Kelly McCauley

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for splitting her time with me today. I am glad she brought up the issue of automatic enrolment. We actually studied it at public accounts. The Auditor General was quite pointed in her comments about the government's lack of interest in supporting Canadians. One of the biggest issues we found, and I found this both anecdotally and in the studies, is the lack of automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement. This is not covered in the government's current plans. When will the federal government be introducing automatic enrolment for seniors who could benefit from the GIS?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to such stupendous applause today. I thank both members for cheering me on. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-38, what I call a half-measure tax cut. Why is it a half-measure? Well, the Conservatives for a long time have been pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut. Madam Speaker, are you interrupting me?

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Conservatives are pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut to make life more affordable for Canadians. Last May, in fact, we put through an opposition day motion calling for the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST; and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. We then called for it to be completely eliminated up until Canada Day next year. Of course, we saw that the Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to offer a partial tax break to Canadians. The price of gas is at probably an all-time high from what I have seen in my many years. It is $1.81 a litre in Edmonton, of all places, but I understand the provincial government is offering a 13¢ cut, coming on October 1. I just heard that today. More important, the price of diesel fuel has gone through the roof, at about $2.80 to $2.90 a litre. A lot of Canadians, when they think of diesel, just think of the crazy hippie down the road still driving the Volkswagen Rabbit on diesel or perhaps someone driving a big truck on diesel. They do not understand that diesel fuel is very much the lifeline of Canadian industry, farming and trucking. Where the price of diesel goes, so goes inflation. People who want to geek out on something should take a look at something called the crack spread. Generally simplified, that is the spread between the price of refined products and the price of oil, and it is at an all-time high right now. If they want to look into it more I suggest they follow a chap named Richard Dias on Twitter. He talks about it a lot. It is a coming problem for Canadians because they see the price of oil being one thing, but the price of gas and diesel, the refined products, is decoupling in a lot of ways from the price of oil and going even higher. Again, as go diesel prices, so go food costs and many other costs. I am glad that the government is at least offering some partial relief at the pumps. Again, it is unfortunate that it has had to be nagged into extending it, and only partially, but even a partial cut is better than no cut at all. It helps Canadians now. Keeping fuel taxes low should remain a priority going forward. For years, we have seen the current government claiming the carbon tax was not inflationary and fighting to keep the carbon tax. Like caving on the carbon tax, I am glad the Liberals caved a bit on extending the fuel tax rebate at least a bit longer. Currently, it is suspended only to January 2027, then resumes at 50% and then the full amount returns on April 1, 2027. Basically, the Liberal government is putting an expiry date on affordability. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Conservatives put through an opposition day motion to eliminate all taxes on gas and diesel, etc., back in May, and the current Liberal government voted the motion down. I want to quote some of the Liberal members when they were arguing against a tax rebate for Canadians or a reduction of gas taxes. I will start with my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North. He said, “Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?” This is the same member whose interventions I stopped counting at 40 times. He stood in this House at least 40 times during the last couple of years, defending the carbon tax as being a boon for Canadians for affordability. In May, he was arguing against further tax cuts on gas and now he is saying it is a panacea for everything. It is funny how, when the Conservatives proposed a gas tax cut, it was bad but now it is good. I am going to continue with the hypocrisy line a bit longer. As for the finance minister who introduced the bill, I counted over the last couple of years that he stood 25 times in this House defending the carbon tax. Every time the Conservatives put through a motion to eliminate the carbon tax, the finance minister, who is all about affordability now, stood and defended the carbon tax. The finance minister also stated that a gas tax is really not that important. Because 80% of the price of fuel was because of oil, therefore a tax change did not matter. Continuing on, a Liberal member stated that what we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible and to continue to invest in critical social programs. In May, the Liberals were arguing against a tax cut, but now a tax cut is good. A tax cut was bad before, but a tax cut is good now. Again, it is hypocrisy. Another member, a senior member, stated basically that tax cuts to gas are bad because they only help the rich: “This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous... It does not make any sense”. Guess who actually says gas taxes are progressive and disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians. It is a bunch of far-right-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Smart Prosperity Institute. The government was actually stating in May that it did not want to cut taxes, because it would have only helped the super wealthy. Even though the PBO and others stated the carbon tax disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians, the government argued in May that tax cuts only help the wealthy. What are we doing today with Bill C-38? We are debating a tax cut. I guess super wealthy back then was different than super wealthy now. He went on and said, “What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy”, so I have to ask the Liberals why a tax cut in May was for the ultra-wealthy and a tax cut now is not for the ultra-wealthy. Are they just completely misinformed or perhaps, as the member for Winnipeg North states, “hypocrites”? The defence minister said, “[Conservatives know] that this handful of tax changes [that they had proposed in May] are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war.” The Minister of National Defence, in June, was attacking Conservative-proposed tax cuts. They were no good, because they were not going to do anything about the war in Ukraine nor the war in Iran, so I will invite any member of the Liberals to stand up in the questions period and tell me what has changed since the minister of defence said that tax cuts would not change what was going on in the States. Why now? I am not arguing we should not do this tax cut. I am just saying we should do more, but I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who were fighting against Conservative proposals to cut taxes in May, and all of a sudden, under Bill C-38, the tax cuts not only are good and no longer help the “ultrawealthy”, as the Liberals say, but apparently, according to the minister of defence, they would fix the Ukrainian war, they would fix the war in Iran and the gulf and fix our issues with the U.S. It is wonderful. Another member says it is “absolutely crazy” to make the claim that cutting gas taxes helps low-income people. Again, it was utterly crazy in May, but somehow good now. We know cutting taxes is good. Milton Friedman says he is in favour of any tax cut at any time. I would agree. I am glad the Liberals are doing this, but I just point out the hypocrisy of fighting a gas tax cut in May and all of a sudden saying it is a glorious thing to do now. The member for Mount Royal complained that cutting gas taxes would hurt the environment. He also said that taxes have nothing to do with the price at the pump. Is that not amazing? A gas tax cut in May would have hurt the environment, and gas taxes had nothing to do with the price at the pump, but all of a sudden they do now. We also say fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump, yet the PBO says it is going to be 17¢. Environment Canada says it will cost us at the pump. I realize my time is up. I will end it here. I will open questions. I again thank the Liberals for finally listening to the Conservatives and bringing in a tax cut to help Canadians.

