SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 63

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:22:46 p.m.
  • Watch
I am getting a number of “no”s again.
11 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. John Brassard
  • May/3/22 3:23:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that, in regard to the government's Motion No. 11 and out of respect for the hard-working and dedicated employees of the House of Commons— Some hon. members: No.
56 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:23:28 p.m.
  • Watch
We are getting a lot of “no”s on that one.
13 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Ed Fast
  • May/3/22 3:23:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be able to finish my motion before we get all these “no”s from across the way. There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that, given that the government tabled the largest spending budget in Canadian history— Some hon. members: No.
62 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:23:59 p.m.
  • Watch
There is no consent on that one.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Luc Berthold
  • May/3/22 3:24:08 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House acknowledge the provincial premiers' unanimous call for an increase in health transfers and ask the government— Some hon. members: Nay.
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:24:21 p.m.
  • Watch
I hear many nays, so there is no unanimous consent.
10 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Francis Drouin
  • May/3/22 3:24:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I hope that— Some hon. members: Nay.
18 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:24:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Let us just hear the first sentence, and then we will decide from there.
14 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Francis Drouin
  • May/3/22 3:24:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should update the mandate of Farm Credit Canada— Some hon. members: Nay.
40 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:25:02 p.m.
  • Watch
I hear members saying nay. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
20 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Elizabeth May
  • May/3/22 3:25:09 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like it if the members of this place acquainted themselves with the standing rules, particularly Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18, which mean that when a member rises and has been recognized by the Speaker, he or she or they are not to be interrupted by yelling.
52 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:25:26 p.m.
  • Watch
Does anyone wish to take the opportunity to respond to the point of order? The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.
23 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • May/3/22 3:25:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, frankly, we are all quite aware of the rules of procedure in the House. We do not need to be lectured by another member on how to conduct ourselves. We know what we are doing here in the House.
41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:25:49 p.m.
  • Watch
I have this comment to make, whether it is a point of order or a response to one. I know there was an unusually high number of requests for unanimous consent motions after question period for today. All but one were denied. I would like to bring attention to a few quotes from chair occupants with regard to this process. This is from May 17, 2019: It is known to be common practice of the House to use the unanimous consent motion approach when there is known agreement among parties for the acceptance of these motions. This is one from May 27, 2019: As Speaker, I am confident that members still expect the process of unanimous consent to be used for its rightful purpose and in the manner in which it was intended, including ensuring that the necessary consultations take place prior to these requests being raised in the House.... Finally, this is from June 3, 2019: [W]e expect in fact there will be consent because the member consulted all the parties and has received that consent. I encourage members to bear this in mind before seeking unanimous consent for a motion. Perhaps this subject could also be discussed by the House leaders at their meeting this afternoon.
209 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Elizabeth May
  • May/3/22 3:27:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my hon. friend from South Surrey—White Rock is indeed a friend. I rose only because it is impossible for either of these parties to hear themselves speak. I have been here 11 years, but I have never heckled once. It is possible to respect our rules and respect each other, and that is all I plead for.
66 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:27:36 p.m.
  • Watch
I thank the member for her intervention as well.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/3/22 3:27:56 p.m.
