44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
For one true measure of a nation is its success in fulfilling the promise of a better life for each of its members. Let this be the measure of our nation.
Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the fall economic statement, I thought of the words of President John F. Kennedy in his message to Congress in February 1962. I thought it was important to measure this fall economic statement against whether it has in fact improved the lives of Canadians. It is important to think about the layers of hype and peel all that back over the last seven years of the government to see what the results are.
Has the government been good value for money for the Canadians who pay for it? We know that seven years ago the Prime Minister promised annual deficits, but said they would be very small, not too big, and not to worry about it. Of course we know that did not really work.
COVID-19 came along, and the Prime Minister promised to have Canadians' backs. All of us in the House came together and we had Canadians' backs. We had to borrow money to do it, but the $200 billion extra that the government borrowed was not necessary. That was not having Canadians' backs. Thanks to the words of the former Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney, we now know that this extra borrowing, this extra abuse of the national credit card, is exacerbating inflation and making things more expensive. It is in fact quite the opposite of having Canadians' backs. It is taking the shirts right off Canadians' backs. It is causing inflation to get worse.
On top of that we have the Liberal government promising that its carbon tax would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and that most Canadians would get more money back than they pay in carbon taxes. Now we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the carbon tax will in fact cost Canadians more than they get back, and the carbon tax has done almost nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, people should not worry. The Liberals are coming to the rescue. For those who are struggling to heat their homes and feed their families, the Liberal government is going to save them by now tripling the carbon tax. Members can just imagine what it will cost people to heat their homes and buy food once the government triples the carbon tax.
For some Canadians, the Liberals plan to send them $500 for things that now cost thousands more. The price of food is up 11%, and food bank visits are at record highs in Canada. The price to heat our homes has doubled, particularly in eastern Canada and northern Ontario, where too many Canadians are facing energy poverty. Are they getting value for money? I do not think so.
Nowhere has the Liberal failure been more horrifying than on the topic of housing. We know that in 2017 the Prime Minister launched to great fanfare his national housing strategy. He was in Toronto, standing right in front of the mayor of the city. He was going to have this first-ever national plan. He promised $40 billion, and then he upped it to $70 billion. He called it a once-in-a-generation vision that would protect current affordable housing stock, build four times as many units as in the decade past, repair three times as many units as were repaired in the decade past, and reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.
The Prime Minister called it a robust, comprehensive, life-changing plan that would help Canadians get into homes and stay there. How has that worked? Have Canadians received value for the money they have paid the government on housing?
Let us look at the facts. The headline number was $70 billion. We know that in fact it was not really $70 billion. When we pull away from that the existing federal spending commitment and then pull away from that the matching provincial dollars that were required, which they were already spending as well, and then take out the loans and other tools that were being used, the number was actually $6.8 billion over 10 years.
That is fine: $6.8 billion is still $6.8 billion. That is great stuff; am I right? Maybe. That money was supposed to be spent through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, through five main programs: the rental construction financing initiative, the national housing co-investment fund, the rapid housing initiative, the affordable housing innovation fund and the federal lands initiative. How have they done since 2017?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported in 2021 that despite the overall increase in spending to help particularly low-income Canadians, it is up to $192 million a year, or a 9% increase. Because of the Liberals' inflationary spending, that actually represents a 15% decrease in the power of those dollars to buy goods. The CMHC programs that were designed to contribute to the cost of construction to address homelessness included the national housing co-investment fund, which spent 50% of its allocated budget. The rental construction financing initiative spent 53%. With respect to Employment and Social Development Canada funds to address homelessness, they have increased that budget dramatically from $118 million a year on average to $357 million per year. That is a 203% increase.
It is amazing; am I right? Not so fast. The Auditor General now reports that the CMHC and Employment and Social Development Canada have no idea if their programs are even helping. They do not know whether they have made a difference or not. What a plan it is. They spend half the money that was committed, do nothing to monitor the grandiose commitments of the Prime Minister and tell Canadians that everything will be fine. However, we know. We know the proof is in the suffering. House prices have doubled since the Prime Minister announced sunny ways in 2015.
