OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 260 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, December 1, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 1, 2023 DEBATES No. 260 No. 260 N o 260 Volume 151 260 01 12 2023 2023/12/01 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

(1000) [ Translation ] Privilege Awarding of Contract to Boeing Privilege

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, during question period in recent weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government about the awarding of a contract to replace the Aurora aircraft without a call for tenders. On November 24, I myself was told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that a decision had not yet been made. In answer to the first question that I asked on November 24, the parliamentary secretary said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We need to replace the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. However, we need to replace them with something that will serve the operational capability of the armed forces. No decision has been made yet.

The parliamentary secretary's second answer was even more specific. She said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear today. No decision has been made.

A few days later, on November 28, in answer to my questions, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said, and I quote:

...I thank our colleague for acknowledging the expertise of aerospace workers not only in Quebec, but also in Canada. That is why the decision we will soon be making is an important one...

Given the responses from the minister and the parliamentary secretary, it seems clear that we were meant to believe that the government was still examining the issue and that the Privy Council had not yet decided to award Boeing the contract without a call for tenders. However, a day later, in an

article in La Presse published on November 29, we learned that the government had made its decision. The

article was entitled “Ottawa set to award sole-source contract to Boeing”. This

article also stated that La Presse had been informed by government and aerospace industry sources that the decision had, in fact, already been made by the government the week before, that is, prior to when we were told that it had not yet been made. If we look at the calendar, this means that the government made its decision between Monday, November 20 and Friday, November 24. From this information, it is clear that, by the time the answers were provided by the minister on November 28 and the parliamentary secretary on November 24, the decision had already been made to choose Boeing without a competition.

The government's answers to the Bloc Québécois's questions were therefore incorrect and had the effect of misleading the House. I also submit that the House was not alone in being misled. The entire aerospace industry was also misled, including industry stakeholders in Quebec, which are closely monitoring this matter and demanding that a request for proposals be issued so that all companies get a chance to compete and submit better proposals to the government. The government led them to believe that a decision had not been made when it knew this was not the case.

I should point out that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement cannot claim in his defence that he was unaware that the decision to favour Boeing and avoid a request for proposals had already made, since he, as minister, is directly involved in the government's procurement process. Madam Speaker, I should also inform you that on November 9, the Standing Committee on National Defence completed a report that was tabled in the House on November 24, calling for the government to issue a request for proposals. The report reads:

That, considering the joint statement of the respective Premiers of Quebec and Ontario dated November 7, 2023, concerning the public procurement of the CP‑140 Aurora replacement by the federal government, the committee is of the opinion that the government must proceed by way of a formal request for proposals before awarding any procurement contract of the new Canadian multi‑mission aircraft.

I would like to point out that the Liberals all voted in favour of this motion at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Madam Speaker, we are therefore appealing to your informed judgment and to those same democratic rules that must always form the cornerstone of everyone's parliamentary work. In conclusion, it appears that the government's answers were inaccurate and had the effect of not only misleading the House, but also calling into question the veracity of the answers obtained in response to questions asked in the House.

The government has an obligation to set the record straight for Quebeckers and Canadians. The hope raised by the government's answers, which indicated that the decision had not yet been made, contributed to the discontent felt by everyone in the Quebec and Canadian aerospace industry when they learned that the decision had in fact already been made by that time.

(1010) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I thank the hon. member for raising this question of privilege. The Chair will come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)

Motion moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-50,

An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, shall be disposed of as follows:

(

a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources,

(

i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings,

(ii) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m. on the sitting day following the adoption of this motion,

(iii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iv) the committee shall meet at 6:30 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of this motion to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(

v) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);

(

b) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred; and

(

c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system. I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50 , Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49 , amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place. Let me set the stage.

On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50 , the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49 , the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials. Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible.

Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills. We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world.

The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table. For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega.

That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time. The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency.

I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought. The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled. Some Canadians were watching.

A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

(1015) After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue.

They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.” It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 , in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation. Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed.

The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner. Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50 , the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future. I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at.

Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table. The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today. Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act.

We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View , who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority. Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part.

We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more. We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58 , which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals.

This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

(1020) It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting. They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record.

They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay , from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak. In fact, we know that it is

an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study. It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians.

They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action. That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future....

It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.” [ Translation ] This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills.

Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future. Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential.

I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.” Bill C-50 , the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs.

During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented. At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners.

This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50. (1025) [ English ] I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation. First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians. Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come. Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice. The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward.

Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now. I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada.

On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

(1030) What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place.

I would ask that we continue to work together towards that. [ Translation ] Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result. [ English ] Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done.

That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50 , the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards. I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill. The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself.

The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50 , the sustainable jobs bill.

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what does the member have to say to the 92% of Canadian oil and gas companies that have 100 employees or fewer, and the 60-some per cent that are considered micro-businesses with five or fewer employees, none of whom are union workers and none of whom Bill C-50 contemplates?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, I am saying that I want to hear from them in committee as we work on this important bill. It is the Conservatives who are refusing to allow us to have witnesses come to study the bill. Instead, they have chosen, during the past month and more, to talk about sipping milkshakes, about muscle cars and about whatever else has come to their minds, including literally hundreds of points of order as to who could speak next. If we really cared about hearing from all of those industries, all of those workers, we would move to the study.

(1035) [ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I understand what is going on in committee. However, I would like to come back to the title of the bill. I imagine that it could perhaps be amended in committee if the work were to be done. I would like to point out that even the Paris Agreement talks about a just transition, and that is the term that is used at all levels, internationally. I would to like to come back to the substance of the bill. Why does this bill not include the internationally recognized term “just transition” in its title?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, I am really glad the member asked that question, because sustainable jobs are really important for our economy. With this bill, we want to support workers so we can create those sustainable jobs of tomorrow. This bill has everything we need to make sure that workers have a seat at the table as we discuss how we are going to participate in a changing global economy. With this bill, we are listening to workers.

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, over the last year, with respect to issues regarding the energy transition that is happening, we heard from 130 witnesses over 120 hours of hearings. There have been 45,000 job losses in the oil patch, with 1,500 this year and many more coming. When workers came to talk about the right that they should have to be at the table, the Conservatives shut them down every single time. They shut down Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress, the IBEW and the Carpenters Union.

