SoVote

Oct/4/22 3:17:56 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. members that the generosity of the Speaker is there, but not to take advantage of it. All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

57 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/4/22 3:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House— Some hon. members: No. Mr. Garnett Genuis: —for the following motion: that the House call on the government to immediately list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, as a terrorist entity under the—

56 words

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:18:43 p.m.
Watch

I believe that with unanimous consent, we try to have consultation before hand. I was pretty clear about that, and so was the Deputy Speaker, on consulting with everyone, so when we get here, we have already spoken about it, we know what is going on and we go from there. That is unanimous consent.

55 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Oct/4/22 3:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultation with all parties and the member was simply moving a motion in search of unanimous consent, as is his right, and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, honour his right.

43 words

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:19:17 p.m.
Watch

It was clear that he did not have unanimous consent, but I thank the member for bringing that up.

19 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/4/22 3:19:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent, which was given earlier, for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on motions— An hon. member: No.

64 words

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:19:47 p.m.
Watch

I am afraid I am hearing no unanimous consent already. I will leave it there.

15 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/4/22 3:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you check this side of the House, we were not withholding unanimous consent. We were not saying boo; we were saying boo-urns. Please allow him to continue.

41 words

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:20:09 p.m.
Watch

I just want to make it clear what the rules are. If one person says no, we do not have unanimous consent, and I was hearing very clearly that we did not. Therefore, I am going to take that as a retraction. If the hon. member who disagreed wants to say no, I will let that person say it again. In the meantime, we will let the hon. member for Winnipeg North continue, on the advice of the opposition House leader.

81 words

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

Oct/4/22 3:20:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 8 to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Health be resumed today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, and at the the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and (b) the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 11 to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, be deemed to have taken place and the motion be deemed agreed to.

159 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:21:30 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

34 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:22:53 p.m.
Watch

It being 3.20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Call in the members.

50 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:35:36 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/4/22 3:37:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 28, 2022, by the member for Perth—Wellington concerning an allegation of intimidation of a committee witness. The member for Perth—Wellington informed the Chair of a situation that he finds troubling. Following a witness’s appearance before a Senate committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage submitted an inquiry request to the Commissioner of Lobbying regarding the witness’s activities. The witness had also appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in March and May of this year. According to the member, the parliamentary secretary’s conduct constitutes an attempt to intimidate the witness, an act which could be considered a contempt of the House. While the member acknowledged that this matter relates to the work of the other place, he argued that the House of Commons should be able to take up the issue because the alleged act was committed by a member and only the House can exercise disciplinary authority over its members. As the member for Perth—Wellington noted, this question of privilege stems from the deliberations of a Senate committee. My role as Speaker is limited to only protecting the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and its members. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 317, and I quote: “It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.” Therefore, the Chair cannot exercise its authority to protect the rights and privileges of the other house of Parliament. The Chair will not review or rule on that house’s business. That said, the Chair has reviewed the facts submitted that are within its purview. It is not immediately apparent that the conduct in question was intended as an attempt to intimidate the witness or an act of reprisal for his appearances before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Chair would also remind members of the importance of choosing their words carefully when discussing the conduct of other members. In the opinion of the Chair, this matter does not warrant priority consideration over all other House business. I therefore consider the matter closed. I thank members for their attention. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

