SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

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

Feb/26/24 12:10:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill S-205, a bill that comes from a Conservative senator and a Conservative member of Parliament. It is a Conservative initiative aimed at combatting domestic violence. Before I speak specifically about this bill, I do want to pay particular tribute to Senator Boisvenu, who is responsible for putting this bill forward. Senator Boisvenu has seen the impacts of this kind of violence on his family. He has turned personal tragedy into public advocacy, standing up for victims of crime. He has devoted his energies in the Senate and outside of the Senate to standing for justice and for the inclusion of victims' voices in various processes. I want to take this opportunity to recognize his incredible work on this bill and on so many other different areas. He is now retiring, and I think all members from all sides in the other place and in this place would pay tribute to him, his commitment to public service and his work. Bill S-205 is one of many proposals he has put forward for combatting domestic violence and other forms of violence, as well as standing up for victims. Bill S-205 seeks to deal with orders that go against perpetrators of domestic violence, which a judge would issue in order to protect victims and control the perpetrators' activities. In particular, it would create a mechanism where a judge can mandate that a perpetrator would wear an electronic monitoring device and also that victims would be consulted in the process of judges making decisions about the kinds of orders that apply to perpetrators. These initiatives make sense. They are common sense. They would give victims of domestic violence a greater sense of security, and I believe they would reduce subsequent violence and would save lives. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the process of this bill making its way through Parliament is that members of the Liberal government supported amendments at committee that would weaken the bill, so here we are in the House at report stage, which is when this bill comes out of committee, and Conservatives are working to add back in some of those critical sections that were removed at committee. There is a lot of discussion in this place about combatting domestic violence, but when the rubber hits the road, we have Liberals voting against critical measures that would actually protect victims of crime. Victims of crime are not primarily concerned about words of solidarity from politicians. There are a lot of politicians who say they have had enough, that enough is enough and that it must stop, but the rubber hits the road with the concrete legislative initiatives we put forward that punish perpetrators of this horrible crime and that create the kinds of mechanisms, such as electronic monitoring, that will allow victims of these crimes to feel safer. It is disappointing that, while having words to say about the problem of domestic violence, Liberal members have not actually supported the constructive initiatives that Conservatives in the other place and in this place have put forward. As well, I wanted to mention an issue I have been working on and advocating for, and that is more bystander intervention training. I think one of the ways we can combat crime, domestic violence and other forms of violence, is by empowering bystanders, people who may be outside of a situation and see things that are going on, to know how to respond, how to intervene and what kinds of tools are available to them. I have been to a number of bystander training events, including in my own community, and I think these are very powerful tools for combatting this kind of violence. We have focused a lot, as we should, on punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim, but I think we can also look at other people, bystanders and potential bystanders, in terms of how to engage them. I have put forward Motion No. 57 in the House that deals with promoting more bystander intervention, awareness and training, which I think is another step we should be talking more about in terms of combatting domestic violence. Fundamentally, this is a phenomenal bill, a great bill, and I want to again recognize the excellent work of Senator Boisvenu throughout his life and career standing for and with victims of crime. However, it is unfortunate to see efforts by Liberals and others to water down these kinds of initiatives. Words of solidarity are not enough. We need action, we need policy, to punish perpetrators and protect victims. Those concrete initiatives are going to really make a difference to vulnerable people in our society. I hope that the House will support Conservative efforts to reverse the watering-down amendments at committee and to strengthen this bill again so that we can do the work that everybody talks about, which is to protect victims of domestic violence.

830 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/26/24 12:16:12 p.m.
Watch