When we brought the coal workers, who have experience in the transition that happened in Alberta, there was not a single question from any Alberta member, yet they sat there and bragged about their muscle cars from the 1970s; let us talk about entitlement and boomer disconnect. As our planet is burning and our workers have been begging for and demanding a right to sit at the table, the Conservatives are playing these games. What has it been like for my colleague to have to watch such toxic, juvenile, immature behaviour undermining the right of workers to be heard in the energy transition that is happening?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, the question is so important because what it touches upon is the fact that we have not had the opportunity to hear from the very workers who have such an important place in the Canadian economy. It has been incredibly frustrating. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress said, “To not pass this legislation is to basically tell workers to take a back seat, and that is not good enough”. I could not agree with her more. Instead, Conservatives have been talking about themselves.

What we should be doing at committee, what I and other committee members other than the Conservatives want to be doing at committee, is to be focusing on Canadians and on Canadian workers. That is what we need to do.

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary completely avoided answering the question from the member for Lakeland , demonstrating that the bill would not actually impact the workers most affected by the unjust transition act. I know she wants to avoid saying that. The member from the Bloc directly asked the parliamentary secretary why it is that the legislation is not called by what it would actually do, which is unjustly transition workers out of the jobs they have worked in for generations, in many cases.

The parliamentary secretary also avoided answering another part of the member for Lakeland 's question, which was about the fact that the subamendment being proposed at committee is to invite witnesses from companies and people directly affected from worker-held businesses and small businesses, who are not even talked about directly in the legislation. They are people who work in energy and in oil and gas, and, again, who contribute to the shared prosperity of this country. Why is the parliamentary secretary avoiding answering these types of questions? Why is she focused only on procedural matters?

I will remind her that at the industry committee right now, her own members are filibustering.

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, I am focused on making sure we listen to workers and to Canadians as we move forward. It has been very clear: If the Conservatives cared about making sure these different perspectives are being heard when we consider the legislation, they would have allowed for voting on the scheduling motion. They have not allowed us to vote on a scheduling motion, so we are stuck in that scary pre-Halloween world where we are still debating strawberry milkshake straws.

If the member opposite actually cares about hearing from other workers, I would point out that the president of the Business Council of Alberta said that “[t]he Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food and minerals.” That is from Alberta businesses. They actually care about the sustainable jobs act.

(1040) [ Translation ]

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the hard work she did on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to introduce an important bill in the House and invite witnesses. I will ask my question in French because I know that the Conservatives have a tough time with French. They did the same thing during our consideration of Bill C‑13 . Two anglophone members from western Canada called bilingualism into question.

Earlier, we heard someone say that the unions did not come give evidence before the committee and were forced to hold press conferences instead because the Conservatives are blocking discussions in committee. The Conservative Party is against Stellantis jobs, against Northvolt jobs and against this bill. What is going on with the Conservatives?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the official opposition is thinking. I have no clue. I do not know why the Conservatives consider it more important to talk about the cars they bought way back when, cars that were not even built here in Canada. They do not want to talk about how we can make plans to attract more investment so that we can build cars and all their parts too. Why do they not want to talk about it? I do not know. They are more interested in talking about the past, before we had all these industries. Opportunity is knocking and we have to answer.

[ English ]

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs :

Madam Speaker, regarding the 1% of Canadian oil and gas companies that have 500 or more employees, and the fact that it is traditional oil and gas pipeline and oil sands companies in Alberta that are currently leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada, what does she have to say to all of them when the aim of the just transition, just like the Bloc member rightly pointed out the NDP-Liberals are trying to hide, is to shut down oil and gas in Canada as quickly as possible?

What does she say to all the union workers in Canadian oil and gas companies in Alberta, where new jobs are being created at the highest rate of any company or sector in any place in the country, who are also going to lose all their jobs immediately because of the just transition agenda?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin :

Madam Speaker, once again, I will listen to the workers who are talking about the bill. The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “what the Conservatives are saying in those committees hearings and what they're saying on social media is that this bill...is a blueprint for phasing out oil and gas...but nothing could be further from the truth.” He represents the workers on the ground.

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not? Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government.

After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are. The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government.

She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims.

Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later. Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary.

It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals. Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime, being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison.

As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49 , a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals.

The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69 , which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree. On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49 . The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days.

It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

(1045) When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50 , which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021. They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50 , which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days. Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else.

At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50 , the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49 , the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills. On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do.

I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69 , which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49 , and then move to Bill C-50 , the just transition. Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians.

The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills. Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed

schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan , who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop. For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the

schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that. That brings us to today, Friday, December 1.

Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50 .

(1050) The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy. I want to make the following point clearly.

Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50 . No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us. This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country.

They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before. There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”.

The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.” The

article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition. The

article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all.

They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about. Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election.

Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff. The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later.

The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

(1055) The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept. I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”.

However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too. It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

(1100) [ English ] HIV and AIDS

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today is World AIDS Day. This is a global moment to unite people in the fight against HIV and AIDS. World AIDS Day exists to shine a light on the real experiences of people living with HIV today, while celebrating the strength, resilience and diversity of the communities most affected. It is a moment to inspire the leadership needed to create a future where HIV does not stand in the way of anyone's life. I am glad Canada is investing in global health, including funding for AIDS and education, and has other important global investments.

Investments in the global fund and working with grassroots communities through organizations like One Canada are foundational to ending AIDS. Canada has made a 10-year commitment to increase funding for sexually transmitted disease control, including HIV and AIDS.

Jenn Schott

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Kenora's Jenn Schott passed away on November 26 at the age of 51 after a courageous battle with cancer. She was well known as an early childhood educator and operator of they Coney Island Snack Shack, where I spent the better part of my summers growing up. However, she was so much more. She was a volunteer for almost everything, and her joy and positivity went unmatched. She spread it everywhere she went. I was grateful for the chance to visit with her last week, and true to form, she offered some wise words of encouragement.

Jenn's message was that we should be kind to one another and always try our best because we can move mountains. She added with a smile that ECEs should be paid more. She will be dearly missed by our entire community, as was evident by the over 1,000 residents who joined a light tribute in her honour along the harbourfront. My thoughts are with her husband Doug, her daughters Skye and Starr and all of her loved ones during this very difficult time.

