44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2024 02:00PM
- Jan/31/24 8:52:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a striking piece of legislation we have in front of us from a Liberal member of Parliament. In the same period here that the government has had its hand slapped by the court for the way it acted during the pandemic, we have a Liberal member who wants us to be aware and have an awareness day for the pandemic. By the way, it is sort of a running joke here that the Liberals' solution to every problem, the go-to for every issue, is an awareness day.
It is very rare that members of Parliament have an opportunity to actually bring forward a private member's bill for debate and a vote. However, instead of putting forward substantive changes to the law, things that would impact people's lives, the member across the way, who is not a new member and who has had a long time to think about what kind of private member's bill to put forward, chose an awareness day, as if anybody was not aware of the pandemic. However, let us be aware of the pandemic while we are here and while the member opposite said that her biggest idea for a private member's bill is a day dedicated to awareness about the pandemic.
Let us be aware of what happened during the pandemic, and let us be aware of what the Federal Court said about what this government did during the pandemic. We have a ruling from the Federal Court that the decision of the government to use the Emergencies Act during the pandemic was unconstitutional and was a violation of the charter.
It is interesting because this government has, for a long time, tried to wrap itself in the charter. However, it has shown complete disdain for the charter when it gets in the way of its desire to demonize people who disagree with it and to divide Canadians. This has become clear. What typifies the value system of the Prime Minister is not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his admiration for the basic dictatorships that he sees in other countries. That has been clear from what he said, and that has been clear from what he did during the pandemic.
During the pandemic, we had very difficult situations. Governments around the world tried to grapple with how they could respond to the challenges and how they could adjust quickly to those realities. I recall standing here in this place and making a simple recommendation. I said that we should look to and learn from the countries that were the most successful at reducing transmission, and those tended to be our East Asian democratic partners, countries that put in place effective border measures at the beginning and that built up a stockpile of necessary equipment and that took a collaborative approach around things like masking and contact tracing.
I said very clearly at the beginning that we should be learning from countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization failed to engage with Taiwan, in particular, and learn from what Taiwan was doing well. I asked questions in the House as well about the failure of the Liberal government to engage with Taiwan and to push the World Health Organization to engage with Taiwan.
If we look at those early months, when the government said that any limitations on what happens at the border would be unacceptable. Representatives of the government said that masks did not work. All kinds of things were said in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, on which the government subsequently reversed itself.
On some level, I think Canadians would have some sympathy for leaders who made mistakes in the early days of the pandemic if they had the humility to acknowledge that they did not know everything, that they understood the challenges and that they were doing their best to learn as things went along. However, the government showed a complete lack of humility in relation to the differences of perspective that existed in the context of the pandemic. In fact, this government tried to marginalize and demonize those who had a different point of view.
That demonization escalated as the process went along. When vaccines became available, of course Canadians were reading what they could, trying to understand, trying to learn about the approach they wanted to take and evaluate personal health choices in the context of the information that was coming out. However, the Prime Minister tried to discriminate against and demonize people who chose not to get the vaccine.
Particularly bizarrely, the Prime Minister tried to enforce a requirement where, for people who were working alone in the cab of their truck and did not have interactions with other people, for the most part, in the course of their work, as their nature of their work was to sit behind the wheel by themselves and drive, the effect of the policy he imposed was that they could not engage in cross-border trucking if they were not vaccinated. That provoked a strong response from Canadians; it was not just the policy but also the rhetoric, the name-calling against Canadians who had made different choices.
I think there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to try to show leadership and say, “Look, here is my view. Here is the approach we feel we have to take, but I understand this is difficult and I want to bring Canadians together.” He did not take that approach. He wanted to try to divide Canadians for political reasons.
He had an opportunity again, when protesters came to Ottawa, to try to defuse the situation and to try to listen to the conversations that were happening, but he persisted in trying to use the events politically, including through the draconian imposition of the Emergencies Act, measures, or measures like them, that had not been used since another Trudeau was prime minister. These draconian measures have since been determined by the court to be unconstitutional.
1010 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:00:04 p.m.
- Watch
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on December 14, 2023, the environment minister admitted at committee to having called at least five senators about Bill C-234, a Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. The minister promised to hand over a list of senators he called. It has been 48 days, yet the minister has not provided the list.
My question is very straightforward: Whom did the minister call, and how did they vote?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:01:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate and to once again explain to my colleagues why we need to put a price on pollution.
