SoVote

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

May/3/22 1:37:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the property tax issue and health care transfers. It is important that we recognize that members of the Bloc Québécois very much would like the breakup of Canada. At the end of the day, Bloc members would ultimately argue that Canada should be nothing more than an ATM from which cash would just flow to provinces. The Bloc members do not recognize that within Canada is a great federation with provinces and territories and with incredible leadership from indigenous communities. It is a nation that makes for the best country in the world to live in. This means that the national government does have some leadership roles to play, whether in housing or health care, according to the Canada Health Act. I wonder if the member feels that, maybe for the rest of Canada, Bill C-8 is a good thing.

152 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/22 1:38:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that at least one person understands what we want. Ultimately, what we want is for Quebec to be independent. In the meantime, why are we here? We are not here to cause trouble. We are here to salvage something from the wreckage and to work together in a positive way. That is what we try to do every day. I would like the parliamentary secretary to understand that part too. It is all well and good to keep repeating that we are trying to pick a fight, but I think that, if the parliamentary secretary is even the slightest bit serious, he will see that we always propose real solutions. What we want is respect for the essence of the contract that was signed behind our backs for as long as we are stuck with it.

143 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

May/3/22 1:39:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments about agriculture. I would like his opinion on the different approach we are taking to the carbon tax on farm fuels. The government is proposing that the farmers act as the bank account for the government. This is setting aside the fact that $1.73 per $1,000 of expenses does not come close to covering the cost of the carbon tax. What would the member's opinion be on the utility of having the farmers be the bank account for the Government of Canada versus granting an exemption up front?

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/22 1:39:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Obviously, he wants me to talk about Bill C-234, so that is what I will do. The Bloc Québécois is extremely rational. We want to protect the environment in a way that makes sense. The reason we are supporting this system is that there is currently no other alternative. However, we need to do a lot more than this. That is why we are proposing an environmental partnership with our farmers, something serious that will not be controlled by the great, all-knowing Canada. We need to decentralize funding for farmers, these entrepreneurs, so that they themselves can bring in technological and environmental innovations to improve yields. These innovations must be recognized, and compensation must be given for them. That money needs to be available to farmers for the next innovation. If we trust our farmers, I guarantee we will not be disappointed.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/3/22 1:40:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am sure that Quebec is no different than any other province in that the citizens of these provinces are having a terrible time finding affordable housing. This is one of the areas where we are all in agreement that it takes all levels of government working together in order to provide a supply. In my riding, we still have many constituents who have benefited from the very successful co-op housing program of the federal government of the 1970s and 1980s. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment on whether co-operative housing and federal support for building co-op housing in Quebec would be a significant way to help people of Quebec develop at least one model of affordable housing.

