SoVote

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 3:14:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies two years earlier than our G20 country partners. We will do this, and I will be happy to work with her to make that happen as soon as possible.

39 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Mar/22/22 3:14:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government is failing to help the tourism businesses hardest hit by the pandemic. The tourism and hospitality recovery program was supposed to help, but due to an inflexible application process, many seasonal businesses cannot access it. The Liberals cut its funding last week and the program will end in May, just when it is needed most. Will the government commit to continued full funding for the program, change the application requirements so seasonal operators are not excluded and extend the program until September?

86 words

All Topics

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 3:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. critic knows, we invested $15 billion in the tourism and hardest-hit sector. In December, we passed Bill C-2, which put $12 billion of additional money into the tourism and hardest-hit sector. That includes half a billion dollars for the tourism relief fund. Announcements are happening from coast to coast to coast in all kinds of ridings. My number one message to all of the tourism operators and all of the businesses is thanks. They are there. With the borders open, brighter days are ahead. We supported them during COVID. We will support them now as well.

104 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 3:16:05 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have for question period. Before I get to the point of order, I want to say that, sitting in the chair today, it was difficult to hear a lot of the answers. If I stand and try to get folks to calm down a bit, I just need to get the noise to a point where the table, the interpreters and I can hear what is going on in the chamber. The bell ringing is unacceptable, so please stay away from that.

88 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Mar/22/22 3:16:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the status of the New Democratic Party as an opposition party, following the announcement of a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal government. To paraphrase Shakespeare, this NDP-Liberal government is a coalition by any other name. While many of our parliamentary procedures refer to recognized parties, others specifically refer to government and opposition parties. This reflects a key feature of constitutional parliamentary government in Canada as explained at page 4 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Our rules referring to opposition parties must be carefully interpreted in light of this backroom deal, which was not been put before voters in last year's election. What does it mean, though, to be in opposition? The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines opposition as: 1. resistance, antagonism. 2. the state of being hostile or in conflict or disagreement. 3. contrast or antithesis. Respectfully, I would have said those definitions did not really describe the NDP yesterday, but they sure do not describe them today. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 35, describes how the House is generally organized. It reads, “Functionally, the House is divided into three groups: the Ministry and its Parliamentary Secretaries, Members who support the government, and Members who oppose the government.” The NDP members are in neither the first group nor in the last group. They are instead members who support the government, just like the Liberal backbenchers. Our well-respected, former clerks of the table go on, at page 35, to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said: “...it is indeed essential for the country that the shades of opinion which are represented on both sides of this House should be placed as far as possible on a footing of equality and that we should have a strong opposition to voice the views of those who do not think with the majority.” The NDP is now part of a parliamentary majority. I would therefore submit that, by agreeing to participate in the Prime Minister's power grab, the New Democrats have forfeited their rights as an opposition party in this Parliament. There are many procedural implications that arise as a result. Most immediately, it means that we cannot vote this afternoon on the motion moved by the member for Burnaby South that the House debated yesterday. Standing Order 81(13) is relevant here. It begins, “Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the government”. Put plainly, the member for Burnaby South is no longer a member of the opposition to the government. Therefore, we cannot vote on this so-called opposition motion. Several other rules referring to opposition parties will also require the Chair's interpretation. Paragraph 50(2)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act provides seats on the Board of Internal Economy for each party with 12 MPs “in opposition to the government”. Therefore, it would seem that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would no longer be a member of the board. It also seems that neither the member for Gatineau nor the member for Brampton North, who hold the balancing government seats on the board, would continue to be members. Standing Order 33, concerning ministerial statements, states, “A member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon.” Standing Order 106(2), concerning committee chairs and vice-chairs, provides that each committee's second vice-chair “shall be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition”. By definition, that would now only be the members of the Bloc Québécois. Standing Order 81(4), concerning main estimates referred to committees of the whole, requires that the leader of the official opposition consult “with the leaders of the other opposition parties” on which departments are so referred. Does the government's coalition partner get a say? The list goes on. It also follows that we must revisit the uncodified practices of the House in light of these new arrangements. In particular, the allocation of oral questions heavily favours opposition parties. Are the NDP questions now to be treated as lobs, just like those three that Liberals get daily already? Also, should the NDP members be vacating the opposition lobby in the room behind me and joining their coalition partners over in the government lobby? There are also committee matters to consider, such as the modified quorum rules some committees adopt, sequences for committee witnesses, questioning, and even the seating arrangements at committee tables. These are very important interpretations that are required to allow our parliamentary system to function how it is intended to. There is very little precedent for the Speaker to rely on, because that is how unprecedented this situation is in federal politics. The closest parallel I could offer the Chair is the situation following the 1921 general election when the upstart Progressive Party captured the second-largest number of seats in the House. Many Progressives wanted to form a coalition government with Mackenzie King's Liberals, who fell short of a majority. Though in the end the Progressives did not join the cabinet, they were largely supportive of the government and, accordingly, declined the opportunity to form the official opposition since they frankly were not in opposition at all. Just as the 1921 election produced a comfortable arrangement for the Liberal minority government, so too did the election of 2021. We must be guided by the practical and pragmatic conclusion it offered that a party openly supportive of the government is simply not an opposition party. Therefore, I would ask that the Speaker interpret the rules of the House in a way that recognizes that the New Democratic Party has ceased to be an opposition party and that the House cannot vote today on the motion that was debated yesterday.

