of the residents of Halifax West. I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this important issue forward.
We committed in our platform to move forward with introducing a labour mobility tax credit to allow workers in the building and construction trades to deduct certain eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses and give them a tax credit on a yearly basis. I am proud of that commitment, and I do hope to see progress on it soon.
I want to take this opportunity today to reiterate the great value of the skilled trades for Canadians. Skilled trades workers literally build our cities, homes and communities. They master their craft, upgrade their skills, train the next generation of their trade and help fill our labour gaps while providing for their families.
We think the best way to address the skilled labour shortage and help small businesses grow is to invest in our tradespeople by giving them a tax break on travel expenses for work.
I am pleased to continually champion and highlight skilled trades and the wide variety of career options, which are in high demand. We need people of all backgrounds to choose these trades to fuel our economic growth and recovery. The people of my communities in Halifax West know that very well with all the new construction in our cities and in our neighbourhoods.
There are many ways to encourage people to enter the skilled trades. We can use our place in public life to highlight the value of the trades. We can make it easy to learn how to get into a trade. We can provide appropriate supports for those who want to pursue training, and we can invest to improve and expand the opportunities available, including for under-represented groups of Canadians who should also see a future for themselves in the skilled trades. Our government, I am proud to say, is doing just that. I will note that this is work that I was so proud to be involved in during my time as Nova Scotia's provincial minister of labour and advanced education.
To highlight the value of skilled trades workers and the supports available to build a successful and fulfilling career in the trades, our government recently launched an advertising campaign to promote the skilled trades as first-choice careers for young people and diverse populations. The campaign website, Canada.ca/skilled-trades, provides Canadians with information about what the skilled trades are, how to become a tradesperson and what financial supports are available to them while in training.
Two years ago, we announced the Canadian apprenticeship strategy, which paved the way for a new apprenticeship service. It will help first-year apprentices in eligible Red Seal trades get the hands-on experience they need for a career in the skilled trades. I also know first-hand from my days as a provincial minister of the great support and funding the Government of Canada provides to provinces and territories to help them raise awareness about careers in the trades.
Our government is investing nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship supports through grants and contributions, loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding, and support for the Red Seal program. That is a major investment and part of that is programs like the union training and innovation program.
Last week, I visited the Building Trades Advancement College in my riding to announce funding through that program to two local skilled trades unions. In fact, they brought this bill forward to me, which is why I am happily rising today to speak to it.
I was there with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 39, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625. I was fortunate to see first-hand how federal dollars were being put to work securing the equipment and materials that our skilled trades workers need to upgrade their skills and train the next generation of workers. This included a spider crane, a scissor lift, electric conduit benders and many other pieces of equipment and training stations that this funding helped provide. That is one of many ways we support our skilled tradespeople and their livelihoods.
All this is to say that I will use my position here to stand up for the skilled trades, advocate for skilled trades workers and help to celebrate the trades generally to those considering what to do with their futures.
In addressing the bill today, we all know that the nature of the construction industry requires skilled trades workers to travel to project locations as they arise. Sometimes there is not enough work locally and travel is a necessity to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. The people of my province and my region understand that necessity well, although I have to note how far we have come in terms of our success, growing our own local economies and giving people the opportunity to stay and earn a living in their own communities.
When tradespeople have to travel to work and when expenses are not covered by their employer, they have to pay out of pocket for their travel expenses. Those costs can run high and at times make it prohibitively expensive to travel for a work opportunity. In fact, Canada's Building Trades Unions reports that 70% of building trades workers have had to pay out of pocket for work-related travel expenses.
For other Canadians, the Income Tax Act allows for a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation when travelling for work. However, currently that option is not available to skilled trades workers who work on job sites in different regions or provinces from their primary residence. That is a discrepancy that calls for a policy solution. The status quo effectively penalizes people who are willing, ready and able to work and whom we need to build back our infrastructure, improve housing supply, address local labour shortages and support our recovery. We have an opportunity to correct that here and to put more money in the pockets of workers. This type of support is something that skilled trades workers support. It is one of many ways we can make working in the skilled trades more attractive.
In debating this bill, I do have a few questions. Some of them may have been raised in the questions leading up to this.
First, the bill would allow tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres from their ordinary place of business. That distance is greater than some other proposed minimum distances and it certainly is greater than the one proposed by Canada's Building Trades Unions. I look forward to receiving more detail on the rationale or thinking that was used in selecting that number.
Second, I note that the bill does not contain precise definitions, perhaps most notably, of travelling expenses. We need to see greater clarity here because we know workers do not end up paying for just their transportation. They sometimes have to pay for accommodations, meals, etc. Therefore, I look forward to more clarity on that.
Third, I note that the bill does not include safeguards that contain its scope and cost. For example, there is no minimum period of relocation and no cap on the number of trips or on the amount of expenses that can be deducted in a year. I look forward, when the bill comes to committee, to hearing testimony from witnesses and so on to get a bit more clarity on that part of the bill as well.