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/22 1:41:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The federal government certainly has a role to play, but the parliamentary secretary opposite will be happy to hear that the what the federal government needs to do here is to provide funding, because this is Quebec's jurisdiction. That is fundamental. My colleague said that he is sure that Quebec is no different than any other province, but it is a little different. I am not trying to cause trouble. We are here to teach others about the reality in Quebec. Quebec's AccèsLogis program is not being taken into account. I must point out that the last time there was money for social housing, the government transferred money to the other provinces but took three years to send the money to Quebec. We are behind, which is not right.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/3/22 1:42:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-8, but like some of my colleagues who have spoken before me, I too want to bring up the fact that I am gravely concerned about what we are hearing coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States, the leaked document that suggests that it will be rolling back its ruling on Roe v. Wade. I think it is incredibly concerning. I think that, as a global community, we should be concerned about such a regressive form and attack that the United States is taking as it relates to such an important issue. Equally as alarming, I am very concerned that the leader of the Conservative Party sent out an email to all of her MPs today telling them that they are instructed not to speak to the leaked document that has come out. I see some people shaking their heads, so I better quote this for them. It says, “Conservatives will not be commenting on draft rulings leaked from the Supreme Court of the United States.” That was sent to Conservative members by the Leader of the Opposition this morning around 9:00 a.m., and I think that the Conservative opposition leader should allow her MPs to stand up and say exactly what they think about this because I think it is extremely problematic. Conservatives should stand united with the vast majority of Canadians in their feelings toward this. Nonetheless, we are here to talk, once again, about Bill C-8. Bill C-8 is the bill that keeps coming up in the House. It is, for some reason, the hill that the Conservatives have chosen to die on, and I do not understand why. This is a fall economic statement implementation act from the fall of not this year but last year. It is very likely that budget 2022 may be passed before we actually see the fall economic statement of 2021 passed. In any event, it is there to provide very important supports for Canadians during the conclusion of, and coming through the end of, the pandemic and into the endemic state that we are going to see COVID enter into. For this to be the hill that Conservatives have chosen to die on is absolutely outstanding to me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand their strategy. This is because most times, when a political party chooses an issue that will be the issue that it will define itself by through filibustering and doing everything possible to influence the way the House treats it, there is a common theme behind their approach. Normally, if it is something like, for example, we were suddenly going to do something dramatic to the health care transfers, I imagine that the Bloc Québécois would put up an endless fight on that, and I think that everybody on this side could appreciate and understand where they were coming from, given the fact that they raise it on a daily basis. The Conservatives are not doing that. They seem to be all over the place in their approach when it comes to Bill C-8. They are picking and talking about this little bit, and then they are talking about another thing over here. Then they are talking about farmers. There is no common theme. I am left to conclude that the only common theme is the absolute stalling of Parliament, doing whatever necessary, for whatever reason, for any reason at all, to make sure that legislation cannot get through the House. The rationale for their approach to Bill C-8 is entirely politically motivated. I do not know if they have just dug their heels in so far that they are now just saying, “Well, we have come this far, we may as well not stop now.” They need to explain to the House what it is that is so offensive within this piece of legislation. I have heard Conservatives talk about the fact that they have some concerns about stuff that is missing from this legislation. That is fair. I think that is a good way to be critical about it. It is part of the democratic process, but it went to committee. It came before the House, was debated, went to committee and was discussed. Ideas were put forward, and I imagine some ideas were adopted and some ideas were shot down. Then it came here, and we are debating it again. That is the democratic process. As I said earlier to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, one wins some, and one loses some. One gets some, and one does not get other things. At the end of the day, we eventually should be voting on a piece of legislation that we do know is going to impact and help a lot of Canadians. I bring this up, because on this bill at report stage alone, as of my count yesterday, 51 Conservative members had already spoken to it. That does not include today. Just for comparison, and this is before today, four members of the Bloc spoke to it, two members from the NDP, two Green members and four Liberals. That is just to put it into context for members. The Conservatives have monopolized the time of debate on this particular issue. The Conservatives are going to stand up and say, “Well, that is part of the democratic process: rigorous debate.” Of course it is. It is important to discuss and bring forward members' ideas, but it is very clear to people after a while that we have passed the threshold of vigorous debate, and they are just being obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists. There is no desire among the Conservatives to actually see this go through. They just want to ensure that they can inflict as much damage as possible, in terms of allowing this government to move forward its political agenda, and nothing made it clearer than when we debated the motion yesterday about extending sitting hours. One would have thought we had done something dramatically unparliamentary and undemocratic: those two terms, by the way, were brought up by the Conservatives. One would have thought we had done that, but all we did was say, “Let us debate more. Let us have more time to talk into the evenings and all the way until midnight.” The Conservatives had a problem with that, so they wanted to ensure that we could not even do that. Members will forgive me if I come off as being very cynical about it and as assuming that there is some ulterior motive here. I cannot seem to wrap my head around why the Conservatives would take this approach, again, on a bill that would provide supports to Canadians. It is not a hill that, in my opinion, any political party would be willing to die on, but the Conservatives have chosen to do that. In the last few minutes that I have to speak, I want to talk about some of those incredible supports that were introduced in the fall economic statement, which we are talking about on May 3. I will speak specifically to the one that really is important, and I think it should be to all members of this House. This is supports for safe schools and teachers. This is about increasing the ability to provide quality air ventilation in schools. This is about allowing teachers to claim certain expenses on their income tax. This is stuff that none of the 50-plus Conservatives who have spoken has brought up. They have not commented on them at all. I am not just talking about being against them: they have not commented in favour of them, either. However, those are some of the supports we are talking about here. Teachers are literally beyond the deadline to do their taxes for 2021, and they cannot, because the Conservatives have still held this issue up. There are so many other things, such as employment insurance details, supports for businesses and the underused housing tax act. These are all things in here that, in my opinion, should be passed. If we missed stuff, and members of the Conservative Party are still very upset about the fact that they have been missed, then they have representation on the finance committee and should bring forward a motion. They should go and garner support from a majority of members of Parliament on the committee, have a study on it and then make a recommendation to Parliament. That is how this body works. That is how the democratic process works in our chamber, and that is certainly how I would encourage the Conservatives to approach it, despite the fact that they have completely chosen not to do that. I am running up against my 10 minutes, but I am very glad that we finally have some time allocation on this bill so that we can get moving on it and pass the fall economic statement from the fall of 2021.