995 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/22/22 3:23:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. That was such a frivolous and irresponsible statement by the House leader of the official opposition that I do not really need to respond to it. First, this is a confidence and supply agreement. As he is well aware, this has already happened in numerous legislatures in this country. Second, I would ask that the official opposition House leader actually consult the political science 101 text to understand that a coalition government is quite different from a confidence and supply agreement. I would like to say that this invented history is simply not helpful to the House. I would also like to say that the conduct of Conservative MPs and Bloc MPs today was reprehensible. It was juvenile, and it was unbecoming of parliamentarians. Mr. Speaker, we empower you to do numerous things, including keeping order in the House, and I would respectfully ask that, since you have those powers, to take questions away from the Conservatives and the Bloc if they continue this reprehensible conduct. If we have question period tomorrow and they simply do not listen to the very clear directives given on our behalf, you have the ability, and I think the responsibility, to take questions away from them. That was simply reprehensible conduct today that is not acceptable in the House of Commons of Canada.

229 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/22/22 3:24:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to respond to the point of order put forward by the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, the hon. House leader for the official opposition. Having some personal experience with two confidence and supply agreements, just to put this into the record, the confidence and supply agreement that existed in the Province of British Columbia between the British Columbia Green Party and the British Columbia New Democrats was far more detailed and, I think, more robust, but in that context, the British Columbia Green MLAs remained as members of opposition parties and had all the privileges that attained to that. I would also mention the confidence and supply agreement that took place in New Zealand between the Labour Party there, led by Jacinda Ardern, and the Green Party of New Zealand, in which case they actually held cabinet positions within their confidence and supply agreement, but they were still treated as an opposition party within the Parliament of New Zealand, which is also, like us, a Westminster Parliament. One last point, while I have the floor, I want to extend an official apology to the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil. Yesterday I believed that no one in my office had been contacted about the unanimous consent motion. I wish to formally, fully and with deep contrition apologize to the hon. member for doubting that we had been consulted. We were consulted.

237 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/22/22 3:26:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois would like to have a moment to reply to the comments of the member, the House leader of the official opposition. In response to what my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby mentioned earlier about the Bloc Québécois, I would say that he can see the mote in his colleague's eye, but he cannot see the beam in his own eye.

75 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 3:26:52 p.m.
Watch

We will take it under advisement, but what we will say is this. The decision on the vote was made last night and the vote will happen today. We will take it under advisement to see if the issues are something we can bring back to the House. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Mar/22/22 3:27:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House consider that gardens and gardening contribute to the development of the country, our cities and people's lives by impacting health, quality of life, reconciliation, inclusion and environmental challenges; that our public, private and community gardens, as testaments to culture and history, are of great importance in our urban landscapes; and that the government designate 2022 as the Year of the Garden on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association and the centennial of the Canadian ornamental horticulture sector.

112 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 3:28:14 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 3:29:55 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:28 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Burnaby South relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.

47 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 3:42:01 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion defeated.

5 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Mar/22/22 3:42:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start where I left off. When I speak to people in line at the grocery store or bump into someone at the gas station, it would be difficult and quite frankly embarrassing to list off the inflation rate in Denmark or to tell them everything is okay and that we should not upset the government or take down the Canadian economy. When we tell people that global supply chains are the reason that home heating is up 26%, they are rightly perplexed. We have 1.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Canada. That domestic energy supply provides heating for Canadian families and has nothing to do with the global supply chains. When we tell someone that global supply chains are the reason a family pays an extra $1,000 a year for groceries, their reaction is, rightly, confusion. This country ranks third in the world for the amount of farmland per capita. We have the capacity to produce our own food, and this has nothing to do with the global supply chains. When we tell someone that global supply chains are the reason that gas prices have gone up in some places 50%, they are, well, stunned. We have that right here in Canada. We have the second-largest oil and gas reserve in the world. In this case, it is a question of why we are relying on the global supply chains. When we tell someone that everything is okay when four-fifths of Canadian families are already cutting back and scratching their budgets, their reaction is one of fear: fear they will not be able to keep up and fear they will not be able to afford to live in their own communities. We have an opportunity here to stop saying that everything is okay, because it is not—

310 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/22 3:44:33 p.m.
Watch

I apologize. Could the hon. members who would like to have conversations go out into the lobby, please? We would like to listen to the member's speech. The hon. member for Thornhill.

