SoVote

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

May/2/22 6:50:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things I would like to ask my colleague about is this issue of dilatory motions. The motion prevents all members from entertaining or bringing forward dilatory motions, except for one class of members, which is a minister of the Crown, for example, the Prime Minister. A minister can bring forward a dilatory motion, a motion to adjourn the House without debate and the vote must be called immediately. That is the definition of a dilatory motion. Could my colleague comment on the fact that this seems to be an inequity in the motion in that it does not apply equally to all members?

108 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/2/22 6:51:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for the Canadians who are watching this at home, I will say this. What would one call a government that is able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants and to whomever it wants without any consequences or seeking the permission of the House? I will let the folks at home come up with that answer. I have my own thoughts on that and my guess is the people who are watching at home would think the same thing.

82 words

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

May/2/22 6:51:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place and stand up for the people who sent me here. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I take very seriously the fact that when I stand in this place, I am representing about 110,000 people spread out over approximately 53,000 square kilometres in east central Alberta. I am representing them here in this place. Whenever I stand, whenever I am engaged in committee, I make sure it is their best interests that are at heart. As we debate Motion No. 11, the tragic irony is the fact that the government, supported by its coalition partners in the NDP, moved closure on a motion that would limit debate and limit the ability for MPs to fulfill their parliamentary, constitutional and societal duties. There is tragedy after tragedy, but Motion No. 11 represents what I believe, and from what I have heard already from my constituents and many Canadians, is a terrible demonstration of democracy in decline in Canada. I do not say that lightly, because when it comes to the institutions of Parliament, of our country, we are seeing decline. We are seeing damage that is being done. I believe it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to ensure that we stand for the rights and freedoms, for the democratic values that built this country. I first read Motion No. 11 shortly after it was put on the Order Paper last week. It is in typical Liberal strategic fashion. They are bringing something forward that, if it passes tonight, will contribute to further democratic decline in this country. I am proud to be able to stand in this place to fight against that not just for the sake of Conservatives. It is a misnomer to suggest that the Conservatives are only fighting for themselves. No, the reality is that when one fights for democracy, one stands to fight for all voices. One stands to fight for all political opinions, all who have the honour, the privilege and the ability in this country, not just elected MPs, but all in this country who have the privilege to vote during an election, to be engaged in democratic discourse each and every day. It goes all the way up to our having the responsibility of representing Canadians in this place. I want to systematically go through some of the significant challenges in Motion No. 11. The Liberals are quick to say that many of us in this place do not want to work. They throw around those allegations, but that is a very small part of what Motion No. 11 really is about. Let us look at paragraph (b), which is the details related to paragraph (a) of Motion No. 11. The first part would allow there to be late-night sittings. Few Canadians would debate the fact that they expect their politicians to work. The problem is that the Liberals want control. It is clear that they themselves do not want to work, and this motion confirms that, but they also want control over exactly how Parliament functions. The opposition House leader has used a phrase that I think explains very well the attitude of this government when it comes to how it wants Canada to work. The government does not want an opposition. It simply wants an audience. I find it really interesting that whenever the Liberals fail, they often say that it is in the name of being team Canada, that it is for team Canada's sake that we need to simply move forward, or skip due process or whatever the excuse of the day is. It is shameful that time and time again they have repeated those sorts of failures. On the first part of Motion No. 11, many Canadians would look at it and say that for politicians to be able to work late to get things done is okay. However, I certainly hear from constituents, and the Liberals do not want to hear this, that they want us to actually debate bills. They want us to be engaged in this place in democratic discourse. It goes on. In the next three parts of (b), items (ii), (iii) and (iv), it is truly an attack on democracy. It goes on further. It comes to (c), regarding changing some of the rules. We have heard a lot of discussion about quorum calls and how, again, the Liberals do not want further debate. They want to simply be able to control the debate to meet their ends. There is no better example of that than Bill C-8. We hear many Liberals, especially, and New Democrats who are now complaining about the fact that it is still in Parliament. It is the government's job to manage its legislative agenda. Like so many things in Canada, the Liberals have done that poorly. However, I would point to the fact that the Liberals only introduced Bill C-8 just before Parliament rose for Christmas. They talked about it. We all knew it was coming. There was no surprise that it was coming, but they introduced it only a day or two before Parliament recessed for six weeks. Then Parliament came back and they had the audacity to suggest that somehow, when Conservatives want to fulsomely debate that bill, we are being obstructionist or whatever their key line of the day is. It is an absolute shame. Again, it is an attack on democracy. We are seeing a decline in democracy. Of course, there is the ability for the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown to prorogue Parliament, basically. It is a bit different because it would require a vote. However, this speaks to the fact that when the Prime Minister flip-flopped on his prorogation promise in order to cover up another one of his litany of scandals over the course of his time of being leader of this country, he suffered in the polls for it. Now the Liberals are using their partners in the NDP to avoid the shame and the political punishment that come with the fact that they break their promises. Now they are giving the chance for any minister of the Crown, as early as tomorrow or the next day, to be able to stand up. Worse, I would suggest, is to hold that over the heads of parliamentarians, knowing that they would be quick to use the entire infrastructure of government, which does not stop when Parliament adjourns, to keep repeating their same old tired talking points. There is much to say in this debate in the fact that the government did limit debate on the motion that would limit debate. There is the tragic irony of that. I see how these Liberals, in their litany of scandals, want to see as little discussion and opposition on any aspect of their agenda as possible. We see that represented throughout Motion No. 11. I would simply suggest something which is quite straightforward. I have in front of me a document that was put together by a constituent whose name is Neil. I thank Neil for this. There are 15 different scandals, promises that were made and broken. They were clear misrepresentations to Canadians that the government made over the course of leading up to the election that the Prime Minister promised he would not call but did anyway. Canadians know what that is. There are 15 very clear, different issues that speak to how the government cannot be trusted with power of any kind, let alone the ability to unilaterally control Parliament. A Liberal majority government was bad. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans were pushed out of work by the Liberals' ideological games. There was the fact that we saw an agenda that diminished Canada's presence on the world stage, and on and on it goes. What is worse, which I certainly have heard from many constituents, is a Liberal minority government with a bought-off majority by a socialist NDP, or “NP” maybe because the democratic part maybe is not as relevant. It is worse than a Liberal majority government because the New Democrats have been able to buy off the Liberals and then, of course, with a threat of a confidence motion within whatever their quasi-caucus circumstances might be. I conclude by saying that Canadians are tired of having a government simply repeat for itself the same tired, in many cases, misrepresentations of the truth time and time again, claiming it is real when Canadians know better. Canadians did not vote for the circumstances we are debating here today. Certainly Conservatives are going to stand up for Canadians of all political affiliations to make sure that their rights can be respected within Canada's Parliament.