Madam Speaker, there is a much simpler answer to that, and that is to reduce the taxes on diesel. As the Conservatives have suggested, eliminate the GST on diesel, eliminate the clean fuel standard that is costing money, even according to the PBO and Environment Canada, and eliminate the industrial carbon tax. That would be the fastest thing to help reduce the price of diesel.

Madam Speaker, I do miss my colleague on the OGGO committee. I look forward to the day when he does return to join the government operations committee. The member has brought up a lot of valid facts. One of the issues he talked about was outside consultants. The Liberal-friendly McKinsey, one of the most vile, reprehensible companies in the entire world that helped supercharge the opioid crisis, continues to receive contracts from the Liberal government. In committee, we actually heard government employees testify that work they proposed to do and could cover within their own bureaucracy was pushed out to McKinsey for no reason. We heard this again and again, whether it was to Deloitte, McKinsey or others. The government should look at finding ways to save money for Canadians, and it could probably start with its management friends at McKinsey, Deloitte and all the other outside consulting companies.

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful to see the member here. He reminds me a bit of that Seinfeld episode with George Costanza when he was actually living underneath his desk. The member is here so much, I wonder if perhaps he is like George Costanza, setting up under his desk. I am glad the member brought up a bit about the carbon tax. We actually counted, and we found 83 different members who denied that the carbon tax had an effect on inflation. Then last year, the public accounts came out and actually stated the government expected inflation to drop because it has actually eliminated the carbon tax. We see the same thing now with the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations. Liberal after Liberal says it has no effect. The PBO and Environment Canada itself have said there is a cost to it.