Maskwa Aquatic Club

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Maskwa Aquatic Club, which in September won the national Sprint Canoe Kayak Championships for the third time and the Canadian masters championship for the first time in the club's history. Also, at nationals, every Maskwa para-athlete finished on the podium. This national success came on top of Maskwa athletes winning Atlantic championships in every age level. It has been one of the most successful seasons for a paddling club in Canadian history.

For decades, Maskwa, located on beautiful Kearney Lake in Halifax West, has offered programming for all ages and caters to a wide range of abilities. I want to offer my congratulations to all the athletes who competed this season, their families and supporters, and the club's coaches and staff, including head coach Christian Hall and Commodore Brian Smith. I cannot wait to join them this weekend at the club's annual awards ceremony. Congratulations, everyone.

[ Translation ] Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of being one of the spokespersons for Mothers Step In, a group of women committed to our children's future. Being a spokesperson means giving a voice to Quebec scientists on climate issues. As COP28 gets under way today in a petro-state, I am speaking on behalf of Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers, a family doctor in Montreal and new mom-to-be. For years now, Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers has been concerned about the harmful and growing health consequences of climate change.

She regularly treats people living with the consequences of our inaction, which include extreme heat, smoke from forest fires, allergies and eco-anxiety. A member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers works through the health care system, the media and universities to ensure that the climate crisis is properly recognized and treated as a health emergency. The scientific and economic data support that view, and climate action is an opportunity to protect and restore health.

As parliamentarians, let us take action to give our loved ones, and our future loved ones, the opportunity to live in a healthy environment.

Gender-based Violence

Mr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, despite the progress we have made, gender-based violence continues to be a problem in Canada. According to the statistics, 44% of women have experienced some form of intimate partner violence at least once since age 15. That is unacceptable. During the 16 days of activism, we all need to be united, men and women alike, in calling out violence against women. Women have the right to live in peace, without fear of harassment or sexual violence. Men have a duty to show our brothers, our friends, our sons how to respect women.

I want to thank organizations in my region like Interlude House and Centre Novas of Prescott-Russell for their hard work to provide women the support they need. Gender-based violence will not be solved tomorrow, but until it is eradicated, we must support these organizations that offer hope to women in abusive situations. Let us be united in our efforts to address gender-based violence.

(1105) [ English ] Lobster Fishery

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, last weekend I had the honour to take

part in a tradition that goes back through generations of Nova Scotians. Steaming out of New Harbour, I joined my good friend Vincent Boutilier on board his vessel for the setting of his lobster traps for this season about 15 miles offshore. All along the southern and western shores of Nova Scotia, the men and women of the lobster fishery set out to sea, in the face of winter weather, to fish their traps for the best quality lobster in the world, in LFA 33 and LFA 34, until the end of May.

The dangers involved in the lobster fishery in winter are well known, and the lobstermen accept these challenges to catch food and support their families and communities. However, now they must deal with the challenges to their livelihoods brought on by the Liberal government, with its unwillingness to enforce the law and stop the illegal poaching harming the sustainability of this fishery. To lobster harvesters in LFA 33 and LFA 34, I hope for fair seas and bountiful catches this winter season.

HIV and AIDS

Mr. Darren Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, December 1 marks World AIDS Day and the beginning of Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week. During this time, we remember those we lost to HIV and show our support for those living with it by raising awareness, increasing our knowledge and working to end discrimination surrounding HIV. This year's theme, “Let communities lead”, is a reminder to listen to communities as we work to end the stigma surrounding HIV. We are working to ensure that people across the country have access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases like HIV and that these resources are reaching those who need it most.

The first step to treatment is care and knowing your status. This week, we encourage people to get tested and learn more about the facts of HIV, because when we work together, we can put an end to AIDS.

HIV and AIDS

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today is World AIDS Day. The UN reports that one life is lost every single day to HIV/AIDS. Even today, 9.2 million people living with HIV around the world do not have access to life-saving antiretroviral therapy. However, in the last 20 years, the world has made considerable progress. [ Translation ] Since 2002, Canada has been one of the main donors to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. [ English ] Last year, thanks in large part to the advocacy of Canadians through Results Canada and the One Campaign, Canada committed $1.21 billion to the Global Fund.

In countries where the Global Fund invests, AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 72% since 2002. [ Translation ] However, our progress is fragile. It is important that we recommit to putting an end to AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

[ English ] Carbon Tax

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, we have seen once again that the Liberal-NDP government is just not worth the cost. According to a Statistics Canada study released this month, 18% of Canadian families are experiencing food insecurity, and it should come as no surprise. The Liberals' carbon tax applies to farming activities all across the country, and those costs inevitably get passed on to consumers every time they go to the grocery store. Unfortunately, the Liberals used this month's fall economic statement to double down on their ever-increasing carbon tax. Fortunately, Conservatives have a solution.

Conservative Bill C-234 would exempt certain farming activities from the carbon tax. Those lower costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower grocery prices and fewer Canadians turning to food banks to feed themselves. It is time for the Senate to pass Bill C-234 so Canadian can feed themselves.

(1110) HIV and AIDS

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Milton, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, and I am wearing a red beaded ribbon pin to remember the significance of this important day, when we commemorate the millions of lives tragically taken by HIV and AIDS. However, we must also celebrate all of the incredible innovations in treatment we have seen over the past decades. Though fewer people die from this disease, more and more people are living with it. Thanks in some part to noteworthy innovations and medical advancements, those with HIV live longer than they used to.

This morning, I met with representatives from the Canadian AIDS Society, and I would like to thank its members for their hard work and advocacy. I encourage all Canadians, especially constituents in my riding, to learn more about the significance of today and to get involved. Key to the eradication of HIV and AIDS is access to testing for individuals so they can know their HIV status. Unfortunately, stigma and discrimination remain as obstacles to this goal. Today, we are called on to support communities in their leadership in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

In Milton, across Canada and right around the world, we must continue to care for and empower one another. During a time when the world is in turmoil due to violence and hateful rhetoric—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, this costly NDP-Liberal coalition is at it again, planning to quadruple the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. Canadians understand that when farmers, truckers and processors pay thousands of dollars in carbon tax, this makes the food we buy more expensive. The price of food is so dire that the Ontario Hunger Report confirmed that food bank visits are up 38% in Ontario, the largest year-over-year increase ever recorded. It is not just in Ontario; the director of Saskatoon's food bank said, “After about 18 months of living through increased inflation, folks are really struggling.

