44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 4, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Essex who just spoke so passionately and powerfully. I thank him for sharing his experience and for his service. He is a tough act to follow.
Firefighters risk their lives every day to protect our communities. They have our backs when we need it most. In turn, we have a responsibility to take care of Canada's firefighters.
Cancer is an epidemic in Canada's fire service and by far the leading cause of line of duty death. New Democrats stand with firefighters in the battle to extinguish occupational cancer and all occupational hazards they face. We must take immediate action to reduce the risk of cancer for Canadian firefighters through improved awareness, prevention, screening and treatment, so this bill has our hearty support.
Bill C-224 provides for the development of a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to support improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment. I would like to take a brief moment to comment on the comments from my Bloc Québécois colleague. I will point out that having a national framework is not only constitutional but is also required in this country. There should be no barriers whatsoever, nor should we as parliamentarians let any barrier get in the way of taking measures that save lives and protect firefighters.
This bill also designates the month of January of each year as firefighter cancer awareness month.
The national framework does a number of things, but it must include measures to do the following: explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer; identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting; provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting; promote research and improved data collection; promote information-sharing and knowledge-sharing; and, establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases.
By way of background, occupational cancer is now the leading cause of death among firefighters. We know firefighters are regularly exposed to concentrated carcinogens in the air, such as soot and tar, at a fire ground. A recent study by the University of the Fraser Valley, which drew on a decade of data from worker compensation boards, found that 86% of all firefighter workplace fatality claims were due to cancer, with an annual rate of a shocking 50 fatalities per 100,000 firefighters.
Firefighters are killed by cancer at a rate about three times higher than the general population, and cancer rates among firefighters increase dramatically with age, with the 35 to 39 year age group accounting for only 1% of workplace fatal cancer claims among firefighters and the 60 to 64 year age group accounting for 17%, while those 65 years of age and older making up nearly half the claims.
Unfortunately, there is inconsistent recognition of the occupational cancers of firefighters across Canada, which is why I think we need this bill so desperately. A firefighter's cancer may or may not be recognized as occupational depending on the province or territory in which they live. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters line of duty death database, 408 Canadian IAFF members died in the line of duty as a result of occupational cancers in the 10-year period between 2012 and 2021.
These were members whose cancers were formally accepted as job related by their respective provincial workers compensation boards, and in most cases, by presumptive legislation. However, the true number of firefighter cancer deaths among Canadian firefighters during that timeframe is no doubt higher, considering that not all provinces and territories formally recognize all the same cancer types as occupational among firefighters. Quebec recently enacted presumptive legislation for its firefighters, becoming the last province to do so, but it only recognizes nine types of cancer as occupational, when we know that there are at least double that.
I want to take a moment to speak about what I consider to be the best firefighters unit in the country, which is the Vancouver Fire Fighters union, IAFF Local 18. I want to give a shout-out to some of the finest Canadians I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. These include Gord Ditchburn, Rob Weeks, Lee Lax, Chris Coleman and Dustin Bourdeaudhuy. These men are not only leaders in their workplaces, some of the finest firefighters in the country, and superb advocates and representatives of their firefighter sisters and brothers in the labour movement, but they are also excellent human beings, who give of themselves in every way, in the community, the workplace, the provincial legislature and the House of Commons.
Here is what they have explained to me over the years. As IAFF Local 18 has been a leader in the promotion and achievement of cancer presumption legislation here in British Columbia, I want to pause to say exactly what this legislation is. A presumption means, if a professional or a volunteer firefighter develops one of the listed cancers after a certain period of employment, it is presumed that the cancer arose from their employment. The firefighter is then eligible for worker's compensation benefits without having to provide evidence that the cancer is work-related, which can often be extraordinarily onerous, time consuming and especially hard on a firefighter and their family at a time when they are battling cancer.