417 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

Oct/4/22 3:41:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Mr. Speaker, I used to serve as a volunteer firefighter in my community. However, one does not need to be a firefighter to know that one cannot put out a fire by pouring more gas on it. That is exactly what the Liberals have done. They have created the worst cost of living crisis by overspending the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians, causing a rapid increase in inflation. With inflation at a staggering 7% and economists warning about an impending economic recession, the Liberals continue to spend. Many contend that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Here we are, with a government that overspends Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars, causing inflation. It then continues to spend while claiming that it is helping. It has lost the plot. As we have learned recently, the Prime Minister enjoys plunging from great heights. I just wish he did not enjoy doing the same thing to the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister's determination to plunge the Canadian economy to record lows is mirrored by the enthusiasm that he showed when he recently went bungee jumping in Chelsea. Now, the Prime Minister's recent bungee jumping trip was not brave or funny or relatable. It was actually just a metaphor for what he is doing to the Canadian economy, which is making it do a nosedive. While the Prime Minister laughs and plays around, 23% of Canadians have reported eating less than they should have because of rising inflation at the grocery store, and 53% of Canadian households are within $200 or less of financial insolvency. Despite working hard, many Canadians have nothing to show for it. Many more are forced to walk a financial tightrope. Continued spending will only worsen the existing crisis and squeeze even more Canadian families into financial ruin. Simultaneously, spending is racking up our national debt, which has more than doubled to almost $1.2 trillion under this Liberal government, with their spending accounting for more spending than all previous governments in Canadian history. They have actually put more onto the national debt than all other governments in this country's history combined. That amounts to $32,000 of debt for each and every Canadian. Every hour, that debt increases by over $6 million. Every day, it increases by $144 million. Every month, we pay 2 billion dollars' worth of interest on that debt. What exactly is the government's plan to pay down the debt they have created? Someone needs to be the adult in the room here and say that enough is enough. Perpetual spending with no end in sight is a reckless economic policy with dire consequences for this and for many future generations. Now, with this so-called cost of living bill, finally the Liberals are at least admitting that their approach has not worked and that Canadians are suffering as a result. Conservatives know that the government continues to collect increased GST revenue because of inflation and high gas prices. When the Parliamentary Budget Office releases its upcoming report, we will see just how much they have collected while Canadians were being forced to choose between food and fuel. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling with high prices, the Liberal government should not be profiteering off of the crisis, especially because gas is so critical to our increasingly vulnerable supply chains, our farmers and our job-creating industries. That is why, in March, Conservatives put forward a motion to suspend the government's collection of GST on fuel. I was disheartened that not a single Liberal or NDP member voted in favour of this much-needed relief. At least they are coming around a little now. However, the proposal in this bill is too little, too late for the Canadians who need it the most, and it is certainly a poor substitute for Conservative tax relief proposals. First of all, what is included in this bill is only a temporary measure that lasts for only six months. I am certainly not naive enough to believe that the Liberal government is going to be able to clean up the inflation crisis that it has created and have things back to normal in that six months. This bill also only applies to individuals who make over $49,200 and families with children that have a household income of under $58,500. Believe me, there are individuals making over $49,200 who are certainly struggling. There are even more families with children making over $58,000 that are also struggling. More than 70% of families with children would not be eligible for this support. Even for those that are, this measure certainly falls short. For a qualifying family of four, this measure would only work out to about $77 a month. That is not even $20 per family member. It is certainly not enough to displace the cost of inflation. In the past few weeks, Conservatives have come together and have continued to put forward realistic, responsible proposals that would help to fix the cost of living crisis. Conservatives know that one of the biggest financial burdens facing Canadians right now is the unpredictable and ever-increasing price of gas, due in part to the existing Liberal carbon tax. For many Canadians, especially rural Canadians and business owners, owning and operating a gas-powered vehicle is not a choice. It is an absolute necessity. However, the out-of-touch government continues to impose a punitive tax on them, intending to make them suffer financially. That is what it is intended to do, make them suffer financially for what Liberals consider an immoral choice, to drive a truck or a car. When the Conservatives learned that the government was planning to go ahead with its plan to triple the carbon tax on Canadians in the middle of this affordability crisis, we fought back. Last week, in the House of Commons, we put forward a motion calling on the Liberals to have some compassion for Canadians who were struggling and cancel their plan to triple the carbon tax. Sadly, not a single member of the Liberal caucus joined us on that motion. Similarly, Conservatives put forward a motion asking the Liberal government to commit to no new taxes on gas, groceries, home heating and paycheques. Given that our country is in an economic crisis and people are already struggling as it is, we think that would be a pretty easy motion to support. I do not think it was a very big ask at all. We were only asking the government not to increase taxes on the necessities that Canadians need to keep alive, to keep warm and to keep fed. However, the Liberals voted against our motion. What message are the Liberals sending to Canadians? Are they planning even more tax hikes? Do they really believe that now, of all times, is a good time to raise taxes on Canadians even further? Our party has made it clear that a Conservative government would fight inflation, fix the cost of living crisis and pay down the national debt by adhering to a responsible pay-as-you-go system. Under this system, our government would find a dollar in savings for taxpayers for every government dollar spent, returning Canada to fiscal responsibility. A Conservative government would reflect on the financial values that Canadians practice in their everyday lives by budgeting responsibly and by ensuring that we are spending wisely, finding savings wherever possible. I do not think it is too much to ask that governments conduct themselves in the same way that we expect all Canadians to conduct themselves. Canadians, when there are tough times, sometimes have a need to put a little money on their credit card. Maybe the roof springs a leak right when they lose a job. They might have to take on a little debt just to cover that. However, once they are employed again, they are going to try to pay down that debt. That is always the first thing any Canadian would do, try to pay down the debt. Then they would undertake whatever other spending they might think is necessary for their household. They would try to pay down that debt and try to make the prudent choices. I do not think it is too much to ask that governments do the same thing. That money comes from somewhere. It comes from Canadians. It is their hard-earned tax dollars. It is money that Canadians have worked hard to earn, to help make sure that they meet the needs of themselves and their families. Every dollar that the government takes from those Canadian families needs to be done with the mindset in government that it is only taking what is absolutely needed for the core services that government provides and to make sure that money is spent appropriately and wisely, because the government is taking away the opportunity for Canadian to make choices for themselves with their own money, so all we expect is for the government to do the same.

