SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Nov/15/22 6:26:19 p.m.
Watch

We are not going to do that again. We cannot say whether someone is here or not. We had a quorum call, and we have quorum. Therefore, the member has the floor.

32 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/15/22 6:26:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say there is only one person on the other side of the House. There is absolutely nothing wrong with indicating that there is only one on the other side of the House— An hon. member: There is one Conservative. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Other members might say “one Conservative.” I will not say that. The bottom line is that we are in private members' hour and—

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green

Nov/15/22 6:26:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is double. An hon. member: We said “Conservatives”. That is two people.

22 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 6:27:02 p.m.
Watch

There we go. Let us all just take a big, deep breath. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/15/22 6:27:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, we have a private member's bill of substance. It is a private member's bill that would have a positive impact, and it reflects what has been taking place over the last two and a half years. I do not want to play games on the legislation. I want to recognize the legislation for what it is. It is something that reflects a very real and genuine need, and it gives specific direction as to what the government could actually do, not only the government but also the entire House of Commons. To imply that this is in fact a government initiative is to do a disservice to private members. To try to play the quorum game on a private member's bill does a disservice to private members' hour. I really, truly believe that, and I would hope that we will at least put a pause on that game until we get through private members' hour. There were issues such as border controls, supply issues, stockpile issues and supports for real people during pandemics. Let us think of the human resources that are necessary, not to mention outside stakeholders such as the Red Cross or our Canadian Forces. There are so many dynamics at play. We have a piece of legislation that has been brought forward by a private member to try to have an answer going forward. Are there things that we can learn from the last two and a half years? Every member of the Liberal caucus will tell us that, yes, there are things that we can learn from this process. I would like to think that all members on all sides of the House would recognize that value. Let us put partisanship to the side for a moment and say that it would be good to see this legislation go to a committee. Of the many times I have debated during private members' hour, it is not often that I would be so bold as to say, “Let us get this legislation to a committee” in private members' business. However, I believe this legislation is relevant to the what we are experiencing today. It would not prevent other forms of inquiries. It would not prevent other standing committees from looking at what has taken place. I am one of many members of Parliament who have recognized that we had to make decisions in a fairly quick fashion. I have acknowledged in the past, and I will continue to acknowledge, that it has not been perfect. There have been some mistakes. However, when governments spend literally billions of additional dollars and create programs from virtually nothing, there are going to be mistakes. There were things that took place during the pandemic that we can all learn from. It is not just Ottawa. Whether it is provincial governments, municipal governments, school boards, and indigenous community leaders and indigenous communities in general, all of us have played a role in making the decisions. Having that comprehensive study is the responsible thing to be doing, along with the idea of having a report on a three- or a five-year basis. The legislation says three years, and the member says he is open to changes in that. I do not quite understand why other members would be opposing the legislation. I anxiously wait for a vote because I do believe that, if we were to consult with our constituents, this is the type of legislation they would want us to get behind unanimously.