We’re seeing about 23,000 [food bank users] per month.” That is in a city of only 300,000 people. Conservative Bill C-234 would create another carbon tax carve-out by removing the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. The good news is that this will make food prices cheaper in Canada. The even better news is that the environment minister has said that he will resign if this bill passes. It is time for the Prime Minister to tell his appointed senators to stop stalling and pass Bill C-234 to bring home lower food prices for Canadians.

Carbon Tax

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, food security in the U.K. focuses on ensuring food supply sources at home and abroad. To the Dutch, food security means promoting agricultural growth by increasing productivity and improving market access for producers. In the United States, food security is having enough access to food for every person in a household to live an active, healthy life. In Canada, there has been an 82% increase in the number of workers in Ontario using food banks. When it comes to food security for Canadians, the NDP-Liberal government policy is to send us to food banks.

Other countries create the conditions for farmers to succeed to grow more food so that there is plenty to go around, and no one needs to go hungry. In Canada, we have shorter growing seasons and higher heating costs, so food security should mean taking the taxes out of production costs. Instead, the Prime Minister has slapped a carbon tax on food production at every step along the way. He is not worth the cost.

[ Translation ] Centre action générations des aînés de la Vallée‑de‑la‑Lièvre

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Wednesday was a very special day. I had the opportunity to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Centre action générations des aînés de la Vallée‑de‑la‑Lièvre. I would like to thank and commend the volunteers for their outstanding dedication and commitment. They have made a huge difference in making the centre a wonderful place where seniors in our community can turn for support and compassion. I am extremely grateful that we are celebrating their invaluable contribution.

I especially want to applaud our outstanding executive director, Michèle Osborne, who has been helping seniors for over 35 years. Her inspiring leadership has helped elevate the organization. Her determination to bring positive change to the lives of seniors is truly commendable. I thank them all for their hard work, compassion and generosity. Together, we will continue to make our centre a beacon of kindness for our seniors—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[ English ] Small Business

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, CEBA loans saved hundreds of thousands of businesses and millions of jobs across Canada during the pandemic, but recovery has been slow. I received messages from two businesses in my riding: the Ginger Room hair salon, managed by Nicole Doyle, with eight employees; and the Fish Bowl Cafe, managed by Jessica Fetchko, with nine employees. At this time of hardship, one is struggling with lower sales and the other with higher costs. Both are extremely worried about their ability to pay back their CEBA loans and are having to choose between cutting staff hours and very high interest loans.

In response, the Liberals only extended the repayment deadline by 18 days. Why is this Liberal government so inflexible on this simple request, and why is it choosing to put the small businesses in my riding in danger at such a tough time for our communities? On behalf of the many small businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I call on this Liberal government to extend the CEBA loan repayment deadline. There is still time to do the right thing.

(1115) [ Translation ] Club FADOQ St-Félix

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the Club FADOQ St-Félix. Rather than having just one big party for the 50th anniversary, its members decided to celebrate all year long. I can say that they have had plenty of opportunities to do so, because the seniors of Saint-Félix-de-Kingsey are extremely active. They never stop, and it is pretty obvious. Their schedules are so full, one would say they have full-time jobs. From pétanque to board games and card games, from dinners and dances to sports, conferences and even theatre, these seniors are unstoppable. The St-Félix club has 153 active members.

The village has a population of 1,500. The rest of the FADOQ network should be jealous of that. It is inspiring to see these seniors on the go. It is heartwarming to see that they are so active, so tightly knit and so involved in their community. They set an example for others to follow. Long live the Club FADOQ St-Félix and happy 50th anniversary.

[ English ] Carbon Tax

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, we continue to discover more ways that this Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. This week, the Chiefs of Ontario, representing more than 130 first nations, sued the NDP-Liberal government over its job-killing carbon tax, saying that it is discriminatory against indigenous peoples, especially those living and working on reserves and that it disproportionately harms indigenous Canadians and their constitutional rights.

The Chiefs of Ontario had to sue this Prime Minister because he failed, for almost a year, to respond to their request to axe the tax. Eight years of this Prime Minister have made life unaffordable and Canadians see that he is not worth the cost. Indigenous Canadians can count on common-sense Conservatives to have a common-sense plan to respect them, to stop dividing Canadians and to turn hurt into hope by axing the tax on everything for everyone and bringing home lower prices for all.

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, every day that we hear the leader of the official opposition speak, we have a better understanding that the leader of the Conservative Party is just not worth the risk. Let us think about it: Just last week, an explosion took place at the Rainbow Bridge. The leader of the Conservative Party watched Fox News and ran into the chamber and said there was a terrorist attack. That is what he implied in his question to the Prime Minister . How irresponsible is that, for a leader of Canada's official opposition? That is not leadership. That in fact demonstrates that he is not worth the risk.

Let us take a look at the collective vote that the Conservative Party had on the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement. It is an agreement that is powerful and would make a difference not only here in Canada but also in Ukraine. How did the Conservative Party vote? It voted no. I would suggest again that, with the MAGA element within the Conservative Party today coming from the leadership, that leader is just not worth the risk.

Oral Questions Oral Questions

[ English ] Finance

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is Friday and the Prime Minister is still not worth the cost. We know that, this summer, Canada's economy actually shrank while the American economy grew by nearly 5%, all because of higher government spending, which leads to higher interest rates and higher inflation. Canadians are getting poorer and no amount of rattling off statistics is going to change that fact. When will the government finally commit to balancing the budget and axing the tax so that Canadians can afford to eat, heat and house themselves?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, while the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy, I would like to take the opportunity to remind them about some of the key results of our economic plan so far. Canada is working because Canadians are working. Our GDP today is actually 4.1% above prepandemic levels. That is higher than Italy, the European Union, France, the U.K. and Germany. The IMF projects that Canada will have the highest economic growth in the G7 in 2024. I would note that this is the same report that showed significantly upward revision in Canada's growth over the second quarter.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, they can talk all they want but the plan is not working. We have never spent so much in this country to achieve so little. Government spending went up by more than 7% and the economy still shrank by 1.1%. We have the lowest GDP per capita growth today and for the next 40 years of any advanced economy, according to their own budget. Canadians get higher taxes, higher spending and more regulation. They are getting poorer. Why do they think that plan is working for Canadians?