Overall, I do appreciate what the member's bill is trying to achieve. Providing skilled trades workers with tax relief for the necessary travel that they must do for work is an important step that we can and must take. I expect that our government will move forward with a new labour mobility tax credit for workers in the building and construction industry. It would be an additional tool to support our hard-working tradespeople. I look forward to seeing this bill when it comes to committee.
1446 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C‑241, which was introduced by my colleague from Essex. Let me start by saying that I think this is a very interesting bill.
Whenever we debate a bill, people get the impression they have to read through a lengthy tome in an attempt to understand all the clauses and the ins and outs. It scares them. In this case, however, the bill is less than a page long, so I think we can all take a good look at it. Short bills can sometimes be very efficient and within everyone's grasp.
This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling long distances for work. This is an interesting idea.
Specifically, the bill amends subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act to apply to a taxpayer employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an apprentice in a construction activity at a job site located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence. The taxpayer must also be required to pay those expenses for travelling to and from the job site and cannot be reimbursed for them.
On the face of it, all this makes sense. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑241.
This bill was recommended by Canada's Building Trades Unions, which represent half a million workers. It is worth noting how interesting it is that this bill is supported by the labour movement, because it is rare to see a Conservative member introducing a bill that the unions are happy with. We will take it while we can.
In Quebec, which is what the Bloc Québécois is interested in, one in 20 jobs is in the construction industry, which is no small thing, since that equates to about 260,000 people. This bill could certainly cover other sectors, and many people will be able to deduct part of their expenses for travel over long distances. Basically, it will be very beneficial for them, and they will be very happy that a bill like this passed.
A deduction for travel expenses is not something unusual or unheard of. As others mentioned earlier, parliamentarians get to deduct their travel expenses, such as accommodation, meals and mileage, when they travel long distances. We benefit from that. It would not look good for us to tell others that they are not entitled to this, and it would send a rather odd message.
Other categories of workers receive the same kind of treatment, including salespeople who work on commission and certain professionals who get these same benefits. However, tradespersons are still not entitled to this benefit, which is surprising in 2022.
Construction sites are often located hundreds of kilometres from their homes. I am thinking specifically of two tradespersons I knew quite well and still know quite well because they are part of my family. I am talking about my two grandfathers.
My paternal grandfather worked as a plumber on construction sites for years. He worked on the Olympic Stadium, military bases and office towers. He did plumbing work on many different construction sites during his career, but he was not entitled to this kind of deduction. I am sure that he would have loved to have such perks.
People working on a job site far from home often do not see their families for many hours or even days at a time.
Also, having to incur that kind of expense to get to the job site can be demotivating. In a tight labour market, when people are struggling to find work, some people might decide it is worth paying for gas in order to travel 200 kilometres to work, because they need the job.
At the end of the day, it is also a matter of fairness. It costs them a lot of money to do their job. Not all employment contracts provide money for people to travel and do their job. Some employers will agree to provide accommodation or meals, while others will pay for mileage, but that is not the case for everyone. I think we need to give this opportunity to those for whom this is not the case.
I mentioned my grandfather. Back in his day, this might have allowed him to go and work on sites much further away. He was not able to do so, because he wanted to stay relatively close to home.
I could also talk about my other grandfather, who was also a tradesman. He worked as a lineman for Hydro-Québec for years at some very remote sites. In fact, I think he worked on just about every large dam in Quebec.
This could also benefit people from large urban centres who move to regions where there is often a shortage of expertise or a labour shortage. When a major construction site is launched in a region, and between 5,000 and 10,000 workers need to be hired all at once, this cannot be done with a snap of the fingers. In bigger cities, however, more workers are often available and are easier to find nearby.
Conversely, people who live in the regions, who want to be able to stay there but would like to have access to jobs or contracts in large urban centres, may need to take the travel factor into consideration. Staying in the region is therefore obviously an obstacle for them.
In short, I think this is good for everyone. It is just as good for workers in the regions as it is for workers in major cities. It is good for both big and small projects. Things obviously often need to move more quickly with big projects and, in this case, it would be more visible.
Another point is that there is a labour shortage right now. Because there is a shortage of workers, some businesses in the regions might be looking to hire workers but not finding any. Some construction projects might not get done or might take longer to be completed.
Having additional motivation in the form of this tax deduction would encourage people who would not normally accept these types of jobs to sign a contract. They will go because this tax measure makes it worthwhile, because they will get assistance and because we are acknowledging that taking on this job will come with expenses.
It is interesting because this plays a role in the current context of the labour shortage. There is a need for workers, and we have to find incentives for people to accept contracts. All the better if we can find ways to help them make that decision.