589 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/15/22 6:32:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/15/22 6:32:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West. Here we are again. I was in the process of recapping a bit of history on the draconian motions the Liberal government continues to bring. I had described Motion No. 6 in 2016. It was the same thing of wanting to extend the hours and basically obstruct, and that of course was where “elbowgate” came from. The Prime Minister was upset because there was legislation pending and many amendments were brought, so that evening turned into a fiasco. The government then withdrew Motion No. 6. It realized it had pushed everyone too far and it was very undemocratic. In fact, I quoted the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who said that the motion was fundamentally anti-democratic. The NDP seems to be supporting its costly coalition now, but at the time he said that it was fundamentally undemocratic. Then the government came forward with Motion No. 11, which was about sitting until midnight, but not for everybody to be sitting until midnight. The Liberals and the NDP would have been able to be home in their pyjamas with Motion No. 11, because there would not need to be quorum. They would not need to have a certain number of people in the House, which is actually a constitutional requirement to have 20 in the House. They were recommending something that was not even constitutional back on Motion No. 11. The irony is they have now brought Motion No. 22, which is twice as bad as Motion No. 11, and mathematically, people will see the irony there. On the one hand, we hear Liberal members say they are trying to give us more time to debate, but actually that would only happen when Liberal and NDP members would be here, and they would not need to be because we would not need to have quorum. It is a little insincere. The other thing is that the government continually moves time allocation. It promised not to do that when it was first elected in 2015, back in the old sunshiny days. Its members said they would never move time allocation, and now they are moving it all the time. Rushing things through the House can be disastrous. We saw that with Bill C-11, where all kinds of draconian measures were used. It was forced to committee, and it was time allocated at committee to get it over to the Senate. Now we can see there are so many flaws in the bill that the Senate is taking quite a bit of time with it and is likely to bring numerous amendments. That is why we need to have time here in the House for reasonable debate. Debate means people need to not just speak but also be heard. For that to happen, one needs to have an audience, which of course Motion No. 22 would eliminate. The role of the opposition is to point out what is not good about legislation that comes before the House. It does no good at all for us to point it out if nobody is listening to what is being said. I find it particularly awful that the Liberals talk about family balance and try to promote more women to come into politics. The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Shefford, who are young mothers, have stood up and said that this motion is not good for family balance. It is not that people do not want to work, but if we want to encourage more women to come in, these kinds of measures are not encouraging them. There is a lot of hypocrisy for the government to talk on the one hand about getting more women in politics and promoting that and on the other hand putting draconian measures such as this in place, where mothers with young babies would need to be here at 11:30 at night debating legislation. I am very concerned about committee resources, and so that is really the amendment the CPC has brought. We have seen there has been a lot of trouble at committees getting interpreters and committees not being able to extend their hours when there are important issues because there are just no resources. A valid concern brought by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was that we want a guarantee we are not going to be shortchanged at committee. Perhaps at the end of the day, that is what the government is trying to do, which is to escape the examination it gets at committee. In a minority government, we can actually try to get to the heart of the issues the government would like no transparency on. The amendment that has been brought forward is a good one. Overall, I have seen an erosion of our democracy. I think this motion is fundamentally undemocratic, but I would add it to the list of attacks on our democratic rights and freedoms in this country. We talk about freedom of speech, but we have seen a continual onslaught against it from the government through Bill C-10, Bill C-36 and Bill C-11, including when it comes to freedom of the media and freedom of the press. We have Bill C-18 at the heritage committee right now, and I have lots of concern about that bill. There is an erosion of freedom of religion in this country, from hiring a consultant who is an anti-Semite to advise the government on anti-racism, to having 15 Christian churches burn down in Canada, yet crickets are coming from the side opposite. I am very concerned. I see the rise of Chinese influence in our elections. There are three police stations that China has claimed in Toronto. What is the government doing about any of this? Nothing. This motion is just another in a long line of motions eroding our democracy, so I am certainly not going to support it. I cannot believe that the NDP is going to support the government when previously the New Democrats said this kind of motion was fundamentally undemocratic. I understand in no way why this costly coalition exists. The NDP got in bed with the Liberals to get 10 sick days, through legislation that was passed in December last year and was never enacted, and dental care for everybody, which they got for children under 12 and poor families who are mostly covered in other provincial programs, with nothing else coming until after the next election. On pharmacare, there are crickets. Why is the NDP supporting the government on this draconian anti-democratic motion that is intended to take away the accountability of government? I have no idea. I am certainly not going to support it, and my Conservative colleagues will not either.

1155 words

All Topics

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

Nov/15/22 6:39:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member can explain something to those following the debate. The Conservatives say they want to speak to legislation and are provided the opportunity to ensure there will be more time to speak to the legislation they want to speak to, but they are opposing the ability of their caucus colleagues to speak to legislation. It does not make any sense to me. Many would see it as being somewhat hypocritical. Does the member believe that there might be some merit to that argument, given that the Conservatives are in opposition to a motion that would give them more time to speak?

108 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Nov/15/22 6:40:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, actually, we are not looking for more time to speak. We are looking for more time to debate. That means we bring up points about what is wrong with legislation, and the government hears them and negotiates with the various parties to come to agreements about how to fix bills that are bad. Speaking into the air when there are no members of the government here, because there is no quorum required per this motion, is not debate.

80 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/15/22 6:41:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I am going to ask her a question, because I felt she was talking to me when she mentioned me in her speech. Both the Liberals and the NDP like to remind me that we have a virtual Parliament and that extended sitting hours are not a problem for a mother. However, from my experience, sitting in a virtual Parliament is still sitting in a Parliament. When I am at home in the evening, I will still have my baby in my arms in front of my monitor while sitting and taking part in debates, which will be extended for purely political reasons. Once again, this measure shows that the Liberal government spews a lot of feminist rhetoric but is not feminist when it comes to taking concrete action. It has been shown in other places around the world that parliamentary schedules must be compatible with regular schedules to allow young women to serve. Once again, the Liberals are showing that they are all talk and no action.