I appreciate the opportunity to explain why a price on pollution is the right thing to do, not only for ourselves but also for our children.
When we consider all of the extreme weather events that have impacted Canada recently, it appears quite clear that the time for action is now. Just last year, as a result of climate change, Canadians had to deal with the catastrophic impacts of historic tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, floods, etc. We could see the smoke right here in the chamber.
Of course, these severe events that are becoming more and more frequent also take a toll on our infrastructure. The truth is that we have to act now to prevent the situation from getting even worse. The good news is that we know what to do and how to do it.
The experts also agree that our approach, putting a price on pollution, is the best solution. It sends a clear message that pollution is not free. Pollution has a cost. Without a price on pollution, what incentive would there be to pollute less?
The best part of our plan is that in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, we return the bulk of the proceeds from the price on carbon to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households in these provinces are getting more money back through their quarterly climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of our price on pollution. Under the government's plan, this means that a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,500 while also fighting climate change.
At the same time, we understand that it continues to be a tough time financially for many Canadian families, as elevated global inflation is unfortunately still a reality. However, we can see that things are slowly getting better. Inflation is at 3.4%, down from its peak of 8.1%, and wage growth has now outpaced inflation for 11 months in a row.
In addition, private sector economists now project that Canada will avoid the recession that many people were expecting. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are both forecasting that Canada will post the strongest growth in the G7 in 2025. Nevertheless, many Canadians still need help to make ends meet. That is why we are implementing new measures to make life more affordable.
As we made clear in our fall economic statement, our government continues to deliver an economic plan that supports a strong middle class, from building more homes faster to taking concrete action to help stabilize prices, make life more affordable and protect Canadians with mortgages. Let me give an example.
The government understands that Canadians are getting really frustrated with the price of groceries, and we want to give them some relief at the checkout. That is why we amended the Competition Act to enhance competition in the grocery sector. This will help bring down costs and ensure that Canadians have more choice in where they buy their groceries.
We also amended the Competition Act to empower the Competition Bureau to block collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby. This will help save money for Canadians for other priorities.
585 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know what to say. This is insane. I asked a very simple question about the carbon tax and Bill C-234, and I heard about the Competition Act, which has nothing to do with the carbon tax. I do not know how that is.
I asked about how pricing on pollution is making life more affordable. Bill C-234 is going to cost Canadian farmers $1 billion. How is that making it more affordable? Why did the member choose not to answer the question?
Why did she read for the Prime Minister's Office? Why did the Prime Minister and the minister not come down and answer these questions?
Canadian farmers and Canadians want to know why this carbon tax is costing them so much. It is dragging our whole country down, and the member, I am sorry to say, chose to blow off Canadians and just ignore the whole process.
Therefore, I would ask—
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:06:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians see around them every day the cost of not acting on climate change, with forest fires, violent storms and tornadoes.
Severe weather events are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change, and they have a significant impact on Canada's infrastructure and economy.
Experts all agree that putting a price on pollution is the right approach to fight climate change. The best part is that the bulk of the proceeds go back to Canadians.
However, we understand that many Canadians are struggling with elevated inflation. That is why we are moving forward also with measures to make life more affordable.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to try to understand why the Minister of International Development was such a stalwart defender of UNRWA and to get clarity for Canadians on how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used.
When I asked the government last year, on December 14, 2023, about the $10 million in additional taxpayer dollars it pledged to UNRWA in spite of evidence on the misuse of international aid by Hamas, instead of treating it with the seriousness that it deserves, the minister accused me of making “political points”. It is not political to want to ensure Canadian tax dollars are not being used to fund terrorism. It is the government's moral and legal duty. In the minister's response, he noted that he “had numerous meetings with the head of UNRWA, Mr. Lazzarini” and emphasized that he will continue to work with “trusted agencies, like UNRWA”.
I would like to tell the minister and the federal government about their trusted agency. On October 7, 2023, six UNRWA workers were part of a wave of Hamas militants who killed 1,200 people. Two UNRWA workers also helped to kidnap Israelis. Just two days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that intelligence estimates around 1,200 of UNRWA's roughly 12,000 employees in Gaza have links to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. That is one in 10 employees at the minister's trusted agency. About half have close relatives who belong to Islamist militant groups. The report also stated that 23%, or nearly one in four, of UNRWA male employees had ties to Hamas. An Arabic teacher at UNRWA is said to be a Hamas militant commander who took part in a terrorist attack on Kibbutz Be'eri where 97 people were killed and about 26 were kidnapped and taken as hostages. In 2017, the former head of UNRWA's union was fired after he was elected to Hamas' top political leadership. An UNRWA math teacher, belonging to Hamas, was close enough to a female hostage in Gaza that he took a picture of her. Another teacher was carrying an anti-tank missile the night before the invasion. Is that part of the trusted agency curriculum?