We can also consider those people who accept a contract that takes them very far away from their family for a long period of time. It is already a major sacrifice to not see their family for days or weeks at a time, to miss out on time with them and to be on their own. I think getting a little bit of assistance is fair compensation for travelling.
Other countries provide a similar incentive. For example, the United States has a tax deduction for tradespersons. It is a good example of a market that is quite comparable to ours, so I do not see why we would decide not to implement it here.
I think that inflation is something else we need to consider. People are talking about it more and more. Inflation is high. Prices are rising. Our first thought when this happens is that groceries are getting more expensive, so it is costing more to feed ourselves. Restaurants that took out loans during the pandemic lockdowns will have to raise their prices if they want to be able to pay down their debt. Otherwise, some of them will not survive. Hotels were closed, so accommodation costs will increase as well. The price of a litre of gas has gone up a lot, so travel expenses are also going up.
If we could help workers by letting them deduct all these expenses, it would also be a big help.
1386 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I feel the need to begin my comments by recapitulating the words of the hon. member for Essex, who shared that he would happily call himself a New Democrat to get this PMB passed, if even just for a day.
I am glad it is in the Hansard. As I shared in my question to the hon. member for Essex, the New Democratic Party has been in the Hansard on this very bill five times since 2006. I am going to take a moment to recapitulate. The first was in 2006, Bill C-390, under the always hon. Chris Charlton, and then again in 2008 as Bill C-227, introduced by the hon. Chris Charlton, and in 2013, as Bill C-201, again by Chris Charlton. When Chris Charlton retired, she handed it over to a working class hero from Hamilton, the always hon. Scott Duvall, who introduced this same bill in 2021 as Bill C-275.
I have the honour, being from Hamilton, to continue the working class values of our city and our party by introducing Bill C-222. The hon. member for Essex was in fine form, using his newly found New Democratic talking points to sell this very bill in the House. I give the hon. member for Essex the benefit of the doubt, because the hon. member for Essex was not elected in 2013 when this bill was last introduced under Bill C-201, but when it was up for vote in second reading, it was the Conservative Party with a majority that crushed this bill.
We have had 15 years of work on this bill. We have had six years where the working class people of this country could have benefited from these types of tax considerations. The hon. member is quite right when he says he wants for working class people what we have in the House as MPs when it comes to writing off some of our travel expenses. I would go one step further, and I would suggest that all MPs in the House ought to carry the same spirit by wanting for others what we ourselves have in here when it comes to dental care and pharmacare and pensions.
Here we are. The challenge we have is that the newly found New Democrat, in his New Democratic talking points, showed the disconnect that he has with the building trades because the example he gave in his answer relating to the distance, using his county of Essex, suggesting that an hour and a half travel is about 120 kilometres, tells us that he has never spoken to skilled tradespeople in southern Ontario. If he had, he would know that people from Hamilton could sit in traffic for three hours just on their way to Toronto, which is 60 kilometres away.
He is quite right that skilled tradespeople have fought for this over decades. Let us be clear. He was right when he says this is a bipartisan and non-partisan issue. This is not a win for the Conservatives who found their new working class values under their previous leader. I will remind them, though, that their previous leader from Durham, in 2014, did vote against this, as did their interim leader, as did the hon. member for Carleton. All of them voted against this. Why now?
I would put to the House that it is because the Conservative Party uses working class issues and working class people in the same way that one would use a pair of old dirty sneakers. They only bring them out when it time to cut the grass, to pretend that the grass is green on the other side, when it is clear that this bill comes up short by lengthening that distance and excluding so many people from areas like my city and Hamilton Centre.
I am going to take my time, but I am going to give credit where credit is due, which is in the organized labour of the Ontario building trades council, of the Canada's Building Trades Unions, of the Hamilton-Brantford building trades council, the people I work with, people like Pat Dillon, who for his entire career worked on this, for 20 years, and in fact was successful under their previous leader to have this implemented into darn near all the platforms.
Following in the spirit of the New Democratic Party, we saw willingness from the government side to finally give lip service to this. Why it failed to act on it until now is beyond me, but in the spirit of moving things forward to improve the material conditions of working-class people in this country, I am happy we are here. Our Parliament works better when we work together for working-class people.
To Pat Dillon, and Pat's retirement, I suspect that many members from all parties showed up to honour Pat in that moment. Let today be his victory. Let future votes on this be his victory, when hopefully we get to a place where this bill covers all the aspects that it needs to cover. Let this be the victory of Mark Ellerker, from the Hamilton-Brantford Building Trades Council, who I have had the privilege of working with since my time as a city councillor. He has always fought with the building trades, not just for organized labour but for unorganized labour too, because the notion that what is good for the manager or the salesperson in tax considerations absolutely must be a tax fairness question that is applied to all working-class people, whether it is for their travel expenses or their tools, which was a very appropriate point brought up by members on the government side. I encourage the government's side to bring these types of real considerations for working-class people into their legislation, into their throne speeches and, most importantly, into their budget.
