SoVote

Dec/2/21 1:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend from Lethbridge, but I think she may be— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Ms. Elizabeth May: Excuse me. I am being heckled while I try to read a standing order that she is violating. Standing Order 18 says, “No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General”. I think that is particularly the case when we have our first indigenous Governor General. I found the words offensive, but that does not really matter. It is a violation of Standing Order 18.

103 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:20:40 p.m.
Watch

I will ask the member for Lethbridge to retract the comment and find a different line on it.

18 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:20:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that the Prime Minister provided her with such a horrendous speech to read.

17 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/2/21 1:21:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have ruled that the comment the member made was out of order. The member should unreservedly apologize without trying to provide some kind of caveat. Her remarks were offensive to the Crown and the Crown's representative in this place. She needs to apologize for that.

54 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Dec/2/21 1:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point of order that was brought up by the member from the Green Party indicated there was an attack on the sovereign. There was no apology requested and she did not have to make an apology. She changed her statement, indicating that it had no reflection on the person making the speech. It was a reflection on the speech that was provided. The words the member said were about the speech, not the person who presented it.

80 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/2/21 1:22:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is important that we recognize that you made a ruling. Your interpretation, after consulting with the Clerk, was that the member did in fact violate one of our Standing Orders, and it is fairly clear that what the member was reflecting on was the manner in which the Governor General delivered her speech. Thousands of Canadians would disagree with, and be offended by, the member's remarks. We ask her to withdraw those remarks without any qualifications whatsoever, to apologize and then continue on. That would be my recommendation: that she listen to what the Speaker ruled. She was out of order.

113 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:22:54 p.m.
Watch

I know we were going to make another attempt here to maybe retract those words and find a more appropriate version that was not taking an attack on, of course, our Sovereign's representative here in Canada, and to try to get on with the speech.

46 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:23:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my words were not an attack on the Sovereign. They were an attack on the tone that the speech was delivered in and its content, which was lacklustre in nature. However, for the sake of the House and those across the floor who wish to control and manipulate in this place, I retract my words.

57 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/2/21 1:23:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on this as the Chair who is presiding over this chamber right now. If the member is not going to accept your ruling, it is your duty to remove her from the chamber.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:23:55 p.m.
Watch

Order. I accept that the member has retracted it. Let us just continue on so we can get to question period. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

26 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, sadly the throne speech was about further bloating the size of government, which means Canadians would now be required to spend more of their hard-earned money on tax hikes and inflation. Let us just explore that for one moment. In the speech, it was said the Prime Minister wants to make life more affordable for all Canadians. In fact, he is doing the exact opposite, but members do not actually need me to tell them that. No one does, because if they have shopped at a local grocery store, eaten at a restaurant, paid a home heating bill or filled their gas tank with fuel, they already know that life is getting more expensive. Why is that? The name of the bad news is inflation, and it is driven by terrible government policy. Those who are hurt the most by the government's decision to spend money that it does not have are seniors on a fixed income, those who live with a disability and are on a small stipend, and those who live paycheque to paycheque and struggle to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, I am very distracted by the conversation that is taking place across the way. Perhaps that could be taken care of.

209 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:25:23 p.m.
Watch

Order. Just make sure that we keep calm in the chamber and maybe try to keep it quiet. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