B.C. first recognized certain cancers as occupational diseases for firefighters in 2005, very much due to the leading work of Local 18. In 2017, the B.C. government moved forward with an amendment to the firefighters' occupational disease regulation under the Workers Compensation Act to add presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters. At the time, cancer presumptions for firefighters were already recognized for the following cancers: brain, bladder, colorectal, kidney, ureter, testicular, lung, esophageal, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia.
In 2019, the B.C. NDP government introduced Bill 18 to extend presumptive conditions to forest firefighters, indigenous firefighters and fire inspectors, allowing them to more easily claim coverage for work-related illnesses like cancer, heart disease and mental health disorders. This is an example of what labour and a very active and informed firefighters union, working in concert with a government that is concerned about occupational health and safety, can accomplish. Once again, this leading situation in British Columbia is not the reality for firefighters across this country. That is why I think it is critical that we provide a national framework to lead all provinces and territories to achieve the same kind of progress made in B.C., recognizing of course that the job is not done even here.
I want to just shift for a moment to something that is a very practical step that we can and should be taking. The NDP caucus wrote a letter to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health last year. What that letter did was it expressed the IAFF's serious concerns over toxic chemical flame retardants in upholstered furniture and flammability testing standards for consumer products. Toxic chemicals are commonly used as flame retardants in a wide variety of household products such as upholstered furniture. They threaten the environment but, more importantly, they affect the human body, causing numerous health problems such as cancer.
Firefighters are at a greater risk of harm from chemical flame retardants because they encounter them in a combusted state and accumulate higher levels of exposure over the course of their careers. In the past the chemicals management plan acknowledged the health risk posed by select chemical flame retardants and banned their manufacturer, sale, import and use. However, banning only certain classes of flame retardants opens the door to loopholes and only facilitates their continued use. Additionally, there are no regulations currently under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act for residential upholstered furniture. This leave the onus on industry to choose how to meet flammability requirements.
The letter that we sent, generated by the IAFF Local 18, called for firefighters to be included in the classification of vulnerable populations when assessing chemical safety; called for regulatory and risk management initiatives involving chemical assessments to consider occupational standards like fire and emergency services when evaluating chemical safety; called for the introduction of regulatory measures that will prevent industry from replacing toxic chemicals with other similar chemicals that are just as harmful; and called for a complete ban on the sale, manufacturing, import and use of all chemicals that are used in flame retardants for upholstered furniture, given the toxic effects they have not just on firefighters but all Canadians. It also called on the federal government to investigate concerns about open flame testing while considering the merits of smolder resisting standards, and to include the IAFF on any future tests during chemical management consultations.
Let us pass this bill. Let us also protect firefighters by enacting protection against cancer-causing flame retardants immediately.
1520 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-224. I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, for sponsoring the bill, and I would like to thank all firefighters in Canada for serving our communities and for risking their lives to keep us all safe.
Firefighters face dangers and risk their lives to protect us and our communities. The hazards they face go beyond the bravery and self-sacrifice of running into burning buildings to save lives. Firefighters also put themselves in harm's way from exposure to toxic chemicals such as certain harmful flame retardants in upholstered furniture, mattresses and electronic devices, among others, when responding to fires.
While firefighters wear personal protective equipment for a level of protection, exposure to these harmful chemicals either through skin contact or inhalation are known to increase the risk of certain types of cancers and lung disease and to cause other adverse health effects.
That is why last summer the government announced a comprehensive action plan to protect firefighters from harmful chemicals released during household fires. Today, I am pleased to tell the House about the action plan and the measures already under way to protect these first responders in their life-saving work, but also to speak about why I feel this framework is so important as we move forward in the protection of our firefighters.
In the Government of Canada's firefighter action plan, the plan aims to protect firefighters from harmful chemicals with a particular focus on chemical flame retardants that are found in many household items, like upholstered furniture and electronics. Chemical flame retardants can save lives by slowing the ignition and spread of fire. However, they can also cause harmful health effects like cancer or impaired fertility when burned and inhaled.