33 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Mar/22/22 3:44:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to actually do something. It is something that goes beyond the blind ideology of demonizing the oil and gas industry. We know how we got here. This is a direct result of printing money we do not have for things that we do not need. The government's unprecedented spending is out of control. Do not take my word for it: Scotiabank agrees that high levels of spending are seen as contributing to the “strain on affordability pressures” for Canadians. These are Scotiabank's words, not mine. To make matters worse, the government has not stopped spending or even slowed it. I can already hear members of the government saying, “But the debt-to-GDP ratio”. To that, I say let me invite them out for an afternoon in my riding, and they can explain to Mrs. Cooper that the increased cost of buying healthy food for a family of five is fine because our debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best in the G7. Members of the government will say, “Oh, but the AAA credit score”. Let me invite them that same afternoon to explain to Mr. and Mrs. Green, who live on a fixed income and drive to see their grandkids, that they will need an extra 50 bucks a week for gas. When it comes to filling up these tanks, whether it is for Mr. and Mrs. Green to see their grandkids or those who need to get to work, take their kids to activities or just get around, the price is outrageous. We have witnessed over the last six years that the government's green energy policies contribute to seeing Canada's oil and gas sector destroyed. We do not have the infrastructure. We cannot get pipelines built, and despite the fact that we know that getting resources to tidewater is vital to our economy, to our environmental goals and to our own security, no less, the crusade against our own interests continues, blindly supported by pipe dreams instead of pipelines. While international conflicts in Ukraine have continued to contribute to those increases, they do not singularly explain the rise in the price of gasoline. They are not even close. It is not the invasion of Ukraine that will add 11¢ on April 1. It is not the invasion of Ukraine that neglected to build pipelines. It is not the invasion of Ukraine that has led to the lack of infrastructure, investment and development in our sector. It is, however, the direct result of the newly minted NDP-Liberal government, whose policies have put Canada in a position where Canadians are Instagram-posting outrage pictures of the price to fill up their tanks. Our policies have consequences, and those consequences are hitting Canadian families directly. The good news is we could do something significant today. We could provide immediate relief to families by providing a GST holiday on gasoline and diesel. We could immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians and reduce prices by about 5%. That is 8¢ per litre. That is real savings. We could be fighting for families across Canada who have been pushed to the brink by the cost of living crisis. We could be fighting to leave money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. We could do that if members of the House support this measure and support the motion. Record high gas prices do not appear to be going away any time soon. In March 2021, gas was $1.24 a litre in my riding. Today it is $1.75. That is just a year later. I live in a community where, as in so many others, it is nearly impossible to get around without a car. It is impossible to get to work on a bicycle, impossible to take the kids to hockey practice on a skateboard, and impossible to get groceries on roller skates. The government's solution of reducing carbon emissions cannot be one that ignores the realities of life for so many Canadians. More Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Young people are giving up on home ownership, and nearly half of Canadians are worried about their financial security this year. A high-tax, high-debt agenda set the stage for inflation. It set the stage for punishing prices at the pumps, and today we have the opportunity to finally give Canadians the relief they need. We are calling on the government to pause the GST on fuel and give Canadians a break. I will ask members of the House to do the right thing by their constituents and support the motion in the House. We simply cannot afford not to.

797 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 3:49:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in the member's comments, she talked about the price of a litre of gasoline and somewhat implied that because we have things here in Canada, it should be a lot less expensive. One of the ways in which some countries have been able to accomplish that is through the nationalization of a commodity. Right away, I started thinking that it did not sound like a Conservative Party approach to dealing with issues: to nationalize and purchase Esso and so forth. I am wondering this. Are we starting to see a shift in some of the mentality coming from the Conservative Party in dealing with price controls, by saying that the Conservatives are interested in nationalizing in order to keep down prices?

125 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Mar/22/22 3:50:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been just a few hours and the member opposite is already starting to sound like he is part of the NDP. We print money here instead of actually making things that money buys. Our rate of inflation is at a record high. Canadians cannot afford gas, groceries or their everyday necessities, and instead of doing the right thing and taking the GST off of gas, which is an actual measure that could reduce the price at the pumps and which the member could do immediately, he just is not.

93 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/22/22 3:51:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to wonder whether my colleague's response to rising gas prices is a bit simplistic. When we look at the price of a barrel of oil or the price of gas, we see that gas is now at almost $2 a litre. We know that the tax on gas, the GST, is 5%. At $2 a litre, that would represent around 10¢ in savings. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that 10¢ will change the reality of the market in any meaningful way. Should we not be looking at a more long-term solution? Instead of living at the mercy of the ups and downs of oil prices, why do we not focus on the electrification of transportation? This would be a real, long-term solution that would make us less dependent on products whose prices can increase drastically based on whatever is going on in Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Iraq, or based on Christmas, holidays or summer vacation. Gas prices are always bouncing up and down and, unfortunately, consumers are the ones who suffer.

183 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Mar/22/22 3:52:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something immediate for Canadians to get some relief in a cost of living crisis, and I know the member who asked the question hears that in his constituency. I know that he gets the same kinds of emails and calls that I get, because this is a problem across the country. Instead of doing the right thing today, he is suggesting that we put that aside and focus on bigger issues. He has the opportunity to lower costs for Canadians today. He is not taking that opportunity, and he is going to have to explain that to his constituents.

107 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 43