(1120) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives do not realize is that when they continue to talk down the Canadian economy, they are talking down Canadian workers, Canadian innovators and Canadians, who are working hard to build up our economy. On this side of the House, we know that Canada is the best country in the world. That is why I am glad to share some more good news. Canada had the strongest growth in the G7 over the course of 2022. The IMF predicts that we will see the strongest average growth in the G7 in 2024. Earlier this month, Moody's reiterated Canada's AAA rating and that is not something that the Harper Conservatives could attest to back in their day.

Carbon Pricing

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we are talking down the economic malpractice that is coming from that side. These numbers tell a very different story. Worse, they are actually even tied with those guys. Just yesterday, the first nations leader sued this government, claiming that the carbon tax unfairly punishes indigenous communities. There is legislation in front of the Senate right now that will help indigenous Canadians and all Canadians by taking the tax off the farmers who grow the food, so that Canadians can afford to buy the food. Why are the Liberals ordering their senators to block the bill that this House passed?

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is still clear that the Conservative Party and its members do not really understand how indigenous people are not indigenous Canadians but, in fact, indigenous people of their own nations. The idea of self-determination is something that this Conservative Party just cannot wrap its head around. The colonial Conservatives just will not quit.

[ Translation ] Finance

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, Canadians can no longer afford the excessive costs of this Prime Minister . Next year, Canadians will pay more in interest on the debt than is put towards health care. The government is putting bankers ahead of nurses and orderlies. Some two million Canadians are using food banks every month, including more and more middle-class families. Children are asking Santa for boots and snowsuits to keep them warm, rather than toys to play with. Will the Prime Minister finally understand that it is time to put an end to his inflationary policies that increase the price of everything?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. When it comes to helping Canadians, the Conservatives need to understand that that is exactly what we are doing by introducing the affordability bill. I know my colleague; he is a man of influence in this party. He is a man people listen to. He must convince his colleagues to vote in favour of the bill. If he wants to give Canadians a gift between now and Christmas, he can help us overhaul competition, because he knows, and Canadians who are watching us know too, that the best way to stabilize prices in Canada is to have more competition. Will he use his influence once and for all to help Canadians?

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we all did it. We voted for this bill at second reading. I have absolutely no idea where the minister is going with this. What I do know, however, is that the Journal de Montréal reported yesterday that children are now forced to ask Santa Claus for snowsuits. One child even asked him for a gift card to pay for a good Christmas dinner. That is the reality. Does the minister have enough clout in this cabinet to persuade the Prime Minister to end the inflationary policies that have forced children to trim down their Christmas wish lists?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, talking about Christmas presents, I have an idea for the Conservative Party of Canada: It could give Canadians a Christmas gift for once. Third reading of the affordability bill is just around the corner. If the Conservatives mean what they say, why not prove it to Canadians and vote in favour of competition reform? The best gift that Canadians could get is help in stabilizing prices across the country. People tuned in are wondering what, after eight years, the Conservatives are going to do for them. In the lead-up to Christmas, they have a chance to do something for everyone. Will they?

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, Quebeckers are happy to do their part to welcome asylum seekers. The problem is that the federal government is not asking us to do our fair share. It is asking us to do twice as much. Quebec takes in 48% of Canada's asylum seekers. Ottawa is asking us to pay nearly five times our share, meaning 100% of the bill, or $460 million in total, and that is without taking into account integration capacity. Instead of lecturing us, will the federal government finally do its part and reimburse Quebec?

(1125) Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question in French, and I would also like to answer in French. I would remind her, as I am sure she knows full well, that the agreement we have with Quebec gives it the power and jurisdiction to choose its immigration thresholds. We are working very well with Quebec, and we will continue to work with our Quebec counterparts to create an immigration system that meets our needs, the needs of Quebec and the needs of francophones in Quebec.

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the Canada-Quebec agreement, which stipulates that Quebec must take in a share of asylum seekers that is at least equal to its percentage of Canada's population. That is not a problem, but we are currently taking in twice our share, or 48% of asylum seekers. In the meantime, British Columbia is taking in 10 times fewer. The four Maritime provinces combined have welcome 285 people. That is not even 1%. In Quebec, we will continue to do our part, but will the federal government ensure that we are not the only ones?

Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Again, Quebec is the only province that has an agreement with the federal government on immigration. We send Quebec more than $700 million a year, including for work on the integration of immigrants into French-speaking society in Quebec. We will continue to work with Quebec. As my colleague mentioned, he has a meeting with the Government of Quebec to discuss immigration thresholds and how we are going to work together to ensure that we properly welcome refugees and asylum seekers.

[ English ] Health

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, today marks the 42nd World AIDS Day. Countless Canadians have lost someone to AIDS, and Canada is heading in the wrong direction as new infections are increasing, especially among indigenous communities. For an annual investment of just $100 million, HIV in Canada could be eliminated. People living with HIV, and organizations like HIV Edmonton, have the tools to do this work; they just need the proper resources. When will the government provide the funding needed to make the elimination of HIV a reality?

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, on this World AIDS Day, ensuring that Canadians have access to testing and treatment for HIV is a top priority for our government. That is why we recently announced nearly $18 million in funding to make decentralized forms of HIV testing, including HIV self-test kits, more widely available across Canada. HIV self-test kits are helpful in reaching those who are undiagnosed, by offering greater accessibility, privacy and convenience. They can also reduce stigma.

Grocery Industry

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, this coming Monday, the CEO of Sobeys will be back to testify about food prices. For two years, the Liberals have been beating around the bush both on bringing food prices down and on standing up to grocery CEOs. Anyone can tell us that the minister 's little meeting, where he asked the rich CEOs nicely to stop gouging Canadian grocery shoppers, had no impact. By bringing back the grocery CEOs, the NDP has given the minister a chance to right his wrongs, so will the Liberals crack down on the out-of-control price gouging?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I will not take the “little” meeting personally. I am sure he was not referring to me when he said that. In fact, it was a big meeting. It was the first time in Canada's history that we had the five largest grocers in Canada. What I did was express the frustration of 40 million Canadians. I welcome my colleague to express his own frustration. Together, we are going to stabilize prices. One of the tools we presented that would make a difference is a reform on competition. That is the best way to stabilize prices. We are really committed, and I hope every member of the House will vote in favour.