The plan lays out five key areas of action. First, the government will prohibit harmful chemical flame retardants in Canada. To date, we have assessed over 150 flame retardants and have restricted or phased out those that are harmful to human health or the environment. Fourteen more chemical flame retardants are currently undergoing assessment, with even more to be assessed within the next two years to determine if they are harmful and require further actions.
Prohibiting or restricting harmful chemical flame retardants can help minimize firefighters' and other Canadians' exposure to these chemicals and their adverse health effects. I am really pleased to see the government has made this progress, because when I was on the environment committee, we looked at this issue under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is good to see that work is happening but more work needs to be done.
Second, we are working with industry to promote the use of alternatives to chemical flame retardants to comply with fire safety standards. To support the move away from harmful flame retardants, the government has updated five industry guidance documents on flammability requirements in consumer products. These updated materials emphasize ways that industry can comply without using chemical flame retardants and encourage manufacturers to design products differently such as using inherently flame-resistant materials like wool.
Third, our government is working with universities and firefighters to advance research on the health effects of chemical flame retardants and to monitor firefighters' levels of exposure to harmful chemicals. Monitoring the levels of these chemicals in firefighters, combined with new research data, provides important information that will help regulators target harmful chemicals. We will continue to share results of this research and monitoring with the scientific community and with the international community of firefighters to advance broader efforts to protect firefighters.
Fourth, we are going to use results of this research and monitoring to inform best practices for firefighters to help reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals. Our government has collaborated with universities and firefighters to research existing strategies, including personal protective equipment that reduces exposure to chemicals to determine their effectiveness. This important work will help improve existing best practices and identify new measures that can be implemented at the local, national and international levels.
Finally, we will continue to increase transparency and promote information sharing to raise awareness about the use of chemical flame retardants in products available to consumers. Empowering consumers to make informed choices can reduce exposure to harmful chemicals for Canadians, including firefighters.
Our government is committed to enhancing supply chain transparency and strengthening mandatory labelling of consumer products. To this end, in March, the government launched a national consultation asking the public to help identify, develop, prioritize and test innovative solutions for improving transparency about chemicals in products. This consultation will inform the government's future work on a broad strategy for labelling toxic chemicals in consumer products, including flame retardants in upholstered furniture.
These strengthened measures and increased awareness will make a tangible impact for firefighters. This is particularly true in my community where only 13 cancers in British Columbia are listed as work-related.
Last week I met with representatives from Surrey, Township of Langley and City of Langley firefighters who either have or know a colleague who has suffered from an occupational cancer. Richard from Station 1271 in Surrey told me that, in his 18-year career, he has seen nine occupational disease line of duty deaths. Of the nine, six have tragically lost their lives to occupational cancers, including Deputy Chief John Watt, battalion chiefs William Robertson and David Rivett, and captains Patrick Glendenning, Randy Piticco and Leslie Dionne. Most of these members worked at the same fire hall for most of their careers. Sadly, we know there will be more Surrey and Langley members added to this list.
One thing has stayed with me since speaking with firefighters locally. Richard told me that, in the case of occupational cancers, “If it is on you, it is in you.” This has never been so true.
Dan Gray from the City of Langley and Jordan Sparrow from the township also shared their insights, and all shared the hope that work will move ahead to continue creating national consistency in identifying occupational cancers across Canada.
The government's action plan is a comprehensive approach to protecting firefighters from harmful chemicals released during household fires. Significant progress is being made in its implementation through banning harmful chemical flame retardants and supporting the development and use of safer alternatives. As part of the firefighters action plan, the government is also conducting research, monitoring levels of exposure to chemicals and identifying practices that could protect our firefighter population from long-term harm. Lastly, the government is sharing information to help raise awareness about the presence of chemicals, including flame retardants, in consumer products.
All these reasons are why the government has done so much work, and I think we need to be aware of the work that has happened and that there is more work that needs to be done. That is why I so proudly stand here today in support of Bill C-224 and the work we are doing to identify a national framework for firefighters.