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in Ottawa. These are words I never thought I would hear myself saying, and they are words I do not think anyone has actually ever said in a truthful state. It is wonderful to be back in Parliament debating my colleague's bill, Bill C-266. The author of the bill, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, and I had the pleasure of working together on the operations committee for several years, and I quite enjoyed working with him. Although there is technically nothing wrong with his private member's bill, I question what the end value would be because it really would not do a lot. Conservatives are here to represent Canadians and to help Canadians. We are focused on saving Canadians money. I believe the Liberals are out of touch on this issue, and the bill before us shows part of that. The bill would not actually provide any action to help Canadians, and every day without action from the Liberal government is costing Canadians money. Bill C-266 has a lot of good points on paper, if it were to actually accomplish anything, but what would it accomplish in the end? It would accomplish a call for a national framework. It would not actually assist an electrician in Ontario to work and be recognized in Alberta. It just calls for a framework. In the end, that is what would happen, as the bill states, “The Minister must develop a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility”. That is wonderful, but would it actually do anything? No, it is just paperwork to “develop a national framework”. The bill also states, “the Minister must hold consultations”. Well, that would be work for bureaucrats and hopefully hotels during the consultations, but in the end, after all these consultations, after all the work, debate and everything, our result would be the tabling of a framework. The bill continues: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must prepare a report setting out the national framework and cause it to be tabled That would be within a year. Maybe we could get through this in a month and then, in 2027, after another year without action, it would be tabled. The bill also states: Within one year after the day on which the report is tabled under subsection 4(1), and every year after that, the minister must prepare a progress report It does not state that he has to do anything. It is just a progress report. We have seen, with this government, lots of other frameworks and lots of other items that state it has to prepare progress reports. We have seen it in public accounts, where the Auditor General comes to say, “Yeah, for 20 years we have been doing progress reports, but nothing has changed.” The bill further states, “Within five years after the day on which this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the national framework must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established”. We would have one year to study this, another year for a progress report and then, within five years, another review of the framework. It begs the question, why does the government not just get this done? Why do we need a framework? Why do we need a private member's bill to ask the government to do what its job is, and why the delays? What should the government be doing instead? Well, it could be acting. One of the things the Liberals could act on would be to delete from their budget 2025 their intent to defund student loans for private colleges. There are 31 of these in B.C. and seven in Alberta that deliver apprenticeship training and such trade training privately, but the government is going to ban students from being able to access funding to attend them. One of the other things the Liberals could do that would be a lot more important, which I have spoken about repeatedly in the House and in committee, would be to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers on government-funded infrastructure projects. We have projects that are funded partly by the feds, partly by the province and partly by the municipalities where we have illegal, trafficked workers on the sites. The contractor will win the bid with a low bid and then immediately subcontract out the entire job to a subcontractor to create a layer, a distance I guess, so they can claim, “We're innocent. It was the subcontractor who broke the law.” The subcontractor will then recruit from Mexico, Venezuela or Colombia to bring in workers under a visitor's, vacation or other visa, and then they put them to work. I have presented to the Treasury Board evidence of how they are recruiting the workers. Two years ago, in the House, I spoke about it, and the government has done nothing. They will bring in these workers, abuse them, underpay them with $10 an hour in cash, make them work overtime, and then steal the overtime. Who are these workers bumping out? They are bumping out trades workers, the very skilled trades workers that this bill is supposed to help. The government talks about wanting workers from Ontario to be able to work in B.C., yet it turns a blind eye when workers are trafficked or smuggled into the country, which bumps out trades workers from working on government-funded infrastructure projects. One of the items we found is that nine of these trafficked workers, and this was in Edmonton, were forced to rent their accommodation from the wife of the subcontractor. There were nine of them in a one-bedroom house, and they were paying $3,000 for this. They were told that, if they complained, they would go back on a plane and go home. I visited one of the work sites on the Henday, the ring road or ring highway around Edmonton, which is actually in the riding of Edmonton Riverbend. Now, if the member for Edmonton Riverbend were to show up in Edmonton once in a while, he would perhaps see this work being done. We spoke to every single worker on the site during the construction. Funnily enough, every single worker was not a worker but a subcontractor. Now, if anyone has worked in construction, they know there is a general contractor. Perhaps they would sub out the drywall to a subcontractor who would then hire workers, but every single worker on this site was a subcontractor. Every single worker was from out of country. We spoke to the contractor. He tried to chase us off and run us down with his pickup truck, so I think we know how the contractor felt about that. Now, workers from Local 222, the cement masons, should have gotten the work on that Henday project, the bridge, but not one of them did. The government talks a lot about wanting to help work with the unions. It is actually in this bill that the government is going to consult with the unions. I am pretty sure, if they consulted with Local 222 of the cement masons, they would be told, “Let us work. Let our legal workers work on Canadian-funded infrastructure projects instead of trafficked workers.” We heard a story of a gentleman who was one of the illegal trafficked workers. He fell and landed on his head. Luckily, he had a helmet on. He fell 25 feet and woke up in the hospital. No one from the company or worker's comp visited him. The only person who visited was the safety officer from the subcontractor, who told him that, if he told the truth to workers' comp or anyone else, he would be fired on the spot and sent home. Three months later, after he got out of the hospital, on his first day back on the job, he was given his cheque and told he was fired, to get out. This is happening on the Edmonton LRT project; the Edmonton library, which just got built; sidewalk projects; and the Yellowhead. Again, two years ago, I had documented evidence of this. Two years ago, I placed it in the hands of the Treasury Board. I promised the Treasury Board that I would not make this public and that I would work with the government to get this done. A year later, I approached them again. I said, “You guys have done nothing. I'm going to start speaking about it. It's now been two years and nothing has been done.” We tabled a motion in the operations committee to look at this, to help the trade workers that Bill C-266 is supposed to help. The Liberals voted the motion down rather than study this. It has been two years. The government talks about wanting to help trade workers. If it wanted to actually do that, instead of developing a national framework that is going to do nothing, the government should sit down, listen to the unions and crack down to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers being used on government-funded infrastructure sites.