A report by the C.D. Howe Institute, named after a fellow who knew how to get things done in this country, cited the burden of government cost as one of the big reasons for our lack of housing supply. In some major cities like Kelowna, Regina, Toronto and Ottawa, homebuyers had to pay an average of $230,000 extra for a home because of the municipal costs. In Vancouver, that number is $644,000. Big, expensive government is getting in the way of new construction. It is getting in the way of retrofits and renovations. It is getting in the way of new rental units. It is getting in the way of accessible and affordable units. It is getting in the way of a person's ever owning a home.
This is all while the government asks people to pay more, earn less and pay higher taxes to cover its ballooning debts. The PBO reported in September that the housing affordability gap, which is the gap between the average price of a house in Canada and the ability of the average family to borrow money, is a whopping 67% now. For the record, in January 2015, just months before the current government took office, that gap was 2%.
It is all made worse by a government that, when it is not bent on its misguided ideological entrenchment, just does not seem to get the job done. The Liberals talk a big game. The Prime Minister peers into the camera with empathetic eyes and says he really cares, but then he does not get the job done.
It seems like a cruel joke, but to the people in this country, those most vulnerable, who are paying the highest price, it is far from a joke. There are seniors on fixed incomes who cannot afford to heat their homes and eat healthy food. Tent cities are growing in communities large and small, all across our country. The current government has failed Canadians. Never has so much been promised and spent and borrowed to deliver so little. The economic statement that we have heard here is more of the same.
The Leader of the Opposition has been warning about excessive government borrowing and that it would lead to inflation that would make everything we try to buy more expensive, and now we know he was right. Even the Minister of Finance knows he was right. In a road to Damascus moment, she actually started to speak about fiscal restraint. However, she only talked about it, because immediately thereafter, she added another $20 billion of debt to her $1.2-trillion debt. Next year, payments on the national debt will be more than we spend on health care transfers.
Canada cannot afford to throw money in the air anymore and just hope it sticks. If we are really interested in supporting the next generation and making sure their life is better than ours, by that measure this economic statement is a failure and the government is a failure. Frankly, we should be voting against this economic statement. Conservatives will vote against it, and every single member of this House should do the same.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must admit I am slightly taken aback by the member's intervention today, although I am not surprised, because I continually hear the same thing from Conservatives. Conservatives like to portray themselves as the saviours of the economy. As one of my colleagues said earlier, they like to think they are the be-all and end-all when it comes to economic and monetary policy.
We know that as the individual by whom this individual is led in the House and in the Conservative Party, the Leader of the Opposition's solution to investing and to the Canadian dollar was to get away from the Canadian dollar and move towards Bitcoin. I wonder if this member would—
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 5:22:11 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the interpreter says there is feedback. The member might want to remove his earpiece and move it away from the microphone.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 5:22:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member can move the earpiece away from the microphone, and we will stop the clock. I think he needs to apologize to the interpreters as well.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first thing I need to do is apologize to the interpretation staff. I tried to put it on my seat, but accidentally set it right next to the microphone this time.
My question to the member is quite simple. What is his position on cryptocurrency? We know the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I know this member ran to be the leader of the opposition and must have engaged in dialogue on this during that campaign. Where does he stand on cryptocurrency as it relates to being an alternative to the Canadian dollar?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that when I was running for leader of this party and criss-crossing the country, Canadians were not talking to me about that. They were talking to me about what it costs to live in this country and the abysmal record of the government. That is what we are here to talk about, frankly, not what somebody else may or may not have said about anything.
This is about the Liberals' record. This is about their failures. This is about the fact they have spent more money than any government in the history of this country. The housing situation specifically, which I have talked about a lot, is worse today than it was seven years ago, despite the grandiose promises.
I do not care what the member talks about. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals' record is an abysmal failure and Canadians deserve better.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech on housing. It was very thoughtful, well-documented and well-written. He hit the nail on the head. The government's housing strategy includes a lot of numbers and promises, but it does not actually do much.