1183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:00:24 p.m.
- Watch
We only have two minutes left for this debate.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how do I sum up my support in two minutes?
This bill has to pass. We need to do more for our firefighters, for those who stand as our silent sentinels, for those who run into burning buildings and who run towards danger each and every day, for those who put their lives in jeopardy so that our families can sleep safely, be safe and be sound.
I will save the rest of my time for the next time this bill is up.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member will have nine and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:03:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, while the housing crisis is national in scope, regional spikes like the one in Ontario are the reason so many are actually calling Saskatchewan home now. I know of many retirees who cannot afford to remain in Ontario.
One couple, for example, planned a short visit to Saskatchewan but ended up staying permanently. Then they invited their children to bring their families to Saskatchewan. They had six months to live with their parents while they found employment and a new home. Others have also come to Yorkton—Melville from British Columbia and Quebec. Nonetheless, prairie affordability is being threatened by growing inflation, incredible debt and a punitive carbon tax that is definitely costing rural Canadians far more than they are getting back.
Although I love my province and the amazing people who live in it, I do not desire to see other areas of the country suffer from the poor choices of the national government. I want to see Canadians, regardless of financial ability, free to settle anywhere in this beautiful country, but let us face reality: Canadians now have a new majority government in Ottawa.
The survival of the old Liberal government, which initially tabled Bill C-8, now officially relies on the support of a party that has even more reckless intentions to run up debt and does not care how much money it has to print to do so. Unless this political love affair falls by the wayside, Canadians are stuck with this new reality for the next three and a half years.
Despite indifference on the other side of the House, Conservatives will be present ever day to offer solutions to this affordability crisis. For example, Bill C-8 proposes a 1% annual tax on the value of vacant or underused residential properties that are directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. In Calgary, I personally know of a family that rented in a subdivision that is completely owned by a Chinese investor who has never set foot in Canada. Conservatives would have banned foreign investors who are not living in or moving to Canada from buying homes for two years. We also proposed encouraging foreign investment in purpose-built rental housing that is affordable for Canadians. We will also continue to push the government to remove the gatekeepers to development and get shovels in the ground.
Canada's housing crisis is fuelled in large part by the choices of the federal government. It can choose to let the builders build or it can continue to stand in their way. It can choose to rein in spending and lower taxes or continue to allow inflation to spiral out of control.
The government is letting down young Canadians. The new generation of first-time buyers is not looking for flashy slogans, hashtags or photo ops; it wants concrete action from this new NDP-Liberal majority government to address the crisis. The first logical step would be to withdraw this irresponsible bill, which would only put the Canadian dream of ownership further out of reach for young Canadians.
515 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:06:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member could expand on affordability. I know I hear from my constituents, almost on a daily basis, of taxes increasing. We know we just had the carbon tax increase here on Friday, and also the excise tax on alcohol. I was wondering if she is hearing the same thing from her constituents on the other side of the province of Saskatchewan about affordability and the cost of living and how it is affecting them.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, absolutely I hear about that constantly every day. The thing that frustrates my constituents so much is that the government absolutely refuses to listen to the truth about the circumstances they are facing. The increase in the carbon tax, and inflation especially, is causing everything to go up. Of course, the ability to afford a home has become a scenario in which people are house poor if they do take that step and spend so much of their income on a house that is really, truly unaffordable.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:07:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, like the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives often champion Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction and generally oppose federal interference in areas under their control.
Bill C‑8 would see the federal government claim a piece of the property tax pie, which is under municipal jurisdiction. That kind of interference is new. What are my colleagues' thoughts on the Liberals' interference in areas under municipal jurisdiction?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:08:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the current government is very self-serving in the way that it is choosing to work with our provinces. It takes advantage of the provinces' need for funding and truly is putting them in a place where it is either the government's way or the highway. This is not acceptable. I am very proud of Saskatchewan and its government in its ability to run our province in its own areas of jurisdiction, and we certainly, as Conservatives, support that.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:08:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for her speech. In her riding, like mine, the carbon tax is an issue that many Canadians are talking about in terms of affordability and the cost of living.