  • Watch
When we last went off, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington had the floor. She has eight minutes left and five minutes of questions and answers. The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)
  • May/3/22 3:28:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-8 
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to resume my intervention on Bill C-8. Earlier, I noted that Parliament is supposed to be a legislature based on collaboration, not coercion. I also highlighted how important the role of Parliament is in scrutinizing the spending of public funds. Now I want to bring this around to something that the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, said just last week in his speech on the budget. He said that in the past couple of years, Canadians have had to deal with the pandemic and the growing cost of living, which is at a crisis level now. The cost of everything has gone up, from filling up our cars to buying groceries to finding an affordable home and to paying rent. On top of that, there is a war that makes everyone across the world feel less safe. In this context, Canadians sent us to Parliament, he said, in a minority government, to get them help and to find ways to help them solve the problems they are dealing with. My hon. colleague then went on to claim victory, touting potential dental care as a surefire sign of victory. All it took was surrendering the most basic function of parliamentarians to the Liberal government, and that is their ability to scrutinize public expenditures. This is what their confidence and supply agreement necessitates, the automatic support of money bills. In my opinion, that is not a win for Canadian. That is an abstract shirking of the most basic duties of a parliamentarian. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that my colleagues in all parties are satisfied with the content of this legislation. Out of a 124-page bill, there is a singular area for improvement and nothing else that they would like to see added to the legislation. On this side of the House, this is not the case. For example, at committee my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South raised concerns about the inequitable nature of the distribution of the carbon tax rebate for farmers. He rightfully pointed out that a dairy farmer in Stirling would have different expenses than a wheat farmer out in Saskatchewan. There are both regional differences and industrial differences, differences that the legislation does not differentiate. This was confirmed by Ms. Lindsay Gwyer, the director general of the legislation, tax legislation division in the tax policy branch at the Department of Finance. Subsequent witnesses confirmed that the government's approach was not ideal. When asked whether his members supported the approach to the carbon tax rebate as laid out in the private member's bill of my colleague from Huron—Bruce, as opposed to the patchwork job in Bill C-8, Mark Agnew, of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce replied, “We'll take what we can get in the meantime, but certainly working towards Bill C-234 is what we hope can happen.” My colleague from Calgary Centre rightfully questioned the value and efficacy of a 1% increase in housing tax. He said: I cite in the House of Commons the example of British Columbia, where there is a municipal tax already on foreign transactions in the housing market of up to 2%, depending on the buyer, plus a provincial tax up to 3%, for a total of up to 5%. In addition, there is a 20% transfer tax on foreign buyers, and yet 7.7% of activity in the Vancouver real estate market is still being consumed by foreign buyers of real estate in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. These small taxes aren't having much of an effect on buying, unless we're looking ex post facto at this. How do you suppose an extra 1% jurisdictional overreach is going to solve the housing problem in Canada? The response from the government official was, “I will just point out, very simply, that this is a tax, the purpose of which is to raise revenues. It's estimated that the tax will raise $735 million in revenues over the next five years.” Another witness styled the tax as perfunctory, stating: I would say at a very basic level that you are looking at with the cost of doing business is. In this case it's the business of crime. When you are talking about laundering millions of dollars, a 1% hit on that could be considered the cost of doing business. This is why we talk about, as well, the need for penalties for money laundering to be highly substantive and not just seen as the cost of doing business, to properly dissuade money launderers from exploiting Canadian housing. At a time when young Canadian families are living in their parents' basements because of the obscene increase in housing prices, this government comes in and increases it further, and not to combat foreign ownership or restrict purchasing, but to exclusively raise money to pay for its record spending. It was interesting to have been able to approach this particular type of legislation with a different mindset than I had had previously. Armed with new information, we were able to contextualize how Bill C-8 would truly affect Canadians. Paired with the budget, Bill C-8 clearly signals what this government views as a priority and, unfortunately for many people across Canada, including struggling families in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, they are not included. I had previously highlighted some areas I believe the government needs to focus on to best serve struggling Canadian families. This includes investment in rural infrastructure, taxation relief, cutting red tape and support for our agricultural sector. It is my firm belief that these are the most effective measures to get our economy going and stifle crippling inflation. The record increase in inflation we experienced months ago has not subsided. The cost of fuel has continued to increase, and with that, the cost of living. Canadians need a government that will help them through this extremely difficult time. Through my eyes, Bill C-8 would not do that.
1016 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)
  • May/3/22 3:35:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-8 
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about collaboration, and she suggested that this place requires collaboration. That is absolutely true, but collaboration does not equal consensus. The way our entire system works is to bring forward ideas, a bill in this case; bring it to committee; have robust discussion at committee; formulate a response with a majority of the committee members voting in favour to send it back here; debate it one more time in this place; and, ultimately, vote on it. Can the member explain to me why she feels as though the collaborative process has not occurred? If a majority of the members on the committee have sent the report back to the House for final debate and to vote, it clearly has.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border