1525 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/3/22 1:52:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate and ask some questions of my colleagues across the aisle. Just for context, for the people at home who love watching CPAC, the member who just spoke, the member for Kingston and the Islands, and his colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, have the responsibility to help get the legislative agenda through the House for the Liberal government. That is why they are little testy right now. It is their job to make sure the legislation gets passed that the government wants and that is its priority. Those members are upset: They basically got their hands slapped because they were not getting the job done. That is why the members are so upset. Unfortunately, this is probably the fourth time the member for Kingston and the Islands has spoken on this bill. The biggest problem he has is that when he goes to the PMO, they are asking him why he is not getting the job done. That is why he is a little more animated in his speech today. Quite frankly, I do not think he is delivering on the promises he made to the Prime Minister.

198 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/3/22 1:53:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, for the record, I am way less animated today than I was yesterday. I am sorry that member missed that speech. We heard the reality in his question. That member said that this is a priority for the PMO. This bill, and the details of this bill, should be a priority for every member of the House. The supports in here are for teachers and small businesses. The Conservative member for Regina—Lewvan basically said in his question that this is not a priority for the Conservatives but that it is a priority of the PMO, and that is the only reason why this side of the House wants to get it passed. Not everything comes down to a political agenda. From time to time, even though the member might not realize this, we are here to serve Canadians.

142 words

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

May/3/22 1:54:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, frankly, I thought that was a rather strange speech. The member spent a lot of time talking about the official opposition instead of his government's bill. That was an interesting choice to make. Since my colleague encouraged the opposition to support the bill and tried to get the support of a majority of opposition members in committee, I want to ask him how this works now that one of the opposition parties is systematically supporting the Liberals.

80 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/3/22 1:54:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the only way this got back here is if a majority of the members at committee voted in favour of it. That is the only way that the report would have gotten back to the House. Clearly, that happened at committee. The member said that he found my speech to be unusual. Did he listen to the 55 Conservatives who have spoken to Bill C-8 just since report stage? It was literally the same speech over and over again, with no central theme to it. There was no central theme to attacking a particular portion of it. This is not the hill to die on, yet Conservatives continually put themselves in a position as though Bill C-8 is the be-all and end-all.

128 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/3/22 1:55:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, in addition to the toxic drug supply crisis, Canada is experiencing, as we know—

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:55:54 p.m.
Watch

Could we have some silence to actually hear the questions and the answers? Thank you. The hon. member.

18 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/3/22 1:55:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, thank you, I really appreciate that. In addition to the toxic drug supply crisis, Canada is experiencing a broader mental health crisis as we deal with the impacts of two years of the pandemic. COVID-19 highlighted what many of us already knew, which is that our mental health care system is woefully underfunded. The Liberal government committed, in its election campaign, to establish a mental health transfer with an initial commitment of $4.5 billion over five years. However, we have yet to see any concrete action or fulfilling of that promise to make it a reality. We know that mental health is health, and Canadians deserve to be able to access the mental health supports they need without worrying about barriers such as cost or availability. This week is Mental Health Week in Canada. I ask my colleague this. Is this one thing that we could all unite behind as parties, and have empathy for those who need support for mental health? When will the government be moving forward with the transfer?

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/3/22 1:57:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member 100%. The member brought this issue up yesterday. I asked him a question about his private member's bill, and he provided some feedback on what he was hearing throughout the country when he was touring around, talking to people about it. We have come a long way in our understanding and our appreciation of mental health, in terms of the genuine health challenges we have around mental health. I would be willing to work with this member, as I know many members on this side of the House would, to do and provide more, in terms of mental health supports.

109 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:57:39 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington will have about two minutes before Statements by Members. The hon. member.

23 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

May/3/22 1:57:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I am pleased to rise today to give my second speech on Bill C-8. I have always indicated my support and preference for proper scrutiny of the bill as it comes through this place. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:58:09 p.m.
Watch

Could we have some quiet please so we can actually listen to the speech? Thank you. The hon. member.

19 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

May/3/22 1:58:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I spoke to the House about the importance of allowing Parliament to scrutinize legislation. Imagine my dismay when I glanced over the Notice Paper later that day to see what the government House leader had placed on notice. It was a motion that would mark a severe departure from the normal practices of this place and set a precedent that could easily be abused by current and future governments. Parliament is supposed to be a legislature based on collaboration, not coercion. While I am absolutely in favour of increased scrutiny of legislation, this motion would give the Liberals and the NDP enablers the power to adjourn the House on any whim of any minister. I would note the Liberals chose their executive designation, a minister, as an enabling mechanism, not a member. We should all be wary when the executive tries to worm its way into the proceedings of this place. It is 2022, not 1640. In my earlier speech, I also highlighted just how important the role of a parliamentarian is. We are here to scrutinize the spending of public funds. I will remind my colleagues of the two maxims that govern this institution: One, the executive should have no income that is not granted to it or otherwise sanctioned by Parliament. Two, the executive should make no expenditures except those approved by Parliament, in ways approved by Parliament.

235 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 2:00:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have almost eight minutes to conclude her speech after question period. Statements by Members, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

26 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 63