178 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Nov/15/22 6:42:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for her question. Mothers work very hard and it is unacceptable to ask them to sit until midnight to give speeches. I believe we should look to other countries that have achieved work-life balance. It is the right thing to do, and that is what we should be striving for in this place.

61 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Nov/15/22 6:43:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I think she made some excellent points. I wonder if the member would agree with this. The bottom line here is that because the government's coalition partner does not like voting for time allocation or closure, this is the draconian measure the New Democrats are left with, and that they are doing it under the guise of giving members more time to speak. Would she agree with that assessment?

82 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Nov/15/22 6:43:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I would agree with the member. I think the NDP has no credibility left whatsoever, because its position has always been that it is opposed to time allocation but it supports the government on time allocation. Its members try to call the government out for driving up the cost of home heating and gasoline, but on the other hand, they are supporting the government's tripling of the carbon tax. There is nothing but hypocrisy there, and I think the people who were supporting the NDP are asking why they would ever vote NDP again, because they are going to get the Liberals anyway. I think that is a real conundrum for them, and I would certainly say it is a problem.

125 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Nov/15/22 6:44:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. Of course, we are debating a motion tonight, which is the latest attempt by the NDP-Liberal coalition to change the rules of Parliament to make up for its incredible incompetence when it comes to moving legislation through this House. As Jodi Taylor said, “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” An even better quote comes from Peter Green, who said the marvellous thing about lack of planning is that failure comes as a complete and utter surprise. The Liberals constantly fail with the current parliamentary rules, so now they think that changing the rules will somehow make it better for them. I could talk about this motion’s effect on resources such as our interpreters, who do such a great job, and the great strain this will add to them. I could talk about this motion’s effect on our committees and the likelihood that many meetings will be cancelled. However, rather than doing that, I think my time is better spent reminding the Liberals of the true priorities of Canadians, the things that they wish the Prime Minister was focused on instead of arcane parliamentary procedures. All Canadians are aware of the carbon tax. The Prime Minister has imposed it on Canadians against their wishes. Yes, for some, those who cycle their bikes through the Toronto skyscrapers of Bay Street or have huge mansions in the Rosedale district, taxing people who drive cars seems like mana from heaven. For the people who live in the Liberal finance minister’s riding, it is a curiosity to them that people in places like Saskatoon need to drive to work every day and struggle to pay their bills. That is because it is the people in Saskatoon who are paying the carbon tax that the finance minister gives to people living in downtown Toronto. It is therefore no wonder that she never meets a carbon tax that she does not embrace and impose on Canadians. The newest version is the Liberals' so-called clean fuel standard. I say “so-called” because it is simply a second carbon tax in disguise. Just as Shakespeare wrote “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, to the finance minister it is a nationwide carbon tax under another name that smells very sweet to her. Unfortunately, it is actually the stench of the carbon tax being tripled on all Canadians. Between the planned tripling of the existing, federally imposed carbon tax in my province of Saskatchewan and the additional second carbon tax, residents of Saskatoon will be pushed to the breaking point. The odour of these carbon taxes is so overwhelming that it wafts all over the House from the finance minister. Not only does she promote it, but she wears it like a perfume. It is not a pleasant smell to the people in Saskatoon. They want the government to get rid of this carbon tax rather than wasting time on arcane parliamentary procedures like this motion does. The Conservatives will continue holding the NDP-Liberal coalition to account for its endless tax increases on fuel and home heating. We welcome the opportunity to debate in this House because Canadians want us to fight for the things that matter to them, like the rising cost of living. Christmas is not going to be a merry time of year for many Canadians. Record Liberal inflation has forced people to buckle down on their spending. This year, 30% of Canadians are expecting to cut down on gifts and dinner with their families to cope. Is it no surprise why. Thanks to the government’s inflationary policies, the price of everything continues to skyrocket. Printing money to pay for excessive spending has gotten us to where we are today. More money chasing fewer goods equals higher prices. During Thanksgiving, we saw the impact of this when holiday staples like turkey were up 15%, and when bread was up 13% and potatoes were up 22%. These price increases were on top of the Liberals' plan to triple the carbon tax on everyday essentials such as groceries, gasoline and home heating. The finance minister’s solution of simply cancelling Disney+ subscriptions is not going to cut it this Christmas season for families barely scraping by. She does not get it. Canadians want action on the inflation crisis, not changes to the House of Commons procedures. One really has to wonder how much humbug