The Economy

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the member's large impression. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada is facing challenges not seen since the Great Depression. Two million Canadians are visiting food banks a month. There has been a doubling of rents and mortgages. Perhaps worst of all, there are heartbreaking reports of children asking Santa for something to eat this Christmas. To quote the current Liberal finance minister , from 2015, “[t]his is no global problem, as the government likes to pretend to excuse its shoddy management. This is a made-in-Canada runway to recession. Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on impoverishing Canadians?

(1130) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, on the one hand, it is good to see the Conservatives finally talking about poverty reduction strategies, but on the other hand, it is clear that they are still reading only the headline and not the article. While the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy, I would like to take an opportunity to remind them of a couple of key facts. There have been over 1.1 million more jobs created since the pandemic, and we have recovered all the jobs in the economic growth since after the pandemic.

The important thing to recognize with respect to poverty reduction is that the current government was the one that modernized the Canada child benefit and pulled hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Poverty reduction continues to be one of the pillars of our government strategy.

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I want people at home to listen carefully, because what we will not hear from that side at all is “per capita”, “per Canadian”. Every Canadian, on average, is getting poorer. In fact, our economy shrank by 1.1%. Our per capita growth is the worst in the OECD. In the U.S., it has gone up by nearly 5%. I am just curious; what would cause the Liberals to reverse direction? Is it longer food bank lines, worse economic numbers or perhaps even worse polling numbers?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have been paying attention to the same headlines, but I do not just read the top line; I read the entire article. What a lot of the poverty reduction organizations, the food banks and the organizations that are helping keep some of the most vulnerable Canadians afloat during challenging times are asking for is continued programs, like guaranteed livable income strategies, the Canada child benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. They are asking for more programs to support Canada's most vulnerable. Those are the exact same programs the Conservatives would cut if they were ever in government.

Their programs, when Harper was prime minister, did nothing to alleviate poverty. We will continue to help the most vulnerable Canadians with these—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Kenora.

Indigenous Affairs

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, first nations leaders know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The Chiefs of Ontario, representing over 130 first nations, are asking the federal court to exempt their communities from the carbon tax, a policy they say leaves them worse off and breaches the principles of reconciliation. When will the Liberals stop violating the constitutional rights of first nations, and simply axe the tax?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that there is no relationship more important to the current government than Canada's relationship with first nations and indigenous peoples. No one understands the risks and dangers of climate change better than first nations communities. They are on the front lines with the record wild fires and horrible destruction we have seen over the last couple of years. Like us, first nations are asking for more climate resilience and more climate action. Just last month, I was proud to meet with members of the Indigenous Leadership Initiative about its Land Needs Guardians approach.

The price on pollution is the most effective way to fight climate change, and we will continue to—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Kenora.

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, first nations do see, first hand, the effects of climate change, but the Liberal government misses climate target after climate target. The plan simply is not working. The Liberals are only driving up the cost of living for first nations and people right across the country. Meanwhile, NDP and Liberal politicians across northern Ontario are planning to quadruple the tax. Again, why are they so committed to their failed plan that they are ignoring the concerns of first nations?

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, since we took office in 2015, indigenous spending has increased by 168% in first nations communities. That is no small number. What underlies that number is the ongoing systemic discrimination of the previous Conservative government, which spent nothing in first nations communities, discriminated against children and ensured that generations of poverty would continue. We are reversing that trend. Liberals are the ones who are working on reconciliation. These folks have nothing to say.

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, instead of listening to Canadians, the Prime Minister is quadrupling down on his failed carbon tax. Yesterday, left with no option after being ignored by the NDP-Liberal government, Ontario chiefs filed a judicial review asking for their own carbon tax carve-out. After eight years, they have realized the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. This is the Prime Minister who claimed that the relationship with first nations is the most important one to him and his government. If that is true, will he stop forcing first nations to go to court to defend their constitutional rights, and axe the tax?

(1135) Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I spent last summer with first nations leaders in community after community evacuating people from the onslaught of incredible wildfires and floods that devastated community infrastructure and that put people out of their homes for months on end. That is the risk of climate change to first nations communities. They are first on the line in terms of people affected by the devastation of climate change. Indigenous leaders know that, and we are working with indigenous communities to ensure that they have the infrastructure they need, the support they need to manage this astronomical—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, first nations leaders are simply tired of managing poverty. They have realized the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Unlike the Prime Minister, they are forced to think about monetary policy, and they know that he is simply not worth the cost. In fact, last January, the Ontario chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister, saying that the carbon tax was a grossly unfair burden on their nations. Four out of five first nations communities have median incomes that fall below the poverty line, and they are asking for their own carbon tax carve-out. Will the NDP-Liberal government finally listen to first nations leaders and simply axe the tax?

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, for a decade, the Conservative government kept people in poverty, refused to invest in infrastructure and refused to support education. Can colleagues believe it? When we were elected in 2015, we made sure there was parity for first nations education so kids could get a decent education. The member knows the record of the Conservative Party. We will not stop our work in reconciliation. The Conservatives' record speaks for itself. That is the gap we now have to close.

[ Translation ] Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

I have a riddle for you, Madam Speaker. Do you know what a lack of vision is? It is awarding a $10‑billion aircraft contract to Boeing when a Quebec company has the expertise to fulfill that contract. It is giving Quebeckers' money to Quebec's biggest aerospace rival without a call for tenders. It is belittling our industry in front of all of its partners by not even deigning to look at its offer. It is flying blind as the only country among the big players without a national aerospace policy. It is kowtowing to Washington rather than defending Quebec's interests. Why is Ottawa fundamentally incapable of having a vision for our aerospace industry?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would caution him to be careful because the decision that we announced yesterday was based on national security. We have to be careful when it comes to matters of national security. I have good news, and the people in the Canadian aerospace industry clearly understand that. Boeing is going to invest $5.4 billion in Canada's aerospace industry. Not only that, but Boeing is also going to open an innovation centre in Montreal. I would invite my Bloc Québécois colleagues to speak with CAE. I would invite them—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

Small Business

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate is on the rise in Quebec. In October it was at its highest since January 2022. It is not going to go down because the federal government is pushing tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses toward bankruptcy as of January 18. By keeping the January 18 loan forgiveness repayment deadline for the Canada emergency business account, the government is putting hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy in the middle of the holiday period. Why does this government simply not reassure the workers that they will not be unemployed after the holidays?