Let us talk solutions. The rapid housing initiative works fairly well because it fully funds projects. The program also makes it possible to build housing quickly.
Organizations tell us that all the other programs, such as the national housing co-investment fund and rental housing programs, which primarily offer loans, need to change. That money should go to not-for-profits so they can buy private property and get it off the market to ensure longevity. Does my colleague agree?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a really great idea. In fact, what we need to have here is a situation in which all levels of government are working together. Let us not kid ourselves. Municipalities and to a smaller degree provinces are the front lines of the housing crisis in this country. The federal government has a role to play in working with municipalities and provinces and, frankly, with the private sector. This country requires trillions of dollars of investment in the housing sector. We need the private sector on board. We need community groups on board. We need to be all working together to solve this crisis, not pandering to grandiose fixes but getting to work and working together to solve the problem.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I asked this question of one of my colleague's Conservative colleagues and did not get much of an answer, so I will pose it to him. There was interesting news coming out of the United Kingdom today, where the Conservative government of that country announced it was increasing the windfall tax rate on highly profitable oil and gas companies to 35%. It is doing that because it realizes the amount of money they are making is simply unfair to the British people.
Why is it that the U.K. Conservatives have the courage to do something like this but I do not hear anything from Canada's Conservatives, when we have the exact same problem affecting our two nations?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not going to get trapped in the ideological entrenchment of the NDP, but the fact of the matter is that the Liberal government collects billions and billions of tax dollars and promptly wastes it. Instead of collecting more taxes from companies and hard-working Canadians, I suggest we get rid of the government, put a Conservative government in place, and actually spend their money wisely.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber and bring the voices of the constituents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act.
The Conservative Party had two asks going into the fall economic statement process. One was to stop the tax increases and have no new taxes, which includes cancelling all of the planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. The other was to stop the spending and have no new spending, and ensure that any new spending by ministers or ministries is offset by equivalent savings found elsewhere. We need to cut the wasteful spending and stop the inflationary deficits that drive up the cost of living. Of course, none of our demands were met in the fall economic statement, and for that reason, the Conservatives, me included, will not be supporting it. I know that is a shock to the members opposite.
The cost of government spending is the main driver of the increasing cost of living. As stated by a colleague in an earlier speech this week, Canadians now have to make tough decisions. Why? It is because the government did not make tough decisions.
Of course, the pandemic required extra spending. The Conservatives knew that and supported the early programs. However, $200 billion of it, almost half of the $500 billion of added debt, was not pandemic-related. Program spending by the government is now 30% above prepandemic levels. It is amazing.
Last week I was in my riding and hosted a series of coffee meetings over two days to hear from constituents. I was just talking about the rising cost of living, and that is exactly what I heard from my constituents. Over and over again, the rising costs of everything, particularly food, fuel and housing, were highlighted. Last month it was reported that there was 11.4% food inflation. This month the rising cost of food is reported as being 10.7%. That is what Canadians are facing when they make a trip to the grocery store.
While rising inflation is causing pain for Canadian families in their everyday lives, it has boosted the tax revenues of the government. One would think there would have been an opportunity in the fall economic statement to bring some fiscal responsibility to budgeting.
I am not an economist, but let me share some thoughts from some respected voices on the fall economic statement. I will begin with Douglas Porter and others from BMO Capital Markets, who stated:
Less than half of this year’s revenue windfall will make it through to an improved bottom line. Moreover, the double-whammy of slower (or no) growth and rising interest rates will limit flexibility into 2023.... [T]he boost to government finances from higher inflation is temporary. Eventually, costs do catch up to the run-up in prices, and revenues get crimped by the economic slowdown. Accordingly, after a nice run of better-than-expected fiscal outcomes, Ottawa’s finances are expected to turn more challenging next year.
Will the government look ahead and plan accordingly? Obviously from prepandemic times we know that it did not.