23 words

Noise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speaking

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:25:30 p.m.
Watch

In short, the government's policies are an attack on the most vulnerable. Food banks are finding it difficult to keep up with the level of need they are seeing, and one of the biggest changes over the last year has been the rise in the number of people who are employed full-time having to use food banks because they simply cannot pay their bills. The Prime Minister says he does not think that much about monetary policy. That is obvious. He handed himself a blank cheque in the spring of 2020, and he has been printing and spending money ever since. The government has handed out exorbitant amounts of money in the name of emergency income, but the books show that the personal disposable income of Canadians has actually increased during the pandemic. Earned income has dropped significantly, but the enormous government handouts have more than covered the loss. As a result, tons of extra money are flooding the economy, but there is the same number of goods, if not less. The outcome is higher prices, because an endless supply of printed money combined with limited goods actually drives up prices. The sad thing is that it is the wealthy who benefit when those prices rise, because it adds to their profits. Meanwhile, low wage earners must make their dollars stretch further to cover their necessities. All the while, the government is bloating in size not only by spending all this extra money, but by raking it back through taxation. One dollar used to be worth one dollar. Today, one dollar is only worth 95 cents. If the government were to increase taxes by 5%, there would probably be massive outrage, but that is just it. That is exactly what the government did. It is called inflation tax. It simply comes with this name. As the member for Carleton has pointed out, “countries that are not printing money to pay their bills have maintained a low cost of living and an affordable life for their citizens.” Meanwhile, “Those countries that are flooding their economies with cheap cash are driving up the cost of living,” and making it less affordable. There is an inconvenient truth that seems to have been willfully ignored. Reining in fiscal spending would necessitate limited government. This, of course, is a horrible restraint for any political party that only attains or maintains power when people are reliant on the government for its programs and handouts. The Liberals are actually choosing to be fiscally irresponsible for the sake of political advantage, and it is putting our economic future in great jeopardy. What is the solution? It is simply to stop printing money, rein things in and be fiscally responsible. That is what this country deserves. “We, the people” is a powerful phrase. Is it not? When the people feel the freedom to live up to their potential all of society benefits, but in order for this to happen the government has to get out of the way. Serving as a member of Parliament has afforded me the extraordinary opportunity to speak with many Canadians about the type of Canada they desire. I have heard countless stories from visionaries who want to build businesses, invent new technologies, help those who are suffering and improve our society in areas where we have fallen short. All of these conversations and general observations have given me a tremendous amount of hope for this nation's future. Unleashing the potential of the Canadian people is the key to our success. Members can imagine what it would look like if the bridles of red tape and regulation were thrown off and entrepreneurs were given the freedom to take risks, to make investments, to prosper and to help others prosper. This is the type of Canada that we can create, not through government handouts and increased control, but by creating opportunity for each and every Canadian to invest their gifts, talents and abilities to prosper. It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth creators, not the government. No matter the handouts it gives, we will not get ahead. A good leader puts people first. Sadly, that is not what the Prime Minister did in the throne speech. It is not what he has endeavoured to do on behalf of this great country, and for this reason, I cannot support the Speech from the Throne.

743 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Dec/2/21 1:30:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague once again demonstrated that she is a moderate parliamentarian, just as she did when she spoke about Quebec artists, but that is another matter. We often hear the same mantra from the Conservatives: “We have a plan. We need a plan.” We do not know what that plan is, but they are constantly telling us about it. I would like to see that plan. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition talks about respecting provincial jurisdiction. The leader of the official opposition said that was important, and he was very hard on the government. The only time he said something positive was when he commended the government for creating a department of mental health. Does that respect provincial jurisdictions? I wonder. I would like my colleague, in her great wisdom, to tell us whether health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

150 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:31:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take any questions having to do with the matter we are speaking about, which is the Speech from the Throne. I was just asked a question that does not pertain that, so I am going to pass.

44 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/2/21 1:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the government needing to get out of the way. When it comes to merchant fees, Canada's merchants pay some of the highest fees in the world. In the U.K. they pay 0.3%, in France 0.28% and in Australia 0.5%. In Canada, we have a rate of 1.4% on the interchange fees. Liberals, in the last budget, said they were going to do something about that and cap merchant fees, yet we have not seen any action from the Liberal-Conservative coalition. They protect the big banks, protect the big credit card companies and the super wealthy. Does my colleague agree there is a time for government intervention when it comes to small businesses being hosed by credit card companies and the big banks?

137 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:32:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have hurt the feelings of the Liberals right there. He hurt their feelings and perhaps it requires an apology. I am not sure. I will let the Speaker rule on that. At the end of the day, his question is whether the government should be more involved, and if the government should engage specifically with merchant fees, as he is highlighting. Governments should have a very limited role in how we progress as a society and how we function as a nation. Its only role should be to make sure we are unified as a country, our borders are kept safe and secure, that we drive an environment of economic prosperity and that we further ourselves on the world stage. If it fits into one those four, let us do it.

139 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 1:33:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by talking about Canadians' abilities to dream and pursue and chase after future technologies and opportunities, yet the Conservatives are stuck in this era of extracting oil. It is all they care about. It is what they talk about over and over. If this is the case, why is it so hard for this member and the Conservative Party to recognize there is a future beyond oil and that we should be chasing, pursuing and going after that?

84 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:34:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member how he brushed his teeth this morning. At least I hope he did. I would ask the hon. member what his suit is made out of and whether that used petroleum at all. I would ask him if his tie has any petroleum, or his pin, his shirt, his shoes, his computer or perhaps his hair products. I would ask the member how he got here. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I walked. Mrs. Rachael Thomas: You walked all the way from your constituency? Do not lie. You are held accountable in this place. I would ask the hon. member to tell me if we should just ixnay oil and gas. Does he want to sit naked in a forest somewhere? The vast majority of Canadians surely do not want to.