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Plan A: the business owner has the money, repays the CEBA and gets some loan forgiveness. Plan B: the business owner has the capacity to take out a loan, repays the CEBA and gets some loan forgiveness. Plan C: the business owner does not have the capacity to take out a loan, stays with us for another three years and has to pay the minimum, which is 5% interest, or $250 a month at most. That is not going to bankrupt anyone.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, this is what Canada looks like today after eight years of this Liberal government. This week, the Journal de Québec reported that a 13-year old wrote to Santa, like many children, and asked for food. That is what Canada has become after eight years with a Liberal government in power. We cannot have food without agriculture. Bill C‑234 was adopted here in the House of Commons. It seeks to reduce and cancel the carbon tax for farmers. Unfortunately, as we speak, senators appointed by the Liberal government are delaying passage of this bill. When will the Prime Minister stand up and tell the—

(1140) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[ English ]

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that the Conservative Party of Canada has senators sit in its caucus. We do not. As a farmer, I fully understand how important it is to take care of our land and the environment, but I will tell my hon. colleague the questions that I received from farmers and ranchers. Number one was why the Conservative Party of Canada does not have a plan for the environment. They also asked me why it does not support the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. I can tell everyone that our—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what every farmers is telling us, without exception, is that Bill C‑234 will save them $1 billion. That is tangible, that is real and that is what the farmers want. There was a dramatic turn of events this week. The bill was adopted here in the House of Commons, and this week, the Senate was asked to speed up the process. The Liberals voted against that request and even the Bloc Québécois voted against. It is outrageous. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑234, but it voted against asking the Senate to adopt it. We cannot be on one side and the other and act like—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[ English ]

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are in the middle of 16 days of activism to end gender-based violence. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have taken to social media to promote the harassment of women senators in the Senate. At the same time, they are blocking legislation here in the House and now they are trying to distract by bullying women parliamentarians. Conservatives' social media attacks are forcing women in the Senate to take action to protect themselves because they are facing threats. No woman should ever have to face harassment—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Innovation, Science and Industry

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, at the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund, they are rewarding corruption with appointments to their failed Infrastructure Bank. One Liberal insider admitted at committee that she funnelled money to not one, not two, not three, but four companies that she has a stake in. This kind of corruption would get someone jailed or fired at any other organization. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is clear the Prime Minister is not worth the cost when he is promoting these very same people. Will the Liberals shut down this failed slush fund and fire everyone responsible for misappropriating tax dollars?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of the Conservatives spreading misinformation across the nation. They are getting influenced, I do not know by whom, but it is very concerning. The agency the member is talking about has been helping hundreds, if not thousands, of companies in Canada for a number of decades. We took the right action. The moment we heard of the allegation, we investigated. The people who took that action have resigned. We are determined to have the highest level of governance when it comes to any organization that receives public funds.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the minister talks about who the slush fund has been helping. It has been helping Liberal insiders. The one I just mentioned helped herself to $1.2 million in taxpayer dollars and the minister then had her appointed to the Infrastructure Bank. She should have been fired. The Liberals did not fire a single person. They commissioned a whitewash report. What did the Conservatives do? We called for the Auditor General to investigate, and that is happening. We asked the Ethics Commissioner to investigate, and that is happening. When are the Liberals going to start firing people and stop shovelling tax dollars into the pockets of well-connected Liberal insiders?

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the extent the Conservatives go to talk down our economy and small and medium-sized businesses is amazing. I would tell the member on the other side to be prudent because that particular organization has helped companies across the nation with clean technology. One thing is true for Canadians. The moment we heard of the allegation, we investigated. We took the right action. We will get to the bottom of this, but we are not going to hurt clean technology companies in this country because they deserve our support.

Infrastructure

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the Bloor line needs new subway cars and Thunder Bay has the workers to build them. Toronto had an RFP ready to go earlier this year to replace the cars, but had to pull it because the Liberal government refused to come to the table with funding. The Liberal indifference on transit is bad for the people of Toronto, bad for the workers of Thunder Bay and bad for the climate. I have watched subway cars come off that line in Thunder Bay. I have spoken with the workers who have the skills and they are ready to take on this work. Why are the Liberals leaving Toronto's subway system to crumble and Thunder Bay's Alstom workers to fend for themselves?

(1145) Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. It allows me the opportunity to underscore the intense and significant financial supports that this government has put in place for the city of Toronto since 2015. In 2015, the Conservative Party saw fit to supply Toronto with about $200 million a year. This year, we are providing Toronto with $1.8 billion. Next year, that will rise to $2.1 billion. The supports for transit in Toronto and for infrastructure in Toronto are legion on this side of the House. I and other colleagues from Toronto will continue to defend our city.

Housing

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps patting himself on the back for a job well done in housing, except anyone can tell us that the Liberals are failing. Yesterday, in his latest photo op, the Prime Minister stood in front of his newest housing investment: a luxury condo where a one-bedroom unit starts at $2,150 per month for rent. People already stretch every dollar and investing public money into luxury condos does not help. Will the Liberals stop putting rich developers over Canadians and immediately release the promised funding to build more affordable homes right now?

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are leading the national effort to solve the housing crisis by ramping up the construction of housing, protecting renters and homeowners and bringing home ownership back within reach. The fall economic statement introduces measures to unlock more than 30,000 additional apartments, help affordable-housing providers build 7,000 more homes and promote and expand co-operative housing. Not only that, but we are cracking down on short-term rentals to unlock up to 30,000 more apartments and helping protect homeowners from the stress of elevated interest rates.

Climate Change

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, climate change is a global crisis that affects the entire world, but its devastating effects are not shared equally among countries. Developing countries that contribute the least to the pollution that causes climate change are the most vulnerable to some of its harshest consequences. Today, the real work begins at COP28 where the Minister of Environment and Climate Change represents Canada. Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister inform us with respect to Canada's first contribution at this conference?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as a first move at COP28, Canada is announcing support for developing countries to address loss and damage due to climate change, with a $16-million contribution to the start-up cost for a global fund. This is a significant step and a big win for the planet as we are helping climate-vulnerable developing countries that face the harshest impacts from climate change. We are honoured to be among the first donors to this historic fund at COP28. As the world comes together to assess our progress so far, we recognize that there are still challenges ahead. Canada will continue to play a leadership role to fight climate change.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of inflationary spending, after eight straight years of deficit, after doubling the national debt, after creating record-setting interest hikes and after implementing a punishing carbon tax, a record number of Canadians cannot afford food. Therefore, why will this Prime Minister not call his appointees in the Senate and have them pass Bill C-234 and take the tax off food production? What do farmers have to do to get a little respect around here; elect a few more Liberals?