1481 words

All Topics

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

May/2/22 7:01:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the member talks about the political games that are played, what he does not make reference to is the number of days that Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, has been debated, and the number of times the government has attempted to bring it forward only to be frustrated because the opposition wants a concurrence motion on this or that. There is no doubt that there are important issues, but this is always done on government business days. When the Conservatives attempt to adjourn debate or stop the House for the day, it is for issues the opposition initiates in order to frustrate and prevent the government from passing legislation. Then they criticize the government for not being able to pass legislation. That is just plain stupid.

131 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/22 7:02:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you should seek the advice of the table. I am not sure that “stupid” is within the realm of parliamentary language.

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 7:02:55 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member was not referring to an individual specifically. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

18 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/22 7:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will certainly note that when I call the Liberals corrupt, because I think that is a fair representation of not an individual but an attitude. It is interesting. Here we have the Liberals again misrepresenting to Canadians the reality of what happens in this place. The member, in his remarks, suggested there are important issues to discuss. I do not see government members standing up to concur on supply days. They could, but they do not because they want to play politics. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Damien Kurek: Madam Speaker, now they are somehow suggesting we want to play games. That is the problem. The Liberals will do everything they can to assert their dominance within our parliamentary institutions, leading to a democratic decline. The Conservatives will continue to come to Ottawa to stand up for the issues and things that our constituents expect of us, regardless of what the Liberals try to do to shut us down.

163 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/22 7:04:00 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that when someone else has the floor and they already had an opportunity to ask a question, they should hold off on any other questions and comments they may have. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

44 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/2/22 7:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was first elected 11 years ago, and I was here for the 41st Parliament when the Harper majority government used time allocation 92 times to move business through the House, so when the Conservatives talk about how this violates democracy, I would ask them to look back on their own majority government. As to my question for the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, when he says the NDP is bought off, what is he actually trying to imply? We are co-operating with the Liberals in order to get things done for Canadians, such as dental care, the restoration of employment insurance and other benefits that are about to run out under the emergency benefits plan. If I am being bought off by doing things for Canadians, then I am happy to be bought.