the finance minister really has as Christmas approaches. Disney+ is about to launch the new Santa Claus franchise based on the beloved Tim Allen movies of a while back. Does she really want to strip Canadians of the joy that Tim Allen delivers, or is it because Tim Allen is a self-described conservative that she wants Disney+ cancelled? Is it any wonder the Liberals have three Internet censorship bills they are trying to ram through Parliament? Canadians are getting clobbered by 40-year inflation highs and massive interest rate hikes while the Prime Minister tries to find more ways to skirt accountability. Today’s motion comes as no shock. The Liberals are once again trying to avoid transparency. They want to ram through their plans to triple the carbon tax on fuel, groceries and home heating and limit the ability of committees to investigate the $54-million arrive scam scandal and how Liberal friends got rich during the pandemic. We have seen this before. When things do not go the Prime Minister’s way, he tries to run down anything in his path. Remember the WE Charity scandal, where the Liberals tried to give half a billion dollars to the Prime Minister’s friends? When they were caught, they shut down Parliament for more than five weeks. That cancelled all the work of Parliament, causing it to start again at square one. It was a huge waste of parliamentary resources. What about the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where the Prime Minister fired Canada's first indigenous justice minister and attorney general because she would not give in to his demands? Canadians remember and will not be fooled by Liberal corruption. They know that today's motion is an attempt by the Prime Minister to give himself a majority by stealth, and they know this motion is nothing more than a power grab that will limit the opposition's ability to hold the government to account. Conservatives will continue to demand accountability from this government and fight its inflation-causing agenda. I have to say that it is not an easy task to stand up to the Liberals day in and day out. Take this motion that we are debating today, for instance. We are only here because the Liberals have a lap dog in the NDP who does their every bidding. The government knows that it can bring forward any outrageous measure, skirt any ethical law, break any democratic norm and NDP members will wag their tails and bark on command. People used to have this mythical image of the NDP, the so-called conscience of Parliament. What a sorry lot these current NDP members are compared to Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent, Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair. Canadians are frightened by the anticipated increases in home heating costs, which are expected to rise anywhere from 30% to 100% this winter. Some may count on the NDP to deliver more than time on Twitter in such a crisis. Sadly, all they are getting are retweets of Liberal policy. In October, the Conservatives moved a motion to remove the carbon tax on home heating. What did NDP members do? They voted alongside their costly Liberal coalition partner to make heating even more expensive. Unfortunately, this pattern is all too familiar. We are seeing it first-hand today with the NDP's support of the government's motion to end accountability and fast-track its legislation without scrutiny. They may pretend to be opposed on Twitter, but when it is time to face the music, they vote to prop up this corrupt government at every turn. Canadians simply cannot afford more inaction from the NDP. While the NDP continues to increase the cost of living, Conservatives will hold this government to account for their cruel tax hikes and wasteful spending. When we form government, we will axe the carbon tax and cap government spending so Canadians can finally get ahead. The NDP members are the Liberal government's enablers, as it is their complicity in the drive-by corruption, ethical lapses and general war on the Canadian taxpayer that is hurting people in this country. This is the real world, and the NDP-Liberals are hurting Canadians. The finance minister seems to live in a fairy tale, in a land where Canadians do not need to drive their cars to work in the morning and can afford to live in million-dollar mansions in Toronto. To her, the carbon tax is actually helping us, never mind the millions of Canadians struggling to choose between putting three meals on the table or heating their homes. The finance minister and the Liberals believe their plan to triple the carbon tax is going to help us get ahead. They believe that printing more money to pay for their reckless spending and raising interest rates will be good for us. Unfortunately for them, they are in for a rude awakening. Canadians are on the brink. While the Prime Minister stays in $6,000-per-night hotels and jet-sets across the world, the carbon tax combined with NDP-Liberal money printing deficits has turned Canada into a country where mothers are putting water in their children’s milk because they cannot afford the increases in food prices, where 1.5 million people are turning to food banks and thousands are skipping meals just to get by. This is not a fantasy either. These are real people across the country hurting, because of this government’s refusal to listen to anyone besides the downtown elite class. As we debate this motion, we see a stark contrast with the NDP-Liberals on one side of this Parliament. Theirs is a vision of high taxes, high gas and food prices, rampant corruption and no accountability. They are ramming this very motion through the House to allow for more opportunities to impose their vision of carnage on the Canadian public. On this side of Parliament stands the Conservative Party led by our new leader. Our new leader is a man who is singularly focused on delivering solutions to fix the cost of living crisis. He will cut taxes. He will allow newcomers to work in the jobs they were trained in, and he will make life more affordable for average, working Canadians.