543 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 5:30:28 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to my private member’s bill, Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
At the outset, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who was central to the conception and drafting of this bill. The hon. member's years of experience as a Crown prosecutor have afforded him insights into how Canada’s laws and legislation in some instances are not necessarily as succinct as they should be and where changes could be made to improve them. Not all MPs have a chance to introduce and debate their private member's bill, so I was certainly happy to work with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to achieve this. The hon member's experience also afforded him insight into how the House and our colleagues in the upper chamber can strengthen our federal statutes. I thank the member for his work on this bill and other proposals that seek to enhance the protection of Canadians, especially children.
The Criminal Code of Canada contains many elements, including essential elements that define, prohibit, deter and penalize criminal activities. Bill C-291 does not propose amendments to definitions, prohibitions or penalties. It clearly and succinctly proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”.
Some members in the House or Canadians watching this debate may wonder what the motive or value of Bill C-291’s proposals are. This is a question that I believe all legislative proposals should be subject to, and I will endeavour to answer this question.
Let us start with my motive in presenting this bill. I believe it is essential that the Criminal Code of Canada contain terms that accurately describe prohibited activities. I also believe that the code’s use of the term “child pornography” is a misnomer that fails to accurately describe the gravity and reality of such material. “Pornography” is a term typically used to describe material involving consenting adults, but there is no legal basis for children to consent to participating in such material. This factor of consent is central to the motivation behind this bill, and if hon. members agree that pornography describes material involving consenting adults, I hope they will also recognize that children cannot legally consent to being depicted in pornography.
What the Criminal Code currently calls “child pornography” is more severe than mere pornography because it involves children and cannot be consensual. It is exploitive and abusive, and the Criminal Code should clearly reflect these realities. So-called child pornographers are producers of child sexual abuse material. Those who distribute it are distributors of child sexual abuse material. Those who possess it are owners of child sexual abuse material. Those who view it are consumers of child sexual abuse material. These are the realities that compelled me to table this bill.
I hope all hon. members understand and support my motivation in proposing this bill. Together, we can collectively make a difference by ensuring that Canada’s Criminal Code contains clear terms for what is prohibited by the code. Words matter, especially the words and terms Parliament chooses to apply to federal statutes and especially the Criminal Code. The term “child pornography” is a misnomer, and I hope all members can recognize the necessity for our statutes to do away with this term. We cannot miss this opportunity to update and strengthen the Criminal Code so that it reflects reality. We must call child sexual abuse material exactly what it is: child sexual abuse material.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important for us to understand the motive and the value of all legislative proposals and I hope that I have provided the House a clear account of my motive in pursuing the proposals of this bill.
As for the value of the bill's proposals, I believe that changing the term “child pornography” to ”child sexual abuse material” will not only provide our statutes with a greater degree of accuracy, but will also provide a more accurate and true recognition of those victimized by such material. The terms “abuse”, “sexual abuse” and “exploitation” currently exist in the Criminal Code. I believe that the House must acknowledge that these terms afford a truer recognition of the victimization of children and potential future victimization of children caused by child sexual abuse material.
We must support those who, as children, have been victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe this bill is a valuable opportunity for the House to acknowledge the true and severe nature of the crimes inflicted on victims of child sexual abuse material.
It is time that Parliament addresses the seriousness of what is occurring by providing clear terms to ensure that the words used in our laws reflect the severity of offences and the gravity of what is inflicted on victims.
I also see the value of the necessity of this bill's proposals, considering the latest crime data from Statistics Canada, which clearly states that child exploitation and abuse are on the increase here in Canada.
In a report released in August 2022, Statistics Canada reported that from 2019 to 2021, the rate of police-reported child sexual abuse material increased by a staggering 31% to a rate of 31 incidents per 100,000 of population. For a Canadian city of one million people, less than half the size of Vancouver, that translates to 310 cases per year. Those are just the cases reported to police. We all must understand that many more cases go unreported to police, but they do exist.
This increase from 2019 to 2021 follows a 47% increase in 2019. These increases have likely been contributed to by criminals using the Internet to abuse and exploit children.