One of the things I would like the member to comment on when we talk about the government's economic record and its fiscal plan, albeit from this fall looking ahead perhaps to the budget even this Thursday, is the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that this tax disproportionately impacts rural residents more. It has cost them out of pocket and it is costing families and businesses, and that ripple effect is adding to an already difficult cost-of-living issue here. Could the member take this opportunity to perhaps share the context in her part of the country? Whether in my riding in eastern Ontario in the city of Cornwall or in some of the more rural parts, what I think I am going to hear is that we have very similar challenges and similar frustration on the part of many Canadians.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:09:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that observation and that question.
One thing I have learned as a member of Parliament that means a great deal to me, and I share this with my constituents here in Saskatchewan, is that the majority of the GDP of this nation is created in rural Canada. We are rural, and the issues faced by members of my communities who are facing this carbon tax resonate completely with rural Canadians across this country.
This government does not understand that dynamic, and the punitive measures it has put in place are not revenue-neutral. Certainly I know that my constituents are paying far more into this carbon tax than they are getting back, and it is more punitive towards rural Canadians.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:10:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, it is an absolutely wonderful opportunity to be able to rise today and deliver some remarks on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. It is kind of ironic, as I was reflecting on this over the weekend, that I am delivering remarks on the fall economic statement in the spring, but calendars are clearly difficult, and perhaps calendars are hard for the government as well.
Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have highlighted challenges. I want to thank the member who spoke just before me, my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, who really highlighted some of the struggles that are faced in rural Canada when it comes to pricing. That is something that is very true, and I would expand it to not just rural Canadians; it is a major struggle for anyone who lives outside of a major centre.
In my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, we do not really have a choice, in many cases, to stay home. I was talking to a few of my colleagues. In my world, everything starts at three hours. It takes three hours to get from Fort McMurray to Lac La Biche and another two and a half hours to get from Lac La Biche to Edmonton, so that is five and a half hours. It takes four and a half hours to get from Fort McMurray to Cold Lake and it takes a couple of hours to get from Cold Lake to Edmonton, so it really does not matter whereabouts we go: It is at least a few hours. That is not even including the more isolated communities in my riding, such as the community of Fort Chipewyan. That is one that I am going to talk about in a bit more depth.
Fort Chipewyan is a truly stunning place. If anyone has not had an opportunity to go to Fort Chipewyan, I highly recommend they take a trip. It is truly breathtakingly beautiful. It has the Canadian Shield, the great and powerful Athabasca River, Lake Athabasca and so many opportunities to explore the outdoors. However, it also has some struggles, because it is primarily without roads. It relies on ice roads through the winter as its main supply line. That means that a lot of organizations have to get their groceries and all their supplies for the entire year delivered in a short window of time while the ice road is open. Otherwise, they are relying on barges or flying equipment in. As members can probably imagine, all of those options are quite expensive.
When we have a government that continually raises the carbon tax, such as the one we have, one of the struggles is that the cost to transport those goods rises, and then the cost to sell those goods has to rise. Otherwise, the business owners or the organizations have a shortfall. They can only operate under a shortfall or in a deficit for so long before it has some major impacts. I know that the government does not necessarily understand that reality when it comes to budgeting, but most Canadians understand that they really do need to balance their budget or there will be some long-term complications.
In Fort Chipewyan, as inflation is going up and the carbon tax is going up, people are seeing substantially higher grocery costs, which is making it quite a struggle for many of the families to get healthy food options. Unfortunately, as members who have travelled through the north might be aware, it is the perishable goods and healthy food choices, including fruit, vegetables and dairy, that tend to be the most expensive in those communities. Therefore, when it comes to anything that is perishable, the inflationary cost is substantially higher because of the additional time to get there, and the community is really having to struggle. In fact, just last week some of the indigenous leaders in the community talked about the global food crisis having a huge impact on the residents in the community of Fort Chipewyan.