Lastly, I want to once again thank my good friend, Stuart McLellan, from IBEW Local 105. We would have long conversations about the ability for workers to travel where they do not have to do that calculus. The truth is that not all collective agreements have within them travel expenses. The ones that do not are limited by them. They have to go out of pocket.
Let us be clear about one thing. It is not MPs, it is not entrepreneurs, it is not CEOs or big developers who create value in this country. Value in this economy is only built by working-class people. It is taken by the ultrawealthy. In this respect, when we talk about those members who are being considered in this space, and they talk about how 120 kilometres might look like an hour and a half to them, those members should sit in traffic from Hamilton to Toronto, or from Montreal to anywhere, for that matter. They should know that travel time is not just a tax expense that can be written off. It is time away from family. It is a sacrifice that has to be made as a worker in order to put food on the table and to pay the rent.
Let us get this bill right for Pat. Let us get this bill right for Mark and Stuart, and for all of the incredible working-class people across this country who truly put value in this economy and are truly building this country.
With that, to my temporary and honorary member of the New Democratic Party, I congratulate him on his private member's bill and I am happy to stand and see that be reflected in the Hansard today.
1278 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member for Hamilton Centre, so I ask him to take this in the good spirit it is intended. That was the angriest agreement I have ever seen in my life, but I know it comes from a great sense of deep passion in the member. We appreciate his support and look forward to discussions in committee. If we can improve this bill, obviously we will.
I have a couple of notes to make. I would like to thank the acting speakers for filling in for the Speaker. I would like to wish the Speaker all the best going forward, as his health struggles are public. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Speaker. We know he will pull out strong and continue to be a great Speaker in the House.
I would like to enter into the substance of our discussion today, and that is Bill C-241, which was put forward by my friend and hon. colleague from Essex. I would like to start by saying he is extremely well-raised. He has two great parents in Kim and Helen, so a shout-out to his parents, because without them we would not have the member for Essex and this legislation. I thank Helen and Kim very much.
Let us talk about Bill C-241. I want to start by providing some context for this legislation. We are, undoubtedly, facing an affordability crisis. One of the chief drivers of this affordability crisis is inflation. What we really have is an inflation tax. We are actually in the midst of one of the largest tax increases in Canadian history.
Through spending, both necessary and unnecessary, and increasing spending going forward, we have run greater and greater deficits. In fact, we have deficits larger than we can finance without the help of the Bank of Canada. Through the Bank of Canada, $400 billion has been put into our economy. It is a basic axiom of economics that when we have more of something, and in this case 400 billion dollars' worth more, it devalues it, and that has the effect of increasing the price on everything else.
Canadians across this country are facing an affordability crisis. Then we add on top of that the carbon tax. I had the privilege of asking the Governor of the Bank of Canada what the inflationary impact of the carbon tax was. Strangely, he did not know the answer right off the top of his head. That is something I would have thought he would have been aware of. However, he was kind enough to provide a written response, where he said that fully 10% of the inflation we are facing today is because of the carbon tax.
It is in that context that I would like to discuss Bill C-241. Everyone is facing challenges, and perhaps none more than the workers and the people the member for Hamilton Centre spoke so eloquently about. They are the folks who are struggling up, sometimes from the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and who are struggling to hang on. They are hoping to get up to that next level to get to the middle class. When we look at Bill C-241, it is those people, among others, that this legislation is going to help.
What would this bill do? It would put skilled trades employees on equal footing as giant corporations. As self-employed individuals, it would allow them to deduct the expenses associated with travel to their job sites. This is the exact treatment a corporation would receive. If a corporation paid for this travel, it would get to deduct this expense. However, through an oversight, which is what I will generously call it, tradespeople have been disadvantaged and do not get that same right.
Tradespeople are literally building our communities brick by brick. They are the ones who are putting in HVAC systems. They are the electricians who are wiring our world. We would literally be in the dark and the cold without their skilled trades, so why should we be disadvantaging them?
We need more skilled trades. As the member for Essex said, we will need a minimum of 350,000 new skilled tradespeople just in Ontario alone in order to meet the growing demand. We need to attract more people to this field. It is great work, but it is hard work.
The work means that one does not often go to a standard office. People do not go to the same place to work every day, because once a building is built, it is built, and it is time to move on to a new project. These are not located right next to their houses, and they do not have the option to relocate next to that project.
We have individual tradespeople, whom we increasingly need more of. We have people who are the salt of the earth working every day to build our community. What have we done to them? We have disadvantaged them economically just because of the way they choose to arrange the legal status of their work relationship. If they chose to be self-employed, they could deduct things. As an employee, they cannot. This is the very definition of inequity.
