44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/1/23 10:00:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:01:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1 and subsection 75(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the appointment of Dr. Heather Lank as Parliamentary Librarian.
Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I ask that the certificate of nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:11:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to table yet another petition in regard to the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and the impact it is having. It is estimated that there are now well over 1.5 million people of Indo-Canadian heritage here.
The petitioners are asking for the federal government, airport authorities and international airlines, like Air Canada and WestJet, to ultimately look at enhancing routes going from Canada to India. With this particular petition, they are hoping to see an international flight that would go from Winnipeg to Amritsar, India. If this is not possible, the bottom line would be to increase the number of international flights. This goes beyond members of our Indo-Canadian heritage community, as more and more Canadians are travelling as tourists to India.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:12:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:58:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts with regard to consistency. The Conservatives are saying they want to get rid of the price on pollution, but at the end of the day, we have other provinces, in particular British Columbia and Quebec, that have a price in place. If they were to get rid of the price on pollution on a national basis, does the member believe that the Conservatives would be obligated to compensate people in the provinces of B.C. and Quebec to be fair?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:59:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one can imagine my surprise when I found out that the Conservatives wanted to talk about a price on pollution again. I say that tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not surprised.
It is interesting. If someone has followed the debate on the price on pollution, they will find that the first jurisdiction, I believe, in North America, many years ago, that instituted the principles of a price on pollution was actually a Conservative government in the province of Alberta. The Conservative member applauds across the way. He is quite right. It was a Conservative provincial government. I have to qualify this: It was a Progressive Conservative government. There is a big, substantial difference between the Progressive Conservatives and the extreme right movement we now have, which the leader of the Conservative Party heads today.
Let us fast-forward and imagine an international conference being held in Paris. Countries from around the world convene in Paris and come up with the idea of a price on pollution, and say that we should be promoting it. Canada comes back from Paris and says, “Look, some provinces already have some form of a price on pollution, and what we need to be able to do is ensure that all provinces are on the same level playing field, in essence, and are dealing with the environment.” We established a program that allowed for provinces that had plans in place to have those plans respected as long as they met certain targets. We still have provinces today that have their own programs. In other words, the price on pollution that we have today is, in fact, applied to most provinces and territories but not to all provinces. British Columbia and Quebec are examples of that.
If we look at it from that perspective, we now have the Conservative Party of today, that far right movement. What is it saying? As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, the far right party of today is very different, even from the party of 2021. The leader, at that time, had a policy platform, and in that policy platform, he was able to reverse the Conservative position that came out of the Paris accord. Coming out of the Paris accord, the Conservative Party of Canada said that it did not like it. After a great deal of debate, the Conservative Party changed its mind and told Canadians that. It said to Canadians that it had changed its mind and that it now supported a price on pollution. People do not have to take my word for it; they can actually look at the party policy platform of the Conservative Party in 2021 and they will find that the Conservatives supported a price on pollution.
Let us fast-forward. The Conservatives dumped that leader and adopted a new, shiny leader, the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton now comes out saying that the Conservatives have changed their opinion. It does not matter that it was an election platform issue that all 338 candidates had incorporated in the last federal election, saying that they supported a price on pollution. That is just pushed to the side because the Conservative Party, that right-wing party today, wants to be able to have a bumper sticker that, in essence, says that it is going to get rid of the carbon tax. There are inconsistencies even in that, if we think about it.
I will use the province of British Columbia as an example. From coast to coast to coast, the new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party is telling people that the Conservatives are going to get rid of the price on pollution. What about the province of British Columbia? The Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution in the rest of Canada, but they are not doing it in the province of British Columbia. What is the member for Abbotsford going to be telling his constituents? Will he say that what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying does not apply to British Columbia, or is the Conservative Party going to be consistent and say it will subsidize and compensate the residents of British Columbia because the rest of Canada is getting that so-called tax break?
The Conservative Party is intentionally misleading Canadians in many different ways, all because it wants a simple bumper sticker saying that it is prepared to abandon principles the traditional, progressive party actually supported. It supported them, whether decades ago or in the last federal election, because the principles of a price on pollution are, in fact, effective; they work.
