SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 183 - Apr/24/23

Apr/24/23 6:31:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was just a comment and I agree with it.

12 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Apr/24/23 6:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are late into debate here in the House of Commons today. For those who may just be catching up on what is happening, I would like to offer a little refresher, if I may. Today what was supposed to be debated in the House during this time period was legislation regarding the federal budget. That is what we were supposed to be debating right now. Of course, the federal budget is something that the Liberals and their coalition partner of the NDP are getting together on. There are a lot of questions in the Canadian public about the prudence of the federal budget but we are not debating the federal budget right now. Why are we not debating the federal budget? I think it is really important to note why we are not. What we are debating is something called a concurrence motion. I am being shut down right now. They are shutting me—

158 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/24/23 6:32:35 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

13 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Apr/24/23 6:32:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot let this pass that there is yet another Conservative speaker who is extending debate on this issue when they do not have to do it. If they are so concerned about debating the budget all they have to do is stop talking and we could get on with it. I have a speech today and I would like to talk about the budget.

67 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/24/23 6:32:53 p.m.
Watch

What the hon. member is raising is actually debate, but I do want to remind members that we are not talking about the budget at this point. We are talking about this concurrence report that is before the House on immigration. I just want to remind members to please stay on the issue at hand. I know that there is some latitude to a certain degree, but I would ask members to please reference the issue that is before the House. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

88 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Apr/24/23 6:33:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced. Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide. Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate. It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this. The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself. For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again. This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it. If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that. That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245. When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard. It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward. Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that. If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go. The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do. The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today. The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House. To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through. Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical. People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons. If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies. I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now. Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward. They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act. To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken. If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done. That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget. However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now. I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live. This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

2523 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/24/23 6:48:09 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

70 words

Division

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Apr/24/23 6:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/24/23 6:49:04 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, April 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

29 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Apr/24/23 6:49:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-257

Madam Speaker, I have petition 11759654 signed by 28 members. The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following. Whereas Canadians have the right to be protected against discrimination, it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal. It is in the best interests of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas. Bill C-257 seeks to add protection against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to first, support Bill C-257, which bans discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and, two, defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

129 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/24/23 6:50:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a true honour to rise in this place and bring to the attention of this House some incredibly important issues that Canadians have signed petitions about. Today, I have three petitions that I am pleased to table on behalf of many Canadians. In the first petition, citizens draw attention to the House of Commons the following and ask the government to take these following actions: one, immediately call for an end to violence and for restraint from all sides and parties involved in the Tigray conflict in Ethiopia; two, immediately call—

98 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/24/23 6:51:31 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that he is to summarize what is in the petition and not read everything in the petition. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

30 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/24/23 6:51:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I cannot show you, I think I am doing an admirable job of summarizing what is in a very lengthy petition. I thank you for that reminder and can assure you I am doing so as briefly as I can. The petitioners also call for humanitarian access to the region and for independent monitoring to be allowed, and for international investigations into the credible reports of war crimes and gross violations of human rights law. They call for engaging directly and consistently with the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments on this conflict; and for promoting short-, medium- and long-term elections monitoring in Ethiopia.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/24/23 6:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the second petition that I have the honour of tabling here today is specifically that there are residents from Alberta who draw to the attention of the House a host of details surrounding violence against the Hazaras. With the fall of the Afghan government in August of 2021 and the Taliban taking over control of Afghanistan, the Harazas once again find themselves in a situation they faced at the end of the last millennium and the beginning of this millennium of massacre, arrest, forced mass displacement and confiscation of their land. The Taliban regime is perpetrating so many of these things. Therefore, there are many Canadians calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize the ongoing genocide and persecution of the Hazaras and to prioritize refugees from this persecuted group of people within Afghanistan.

136 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/24/23 6:53:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the third petition that I have the honour of tabling in this House today is on an issue that so many Canadians have followed closely, and that is that the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bissonnette struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which allowed for parole ineligibility periods to be applied consecutively for mass murderers. As a result of that, some of the most notorious and disgusting individuals are able to apply for parole after only 25 years in prison even though they have committed crimes for which these individuals should never see the light of day. The courts have actually said, by virtue of sentencing, that they should never see the light of day again. Therefore, there is a host of individuals urging the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to invoke the notwithstanding clause and override this unfair and unjust decision that is truly an insult to so many victims of the worst mass murderers and criminals in Canadian history. It is always an honour to table petitions by Canadians who are passionate about these issues in this place.

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Apr/24/23 6:54:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from many residents of Winnipeg North and Winnipeg who are of Indo-Canadian heritage, in particular. The petitioners want to see international flights going between Winnipeg and India or, secondarily, Europe. This demand continues to grow. They are looking to the government and members of Parliament to do what they can in terms of lobbying for that additional international flight.