Mr. Speaker, we were looking at an issue in public accounts around some indigenous services, and one of the Liberal members stated that the minister is not responsible for her department. Now we see that the government wants to turn further accountability over to an outside commissioner. I wonder if the member could comment on the government's lack of accountability.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave a passionate speech that had a lot of great points. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I certainly appreciate everything she said today. One of the issues I have with this bill is that we have seen a lack of accountability from the government. Report after report from the Auditor General has been ignored by the government. The government said earlier that it is not the minister who is responsible for implementing the modern treaty commitments, but this commissioner. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government taking accountability and responsibility away from the minister and pushing them onto the commissioner instead of taking responsibility itself.

Madam Speaker, I am looking at a government document. It is titled “Implementation of Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements”. It is a provisional annual report. It states that the implementation of modern treaty commitments is the responsibility of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Earlier this morning, at the beginning of the debate, we heard the minister state that it was not the minister's responsibility. It would be part of the new commissioner's role. Who is going to be responsible for it? Will it be the minister, as the government's own document states, or the commissioner, as the minister stated?

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's excellent speech, he covered a lot of important information regarding Parliament and the way we act. One of the foundations of our parliamentary system, of course, is ministerial responsibility, whereby a minister is accountable to Parliament for the administration of their department and the decisions it makes. We heard the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations this morning in her opening speech on this bill state that the implementation of modern treaty commitments would not be done through her department; rather, it would be passed on to the commissioner instead. I wonder if my colleague would like to opine on the decision of the Liberal government to say that ministers would not be responsible anymore and unelected commissioners would be.

Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North, bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9, actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this. However, we have seen the leadership of all the Abrahamic faiths in Canada oppose big parts of Bill C-9. I wonder if my colleague agrees that perhaps there is more to this issue that needs to be studied and that we should not just label everyone who opposes it as being racist, as the Liberals seem to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support. The leadership of the Abrahamic faiths, for example, has come out very strongly against parts of Bill C-9, especially around religious freedom. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the government's unwillingness to listen to anything besides the narrow confines of its interests rather than to the larger faith community.

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9, such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths. Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could clarify what the actual cost would be. We have heard the government talk about billions of dollars, whereas he countered that it would be quite a bit less. What would the cost to the taxpayer be if these credits were enacted in Canada?

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre. It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to. Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity. I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.

Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269. However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?

Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the Liberal government received evidence that federally funded infrastructure projects were using illegal and trafficked labour, violating funding agreements and leaving legitimate trades workers on the sidelines, unemployed. The Liberal response since then has been crickets. When will the Liberals stop funding projects that are using illegal, trafficked labourers and instead ensure the work goes to legitimate Canadian trades workers?

Mr. Speaker, here we have on display peak Liberal hypocrisy. Only the member for Winnipeg North can spend his entire speech complaining about wasting time instead of actually doing something besides wasting time and addressing Bill C‑25. There were issues around foreign interference that the Liberals knew about in one of their ridings, where Han Dong was chosen as a Liberal candidate. It was noted in the Hogue commission. Why is there nothing in Bill C‑25 that would address the foreign interference in so many Liberal nominations?