The Conservatives can talk all they want about emission controls. It does not take away the principles of what a price on pollution does as an incentive. When the Conservative leader says he will get rid of the so-called carbon tax, he does not tell Canadians that, along with the tax, he will get rid of the rebate portion. I would like to reflect on the residents I represent in Winnipeg North. The Conservative Party will take away, from more than 80% of my constituents, a net gain because of the price on pollution. In essence, he is reaching into their pockets and taking money out of them, while, in the same breath, he is trying to tell them he is giving them a tax break. It is completely inconsistent. This is not the first time, when we really take a look at what the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing. It just does not make sense. It is not good for the environment. It is not good for the economy. It is not good for supporting Canada's middle class. However, I guess it will fit on a bumper sticker, and the leader may be able to fool some Canadians. That is the driving force behind this.
It reminds me of another idea he had when he was running for the leadership, which was cryptocurrency. Do people remember that one? Those who would have followed his advice would have lost thousands of dollars. In some areas, individuals may have lost 60% of their life's earnings if they had invested in cryptocurrency. We had today's leader of the official opposition advocating for it. He still has not apologized for that piece of wisdom, which turned out to be a total failure.
I think there is a responsibility of the Conservative Party. One of my colleagues said that its leader has now been the leader for more than 250 days. I do not know the actual number, but we still do not have an environmental policy coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.
On this side of the House, we consistently announce programs that will assist in protecting our environment, whether by the expansion of conservation sites, the expansion of national parks, the banning of single-use plastics, making zero-emission vehicles more affordable or the idea of planting more trees. These are the types of things we are talking about, and the price on pollution is a major part of what a progressive government needs to do in order to protect our environment, support Canadians and build a healthier economy. We are building greener jobs. A good example of that, and there are many examples one can give, is the Volkswagen battery plant. It is going to be the largest factory in Canada. The Conservatives are opposing even that.
1254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two quick points. The member referred to an election platform issue. Is this not somewhat ironic, when the election platform issue of the Conservative Party was to support a price on pollution? If we look up the word “hypocrisy” in Webster's Dictionary, we can see that we might want to incorporate this as an excellent example.
The second point I would make is that we should remember that all trees start from a seed. We cannot just wish for a tree to be six feet tall. It takes—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member can say whatever he wants when he stands to speak, but the reality is quite the opposite in terms of what the member is saying about the government.
I listed a number of initiatives the Government of Canada has taken over the years that are making a positive difference. In working with provincial jurisdictions, we have been able to accomplish some great things, and we will continue to work with the provincial, territorial and indigenous governments to ensure that our environment is protected, while advancing our economy, building on good-quality, middle-class jobs and providing an economy that works for all Canadians.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:14:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the greener homes program does more than just heat pumps. It provides Canadians from coast to coast the opportunity to improve the condition of their homes and assists by having the pumps put in. Not only will Canadians take up and use those incentives, but I suspect a good number of Canadians will also move forward even without the incentives. We need to encourage both, and I believe we are working in the right direction.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Conservatives losing an election. What I think is important, for anyone who is following the debate today, and we have heard it in questions and comments, and during question period, is the fact that 338 candidates in the last federal election, who were all Conservative candidates, had a platform, a platform that my friend and colleague tried to table earlier today, which made it very clear that they were campaigning in favour of a price on pollution. I am wondering if he could just discuss that a little more, the details and his perception of that particular promise.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given that we are talking about the environment, I wanted to highlight one thing that I know my friend is very much in tune with. It is the idea of batteries.
We have seen the Volkswagen investment, with the types of green jobs that are going to be there going forward. The government is assisting on that, working with other jurisdictions, investing in Canadians and building a healthier, stronger, greener economy. I know the member has further ideas, locally, that he has been advocating for very strongly.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:52:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the next federal election, we are going to see Conservatives in British Columbia saying that they are going to get rid of what they call the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, when in fact in reality there is no federal price on pollution in the province of B.C. They are going to intentionally mislead the residents of B.C.
Are the Conservatives going to compensate the people of B.C. if they get rid of the price on pollution in Canada? They are not paying for it right now; it is being done through the provincial government. Are they going to take the money away from the province and give it to the people? How are they going to deal with the sense of equity and fairness among the residents to B.C. if they cancel the national price on pollution?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:51:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the member talk about government investments dealing with the environment, when we get the Conservatives constantly voting against it. They have ridiculed, for example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does invest in large projects. That is why it is there, and we have significant amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars, invested in things such as electric buses and so forth.