With the time I have left, I would like to go over a couple of stories. One of them is about Mitch. Mitch is a young electrician's apprentice doing a great job wiring commercial buildings all over the province of Ontario. He is currently living in his parents' house in the basement. He cannot afford a house because the cost of housing has doubled. When I talked to him about this legislation, he said it would be fantastic because with gas at $1.70, driving 200 or 300 kilometres away from his parents' house every day is quite expensive, and he is not able to save for a house. This bill might give him the opportunity to do so. We would make a difference in people's lives.
I would like to talk to members about Tommy. He is an HVAC apprentice who is working to gain experience. He wants to gain his Red Seal. He said to me that he drives 150 kilometres to work and does not mind it because hustling and hard work are what our country was built on. He knows that is what he has to do to get ahead. However, with the recent change in gas prices and the expenses of life, he is close to losing hope because he is not establishing the goals he sought for himself. It is not his fault. He is working hard. He is doing what we have all told him to do. It is just that the price of everything has gotten so expensive. This would be a break for Tommy, and he is excited about this legislation going forward.
The other individual I would like to talk about is Dennis Fedrigoni. He is the owner of Fed Air Systems, a commercial HVAC company in the wonderful city of Vaughan. He does HVAC all over the province, so the gas bills for his employees are absolutely astronomical. He is asking for a break not so much for himself, although he certainly would appreciate it as it would allow him to hire more skilled people into his business, but for his employees, who are struggling to get by.
I am really pleased by the fact that it appears as though all of the parties are signalling their support for this legislation, which I think is terrific. This is a common-sense solution. This is an area where politics should not get involved. We should not be looking at parties, whether they are NDP, Conservative or Liberal. I deeply believe that every one of the 338 of us wants to do what is right. We want to do what is best for Canadians and Canadian workers.
I thank the House. I look forward to this legislation getting to committee. Once again, I thank Helen and Kim for raising such a great son.
1358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:43:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime demonstrates the urgent need for the government to take security more seriously, and one key element of that security is global energy security. Nations need energy in order to attend to the basic needs of their people. It is a fact of modern life that we cannot live without energy.
Energy is not just an economic issue; it is also a security issue. Nations need secure access to energy and will be forced to compromise collective security interests as much as necessary in order to guarantee that access. While many Canadians take energy security for granted, other free democracies are in a very tenuous position when it comes to reliable access to energy and already have to consider uncomfortable trade-offs. Some of our democratic partners in the Asia-Pacific region rely on energy that comes from the Middle East and is transmitted through the South China Sea, introducing multiple points of potential disruption. Many of our European allies rely on Russian gas.
Countries struggle to take necessary steps to protect their security or deter aggression, fearing that their vital supply of energy will be impacted. While severe energy-related sanctions could further devastate the Russian government's economic capacity to wage war against Ukraine, the community of free nations has struggled to apply such sanctions because of their current dependency.
Tough energy-related sanctions would be a game-changer in this conflict, shortening the war and saving many lives. We must work in particular to end the dependency of our European partners on Russian gas. We should act quickly to kick Putin’s gas out of the free world. Canada should fuel democracy by providing our European friends with a conflict-free and reliable alternative, and one that is, in many cases, better for the environment than the other options available.
In response to our call to urgently address the issue of European and global energy security, the NDP-Liberal government has said no. On Monday they voted against our motion to push urgently to expand energy infrastructure to confront this problem.
In the process they make three arguments. They say that now is not the time to be talking about this issue; they say that we should be focused on renewables; and they say that we cannot build the energy infrastructure fast enough anyway.
I totally reject the idea that the current crisis is not the time to be talking about solutions to the crisis. We should be talking about concrete acts of support and solidarity that help Ukraine and deprive Russia of its capacity to wage war. It is absurd to think that we should sit on our hands and mouth solidarity without doing the hard work of talking about concrete solutions that will save lives. Reducing European dependency on Russian gas and supporting European efforts to improve energy security is one example of a concrete solution.
I am all for renewables, but the current reality is that the science and the capacity is not there for Europe to simply flip a switch to renewables. Europe can take an all-of-the-above approach, developing its renewable capacity while working to displace Russian gas in the short term. The current limits on renewable capacity are why European countries continue to rely on Russian gas today, and also other fossil-fuel-based sources, such as Polish coal. Let us expand Canadian energy exports to Europe to provide a good alternative to the status quo as renewables continue to develop.
The final excuse, the excuse that we cannot build energy infrastructure fast enough, is particularly absurd, because delays in building vital energy infrastructure are entirely a problem of the government’s making. The Liberals cancelled approved projects. They complicated the review process through Bill C-69. They piled conditions on the energy east pipeline that had never existed before. They appointed a strident law-breaking anti-pipeline activist as environment minister and they repeatedly attacked confidence in Canada as a destination for energy investment, and now they are acting surprised with the consequences.