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we all know that the economy and trade go hand in hand. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada depend on trade, so let us talk about that. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has once again expressed its disappointment with the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives for voting against Ukraine and free trade. The congress has written directly to the Conservative leader, calling on his party to change its position and vote for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Will Conservative members have the courage to defy their leader, vote for trade, vote for this agreement and stand with Ukraine?

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Conservative bill, Bill C-234 , to axe the carbon tax for farmers remains stalled in the Senate. Senators appointed by this Prime Minister continue to make life unaffordable by delaying this bill. Dave and Devon run a dairy operation in my community. They pay thousands more on the carbon tax just to heat their barns. Now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple the tax on them. Will this Prime Minister take his carbon tax off them, to make food affordable for Canadians?

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, that member from Alberta represents thousands of Ukrainian Canadians, as I am proud to do. Let me tell him a little bit about one of my constituents, Alexandra Chyczij, and what she wrote to the Conservative leader . She happens to be the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. What she underscores is the fact that when we are concerned about the food in this country, we need to be concerned about geopolitical crises that are causing food prices to escalate.

She underscored that she was disappointed to see the official opposition vote against the adoption of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, that Ukraine needs assistance and that Ukraine's government, led by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is asking for that assistance. What I am asking him to do is—

(1150) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to afford the basics. In fact, Canadians are heading to the food bank in record numbers. This Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Kelly in my riding spends $6,300 a year in carbon tax on his farm. Now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple that. Will the Prime Minister simply axe this tax off Kelly's operation to make it more affordable for Canadians to feed their families?

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the fundamental principle is that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are not worth the cost. What is the cost? The cost has been underscored by the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress herself, a woman who happens to be my constituent. She has said that Ukraine needs assistance. The Ukrainian government is begging for that assistance. What we have seen is a failure of leadership on the part of the official opposition to make supporting Ukraine a non-partisan issue. It should never be partisan to confront an authoritarian ruler in an illegal war who is driving up the price of food in this country and around the world.

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight long years, it is clear that this Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost. Jack, a grain farmer from southern Manitoba, paid over $6,000 in carbon taxes to dry his grain in October alone and, no, the government rebate is not making him better off. I assume Jack's money is now paying for the environment minister's high-carbon, high-hypocrisy, two-week trip to Dubai. Now the Liberals want to quadruple that carbon tax on farmers like Jack. Will the Prime Minister tell his Liberal senators to pass Bill C-234 to help make food more affordable for Canadians?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite speaks about a high-cost trip. Let us speak about the Conservatives travelling to the U.K. to sip on champagne and eat oysters. That trip, for one Conservative member, was actually paid for by the Danube Institute, which has regularly advocated against Ukraine in support of Russia. Lo and behold, Conservatives come back and vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. When it comes to the champagne Conservatives, they are not worth the cost to Canadians or Ukrainians.

[ Translation ] News Media Industry

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the agreement with Google is a step in the right direction, a first step. Of course, we were hoping that the government would take more steps. Initially, there was talk of $172 million—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I am going to interrupt the hon. member to ask for silence in the House. I would like to hear the hon. member for Drummond's question. The hon. member can start his question again.

Mr. Martin Champoux :

Madam Speaker, the agreement with Google is good news. It is a step in the right direction, a first step. Obviously, we were hoping that the government would take more steps. Initially, there was talk of an amount of about $172 million, but let us still recognize that this is good news. Now, if Meta could be more open, that would also help. However, the fact remains that $100 million is not going to resolve the crisis that our media are in. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us that CBC/Radio-Canada, which is already largely funded by taxpayer dollars, will not be taking any money out of this pot that is already too small?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This agreement will inject $100 million annually into our media, and it will be indexed to inflation each year. This is good news for our local media. It is good news for media in Quebec. Our agreement also provides that, if better conditions are reached with other countries, we will automatically be given the same conditions. We have been saying that access to information is something we will always support, and that is exactly what we are doing. This is good news for our media outlets across Canada and Quebec.

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it was so nice of the member to explain the agreement. However, that was not the question. I was talking about CBC/Radio-Canada and funding, but I am sure we will come back to that. Another thing the minister can immediately do is ensure that there are no further job cuts in the media. That will enable struggling online, radio and television media to have access to the 35% tax credit for journalists that print media already have access to. Bell Media, Quebecor and Cogeco Media have asked us to do this in recent days. She needs to do it before the holiday break, before we see more newsrooms closed and the diversity of information pay—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

(1155) Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, first, let me say that my thoughts are with the workers and their families affected by the TVA layoffs. We have implemented measures to help the journalism sector, and we are looking into what else we can do. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is open to all proposals. Today we see the effects of Conservative obstruction in preventing the modernization of laws and programs that allow Canada's media and culture to exist.

[ English ] The Economy

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, this week, we learned that our Canadian economy shrank by 1.1% in the last quarter, while the U.S. economy grew by 5.2%. When our leader pointed this out, a Liberal minister responded by saying, “we actually have an economic plan”. Rarely has the word “actually” been less convincingly used in a sentence than that. The last time we saw a plan like this was from the equally incompetent Trudeau government of the 1970s and 1980s, which obliterated our economy. When will the government realize that those Trudeau economics are as bad for Canada now—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member said Trudeau, as in the father. I am sorry; it was the seventies. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are advancing the government's plan to grow the middle class, build more homes faster and build an economy that works for everyone. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have become this one-issue party claiming that axing the tax will solve all the country's problems. It will not. This week, we introduced Bill C-59 , our fall economic statement, which is going to help deliver on key measures of this economic plan.

In this legislation, we are modernizing competition laws to help stabilize grocery prices, doubling the rural top-up on the pollution pricing rebate, and removing the GST on new rental home construction and co-ops, which the Conservative stand against, calling co-ops Soviet-style—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Liberals love to bury the very real hardships of Canadians in ridiculous non-answers such as that. The per capita GDP numbers represent the real world, where Canadians actually live and wher