SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/22 10:34:44 a.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

20 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)

Dec/6/22 10:35:42 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

56 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:35:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2022-23”.

32 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)

Dec/6/22 10:36:02 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-241

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons). I would like to thank the finance committee clerks, Alexandre Roger and Carine Grand-Jean; legislative clerk, Marie-Hélène Sauvé; analysts, Joëlle Malo and Michaël Lambert-Racine; committee assistant, Lynda Gaudreault; all committee staff; interpreter services; and all members of the finance committee.

93 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:37:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to table a petition. Dr. Louis Roy, from the Quebec college of physicians, recommended expanding euthanasia to babies. This is children ages zero to one. Euthanizing them was suggested because they may have been born with disabilities or very serious syndromes. Recently, the college sent another witness to somewhat double down on this, because there was outrage and concern from Canadians across the country. The petitioners want the House to know that this proposal for the legalized killing of infants is disturbing and unacceptable in Canadian society. The petitioners believe that killing of children is always wrong. The petitioners call on the House to block all attempts to legalize infanticide.

115 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:38:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions I want to present. The first is similar to that presented by my colleague. The petitioners highlight, with horror, proposals from the Quebec college of physicians to legalize euthanasia for babies. They find this proposal deeply disturbing. Infants cannot consent. Killing children is always wrong. Infanticide is always wrong. There is no justification for proposing to legalize the killing of children. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children for any reason.

90 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:39:18 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-223

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill S-223, a private member's bill seeking to ban forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill proceeds to its second hour of debate at third reading stage tomorrow and a final vote next week. The petitioners want to see this bill passed, making it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:40:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling responds to recommendations from the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination that published its final report earlier this year. The petitioners are concerned about the fact that this report calls for the exclusion of chaplains on the basis of the views of their faith community on issues of gender and sexuality. They say it is unacceptable, and it is a violation of religious freedom to require or promote the firing of religious clergy from chaplaincy roles on the basis of the views that their denominations hold on various issues. The petitioners call on the government and the House to oppose this kind of religious discrimination; to reject the recommendations on chaplaincy in the Canadian Armed Forces in the final report of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination; and to affirm the right of all Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces chaplains, to freedom of religion.

165 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:40:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the horrific human rights abuses that have been inflicted on the Hazara community in Afghanistan over generations. They are abuses that have been ongoing but have significantly worsened since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. The petitioners call on the government to recognize the violence and the genocide the Hazaras have faced, and to designate September 25 as Hazaras genocide memorial day.

70 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:40:50 a.m.
Watch

Finally, Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition from people who are concerned about the government's intention to bring in another values test associated with charitable status, to use charitable status determinations to discriminate against organizations that hold different views from the government on the issue of abortion. The petitioners call on the government to preserve and protect the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values, without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the Charter right of all Canadians to freedom of expression.

102 words

Ms. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:41:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition this morning on behalf of concerned Canadians. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians has recommended expanding euthanasia to babies, from birth to one year of age, who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes. Recently, the college also sent another witness to AMAD to double down, claiming further that this was not a moral issue and that society had evolved past ethical considerations. The petitioners find this proposal to be very disturbing and very troubling, and they find that the legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing and unacceptable in Canadian society. They believe that the killing of children is always wrong. The petitioners call on the House to block all attempts to legalize infanticide.

142 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/22 10:42:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present this petition. From its very inception, Canada's electoral system has always been a first-past-the-post system. The petitioners point out that this first past the post system leads to distortions. The popular vote is not represented. In these seats in the chamber, we are not here in the proportions for which Canadians have voted. The petitioners call on the government to move toward a system of proportional representation, as recommended by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform in 2016, to bring credible representation to Canadians.

99 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:43:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition about our children. Children are our future and the killing of children is always wrong. Without our children, we have no future. I stand here on behalf of my constituents today to demand that we stop the killing of our children. It is always wrong.

54 words

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

Dec/6/22 10:44:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

11 words

Stand
Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/22 10:44:21 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/6/22 10:44:29 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I move: That in relation to Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

167 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/22 10:45:59 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period. The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

65 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Dec/6/22 10:47:42 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we must once again rise in the House to condemn the fact that the government is using a gag order to get its bills passed. This type of approach should be used only in extreme situations and as a last recourse. Gag orders should be used parsimoniously, but they have now become the government’s modus operandi. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that, in the past seven years, it has used closure far too often, and that is an attack on democracy. We do not need gag orders, especially since this is a minority government. We should keep in mind that the government received fewer votes than the official opposition. We should keep in mind that we must all work together for the good of Canadians. We should keep in mind that we are 338 duly elected representatives and that we have the right to express our opinion about every bill introduced by the government. The government grants the right to speak to the same few individuals—with whom I always enjoy debating, incidentally. These few people have virtually a monopoly on the right to speak, but that is not how we work in the official opposition. Why is the government once again imposing closure on a bill that affects every Canadian’s wallet?

219 words

All Topics

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Dec/6/22 10:48:52 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague. Before answering his question, I would like to mention that this is a sad day that marks a tragedy motivated by hate and misogyny. The École Polytechnique massacre will always be seared into our collective memory. My heart and my thoughts go out to the families of the victims who died 33 years ago, as well as to the families of all women who suffered a violent death. The minister and all of my colleagues in the House have my full support in the fight against misogyny. We need to put an end to violence against women and against those who identify as women. We know that times are hard for Canadians, and Bill C-32 will provide them with essential support. We will eliminate interest on student loans, help families purchase their first home and reduce income tax for growing small and medium-size businesses. These are concrete measures that form the basis of our bill. Rather than supporting Canadians who need the measures set out in Bill C-32, the Conservatives continue to vote against the bill and are now using delay tactics. I understand that there can be some back and forth in the House, but when the issue is the title of the bill, enough is enough, and we should move on to a vote.

230 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Dec/6/22 10:50:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, when I was a child, there were stories on TV. They all used to end with “they got married and had many children”. The NDP and the Liberals got married and had many closure motions. They impose closure on themselves. They impose closure on the House of Commons. We have never seen an opposition party so eager to keep quiet. Sometimes, when we hear them talk, we can understand them. Seriously, the government has negotiated 20 closure motions with the NDP. There was a motion that said the government could extend sittings until midnight up to June 23, if it so desired. Let us look at the legislative agenda: Today we are studying Bill C-32; tomorrow, Bill C-32; Thursday, Bill C-32; Friday, Bill C-32. That is what is on the agenda. They can extend the sittings until midnight, but that is not enough for them. They are in a hurry. Their bill is urgent. What do they do? They decide. My colleague, the Minister of Tourism, said that they are fed up. I would like to remind them that they are in Parliament. This is a democracy. I know that the Prime Minister once said he admired China and China’s dictatorship, but at some point he will have to learn to listen to the opposition, because the opposition parties often have important and relevant things to say. It might inspire them not to introduce bills like Bill C-31. That is why the NDP is on its knees licking the Liberals’ shoes; it is all for Bill C-31. I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I have never seen such a rotten bill. It is not me saying that, it is Mario Dumont, when he wrote about dental insurance and Bill C-31 in his column. The bill was so badly put together that they must have been hanging their heads in shame as they drafted it. That is why the NDP supported 20 gag orders. It is a little embarrassing. My question is for the NDP. Are members of the NDP not ashamed of having supported 20 gag orders and not saying anything?

371 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 142