SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 10:57:07 a.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

24 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jan/30/24 10:57:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, the member across the way just claimed that members were challenging the Speaker's authority. We were trying to inform the Speaker, prior to what he said—

30 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 10:57:20 a.m.
Watch

We are not going to debate that now. Everyone has the right to express themselves in a respectful manner. It is a debate that we are not going to start again.

31 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jan/30/24 10:58:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, members have been told they cannot participate in the House.

12 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jan/30/24 10:58:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, respectfully, your description of the events is distinct from what happened. The Speaker has said that a member of this House, prior to him making his final ruling, will be prevented from speaking. The problem with the Speaker is that he is continually inventing new rules and applying ideas that are completely outside of the precedents of the House. If he is coming back to the House with a ruling, then the member for Battle River—Crowfoot should be able to be present prior to that final ruling, but—

93 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 10:58:22 a.m.
Watch

That is not what the Speaker ruled. The Speaker ruled that he had heard from enough members to be able to come back to the House with a ruling. Right now, we are into the debate of a bill. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a comment that is not necessarily nice, but it is perfectly legitimate and is not unparliamentary. I would like to give the floor back to the parliamentary secretary.

72 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 10:58:33 a.m.
Watch

That has been dealt with by the Speaker. There is— Mr. Garnett Genuis: He is also going to come back— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The hon. member is challenging the Chair. There is another point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

49 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jan/30/24 10:58:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I am growing more and more concerned about the confrontation with Speakers when they are occupying the chair. Even when you were standing up, Madam Speaker, the member did not sit down. Rather, he continued to chirp from his seat toward you. I think there—

48 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 10:59:10 a.m.
Watch

I appreciate the hon. member's comments and they are duly noted, but we are not going to start a debate on this. There is no point of order. We are resuming debate with the parliamentary secretary for northern affairs.

40 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Jan/30/24 10:59:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, members have challenged the Chair, and we just bore witness to it right here in the House again. I am not raising a point of order. I am giving a speech on Bill C-59. It goes without saying that in the House there is a lot of tension. Members are really not very restful in their seats, and every single little word motivates them to jump to their feet and challenge someone else who is in the chair. I want to speak today about Bill C-59, a wonderful piece of legislation crafted by the Government of Canada in response to the people of Canada, who have continuously raised with us, in very eloquent and fundamental ways, the issues confronting them every single day in their lives and their communities, how that impacts them, and suggestions on how we can make life easier. That is what we have been doing. While the opposition has been playing political games in the House and outside the House, we have been attentive to what Canadians are saying. Even in my home riding in rural Canada, we know that the issues around affordability have become much more challenging for people. We know that families are working harder to meet the demands of continuing with the quality of life they have enjoyed and want to have, and we are helping them along the way. However, it is unfortunate that, every time we have proposed good legislation, good, creative ideas in listening to the people of Canada, we have had Conservatives vote it down. In the fall economic statement, under Bill C-59, the supports for Canadians under affordability are very important. They are very important because they come at a time when Canadians need them. We have talked a lot about the Canada child benefit here. I visit families every day, and I know that, without that Canada child benefit going into their accounts every month, they could not provide the quality of life they want for their children. That is why I am proud of what we are doing under the Canada child benefit, a benefit Conservatives want to get rid, have voted against, and have campaigned on saying that it is not adequate for Canadians. What we know is that, without this benefit, without that monthly income going to families all across Canada, there would be so many children still left in poverty. This benefit alone has lifted children and families out of poverty, and I can cite case by case, community by community, family name by family name, how it has benefited them over the time we have implemented that benefit. I also want to talk about what we have done around affordability today because the key pillar of our fall economic statement is really built around boosting the economy, as well as making life more affordable for Canadians. We have seen the inflation rate in 2022 go from over 8% down to 3.2%, which I think were the last numbers. We know that, while the inflation rate has fallen, the cost of living has not really shifted downward. The price of goods is still higher than people would like it to be. There are many reasons for that. Conservatives will tell us that it is because of the Liberal government, but the world will tell us a very different narrative. That narrative is really about supply chains, wars that are ongoing in countries, the self-sufficiency of countries around the world and how they are trying to meet their needs at a very challenging time. The other thing we have noticed is what has been happening with competitors. Canadians have been very strong about this. We need to make changes to the Competition Act. We are doing that in the fall economic statement. As members know, ministers have called together leading competitors in the grocery chains to talk about affordable groceries for Canadians and how, with the co-operation of the business community, they would be able to make better, more affordable choices. Many in the opposition mock that idea. They did not see it as a generational change that could occur within the competition laws in Canada, that could make it more affordable for people across the country. They just mocked the idea of even having the conversation, because that is what happens when there is a far right-wing government agenda. It is about getting rid of laws, regulations and fairness. It is about the competitors and businesses reaching a higher model and greater profits. That is not the direction the Liberal government is going in. We are going in a direction that is bringing costs down and making life more affordable and sustainable for Canadians. We are not looking at a far-right agenda that caters only to the wealthy, the business communities and large-scale businesses, and where profit is the driving feature of the day. We have seen it. We have seen it here in Canada, and we continue to see it today. My colleague opposite can shout all he likes, but it is not going to stop me from saying what I have to say today. The truth hurts. We all know how much the truth hurts. He is over there squirming in his seat right now, because he knows that what I am saying is 100% factual, and—

899 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 11:05:55 a.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary again for a point of order from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

24 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jan/30/24 11:06:00 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, there was no squirming whatsoever. The member needs to understand that when the Speaker ignores the rules and when the Speaker invents new norms, it undermines the ability of the House to function. The Speaker—

38 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 11:06:17 a.m.
Watch

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I am not the one who has to address them, but they will be addressed by the Speaker. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on the same point.