137 words

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

Dec/2/21 1:35:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in this place to deliver my maiden speech, like all members, I feel a great sense of responsibility, honour and commitment to the people of my community who have entrusted me with their voice. Like all members, my ability to stand here is a result of a team effort of family, friends and volunteers who believe in all of us. For me, it has been a long journey, starting with my service for eight years as a ministerial assistant in the Mulroney and Campbell governments. I learned so much from those whom I worked for, from MP Bill Attewell, to ministers of the Crown, the Hon. Barbara McDougall and the Hon. Peter McCreath. I must thank them for their mentorship and guidance. I must also acknowledge my wife Wendy Waite whom I met when she was working for the Hon. Pat Carney and the Right Hon. Kim Campbell. Free trade brought us together, but I can tell members about that another time. She has supported my lifelong journey to this place like no other. I acknowledge my parents Rosemarie Borgald Perkins and William Perkins, who instilled in me the belief of possibilities and the need for hard work to achieve those possibilities. My mother's family landed in Lunenburg 277 years ago, in 1753. I am the eighth generation in a row to live in my community. Two other people I need to thank out of the hundreds of volunteers are my campaign anchors for seven years in South Shore—St. Margarets. Evelyn Snyder and Rick Muzyk have been with me on this journey since 2014. It started with my nomination campaign against Richard Clark. I could not stand in this place without their support and belief. When I had the great privilege of joining members of all sides last Tuesday to march to the other place to listen to the Speech from the Throne, I had high expectations that issues that were of concern to my community would be addressed. While I stood behind our Speaker in the other place, I was sorely disappointed. As I listened to the rehashed broken promises of the 2015 Liberal platform, it reminded me of one of the most famous quotes by the Right Hon. Kim Campbell when speaking of a political opponent. She said that style “without substance is a dangerous thing.” Style without substance appears to be the theme the PMO speech writers were thinking of when they wrote this document. I say this because the most important industry in my province and my riding is the fishery. There was no mention of the importance of the fishery in the throne speech. There was no mention of our forest products industry. There was no word said about tourism. From Peggy's Cove to Chester, from Lunenburg to Liverpool, from New Ross to Mahone Bay, from Cape Sable Island to Shag Harbour, my community was looking for their concerns to be in the throne speech. My constituents were looking for a commitment from the government that we would all work toward more access to the commercial fishery for first nations, a commitment that this access be granted on the same rules and enforcement measures to which all commercial fisherman were subject. We have seasons for a reason. My community was looking for a commitment that any public policy on the moderate livelihood fishery be developed in compliance with the legal framework of the Supreme Court's Marshall decisions, not outside of them as has been done so far. When I was speaking with lobster fishermen Vincent Boutilier, Sandie Stoddard and Bobby Hynes, they expressed little surprise that the fishery was not mentioned. They said that over the last six years they had come to expect nothing but more bureaucracy from the Liberal government and more initiatives aimed at making it more difficult to earn a living from the sea. They recognized that the attacks by the the government on the fishery, whether through reduced quotas backed by questionable research, increased regulation and the threat of targeted marine protected areas aimed at shutting down the industry, were insidious ways the Liberals were using the smokescreen of conservation to reduce commercial fishing. People who earn a living from the sea were looking for some recognition from the Liberals on the need for predation policy, a invasive species policy. There is an explosive growth of seals and sea lions, which is devastating our Atlantic and Pacific fish species. The government claims to care about the biodiversity of our oceans, but it has no policy and makes no effort to try to get our oceans back in balance. The fishing communities were looking for some indication from the government that it acknowledged that it had made a huge mistake in the clawback from the fishermen who received the COVID-19 fish harvester benefit. When launching this benefit during the COVID crisis, the government said, “Our fisheries operate under a unique structure and have faced distinct challenges throughout this pandemic.” The Liberals bragged about how hard they had worked to get it right, and now they have it wrong and are attacking the men and women at the back of the boat. Let me explain. Almost all fishermen are paid a share of the profits from the catch, not a regular wage. Since the days of commercial whaling, this is how it has been. I know all members have likely read the book Moby Dick. In this classic, the narrator of the tale, Ishmael, explains the following. “I was already aware that in the whaling business they paid no wages; but all hands, including the captain, received certain shares—

954 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 9