1832 words

All Topics

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

Nov/15/22 6:53:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of his time talking about budgetary measures, and I will pick up on that in the form of a question. The first major economic policy statement that really came out of the current leader of the Conservative Party was to recommend to Canadians that they should invest in cryptocurrency as a way to combat inflation. We all know that turned into a dud. Now we hear again and again from members of the Conservative Party that they will abolish the price on pollution. However, the price on pollution that Ottawa has implemented does not cover the entire country as there are provinces that have their own price on pollution. Ours is a backstop. Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will mandate all provinces to get rid of any form of a price on pollution?

144 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/15/22 6:54:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously the parliamentary secretary is not paying a lot of attention to the Conservative leader, and I guess I can understand that. Our party leader has a very clear, very simple message. He is concerned about the cost of living for Canadians. He is going to work very hard to undo some of the terrible Liberal policies that have caused inflation to go out of control and interest rates to go so high, and that are causing all the problems I mentioned in my speech. People are not able to afford the daily necessities of life, and that is directly because of policies instituted by the government. That is the message that my leader is talking about every single day and that is his singular focus.

128 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Nov/15/22 6:55:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that I heard the hon. member talk about our time on social media. I want to welcome him to TikTok. Many of his comments in the House are very similar to his rhetoric online. He talks about the dumpster fire that is the economy, but he does not have the guts to talk about the arsonist. While the Liberals bemoan over and over about the cost of living and the high cost of food, why do they not have the courage to take on the fact that companies like Loblaws take in $1 million a day in profit? Why do the Conservatives not have the courage to go after the arsonists of this economy so that people in his constituency can afford to eat? The ultrawealthy in this country keep cashing in on this disgusting use of price gouging and corporate greed.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/15/22 6:56:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that gives me a great opportunity to point out something I mentioned in my speech, and that is the fact that NDP members, whether it is on Twitter or even in the House, talk as if they oppose the government, as if they are unhappy with the government, yet they support the government when they vote every single time, regardless of what they say. What is really important to remember is that it does not matter what people say; what matters is what they do. What the NDP members do every single day in this House is vote to support the corrupt Liberal government, every single time.

109 words

All Topics

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

Nov/15/22 6:57:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to be said in regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of hours. We can contrast that to what we have seen from the official opposition over the last couple of years. For those who are following the debate, I am going to try to use the experience I have accumulated over the last 30 years as a parliamentarian to try to shed some light on what the Conservative Party is actually doing. I do not come to this lightly. I served just over 20 years in opposition, so I understand what it is the opposition is attempting to do. I have also now had the privilege of being on the government benches for a number of years. When I reflect on what I have been witnessing over the last couple of years, the first thing that comes to my mind is the political agenda of the Conservative Party when it comes to the legislative process in the House of Commons. It is actually fairly simple and straightforward for them. It is to, if at all possible, prevent any type of legislation from passing through the House of Commons. The only time we will see legislation pass through the House of Commons is if the Conservative Party is shamed into supporting the legislation, if it accidentally slips through because its members were not necessarily paying attention or if it is something they really want to see pass, and that is very rare. They use delay tactics to try to frustrate the government, because what they want to be able to say is that the government has no legislative agenda and that it was not able to get things passed. I suspect that, with very little research, we could find quotes where the Conservatives are critical of us for not being able to pass a legislative agenda. It is almost like sitting on the sidewalk, watching people walk by and extending a leg to trip a person and then saying, “How come you fell?” The Conservatives are intentionally trying to prevent the government's legislative agenda from passing, and they come up with a wide variety of tools to do just that. Then, they get upset when the government says it is going to continue to push through legislation in the best way it can. Today it is a minority government. That requires us to get at least one opposition party to assist us in passing legislation. If we cannot get the assistance of at least one political party, given the Conservative Party's approach to legislation, we would not be able to pass a legislative agenda. We have a very aggressive number of pieces of legislation that are so important for us to—

466 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/15/22 7:00:55 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Carleton Trail—Eagle Creek is rising on a point of order.

16 words