It is not just an issue in Fort Chipewyan. We see this as an issue in most of our rural, isolated communities. Further away, the communities of Conklin and Janvier are at least 90 minutes from a grocery store. There are convenience stores in those communities, but to get to a real grocery store, people in Janvier have to go at least 90 minutes to Anzac or 90 minutes to Lac La Biche. As fuel prices continue to skyrocket because of the carbon tax, those families see fewer opportunities to get to the grocery store and to buy those healthier food choices. What they are also seeing is that it is having a huge inflationary impact.
In fact, the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, recently said that it appears that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as stimulus no longer exists. What we are seeing is just the continuous spending of money. The government is spending and spending without actually looking at what this increase in spending is doing to average Canadian families.
This is part of the struggle. Families in my riding are finding it harder to make ends meet. There have been reports that have come out saying that the average family of four will see an additional $1,000 added to their grocery bill. I was thinking about this over the weekend because when I come to Ottawa, even if I go to the most expensive grocery store around, groceries are still less expensive than at the cheapest grocery store in Fort McMurray.
I was really thinking about this. We keep repeating, on this side of the House, the fact that groceries are going up by an average of $1,000 for a family of four, but now I am really curious. I am going to try to do some calculations on my end, because I would not be surprised if the average family of four in my riding actually saw a substantially higher amount because of the inflationary impacts and because of the inflation of food prices. These are coupled with more carbon tax, and all that ends up doing is raising the cost of everything.
One of the big challenges I think members opposite do not necessarily understand when they raise the cost of carbon taxes on so many of these goods is that, in communities such as Fort McMurray or Fort Chipewyan or other communities throughout most of northern Canada, we cannot just put goods in a warehouse. We have to heat the warehouse, because otherwise the food will freeze and then it will no longer be nutritional and healthy and safe for families.
On the flip side of that, we have midnight sun in many northern communities, so we need to have air conditioning through the summer. Otherwise, we will have a struggle where the food will go bad: It will spoil.
As the cost of heating and cooling buildings increases, so will the cost to have those business owners get to a place of balance. I think this is one of the big challenges that we face right now.
The government continues to spend money, but it is not really looking at how this is impacting families in the north and how this is impacting families in isolated communities all across Canada. It is so much larger than just the families in my riding. It impacts any family that has to travel for anything. I know many members on this side of the House, and I would assume many members on the other side, have to travel a couple hours or more in order to get to doctors' appointments, children's sports competitions and different pieces along those lines, or just to visit friends and family. I think this is one of those challenges that, as we see gasoline prices continuously increasing, families cannot necessarily cope with. They do not have the opportunity to print money like the government does.
Those real impacts and those real choices are really a struggle. As a fun piece, I think it is something that our communities really need to understand, and we need to make sure we are doing what we can to have families be able to afford nutritional food. This is especially true throughout the north.
I would welcome all members of the House to vote against the bill, because all it is going to do is raise the cost of everything.
1425 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:20:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague speak before, clearly and evocatively, about the travel distances within her riding. We had an exchange some time ago about bus service, and she mentioned that Red Arrow is still servicing communities within her riding.
I am particularly interested to see, in the budget on Thursday, a commitment to help rural and remote communities have access to affordable, reliable and safe public transit, even in remote areas. This was required in the recommendations of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry.
Does she share those concerns?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:21:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that issue. She highlights the fact that a huge disparity exists between rural and urban Canada, in this and so many other ways. One of the things we have not seen from the Liberal government to date is that recognition and understanding that rural Canadians have a host of different challenges. Rural Canadians need to be supported because rural Canada is where we create the wealth for all of Canada. I often say that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works. That is so true, but I would expand that a bit further. It is all of northen Canada. We contribute to the GDP of Canada at far higher rates, and we need to have our just part.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:22:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, this economic update is a masterpiece of vacuousness. There is not much in it.
