SoVote

Feb/6/24 7:19:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a question we have been trying to understand on this side of the House. Why are they moving forward with this? Recently, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa uncovered the fact that the government is not even tracking whether the emissions are reduced or not by the carbon tax, so it has no measure of whether it is working. We can see that emissions are rising under the Liberals' watch, so it is clear that it is not working. However, we know the pain it is causing from an economic point of view for Canadians. They see it at the gas pumps or when they go to the grocery store. It is a tax on everything. Conservatives are going to keep fighting to axe the tax, and that is exactly what we are going to do after the next election. Until then, we are going to keep up the fight and keep advocating for Canadians. We hope the other parties join us in that.

171 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, this is such an important debate, and I am glad we have the chance to discuss food affordability in this place. I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this discussion. I am wondering if the member could talk about how the increased cost of food is a feature of the Liberal carbon tax. It is designed to make things unaffordable for Canadians. I wonder if my friend from Kenora could opine on that.

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Melillo

Feb/6/24 7:20:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. The government has been very transparent that the whole point of the carbon tax is to try to change behaviours by making things more expensive. We are seeing it with gas, groceries and home heating. Unfortunately, it seems to be working too well and making things more expensive for Canadians.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate today around the price of food inflation; the report that came from the agriculture committee, which I am proud to sit on; and some of the ideas we have heard over the last little while about how increases in the cost of food have affected Canadians in their day-to-day lives. My friend from Battle River—Crowfoot just had a great point that he asked my colleague from Kenora about, and I asked this of Tyler McCann in committee today. I asked whether the point of a carbon tax, which the Liberals and NDP opine is the great resource they are going to use to lower emissions, was to change consumers' behaviour. Mr. McCann said yes, it is. We can go on Environment and Climate Change Canada's website, and see that the point of a carbon tax is to change people's behaviour based on an increasing price of a product. It just so happens to be a product we are talking about today, which is food. I said in committee that it is amazing that a government is now fighting its own policy. Liberals and New Democrats are scrambling over each other to say that the carbon tax has not worked, because it did not increase the price of food. It was really one of the first times in my life in public service that I have seen a government arguing that a policy did not work when it did. I see this in other areas of people's lives too. We see it in transportation, where mothers are having a harder time filling up a tank of gas to take their kids to hockey games, to ballet classes or to music lessons. In rural Canada, we have to drive. There is not public transportation service like there is in downtown Toronto, so people are making a choice about how many extra shifts they have to pick up to cover the next tank of gas. We see it with seniors, who are still in their homes, asking how many sweaters they are going to have to put on because they cannot afford to keep the heat up. We see it time and time again. The Liberal-NDP carbon tax is making people change their behaviours in Canada, because it has made everything so much more expensive across our country. We know it is working, because there was a little caucus revolt in the Liberal Party recently; Atlantic Canadian members, along with the Conservatives, who have called for a long time to axe the tax as part of our plan, said they had to exempt home heating. The proof is in the pudding. Why would the Liberal members in the Maritimes fight tooth and nail? It is because they are having political issues to get a carve-out from the carbon tax, since home heating is costing too much. It is almost like it is working, but the people within the Liberal Party and the NDP did not realize how much pain they were going to inflict on Canadians. There is no other solution to heat a 100,000-square-foot barn. Today, in Ottawa, I met with a dairy farmer from just outside Regina. He said his heating bill for the barn has increased and increased. I have a SaskEnergy bill from another farmer, a chicken farmer. For one month, their gas supply cost is $1,092. Their carbon tax, with the GST on top of it, is $1,071. They are almost paying more in taxes on a monthly bill, $20 less, than they are for the gas they are supplying to heat their building. Maybe I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I do not think the Liberals and the New Democrats realized how much this was going to hurt. From APAS, in Saskatchewan, Mr. Boxall was at our committee when we were talking about food prices. He said that, on the average farm in Saskatchewan, the carbon tax cost will be between $14,000 and $25,000. However, when it goes to $170 a tonne by 2030, Canada's Food Price Report for 2023 stated that a farm could pay $150,000 in carbon tax per year. We asked Mr. Boxall in committee how that was going to affect farms. He said that: It will have a huge impact—$150,000 on a 5,000-acre farm. It's unfathomable that we will get there on a carbon tax alone. It makes my skin crawl to think that's where we'll be, and then to be turned around and not recognized for the work that is done, ensuring that we have proper grasslands and that we have proper management of our farm soil. Farmers are the biggest stewards of the land in this country, and we care more about the environment than we ever get credit for. It really is going to be detrimental to Saskatchewan farmers. That says it all. This Liberal government continues to punish our farmers, the people who put food on our plate, without a second thought of what the effect is going to be. We talked to some witnesses today in the agriculture committee and one witness laid out three things that this government has done and wants to do that will affect food prices. Number one, he said, was the carbon tax. Number two was P2 packaging where the government wants to make sure that, in Canada, we cannot use plastics to ship fruit and vegetables, which the U.S.A. has already said it is not going to do, and so it is going to cut the supply of fruit and vegetables in our country. Number three is the fertilizer reduction targets. Those three things are what this witness said is going to inflate the cost of food exponentially year after year. This is from people who are on the ground from the fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario. So, are we not going to believe a carbon tax bill that we saw from Saskatchewan where they were paying almost as much in taxes as in gas supply? Are we not going to believe members from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, APAS, who are on the ground tilling the soil and planting the seeds who have said that $150,000 for a 5,000-acre farm will destroy farms in Saskatchewan, because it will make them unsustainable, which will lower supplies again? Are we not going to believe a dairy farmer who says that it is going to cost more and more each year to heat their barn with this carbon tax? The PBO said that, by 2030, farmers will be paying $1 billion a year in carbon tax. My friend for Huron—Bruce, who has put this through on a private member's bill, talked about the GST and HST that we pay on the carbon tax, which is about $490 million a year. So, combined, the carbon tax and then the tax on the tax is going to be $1.5 billion automatically out of farmers' pockets, and people do not think that is going to have an effect on food prices. That is irrational. It is taking $1.5 billion out of farmers' pockets. How are we going to make that up? Two things will happen: one, consumers will see that on the till at the grocery store, and prices will increase because farmers have to make that up; or two, farmers go out of business, and no farms, no food. If we lower the food supply in Canada, that will also increase the food cost. Members can see, and I agree with my friend from Winnipeg, that either way, consumers in rural or urban Saskatchewan are going to have to pay more for food. At this point in time I would like to move an amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same so as to: (a) take into consideration that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, has been amended by the Senate in a way that will prevent farmers from getting a carbon tax carve-out for grain drying, barn heating and other farm operations, and that since the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that this bill, in its original form, would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the cost of food for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries; and (b) recommend that the House adopt the motion rejecting the Senate amendments as soon as possible.