I agree that it takes too long to build a pipeline in this country, but let us fix that problem and let us recognize the urgency of the current situation. Canadians understand that energy development is an economic and a security imperative. The government should stop making excuses and finally get to work supporting that development.
742 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:47:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for raising this very timely issue, one that obviously relates to the Putin regime's unprovoked assault on its neighbour.
I do not think words can capture the tragedy that has befallen Ukraine or the treachery of the perpetrators. What really matters is what we do and not what we say. As the member knows, our government has worked shoulder to shoulder with allies to punish Russia with crippling sanctions. That includes banning Russian oil and gas imports. We also joined others in supplying lethal and non-lethal military equipment to help Ukraine's heroes fight off this invader. We are part of the response to a humanitarian disaster that has caused millions of people and families to flee their homeland. That effort includes opening our doors to any Ukrainian who wants to settle temporarily or permanently in Canada.
The member opposite wants to focus on an important aspect of this conflict. I am referring to how it has shaken global energy markets, sending prices skyward and causing stress for Canadians going about their daily business. This crisis has also exposed the danger facing European nations. They have depended very heavily on gas from a manipulative and bullying supplier, so I agree with the member that Canada, as the world's fourth-largest oil and gas producer, has an opportunity and an important role to play.
The member knows that the International Energy Agency has released a 10-point plan to sharply reduce Europe's dependency on Russian gas before next winter. That includes encouraging Europe to seek alternative conventional energy sources, and steps have been taken to boost supplies from existing suppliers like Norway, Algeria and Azerbaijan.
Members know that the vast majority of our oil and gas exports go south of the border. Our pipeline and rail infrastructure is set up to help fuel the world's most successful bilateral economic relationship. Our government supports private sector initiatives to expand opportunities overseas. We only have to consider our role in supporting the TMX expansion and the LNG Canada project. Both are aimed at serving Asian markets. As we know, there are no LNG project proposals on the Atlantic coast that are mature enough to offer practical solutions in the near term, but we never rule out options. We are always open to be there to support Canadians and to support our allies.
However, our government has spoken to producers and provinces about ways to expand oil and gas exports to the United States. This will help America, now the world's largest LNG exporter and the biggest destination for Canadian crude oil exports. This will also help alleviate some of the pressure that we have seen in Europe and the pressures that will come to bear on Europe.
The International Energy Agency's 10-point plan also urges Europe to move more aggressively to alternate energy sources like solar, like wind, like bioenergy, which all are things that our government has been promoting as well. We agree with and we strongly support the European Union's plan to quadruple hydrogen use by 2030 and we believe that Canada could eventually be an important hydrogen—
541 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply put it to this member that if the government takes energy security seriously, I do not know why the Liberals voted against our motion on Monday, which was precisely about recognizing the energy security dimension here and the need to move quickly to address those gaps.
The member made no mention of Bill C-69 in her response, nor the fact that the government has intentionally prolonged the review process and created an environment in which it is very difficult for the private sector to come forward with projects. She said no LNG projects are currently being put forward on the Atlantic coast. We would like to see more of these projects proposed by the private sector. That would only happen if the government recognizes that the policy conditions it has created are very unfriendly for energy investment.
Will the member address the problems with Bill C-69? Will she commit to urgently looking at the need to change the policy environment to restore confidence by creating the conditions that will attract that energy investment to this country and allow us to move forward quickly?
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member needs to know that we are about doing things that are real and that are sustainable, and that are not about playing politics with this issue.
I want to urge the member opposite to consider this highly credible agency's advice and remember that, just a few months ago, British Columbia was the latest province to experience the devastating and deadly consequences of climate change. Even today, in Paris, I want to quote what the U.S. energy secretary said. She said, “Even as we seek to stabilize fossil energy through to market, we have to act upon the urgent signals that the world is sending us, that Mother Nature is sending us: a big, flashing 'Code Red' on humanity.”
That is exactly what our government is doing. We are responding to the crisis that we are currently in, but we are also responding to the climate crisis. What has been happening in Europe and in the United States just reinforces the predicament that we are in as a country and that we need to transition—
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Yellowhead.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:53:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on February 1, I mentioned to the Minister of Finance how the overall food price increase from 5% to 7% is becoming a concern for constituents in my riding. I also raised the concern of how the price of food in Alberta is expected to be higher than the national average in 2022.
In her reply, the Minister of Finance said that inflation is a global phenomenon driven by global challenges. My question was about the overall food price increase in Alberta, not the global concern of inflation. Unfortunately, the minister did not respond to my question. Instead, she talked about early learning and child care. Although this is good for families with children, this does nothing to support seniors or young couples without children.
When it comes to our everyday basics such as food, clothing and housing, and more specifically costs to heat our homes, the Liberal government has made life more expensive for Canadians through its policies. I am speaking about how the carbon tax is being charged multiple times for the same products, such as for farmers growing grain, truckers hauling it to processors and then going to distributors, to grain finally ending up on grocers' shelves, where even customers are charged a carbon tax on their fuel to get their groceries.