As members of the Bloc Québécois have said many times, however, it does contain a major development worth noting, and that is an attempt by Ottawa to meddle in property taxes, something that it has never done before. That is extremely serious, even though we must admit that real estate speculation is a real problem and that something must be done about it.
I think that the real problem with real estate is that more investments are needed. Ottawa has backed away from the construction of social and affordable housing in a big way. Do our Conservative colleagues believe that more money needs to be invested in the construction of such housing?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:23:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague pointed out one of the problems that we have here in Canada, specifically the fact that we do not have enough affordable housing. However, we cannot build more affordable housing when it is more expensive to build.
Inflation is having a real impact on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. We need to work together and really figure out what is important. One thing that is extremely important is controlling inflation.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:24:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the critical points around the challenges people face in northern Canada. They are very similar challenges to what the people in my communities, and where I come from in northern Manitoba, are facing. I know that so many people where we are feel that they are paying more than their fair share of taxes and that they are contributing more than their fair share, yet they are looking at the richest among us in our country get off without paying what is due. The reality is that the Conservatives have not sided with us in calling for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. That money would then be reinvested in our communities.
How does the MP feel about the fact that the Conservatives refuse to make sure that the richest among us are paying their fair share?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:25:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, effectively, on this side of the House, we believe that Canadians need to be able to afford to make ends meet. Right now, with inflation at a generational high, families are having a hard time making ends meet. We have asked, time and again, for simple solutions to help families make ends meet, whether reducing the GST on gasoline, removing the carbon tax increase or doing other simple things that would make a difference in average Canadians' lives today or tomorrow. However, the government, and the NDP partners in their marriage of time, have voted against those common-sense solutions time and again.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 12:26:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, as we have been hearing over the last couple of weeks especially, across the country, Canadians really are feeling the squeeze. Their budgets are being stretched further and further, and for too many, their pocketbooks simply cannot keep up. Inflation has ballooned to record levels and costs are skyrocketing.
Canadians need some financial relief, and this is something that we on this side of the House have been saying and asking for on their behalf. However, those who are desperately looking for a break will not find it here in the legislation before us. The Liberal government is asking Parliament to approve significant spending through the bill. In fact, in all, the fall economic statement and the fiscal update add $70 billion of new spending to the books, which will, in turn, fuel inflation in this country and send it to even higher levels.
This government's tax-and-spend agenda hurts our economy and it hurts Canadians. Just last Friday, we know that Canadians were hit with the latest Liberal tax hikes: The escalator tax on alcohol went up, and the failed Liberal carbon tax went up by 25%. That is an extra 2.2¢ a litre, bringing the carbon tax to 11¢ a litre. Of course, that is on top of the already high gasoline prices. The carbon tax is adding to the costs of groceries, home heating and everyday essentials that Canadians need and rely on. It is contributing to the inflation in this country, and in doing so it is actually punishing all Canadians. It is even more punishing for Canadians on fixed incomes who, frankly, can afford it the least.
I hear from my constituents on this issue all the time. I have received countless copies of energy bills from my constituents, who are anxious and distressed about the impact on their bottom line. Simply put, my constituents cannot afford this Liberal carbon tax, and they certainly do not accept this Liberal government's tired old talking points that they will receive more money back than they pay through the climate action incentive rebate. This government's math simply does not add up, and my constituents know that.
We also know that the Bank of Canada recently revealed that the carbon tax alone has increased inflation by nearly half a percent. That is, in essence, an additional tax on everything, and this government cannot simply ignore it when it is considering the cost of a carbon tax on Canadians. In fact, we all know now that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that, contrary to what this Liberal government says, most households subjected to the Liberal carbon tax will, in fact, see a net loss. What is worse, this tax punishes Canadians while failing to accomplish anything for the environment. On top of that, it is even more punishing for rural Canadians, such as my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster. Farm families and farm businesses know that all too well. Their bottom line has taken a massive hit specifically from this Liberal carbon tax. The cost of business is going up, but they cannot pass those costs along. It is shrinking an already very slim profit margin.