1516 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/6/24 7:31:44 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.

20 words

All Topics

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 7:33:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I see that we are surrounded by folks who are about to be riveted by the exchange, and I do not want to delay too long the late show, which I know is about to take place between my two colleagues. I would just like to ask my hon. colleague from Regina if he could comment on the shift in economic policy we are seeing in places such as the European Union, where they are beginning to incorporate tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that are not seriously tackling a price on pollution. I would be curious to know what he or his leader would do, should they find themselves faced with having to create policy on behalf of the Government of Canada, in relation to our trading partners, on imports and that very critical component of a price on pollution, which they are starting to take seriously.

149 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Feb/6/24 7:34:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say this about what is going on, and members will not see this on mainstream TV. In Europe right now, farmers are in an uprising because of the terrible policies governments have foisted upon them. Whatever is going on in Europe and the European Union, they should keep it there because their farmers are protesting and taking to the streets. We should make sure that our farmers are happy, that we put policies in place that respect farmers, that we listen to what farmers are doing on the ground, and that we make sure they get it right so we do not copy anything that is going on right now in Europe when it comes to farm policies.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:34:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. I know that the agriculture committee had very valuable conversations when it heard from a host of witnesses. I specifically want to ask my friend from Regina—Lewvan about his interactions with farmers and others within the food supply chain. We have endeavoured to explain that rising costs are a feature, not a flaw, of the Liberal-NDP coalition's carbon tax, and the carbon tax affects every stage of the process. Take a loaf of bread. From the farmer who grows the grain, to the trucker who ships it, to the baker who bakes it, to the grocery store that sells it and to the person who buys it, through every step of the process of that slice of bread getting on somebody's plate, the carbon tax is being paid. I wonder if my friend from Regina could share the conversations he has had with farmers and those at every other stage of the supply chain about the impact that the carbon tax has on what Canadians ultimately pay for the food they buy at the grocery store.