The Statistics Canada report from this August states:
For many child sexual exploitation and abuse violations, the incidents that occur are committed online as cybercrimes. For instance, 61% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children were recorded as cybercrimes. The pandemic has potentially exacerbated issues related to cybercrimes for these offences as children have been more likely to be staying at home and individuals are more likely to use the internet to engage with others.
It is also shocking to see that in 2021, there was a 14% increase in sexual violations against children. A Statistics Canada 2021 report on the 2020 data detailed how child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, especially in my home province of British Columbia. The 2021 report showed that among Canada's census metropolitan areas, or CMAs, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg and Victoria reported the largest increases in the number of child pornography violations. Together, these four CMAs represented 75% of the increase in incidents of child pornography among CMAs from 2019 to 2020.
The same 2021 report further demonstrated how from 2019 to 2020, incidents of child sexual abuse material significantly increased across Canada. The majority of the national increase was due to more incidents in British Columbia and Quebec, but the data showed troubling increases in other provinces as well. This includes 81% more incidents in New Brunswick and 55% more incidents in Nova Scotia.
The data is truly shocking, but it is not enough for us as parliamentarians to be just shocked. These realities demand a response, especially our response as parliamentarians. By passing this bill, we can strengthen our Criminal Code. We can acknowledge the true severity and often long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse material inflicted on victims. We can also demonstrate the responsiveness that Canadians expect and deserve from us as parliamentarians.
At this juncture, the first hour of second reading debate, I will welcome input from all parties represented here in this chamber for this important debate. Child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, as I pointed out in the report from Statistics Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps, big and small, that are required to deal with problems like child sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. It is a small but important part of the response that must be issued by Parliament, and I hope that this debate will lead us to an outcome that benefits Canadians, especially Canada's children and the communities that look to us to deliver results.
In closing, I would again like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work in drafting Bill C-291 and his passion for improving our federal statutes of law.
I commit to answering members’ questions today on this bill to the best of my ability. I commit to listening to members’ input, their suggestions and the interventions of other members as we participate in debate today and in the future. I commit to the dialogue we need for moving this bill diligently and expeditiously through the debate and committee stages so that it can continue through the legislative process to receive royal assent. I feel it is so important for Canadians, especially our children.
I commit to working with all to deliver results for Canada.
1628 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap for introducing Bill C-291.
I want to ask him about what kinds of consultations he has had with victims and survivors, as well as those in the policing and justice communities. Could he maybe comment on who he has consulted and how that has informed the bill presented today?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, consultations have taken place, and as I mentioned, I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work, advocacy and experience in his role as a prosecutor in his riding in Kamloops.
Consultation has been done. The key piece here is we are seeing that sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children is continuing to happen. The production of sexual abuse material is also continuing to happen, so I hope members from all parties will support us as we move this bill forward.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very important bill.
I imagine that many people in the House have children. I have children myself, and with the Internet these days, all kinds of things can happen. We are always wondering what is going on. It is terrible to think that intruders can get into our homes and take advantage of our children through screens. It is quite worrisome.
What we are about to do is really important. Changing the wording will have very important consequences.
However, while we are talking about the problem of child sexual abuse, does my colleague have any ideas on how we could go even further to counter this phenomenon?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is much more that can be done to protect our children here in Canada. There is so much stress out there right now.
I do not want this bill to become a partisan bill, but part of the stress being created out there is the cost of living. There are people who are homeless. There are children in vulnerable situations because of the conditions this country is under right now. Getting our country back on track, getting people back to jobs and having the ability for families to live and thrive as families are key to being able to do more for children, as the member suggests.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is rare for me to be able to intervene in the Private Members' Business hour, and I am pleased to be able to ask my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap how he sees this bill as making a difference. I know he covered a lot of this in his speech, but how will this bill better enable Canadians and the Canadian court system to protect our children?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we spoke the other day, and I believe the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is supportive of the bill.
The way this bill can help is it would provide a better term for the definition of child pornography within the Criminal Code of Canada. Our judicial system relies on clarity so there is no ambiguity. A big part of our duty as parliamentarians is to provide clarity in legislation and remove the ambiguity that might be there.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