69 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/24/23 6:55:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about seniors. Across my riding of North Island—Powell River, I am hearing from more and more seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. They are having a hard time affording food, affording their medication and being able to pay for the key things that make their life reasonable. I am also hearing from more and more seniors in rental units who are being evicted and have nowhere else to go. It is very concerning to listen to the organizations that work so hard to keep people fed and housed in our region and understand how many seniors are falling through the cracks. I was able to ask a question several weeks ago about the fact that OAS for seniors is being increased only for seniors 75 and older, which means that seniors aged 65 to 74 are really struggling. It was very interesting to me when a constituent got a hold of my office and talked about the fact that her neighbour, who is over 75, received a letter informing her that her old age security would be increased by about $200 a month, which was a huge relief to that senior. However, the senior who wrote to me is not near 75 yet; she has a few years until she gets there. She talked about how hard it was. She looked it up online, trying to figure out why she did not get the increase, and then she realized it was because of age. This did not reflect her needs. My question to the government was simply this: Given the reality of inflation, why is the government telling seniors 65 to 74 that they do not require this, especially some of our most vulnerable seniors, who are struggling with poverty? When I look at the budget, I am very happy to finally see dental care for seniors. I have heard from seniors across my riding, some of whom have waited outside the door with their information because they heard I was fighting for seniors to get dental care. It was absolutely sad to hear the stories of the extreme pain and then often having to wait years, saving money and trying to find a way to pay for root canals and the different procedures they needed. One senior said to me that they could afford a couple of hundred dollars it cost every year to get their teeth cleaned, but they could not afford anything else. Therefore, whenever they had a problem, such as a cavity, it could take them a few years to pay for it. Thus, I am really pleased that dental care is in the budget, but I am unhappy that we do not see anything else. We know that we forced the government to do this. Two years ago, the Liberals voted against dental care for seniors in this country. We made them do it, and I am glad that it is here. Nevertheless, too many seniors are falling through the cracks, and we could do something about their suffering in this country if the government had the political will to do so. I want to point out that single seniors are perhaps the most impacted group of seniors. Their cost of living is two-thirds the cost of a couple, and they have to make up that resource for themselves. We know that a lot of single seniors are renting; the cost of housing is significantly higher than it was, and it is only increasing. Single Seniors for Tax Fairness has come up with some really important ideas that I was hoping to see in the budget. However, we did not see those things reflected in the budget, which I think is very unfortunate. We need to make sure that the seniors of this country are getting the supports they need so that they can live according to a bar of dignity. Having the OAS increased for those seniors between 65 and 74 would bring up that bar of dignity. It is not the only solution, but it is a solution that this government could put in place fairly quickly if it had the political will. I am back here again fighting hard for seniors because they deserve to have the financial support to live with dignity. Single seniors with a very fixed income deserve to feel that they can live with dignity, and too many across this country are making decisions between appropriate housing, clothing, bills, heat and medication. I think Canada should do so much more for seniors, and I wonder why the Liberal government does not agree.

777 words

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

Apr/24/23 7:00:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-46

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River raises the very important issue of dignity and I wholeheartedly agree with much of what she said. Seniors do deserve a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. They deserve to live knowing that they have the means to pay for their housing, food and medications, to name a few. With food costs and rental costs soaring, it is hard for people to put their financial cares aside. This is the reason why our government increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. As seniors age, they tend to have lower income and are often facing higher health-related expenses because of the onset of illness or disability. Now, thanks to the increase to the OAS, we are strengthening the financial security of 3.3 million Canadian seniors. Because higher prices on essential goods are causing undue stress, we passed Bill C-46, the one-time grocery rebate, which will deliver targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians who need it the most, providing eligible seniors with an extra $234, on average. Our new dental benefit, as the member mentioned, will help seniors get the dental care they need. That is why, in budget 2023, we proposed to provide $13 billion over five years and $4.4 billion ongoing to help nine million Canadians, including seniors, receive the dental care they need. These new measures build on the supports that our government has already provided to seniors in the form of program changes, tax breaks and top-ups. Since 2015, we have made significant progress for seniors. To begin, we increased the GIS for nearly a million low-income single seniors. We then restored the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for GIS and OAS pensions, which the Conservatives had planned to increase this year, if they were still in power. We enhanced the Canada pension plan, and we reduced income taxes through increases to the basic personal amount. Finally, budget 2022 committed a top-up of $500 to the Canada housing benefit to help low-income renters, including seniors, with the cost of renting, and a one-time doubling of the GST credit for six months. We are committed to making life more affordable for Canadians, and our government has the record to prove it.

396 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Apr/24/23 7:02:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the largest impact I see for seniors are things that the NDP asked for. We said to the government, “If you do not play with us nicely, we are not going to support you unless you do these things.” It is great that the government is announcing the things that are in the budget that the NDP proposed, such as the dental benefit and the doubling of the GST. What I am not hearing is anything about how there is going to be real action taken, especially for single seniors. I am worried about all seniors, but I know that single seniors in particular, largely women, are really struggling. They are talking about the financial challenges they have. There are some really common-sense responses that could be done. When is that going to happen? The other thing I heard the member talk about was the supports for low-income renters. In my riding, there is so little housing. It is not about getting the extra money to pay rent; it is about actually having somewhere to live. Is there going to be an investment in housing that is going to sustain seniors in a meaningful and respectful way? Those are a couple of my questions. I certainly hope that the member will take it back to his government, that single seniors deserve better and that we need more rental units, especially in rural and remote communities, because there simply are not any there.

252 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/24/23 7:04:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly did talk about single seniors. I talked about some of the supports that we have. I talked about some of the supports that we introduced years ago and some of the ones that are in budget 2023. More broadly, to her point about the NDP forcing the hand of the Liberal Party, the NDP can play it any way it wants. I hear it routinely in the House, where this member and other members get up and say that they forced the government to do all these great things. If they want to take credit for it, that is great. The NDP can take credit for it, but at the end of the day, Canadians, and in particular seniors, are better off because of the relationship between the NDP and the Liberals. I have no problem saying that I am very grateful to this member and the NDP for their willingness to work with this government. They are acting like the adults in the room and that is exactly what Canadians deserve.

176 words