192 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Feb/6/24 7:35:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today we got an Order Paper answer for the Conservative member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, which said that the Liberal government is not even tracking how much the carbon tax is reducing emissions. It really is mind-blowing that the Liberals have a flagship policy but are not tracking it to see whether it is successful or not. What I am hearing from people on the ground is that they believe that the fact of food price increases because of the carbon tax is not a flaw but a feature of the Liberal-NDP carbon tax. They believe this is what it was intended to do, because they do not realize what the policies are that actually affect farmers, and how much they do so. I do not believe that the NDP and Liberal members thought the carbon tax would go up to $15,000 for a 5,000-acre farm in Saskatchewan, but that is the effect it has had. Just imagine when the carbon tax goes to $170 a tonne. What is that going to do to consumers across Canada when they go to buy groceries? Farmers are price-takers. Input costs are going up and up, and they see a government that wants to keep kicking out their feet, instead of giving them the opportunity to be successful, by putting policies in place. I am so proud of our agriculture producers. There is a study by from the Global Institute for Food Security, out of Saskatchewan, that said our producers create fewer emissions than any other comparable jurisdiction in the world. Agriculture in Canada produces 8% of our total emissions. We should be trumpeting that at every international event we go to and showing how proud we are of our farmers. They are producing more and doing it with fewer emissions than farmers in any other country. That is what we should be talking about on the world stage to make sure that more countries are following Canada's leadership when it comes to agriculture and agriculture emissions.

346 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:38:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate on such an important subject: food security and the price Canadians pay for food. I appreciated the amendment that my friend from Regina moved, which I had the opportunity to second. It gives very clear instructions to ensure that this concurrence motion not be concurred in and that it be sent back to committee so we can really get to the root cause of what is forcing Canadians to pay more. I asked a question earlier about the entire food supply chain, because a lot of people in our country, I think, take for granted the fact that we do have a secure food supply chain. We go to the grocery store, and there is food on the shelves. We have rules and regulations in place that ensure Canadians can trust the food they buy. There is an ingredient list on there that they can count on to ensure there is trust in the process. When meat is brought through the supply chain, it is safe, and we do not have to worry about diseases and things that, throughout human history, have been detrimental to the longevity of people. I am proud to be the fifth generation to farm in Alberta's special areas and for five generations, I have been proud to help steward that land. I will get to that discussion in a moment. When it comes to where food starts, it starts with the farmers and the ranchers, those who grow and raise the food we eat. Then, there is the food supply chain, from the farmers and ranchers who start the process, whether it is a grain operation, like my family is proud to be a part of, whether it is a rancher, and I am proud to represent so many of them, or whether it is more modern techniques like greenhouses. Then there is a stage that one would call the entire food supply chain. I will get to the specific relevance of the carbon tax in just a moment, but when the carbon tax is applied at the first stage of the process, and when the Liberals increase the carbon tax to the degree they are planning to, it will cost an average farmer $150,000 a year, and those costs have to go somewhere. However, in every step of the food supply chain, there are increased costs. From the farmer to the trucker who moves it from the farm to a storage facility, there are increased costs. I will use the example of a loaf a bread. The carbon tax is on every step of the process, from the transportation of the raw commodities to be ground into flour, to the flour going to the baker and then into the ovens. It sounds like the Liberals now want to have a special tax for wood-burning stoves, which is quite something. Let us talk about ludicrous and ridiculous. Then, there is the cost of packaging that food for the supply chain and the cost of its transportation to the grocery store. There is a carbon tax on the cost of heating that grocery store. There is a carbon tax on the cost associated with somebody driving to the grocery store to get their groceries. There are costs at every step of the process. That is the consequence of the carbon tax. Rising costs are a feature, not a flaw, of the Liberal carbon plan. As I wrap up my discussion, I would say it is time to stop punishing those who are best equipped to lower food prices. It is time to start celebrating and rewarding them and to make sure they are well-equipped to be the champions of the environment and of lower prices. That means axing the tax so that Canadian farmers and the entire Canadian food supply chain can bring down the price of food so that Canadians can afford to eat. Let us bring it home for Canadians in a way that ensures we do not send Canadians to food banks for the bare necessities. Let us bring prosperity back to this country and lower prices. That is what the Conservative plan will do when we axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everybody.