Has the member's group, or the group that he is referring to, approached the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Does the member have some sense of what the actual cost would be?
I am encouraged that we have a member of the Conservative Party who is actually talking about how the government can assist in electrifying our transportation industry.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 5:23:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for me, it is the principles behind a policy of a price on pollution. Often, the Conservatives say that the United States does not have it, but there are actually a dozen or more states that do have the principles of a price on pollution. Around the world, the principles of a price on pollution are very much real.
However, the far right of the Conservative Party is now saying that the principles of a price on pollution are wrong. I wonder if the member could expand on the principles and how important it is to use those principles to protect our environment.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 5:29:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as all members are aware, our judicial system is a joint responsibility between provinces and the federal government. In fact, we now have a bail reform bill before the House. There was a great deal of consultation that incorporated the provincial legislatures and others regarding the form the bill should take. As a result, it has widespread support from many different stakeholders. Has the member had any consultations with provincial jurisdictions in particular? If so, could he give us a clear indication of what they have been saying on this legislation proposal?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, listening to what the member was saying, one can easily draw the conclusion that the private member's bill is fully endorsed, supported and part of the Conservative agenda, with this “tough on crime” attitude Conservatives take on, particularly the far right Conservatives, which is somewhat concerning in itself.
I want to view it from a different approach, and I do not know how many times I heard this from the Minister of Justice himself, that serious crimes deserve serious consequences. There is no doubt the Government of Canada takes very seriously the issue of crime in our communities, our safety and so forth. The actions to date by this government have clearly amplified that.
The question I posed to the sponsor of the bill we are debating this evening was related to the issue of consultation and the work the member has done. Members will notice that, in the response to the question I posed, the member did not work with the different provinces and territories in consultation, or at least report specifically on the provinces' contribution to the debate or the bill the member has brought forward. I do not recall hearing the member say it was provinces X, Y and Z, or a territory or indigenous leadership community supporting the legislation being proposed by the member.
It is important that we recognize, when we talk about our judicial system, that it is a joint responsibility between the provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and Ottawa. To amplify that, I would suggest that one only needs to look at Bill C-48, which is a very important piece of legislation. Prior to it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats saying that we had to get tough on bail reform, and all that kind of stuff. While they were jumping from their seats, the government was doing its consultations, listening and responding to what the provinces and others were saying about the issue of how we can work together to recognize the importance of having bail reform. There was an opportunity.
Not that long ago we had the discussion in the House. I made the suggestion, and it seemed that members on all sides of the House were supporting the initiatives being taken in Bill C-48. I even cited some very specific quotes because we all know that Bill C-48 is very much a reflection of not only what the provinces and territories in particular were saying, but also what politicians of different political stripes were saying, as well as law enforcement agencies and different advocacy groups. The government did its homework. It did it through consultations. I do not think anyone was coming forward, at least not that I am aware of, saying that conditional sentences should be outright turned into a criminal breach, if in fact there is a violation of a conditional sentence, no matter how minor it might be.
Again, I look to the introducer of the legislation and what we are debating with Bill C-325. Does he realize that, by making it a criminal offence, which is what the legislation is attempting to do, it could criminalize someone on a conditional sentence that does not fall under the Criminal Code? If so, does he not have any issues with that?
One has to question the issue of our judicial system and its independence. They often talk about Bill C-5, which is an important piece of legislation that ultimately enabled judges to have more discretion with things like conditional sentences. The legislation recognized that there are injustices, whether in Black or indigenous communities. There is overrepresentation, and we need to be open to alternatives.
I have more faith in our judges than I do in the Conservative Party members, who tend to want to use the Criminal Code or a tough-on-crime approach in order to generate more money for the Conservative Party of Canada or to appear on a bumper sticker. I believe, as I stated at the very beginning of my comments, that serious crimes deserve serious consequences. I also believe that having conditional sentences for people who do not pose any risk to the public can be a win-win.
Unlike the Conservatives, I recognize the fact that there is a revolving door. We need to recognize that when we lock someone up, eventually, they will come out. Looking at ways in which we can minimize crimes and prevent them from taking place in the first place should be a priority. It is a priority for the government—
765 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