I am aware of what the carbon tax is supposed to accomplish, which is to lower the carbon emissions we create daily. The issue is that when it was first proposed, it was supposed to be used as an incentive for Canadians to upgrade their windows and doors, add more insulation to their homes or purchase an energy-efficient furnace, all to reduce their utility bills.
When the government first introduced the carbon tax, it started putting pressure on Canadians. Since then, the Liberal government has continuously raised the carbon tax and is planning to raise it again on April 1. How do we expect Canadians to make their homes more energy-efficient when they can only afford to either pay the carbon tax or make their homes more energy-efficient? They cannot afford to pay both.
Many constituents in my riding, especially seniors with fixed incomes, have reached out to me regarding their natural gas and electrical bills. They have all expressed their concerns on the added carbon tax that was charged to their entire bill and not to the gas or electricity they used. The carbon tax added to their overall bill is not fair because this means they are paying on franchise and distribution fees, rather than on what they actually used.
On February 9, I reached out to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and informed them that the added carbon tax is unaffordable and unfair to consumers, especially when the carbon tax portion of their bill is larger than the actual natural gas or electricity they consume. The response of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was, “People of Alberta are better off with the system we have put in place than without it.” How are the people of Alberta better off with this system, when they have all reached out to me and expressed their concerns and frustration for the added carbon tax on their entire utility bills?
The government will say that it is okay, because it is giving back more to Canadians than what they are being charged. However, based on the public accounts, the government pocketed $136 million above what it actually returned to Canadians. The Liberal government is making the cost of living for Canadians more expensive when it actually pockets $136 million of Canadians' money.
In order to lower carbon emissions, Canadians need to make their homes more energy-efficient, but they cannot afford to do so because of their high utility bills. It is doing nothing to improve our environment, and this is why the government's policies are hurting Canadians.
659 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 6:57:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I and our entire government are fully aware that many Canadians are feeling the effects of inflation, including higher prices for groceries and heating. The response that the minister gave was simply to put it into context.
Of course, Canadians are seeing price increases at the grocery store, but this is due to circumstances entirely out of our control. We are actually, at the moment, facing unprecedented global inflation, because the world economy is reopening after the pandemic, because there is a war at the moment at the very foot of Europe. Ukraine is known as the breadbasket of Europe for a reason, and the war is absolutely having an impact on food prices around the world.
I would also like to remind the member opposite that Canada's inflation remains lower than the OECD average. It remains lower than the G7 average and lower than the G20 average. We here in Canada and as a federal government are doing our utmost, and the numbers prove it, to protect Canadians from this global inflationary pressure.
I would also like to remind the House that economists from the Bank of Canada and the private sector believe that inflation will remain a little higher for a little longer than originally expected. However, they expect it to progressively drop to a target of 2% over the next two years. I think it is important to remember that.
What is more, I would like to remind my colleague that it is thanks to the federal government that Canadian workers were able to continue receiving their pay cheques during the pandemic. The reason we put so many programs in place was to ensure that Canadians could keep putting food on the table.
It is because of our support and our avoidance of austerity policies during the pandemic that Canada is seeing a rapid and resilient recovery right now, with growth of 6.7% in the last quarter.
Our recovery plan is targeted towards growth and job creation initiatives that will help boost supply and increase space for the economy to grow without the risk of higher inflation in the future.
My colleague also referred to what he called the “carbon tax”, but we on this side refer to it as “the price on pollution”. I would like to address that specific point by saying that the climate action incentive does fully compensate Canadians for that additional tax. Any surplus that the government, as my colleague said, “pocketed”, would not come from the pockets of Canadians but from businesses. I will also highlight a number of specific programs that we have recently put in place.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada supported emergency food programs, such as the emergency food security fund, the local food infrastructure program and the surplus food rescue program. Building on an investment of $250 million to support local initiatives to fight food insecurity, we announced, in budget 2021, an additional $140 million through the emergency food security fund and local food infrastructure fund to support organizations working to enhance healthy and nutritious food for Canadians.
As members can see, our government is absolutely seized with this issue. We have already worked to address the cost-of-living increase, and we will continue to do so.
551 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 7:01:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to thank the member for not addressing my concerns.
The point that I would like to make is that inflation has increased by half a percent just because of the carbon tax, which has already been proven at 0.4%. Also, the carbon tax is being charged on the entire utility bill and not just on the amount of gas or electricity consumed. Once again, that was not addressed.
The next thing I would like to talk about is how bills have increased in price by anywhere from $200 to $400 per household, and I am talking monthly, when it comes to electricity or natural gas. When we start adding that up over 12 months, we are dealing with a $3,000 to $4,000 increase, and the minister spoke about only giving about $1,800 back. That is actually costing twice as much as what is being rebated. Therefore, the member is misleading the Canadian public in that regard.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 7:02:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will not engage the member's insulting comments at the end of his address. I would say, however, that we have put in place a number of other programs that I would draw his attention to, including for food security in the north. There is $163 million to expand the nutrition north Canada program and there are additional programs for food policy in Canada. I believe he did address food prices in his question.