718 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:43:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservative priorities are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. When it comes to our plan to axe the tax, let us be clear that increasing the cost of transportation is not a bug associated with the carbon tax, but a designed feature of it. The purpose of a carbon tax policy is to increase the cost of transporting people and goods, supposedly to deter that transportation. The problem is that people still need to eat and to get around, and in the process, they end up paying more without the supposed impacts on emissions. That is why Conservatives are proposing to axe the tax, and we are opposed to the intentional policy of the NDP-Liberal coalition to increase prices on the transportation of food, people and other goods. Can the member speak to the importance of, and the benefits associated with, our proposal to axe the tax?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 7:44:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the important point that it seems like every other political entity in this place forgets. At every stage of the food supply chain or when it comes to transportation, whether that is a mom taking her kids to hockey practice, a school bus taking kids to school, trains carrying the goods from our ports, ships taking our goods overseas or bringing in goods from other places, increased cost is the design of the carbon tax. That is not serving the best interests of Canadians. What is so unfortunate about this entire conversation is that for the last eight-plus years that this has been a debate, the Liberals have claimed one thing on the carbon tax but, truly, it is meant to punish Canadians at every step of the process, to change their behaviour. That is the way that they describe it. It is time to axe the tax so that we can bring down the price of everything for Canadians and ultimately empower Canadians to make sure that they are best equipped to make decisions that work for them. It is freedom and it is time to bring home that freedom, whether it is at the grocery store or every other aspect of Canadian society. It is time to bring it home.

218 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:46:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, time and time again, we hear from the Liberals and the NDP, the costly coalition, that the government is doing well. They speak numbers about where they are at, according to other OECD countries, when it comes to GDP or debt-to-GDP ratio. We heard in Saskatchewan, under the socialist NDP for so long in the 90s, that the government was doing well. If this Liberal-NDP costly coalition is doing so well, why are Canadians hurting so much? Why is food bank usage at two million people per month? If the government is doing so well, why have Canadians never had it so bad?

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 7:46:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think of some quotes of some famous Conservative politicians throughout history. Ronald Reagan said that the most terrifying words in the English language are “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” The late, great Prime Minister Winston Churchill, of the United Kingdom, said, “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” The evidence is clear. We see the evidence today in the heartbreaking stories that my Conservative colleagues and I hear on a daily basis. When the government does well, Canadians are hurting. It is time to make sure that we bring some common sense back to the agenda and objectives of government, to make sure that when it comes to the carbon tax, we take those billions of dollars out of the hands of bureaucrats and politicians in our nation's capital and make sure that we bring down the price of food. I recently heard a heartbreaking story of a senior at a grocery store who had to put items back because her bill was too expensive. She knew she could not afford it. When the government is doing well, it means that the people of that country are suffering. It is time to bring home some common sense and remember that the government should be the servant, not the master, of the people. That has been forgotten in our country. Conservatives will right that ship and ensure that, once again, the government serves the people of this country.

274 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 7:48:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hear from the opposite side that they are always talking about the carbon pricing system, half of it, but I do not hear them ever talking about the rebate that people in their communities are receiving. The average family of four in Alberta would be receiving $386 four times a year, plus, if they are in a rural area, they actually get a rural top-up. When they are talking with constituents about carbon pricing, are they also asking constituents how they feel about the fact that they are not going to be getting that rebate cheque? That is money right into their accounts, $386, four times a year, plus the rural top-up.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 7:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sometimes they just make it way too easy. We have a Liberal member bragging about giving Canadians back the money that they took from them. Forgive me if I disagree with Liberal logic on this. When Conservatives say we want to axe the tax, we simply want to empower Canadians, who are in the best position to make choices when it comes to the food they eat and the vehicles they drive, and not raise costs only to then send it back to a few people based on a formula, which they certainly did not consult with the people of Alberta on. In fact, the majority of provinces in this country have actually elected governments that do not support the carbon tax. That is something the member should not forget when trying to impose that left-leaning ideology that has been so destructive on the people of my province, as an example. It is time to bring some common sense back to the conversation. The member talks about the so-called rural top-up. It is 10% more, yet there are devastating impacts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself made it very clear that 60% of Canadians end up paying more in direct and indirect costs, because every stage of the food supply chain, the transportation sector, etc. ends up paying the carbon tax. It was dishonest of the Liberals to claim it was a revenue-neutral tax, because it is not; it costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year to administer. Then they say that Canadians get more back than they pay into it. That was dishonest as well. At every step of the process, it is time to axe the tax, so that we can empower Canadians to make the decisions that are best for them. In this case, they so flippantly suggest that they are somehow solving the problem by intentionally raising prices. No. Let us lower the price of food for Canadians, so that Canadians can afford to eat, heat their homes and live the Canadian dream that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have taken away from them.