37 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jan/30/24 11:06:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I have been trying to listen to my hon. colleague, and all I have been hearing is this juvenile intimidation from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan—

32 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jan/30/24 11:06:47 a.m.
Watch

We are in a debate. Some things are going to provoke some reactions, and it is perfectly normal in this chamber. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): May I continue? This is perfectly normal behaviour, apparently, in this chamber. I am going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue.

58 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Jan/30/24 11:07:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity. I guess my definition of squirming and the member opposite's definition are a little different. When I see someone trying to shift around in their seat, and their arms are moving, their legs are moving, their head is moving and their mouth is moving, I think they are squirming in their seat. Let us get back to this very important speech that I am making on Bill C-59. What we are doing, in terms of competitiveness, is taking a historic step. We are cracking down on the abuses and the dominance of bigger companies and on predatory pricing. This is going to help so many families. In the meantime, while we are introducing that legislation and making that crackdown to save money on grocery bills for Canadians, we are giving them an affordability allowance. A family with two children, for example, would have received about $430. That allowance can go up to $640 per family. While we are dealing with the Competition Act and making historic changes to regulate and ensure that there is fairer pricing and competition on groceries in Canada, we are paying out an affordability allowance to families to help them through this difficult time. This is another incentive that the Conservatives voted down, yet they talk every single day about families that are out there struggling. We talk every single day about the same families that are out there struggling, but we are doing something about it. That is the difference. What they are doing is voting down every concrete initiative that we are bringing forward, whether it is the Canada child benefit, dental care for families who cannot afford it, an affordability allowance being paid out, or a rural rebate on carbon pollution to help people who are going through a difficult time to heat their homes in parts of Canada. It does not matter how much the benefits are that are going to Canadians. The Conservatives vote them down because they have one strategy in mind: catering to the far right, catering to the wealthy and making sure that they slash good programs and good benefits, like the ones we are bringing to seniors and what we are doing under the Canada pension plan. These are concrete, fundamental programs for Canadians.

386 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jan/30/24 11:09:53 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I do believe we are talking about the Liberal government's economic statement. However, the speech I heard was more about criticizing the opposition, even though the topic is actually the government's economic statement. They say they are taking care of people. It is shocking that, in their economic statement, they once again abandoned seniors by refusing to equitably index the OAS by 10%. They are also abandoning workers. For the past eight years now, since 2015, then in 2017, 2019, 2021 and again now, the government has opted not to listen to workers or look at ways to strengthen the social safety net that is EI. These are urgent matters. Can my colleague tell me how her government plans to sincerely address seniors' and workers' need for enhanced social programs?

134 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Jan/30/24 11:11:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, that is a very sensible question. I agree with my hon. colleague. Seniors deserve the very best quality of life that we can give them. That is why our party has upheld the ability for seniors to retire at 65 and not at the Conservatives' suggested age of 67. There are other things we have done. We have increased the old age security. We have reformed the Canada pension plan. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement. We have also done things like bring in the workers benefit, which has helped so many workers across Canada who work in low-income jobs and has allowed them to have that additional $2000-plus per month in benefits to support their families.

122 words

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

Jan/30/24 11:12:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, in her speech, spoke a little about following rules, the rule of law and so forth. I think that it has been interesting over the last few months. We have seen the incredible disregard that this government has for our institutions and for adherence to rules. We had the court rule, for example, that the government's imposition of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. We have seen, even today, how institutions are undermined when we have people in positions of authority, such as the Speaker, making outrageous rulings without any basis or precedent. Can the member explain why her government and its partners in various positions consistently ignore precedent, ignore rules, ignore the law and think that they are somehow above the rules?

128 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Jan/30/24 11:13:06 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it gives me an opportunity to really talk about who is in favour of the rule of law. This is the same party that wants to withdraw from the United Nations and that wants to fire the head of the Bank of Canada. These are the kinds of things that we hear from the other side. Let us talk about the Emergencies Act. Let us talk about the convoy on the streets of Ottawa in the absence of anyone dealing with that convoy. What would we have seen if the members opposite were in government? They would have walked away, ignored it and left the whole city in chaos, to implode. When there were people, radicals, camped out on the lawns of people's houses, when they had streets blocked and they were overtaking businesses, shutting down shopping centres, sending thousands of people in the city of Ottawa home and taking away their ability—

162 words