While this legislation might seemingly acknowledge some of the hardships that are faced by our farmers, it fails to actually acknowledge the Liberal government's contribution to these hardships. The bill also fails to deliver a common-sense solution of simply exempting farm fuels from the carbon tax.
The reality is that our farmers are always looking to improve the efficiency of their operations. The agricultural community has developed and adopted modern technologies to reduce their carbon footprint and to protect our environment, which takes investment on their part. We know that the carbon tax is not accomplishing anything for the environment, and it would go a lot further to leave more money in the pockets of our farm businesses so that they could reinvest into what would work best for their own operations.
As our farmers face massive carbon tax bills on farm fuels including propane and natural gas, typically used in grain drying, I had hoped to see a full exemption on farm fuels in the fall economic update, but surprisingly that is not what is contained in the bill. Fortunately, a private member's bill to that effect has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, and I hope that all members of the House will stand up for our hard-working farmers and support Bill C-234. Our farmers, as I have said, make tremendous contributions to our environment, our food security and our economy. We cannot take that for granted.
We need to ensure that the economic agenda of our country is working toward opportunity and a prosperous future for all Canadians. That is what is problematic with this legislation, and more generally, I would say, with the fiscal mismanagement of the Liberal government. This many years later, it really does seem like the Prime Minister still thinks and believes that budgets will balance themselves. However, we cannot dig ourselves out of a hole.
The Liberal government continues to spend money that is not there to fund its partisan-driven agenda. We know that since the start of the pandemic, the Liberal government has brought in $176 billion, not million, in spending that is completely unrelated to COVID-19. Our national debt is over $1 trillion. The Liberal government rarely talks in millions anymore and announcements in the billions have become more commonplace.
The finance minister certainly does not talk about what Canadians are paying to service that debt, nor does she acknowledge her government's contribution to rising inflation. Unfortunately, ignoring these factors does not negate their existence. With the federal budget set to be released later this week, I think Canadians would be right to brace themselves. They have been left to wonder what the new NDP-Liberal government will cost them and their children. The budget will likely give us our first glimpse of what an economic agenda driven by the NDP will cost. An ideological and activist-driven agenda that cripples our economic drivers and spends massively could only lead to higher taxes and more debt, and it is Canadians who will be left holding the bag, as usual.
The ease at which the government continues down this road shows just how out of touch it is with the reality of everyday Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told Parliament that the rationale for the government's $100 billion in planned stimulus no longer exists. The government needs to start reining it in. If the government was serious about growing our economy, it could start by abandoning its policies that are crippling our economic drivers. It has chased away countless projects and investment dollars in our Canadian energy sector, a sector that has contributed so much to our Canadian economy and that could contribute so much more. That is not to mention its potential to contribute to the stabilization of global energy security.
The government's policies push Canada to the sidelines while leaving demand to be filled by other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards than we have here in Canada. Canada finds itself at a disadvantage with nothing really gained. This is particularly devastating for my constituents, many whose livelihoods have been taken away or threatened while the cost of everything continues to go up.
When considering this legislation, we cannot simply ignore the inflation tax. Inflation is eating into the paycheques of my constituents and those of every single Canadian. A dollar today does not go nearly as far as it used. The government's spending is only pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving so many Canadians behind. Canadians need real solutions in the immediate term.
On this side of the House, the Conservatives have proposed a number of common-sense and practical solutions to help Canadians, but the Liberals have rejected each and every one. With record high inflation and skyrocketing costs of living, it is time to give Canadians a break. We need real solutions, tangible solutions, to alleviate the inflationary burden on Canadians. We cannot keep going down this risky and expensive path that is leaving far too many Canadians behind.
1389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