1523 words

All Topics

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

Oct/4/22 3:51:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose. I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?

155 words

Mr. Blake Richards

Oct/4/22 3:52:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, the member wants to know what the difference is between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I can tell him that very clearly. The Conservatives want to ensure we take good care of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. We want to make sure we are putting Canadians first and not making life more difficult for them through the kinds of things we have seen from the Liberal government. That is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We are talking about a bill that does have the support of everyone in the House. I heard it put really well by one of my colleagues earlier today. If taxpayers have a loaf of bread, the government is going to take that bread from them and give them just a few crumbs back. That is what the government is doing. It has no compassion and no understanding of what Canadians are dealing with.

155 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Oct/4/22 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear my hon. colleague say that all parties in the House will support this bill, but I was taken aback by his attempt to make it seem like this amount of money is inconsequential. It is easy for a member of Parliament, who makes a minimum of $185,000 a year, to stand in the House to say that $500 does not mean much to someone. My daughter is an adult with special needs. She has friends who live on $15,000 a year. For someone who is earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year, that $500 is incredibly significant. I wonder if the member could speak to that. Would he agree with me that giving temporary relief of $500 to help fight inflation to people who make under $40,000 or $50,000 a year can make a real difference in their lives?

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Richards

Oct/4/22 3:54:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I would first point out that the member certainly misunderstood or misconstrued my comments. I understand that. He is simply trying to justify the fact that the NDP are trying to prop up a government that does not deserve to be propped up. He has to try to justify that somehow to his voters, so I get what he is trying to do, and it is his prerogative to do that. Having said that, is the amount of money we are talking about here going to help people? Sure it will. That is why we are supporting it. Does it do enough? No, it certainly does not do enough. There are a lot of Canadians who will not receive any support from this. There are far better ways this could be done. That is what I was trying to point out in my speech.

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Oct/4/22 3:55:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie for keeping the focus on Canadians in his speech. The Liberal member across the way was talking about Bill C-31, not Bill C-30. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will be doing an update next week on the cost of that, so I think it is important that we all wait and get that costing before we have a fair analysis of Bill C-31. I want to reiterate the point that the member made that the government did not use the summer to do the hard work to find offsetting spending cuts so it could avoid the criticism of being more inflationary. I would like him to comment on how important it is that Canadians not only deserve support, but also have a government that does not fuel inflation and actually fights it.

147 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 107