355 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:51:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleague just gave us a glimpse into the Liberal psyche. She said we never talk about the rebates when it comes to the carbon tax. My colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot hit the nail on the head: We do not have to give the money back to Canadians if we do not take it in the first place. My colleague mentioned a couple of really great things when it comes to Conservative principles. Another one is Margaret Thatcher. She said the best thing I have ever heard about socialism: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” That is what the Liberal government is starting to do. We cannot tax Canadians into oblivion and then wonder why they cannot afford food. We have taxed Canadians so much. That is why there are two million Canadians lined up to go to the food bank. Does my colleague agree that Liberals would not have to give so much money back to Canadians if they were not taking it in the first place?

184 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 7:52:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, because my colleague from Regina—Lewvan is absolutely right. He mentioned the socialist extremes that Saskatchewan faced throughout some of its history and how that ideology held that province back. I know that for the four years during which the accidental NDP ruled over Alberta, there was pain and suffering. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and taxes were imposed that certainly the people of Alberta did not vote for. I know now, across this country, we are seeing the devastating consequences of a government that thinks it is, and this comes back to the comments I made before, the master and the king, that it has the right to impose upon the people. It is time to reorient the priorities of government. It is time for a Conservative government, which will make sure its people are the masters, not the government, and respect Canadians' decisions and their hard-earned dollars. We will axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everybody.

170 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/6/24 7:53:30 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. There being no further speakers rising, pursuant to order made earlier this day, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, February 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 7:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has been gripped by the arrive scam scandal: the way the government spent $54 million on a glitchy app that did not work and the fact that it chose GC Strategies, a two-person company that did no actual IT work and simply subcontracted all the work. How did this happen? Who was responsible? Who had the relationships with GC Strategies? Who created the procurement system that allowed a two-person company that does no IT work to get this contract and, essentially, to simply be able to receive and subcontract the work? This is the work the government operations committee has been trying to get to the bottom of. The government is now intimidating witnesses who spoke out at committee. Here is what happened. Supposedly there was an ongoing internal investigation within the government into what happened in the context of the ArriveCAN procurement. The investigator in this case is not independent; this is an internal investigation. The so-called investigator reports through the existing chain of command within CBSA. He effectively reports to people who could be under a cloud of suspicion in the context of the investigation. On November 7, 2023, two witnesses, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, came before the government operations committee. In response to questions, in particular from Conservatives, they gave devastating testimony. They identified people inside the government who, they said, were lying and were covering up information. They identified conversations that happened between the minister's office and the senior public servants that were filtered to them. While other public servants were very reserved and limited in their responses to questions, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano gave very direct and very forthright responses that were critical of actions taken by others, especially more senior people within the chain of command. Surprisingly, almost immediately after that, on November 27, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano received a letter saying that they were the subject of internal investigation. They had not been notified of this before. Coincidentally, apparently, they were told they were under investigation immediately after they offered critical testimony at committee. Then the government went further and suspended these senior public servants from their jobs without pay, even though the internal investigation has not been completed. There is an ongoing internal investigation not complete, yet two people have been suspended without pay. This is very suspicious. The government is under a cloud of suspicion over this procurement, so it has an internal investigator; however, the internal investigator has not even completed the investigation but has submitted interim findings that apparently point the finger at people who have been critical of the same senior public servants to whom this investigator in fact is subject, and they have been suspended without pay. This very clearly, given the timeline, looks like retaliation against public servants who have spoken out about the arrive scam scandal. There is a big problem here. There is the underlying issue of corruption in the arrive scam contracting, $54 million to a company that did no actual work but just subcontracted all of the work, but then there are people who have provided testimony about it, not the testimony the government wanted to hear, apparently, who are suddenly suspended without pay. How does the government justify retaliating against witnesses who criticize it?

560 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276