138 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/22 7:05:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my father has suggested often, there is a problem that ends up happening in this country after the Liberals have had a chance to govern: They demonstrate that they are not interested in fulfilling their promises. My advice to the member is to be careful, because the Liberals are good at politics but are not so good at governing. They are willing to throw anybody, whether they are in their own party or the signatories to a confidence and supply agreement, under the bus to benefit themselves politically. I heard from a constituent a number of weeks ago, shortly after this confidence and supply agreement was signed, and this constituent said they had never voted for me and they were a regular NDP voter. They did not agree with me on most things, but they will never vote for the NDP again because it was bought off by the Liberals.

153 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/2/22 7:06:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am showing up here tonight, as I usually do, trying to understand how this place can best function to get things done in the interests of folks in Kitchener Centre and across the country. I hear the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is quite upset with Motion No. 11, and I wonder if he could share with me specifically what in Motion No. 11 he feels is particularly anti-democratic. What about this motion is he most concerned with?

83 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/22 7:06:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I note that the hon. member from the Green Party has a great deal of care for democracy and our institutions. I did outline a number of the specific challenges I had when the motion was in front of me, but the most egregious of them, I would suggest, is the fact that the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown could, on a whim, decide to shut down this place. That could be tomorrow, although I hope that is not the case. I hope the NDP would have the spine to vote against this. No Prime Minister should be given that carte-blanche authority, which I believe is a serious threat to democracy within our country.

120 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

May/2/22 7:07:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8 Bill C-5 Bill C-18 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead. In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do. Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done. Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning. Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians. In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized. Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future. As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action. Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow. We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians. We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers. Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment. We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward. To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this. Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate. I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed. We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed. With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this. Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe. To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

1722 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

May/2/22 7:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his thoughts. I would just counter by saying that I believe there is a bit more to this motion than the government is letting on. Obviously, it has been making the argument that having longer sittings, more sittings and more time to debate legislation is good. I would certainly agree with that, but this motion allows for the House to not meet quorum and not have an adequate number of members present for those debates, potentially opening the door for members of the government or other parties not to attend and take part in that important discussion. I wonder if the member could speak to that contradiction in the motion and why that would be the case.

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:18:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I count on the hon. member for Kenora as a friend here in the House of Commons. My understanding of this motion is that all members will be able to participate in debate if they wish to do so. Obviously, they must speak to their representative House leaders as to the determination of when they would like to have a speaking spot. That is my understanding. If I misunderstood, I will correct it, but that is my understanding. Extended sitting hours do allow for extra debate on bills and for people to put their thoughts out. I enjoy coming to the House and presenting my thoughts on various bills and matters, which I know matter considerably to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, back home in my beautiful riding.

131 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 7:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from time to time at committee, particularly when travelling but sometimes here in Ottawa, the committee will waive its quorum requirement and provide that no substantive motions can be moved or debated, in order to hear from witnesses. The committee sees value in hearing points of view and getting them on the record, but recognizes that it may not be an appropriate time to address issues that come out of left field, so to speak. That is kind of similar to what is being proposed for evening sittings in the House of Commons when we have these extended meetings. I just wonder if the member has some experience with a committee that has conducted its business this way and if democracy ended when the committee decided to conduct its business that way.

134 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have sat at committees for the almost seven years that I have been here. I have been on a number of committees, three in the last session. We do debate vigorously many bills that are put forward. We debate motions that are put forward. It is always great to have a robust discussion and hear different viewpoints from the members who have the privilege of sitting on those committees. I do not think this type of motion has in any way impaired the ability of democracy to function. That is exactly what happens on committees.

98 words

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

May/2/22 7:20:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend and colleague could just provide his thoughts in regard to how important it is, when a government works with the opposition as a House, to try to work co-operatively in order to pass a legislative agenda that is there not only for government but also for all members, especially when reflecting on private members' bills.

63 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/2/22 7:21:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like to use words like “reasonable leadership”. Being in government and being elected, we need to demonstrate responsible leadership and collaborate with other parties in the House, which we have been able to do. I know some of the official opposition members put forward ideas that ended up in a government bill relating to extended sick leave benefits. I think that is what it was, by one of the members from York region. It is very important that we get the work done that our constituents need us to do without facing obstructions. It is very important that we collaborate with other parties in the House, which we are doing, to get the work done that Canadians want us to do. As we exit the pandemic, as we are in one of the most unique times in history, we need to collaborate, work together and get things done that are important for our constituents so that we can move forward in building an even more prosperous and brighter future for all Canadians.

177 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

May/2/22 7:22:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8 Bill C-13 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours. Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me. At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons. If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament. Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic. If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out. I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election. Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files. The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner. Why is it important? Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19. Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning. The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19. I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation. Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives. There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country. Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

1167 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 62