I would point out that homogenized milk cost $1.46 per litre in 2019 and in 2022 it was $1.63 per litre. That is an increase but it is a small increase. Chicken was $7.50 per kilo in 2019 and is now $8.04 per kilo. Canadians still have access to an abundance of food choices and access to some of the most affordable—
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 7:03:44 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for King—Vaughan.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 7:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been representing the citizens of King—Vaughan for less than six months and it is already apparent that our country's immigration system is seriously broken. Every week, residents call my office to share with me the challenges they are facing, which include not only significant delays in response times and lengthy wait times, but unacceptable bureaucratic red tape that is negatively impacting their lives. Constituents tell me they are unable to reach immigration services by telephone, and when they do get through they are placed on hold for at least two hours. Simple routine updates take up to six months.
These families simply want to be reunited with their loved ones. It is heart-wrenching to know that this is an issue affecting so many families and individuals across the country. The media recently reported that there is a backlog of almost two million immigration applications. That is almost two million people waiting for citizenship and residency or seeking refugee status who are forced to wait significant periods of time just to make any headway in our system.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has said it is ready to help everyone, but it is apparent that it cannot even manage those to whom it has already made promises. People in need are left behind, families remain separated, businesses are hurting and labour shortages are costing our economy. Newcomers and Canadians deserve to know how long it will take to clear up this backlog.
What is frightening is that this enormous backlog existed long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine occurred. This means that the new influx of refugees from Europe will further impact our already fragile system. The government has made bold promises to Ukrainians about their future in Canada, but how can we be sure that those seeking to flee Russia will not meet the brutal fate that some did in attempting to escape the Taliban? The Government of Canada promised to bring in 40,000 Afghan refugees, but so far only 8,500 have arrived. What is being done to guarantee that Ukrainian refugees will not face the same painful delays the Afghan people faced?
We do not have any more time to waste. Families are being left in war zones, people are being separated from their loved ones and children are growing up without their parents because of the same failed promises from the government, which says one thing and does another, leaving more and more people behind. We need immediate action from the government to significantly improve the immigration system.
What is the minister going to do to fulfill the promises his government has made, and what is he doing to get rid of this enormous application backlog?
458 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 7:07:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for King—Vaughan for her question. I am pleased to respond to it.
With the border closures and worldwide travel restrictions, the pandemic created unprecedented challenges for our immigration program. Despite these challenges, Canada was still able to finalize a record number of entries last year by processing an unprecedented number of landings.
In 2021, we processed over half a million applications and welcomed more than 405,000 new permanent residents, which represents the most newcomers in a single year in Canadian history.
The minister and I heard the deep frustrations held by those who are trying to come to Canada to reunite with their families. These delays and long response times for application updates have put lives on hold. We sympathize with these families and understand the difficulties they face. That is why IRCC is taking immediate action to reduce the application inventories that have grown over the span of the pandemic.
At the end of last year, we saw that the permanent residence backlog was down by 29,000, that the family class inventory was down by 9,200 and that the processing standard for new spousal applications had returned to the service standard of 12 months. These are not just numbers. These are people being given the chance to start a new life in Canada and visit their loved ones. These decreases in inventory are partly thanks to the recently announced measures that build on the work that we have already completed when it comes to modernizing our immigration system and improving client experience by reducing wait times and offering a more transparent process.
To recap, IRCC recently hired an additional 500 new processing staff and have pivoted to digitizing applications. Earlier this year, we also officially launched a permanent residence tracker for spousal sponsorship applications and are in the process of releasing another online processing tool to give accurate estimates of wait times. These will cut out much of the back and forth between clients, MPs' offices and IRCC officers, which will ultimately result in more time to process the applications in our inventory.
With the easing of border measures, we anticipate an increase in visitor visas and that is why we have prepared ourselves by modernizing our immigration system. IRCC continues to develop strategies to ensure that we are able to process all new visitor applications received after September 7 of 2021 in a timely way. We will continue to process older applications, which may require more time.
We are also working to deliver the best possible client experience for all those who use our services, both in Canada and abroad, but we know we can do better and we must continue to look for ways to do so. I want to assure applicants that we continue to work as hard and as a quickly as possible to reduce the processing times. Just this year alone, the department will again finalize more than half a million applications.
Canada has never been a more attractive place to work, study and live, and we are seeing tremendous interest from people around the world who wish to call Canada home. We want to ensure this trend continues and that is why we need to transform our immigration system. We need to ensure Canada remains competitive with other countries for the world's best talent, and we will do so by delivering the best—
577 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