Since October 7, 2023, Hamas has stolen more than $1 million worth of UNRWA supplies, including fuel and trucks; and an intelligence assessment claims Hamas operatives are so deeply enmeshed within the UNRWA aid delivery enterprise that they coordinate transfers for the organization. Does any of this sound like an agency to be trusted?
UNRWA is an organization full of hate and it has been indoctrinating generations of innocent Palestinians to hate Jews. I have been reading excerpts of UNRWA's textbooks and I cannot believe what it has been teaching. Did members know that teachers are required to punish students who do not directly connect Judaism to murder? Did they know terrorists are glorified as role models, and that suicide bombings and cutting the necks of the enemy are glorified?
Therefore, I would like to ask the government if it still believes UNRWA is a trusted agency and why Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill to support UNRWA when this so-called humanitarian agency participates in the operations and murderous actions of Hamas, a listed terrorist organization.
555 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:11:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada mourns the loss of innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives in this conflict. We express our condolences to all families and communities affected by this violence. Canada unequivocally condemns the brutal terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas against Israel on October 7. Nothing can justify these acts of terror and the killing, maiming and abduction of civilians.
At the same time, we are horrified by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and its impact on civilians. All parties to the conflict have an obligation to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian relief for civilians. Canada calls for a resumption of humanitarian pauses, and it supports urgent international efforts toward a sustainable ceasefire. Throughout, we have based our decisions on the innocent civilians involved in this conflict. As the situation continues, it is vital that life-saving humanitarian relief can reach Palestinian civilians in need.
We have demonstrated Canada's commitment to helping support the agencies that are working hard to help people in Gaza. To date, Canada has announced $100 million in humanitarian assistance to address the urgent needs of vulnerable civilians impacted by this crisis. We were the first western country to announce an increase in our aid to Palestinian civilians.
With regard to UNRWA, Canada is deeply alarmed by the allegations that some staff members were involved in Hamas's brutal terrorist attacks against Israel on October 7. As a result, we announced an immediate pause of any additional funding to UNRWA. These allegations are extremely serious, and we look forward to the investigation into them. In addition, UNRWA has committed to an independent review of the organization.
We will continue to work with the agency and other donors to support the investigation into these serious and deeply concerning allegations, while maintaining our commitment to helping the most vulnerable Palestinian civilians in the region. We recognize that civilians' need for humanitarian assistance is growing by the hour.
Since the start of the crisis, our position has always been, and continues to be, centred on the firm conviction that Gaza needs more aid, not less. As UNRWA moves forward with this review, Canada will not reduce its support for the people of Gaza.
Yesterday, we announced an additional $40 million in humanitarian assistance to help the most vulnerable Palestinian civilians. This funding will help Canada's partners to provide food, water, emergency medical assistance, protection services and other life-saving assistance. As is the case for all humanitarian and development funding to Palestinians, our additional assistance will be subject to our robust, enhanced due diligence process to ensure that no funding gets into the hands of terrorist groups, such as Hamas.
446 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said key words that the minister said, which is “no additional funding”. The question that Canadians have is this: How much funding has been extended to date, and had funding been accelerated until that announcement was made?
Furthermore, what steps will the government take to ensure that money does not make its way to aiding and abetting terrorists? UNRWA is Hamas, and Hamas is UNRWA. If we want to help people in need, as I think everyone would, money should be going to dedicated agencies that have not been infiltrated by Hamas, as UNRWA has.
Again, on the additional funding, when was funding extended and how much more has been given in advance of the alleged pause?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:15:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious situation. The minister acted immediately last week to pause funding to UNRWA. A pause means a pause. It means that, going forward, no Canadian funding will flow to UNRWA as the investigation unfolds.
In the meantime, our humanitarian commitment to helping the most vulnerable Palestinian civilians in the region remains unwavering. We are going to continue working with partners in the region to ensure that life-saving aid gets to those vulnerable civilians, and I encourage the member to support us in this.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:16:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, back in November I asked the Minister of Employment if he was going to stand up for his constituents in Edmonton Centre and vote with the opposition on its motion to carve out the carbon tax for home heating for his constituents in Alberta and all other Canadians.
The answer I got was very disappointing. It was a bizarre sort of pivot to a defence of their corporate welfare system, wherein it looks like the Government of Canada is being fleeced by profitable companies through its subsidy system. It had nothing to do with my question. My question was not even remotely answered, so here we are tonight with a chance to have a redo on this question.
I asked if the member would stand up for Canadians and vote with the opposition to axe the tax and relieve Canadians of the carbon tax on home heating. The same day, or certainly the same week, I do not remember if it was the same day or not, I also raised a question about the member for Calgary Skyview, asking whether or not he would be given a free vote and be permitted to represent his constituents, who so plainly and obviously need relief from the carbon tax.
We had a bitter cold snap in Alberta. We had temperatures in Calgary get close to -40. I am told it was even a little colder at one point in Edmonton. People need to heat their homes. The carbon tax makes this more expensive for Canadians. We all know this. The Liberal caucus knows this, and the Atlantic Canadian members know this, so that is why they demanded of their own government that they have a carve-out for home heating for Atlantic Canadians.
We know now that the government has explicitly admitted that the exemption for Atlantic Canadians was pure politics. It had nothing to do with the relative cost or carbon efficiency of an oil-heated furnace. It had to do with politics. We know this because the Minister of Rural Economic Development told a national television audience that the government had heard from the Atlantic Liberal caucus, and that if other Canadians, prairie Canadians for example, wanted a carbon tax carve-out, they would have to elect more Liberals.
She said the quiet part out loud and told all Canadians that it is all about politics and that, because they have an Atlantic caucus facing the prospect of massive defeat in the next election, which will be fought on issues of affordability, the carbon tax and the extent to which the carbon tax makes life unaffordable for Canadians, they gave Atlantic Canadians this carve-out.
As it turned out, the members for Edmonton Centre and Calgary Skyview did not stand up for their constituents. They, in fact, voted against the Conservative opposition motion, which would have given carbon tax relief to all Canadians, regardless of where they live and regardless of what kind of furnace they happen to have in their home.
We have been clear on this side, right from the beginning, that the carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan—
530 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:20:35 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:20:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to be answering a question from the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who is a former classmate of mine from the University of Calgary.
I also very much welcome the opportunity to once again clarify how having a price on carbon and making sure that it is no longer free to pollute is the most effective way of addressing climate change, curtailing its devastating effects on both the health and safety of Canadians, and preserving Canada's natural beauty.
Canadians deserve measures that address the significant cost of climate change while making life more affordable for Canadians and that is exactly what our government is putting forward.
We know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. It encourages savings across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian business to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and it is both effective and affordable for consumers. That is because the bulk of proceeds from the price on carbon pollution goes straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 households in these provinces continuing to get more money back through their quarterly climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. In provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can receive up to $1,500 a year under our plan.
Our government understands that we need to maintain the price signal that is necessary over the long term for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. However, at the same time, we have also shown that we are willing to be flexible and innovative in supporting options that will go even further to cut down on climate pollution in the long run.
We have taken temporary, targeted measures to suspend the tax on home heating oil to encourage consumers to switch from using home heating oil to using a cleaner, much more affordable solution that will allow them to save thousands of dollars and reduce carbon emissions in the long term.
Measures such as this will make life more affordable in the right way while supporting the goal of achieving a prosperous, low-carbon future for all Canadians.
421 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:23:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, this parliamentary secretary and I did go to university together. As a former Calgarian, she is in a unique position to know, if she has any connection left to the city, just how extraordinarily unpopular her government and its carbon tax policy are in that community, which goes to why I asked about the members for Edmonton Centre and Calgary Skyview and their responsibility to represent their constituents.
If this carbon tax were so effective and so affordable, and thus acceptable to Canadians, and if the member is correct about the numbers, then why has the PBO completely undermined the arguments she has made about its affordability for Canadians. More so, why the carve-out?
The carve-out for Atlantic Canadians was pure politics, and the absence of one for Albertans is also politics.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:24:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that Calgarians, like most Canadians, care deeply about the future for our children and about our natural environment. We know that we can make life more affordable for Canadians without destroying our environment.
We are providing this support where it is the most effective and to those who need it most. We have taken measures to temporarily suspend the federal tax on home heating oil.
It includes strengthening the oil to heat pump affordability program to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000, and it includes doubling the climate action incentive payment rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April.
We will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 9:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9:25 p.m.)
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