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

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 12:19:57 p.m.
Watch

moved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for the duration of the session, (a) (i) a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted, (ii) a minister of the Crown may request, at any time during a sitting, that a decision to extend a subsequent sitting, made pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i), be rescinded and such request shall be deemed adopted; (b) on a sitting day extended pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i), (i) proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c), (ii) after 6:30 p.m., the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request, (iii) motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted, (iv) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(9) or 67.1(2); (c) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18), (i) when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) when a supply bill is considered in a committee of the whole, if a recorded division is requested to any bill elements or motions required to dispose of that stage of the said bill, the results of the vote shall apply to the remaining bill elements and motions required to dispose of that stage and report the bill to the House; (d) a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage; (e) on the last three sitting days set forth in the House of Commons Calendar for the periods ending in June, as well as the last two sitting days of the periods ending in December, a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House, provided that, (i) the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment, and that the House shall be deemed adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28, (ii) notwithstanding Standing Order 45, no recorded division requested between 2 p.m. on the third to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in June, respectively, and between 2 p.m. on the second to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in December shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Member's Business item, for which the provisions of Standing Orders 93 and 98 shall continue to apply; and (f) on any day, at midnight or thereafter, if the House has not completed a series of recorded divisions related to the business of supply or on any bill, a minister of the Crown may move, at any time, the suspension of the sitting of the House, which shall be deemed adopted, and the sitting of the House shall be suspended until 9:00 a.m., later that calendar day. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a motion being put forward by our government to improve the work of the House. We are at an important point in this parliamentary session. Our government has an ambitious agenda to improve the lives of Canadians. This means working hard here in the House of Commons to advance legislation for the people we represent. It means working with all parties in the House to get things done co-operatively, without partisanship or political games. Members from all parties in this minority government are here to represent their constituents and to get things done on behalf of the people they represent. Unfortunately, one party is preventing that from happening. The Conservatives, led by the Leader of the Opposition have been behaving irresponsibly. They oppose for the sake of opposing, and they fail to propose responsible solutions. They are obstructing the work of every member of the House, all its committees, bodies and parties, solely for their own partisan interests. They are using political delay tactics to prevent a number of bills from being voted on. We are all witnesses to this, even when it comes to bills they actually support. They impose all-night voting marathons and, in the process, vote against the very investments Canadians are counting on. That is the agenda of the leader of the official opposition of the Conservative Party of Canada for the House. It is to delay, obstruct and create chaos. By doing so, he hopes that Canadians will tune all of this out and not become invested in the work that we do here, the work that has positive impacts on Canadians every day. I will get to that in a moment. Before that, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives have prevented the House of Commons from doing its work and how their leader will never admit to Canadians what he and his MPs are doing. All his claims about who he is working for are nothing but a ruse. The leader of the official opposition is working for himself, for no one else, and the House of Commons is paying the price. The motion we are debating today is designed to address the unfortunate place we now find ourselves because of the Conservatives' political agenda of chaos and obstruction. The motion is designed to allow the House to do its work. It is designed to provide extensive time to debate bills in the chamber, something that the Conservatives claim they want. It is designed to turn this place into a healthier workplace. No one, whether one is a member of Parliament or an employee working in the House of Commons, should be forced to work throughout the night simply because the Leader of the Opposition wants to bully others into participating in his political games. Indeed, this motion reflects our government's view of what we should all want Parliament to be, which is a place for constructive debate, testing ideas, and reasoned and civil discussions. It should be a place where things get done. Simply put, it should be a place that Canadians are proud of, not a place that Canadians look at and recoil in horror because of the games played, through the night, by the official opposition. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader wants to prevent all of this from happening. He wants to turn the House into a place of dysfunction. On our side of the aisle, and I believe this is true for other MPs in the chamber, we have a different view. We have a much greater respect for this place, for Parliament. We are here every day, working hard to help Canadians in a wide range of areas that touch their lives— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1372 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/26/24 12:24:45 p.m.
Watch

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment. We might not agree with what is being said today, but we all have to give respect to the person who is speaking.

32 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that makes the point quite eloquently. Does it not? This includes making life more affordable so Canadians can pay for their groceries and their housing. It includes protecting our environment from the catastrophic consequences of climate change. It also includes ensuring Canadian families have access to quality, affordable child care, which is something these Conservatives say they want, and have voted for, but they have refused to allow it to come to a vote so the House could pass child care for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast and start enjoying that now. This includes having access to sustainable jobs and dental care, and having a strong armed forces that is helping to protect the people of Ukraine by sending equipment, supplies and trainers so the people of Ukraine can resist the illegal Russian invasion. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are playing partisan games in the House, standing in the way of progress for all Canadians. They refuse to work with the other parties. They constantly obstruct the passage of laws. This behaviour has been going on since the beginning of this Parliament. They blocked the budget, the fall economic statement, sustainable jobs for workers, child care services for Canadian families, the free trade agreement with Ukraine and a national council for reconciliation. Those are but six examples. This is parliamentary obstruction by stealth. Canadians deserve better. The Conservatives' actions are unhealthy for this Parliament as well as for democracy. We cannot allow members of all parties of this minority Parliament to be taken hostage by the egotistical political agenda of one party. We do not expect the Conservatives to change their stripes. They will continue to play their parliamentary game to delay passing bills and adopting legislation. We have therefore prepared a response. The government is putting forward a motion aiming to guarantee that Canadians obtain results from their members. Our motion will make it possible to have evening sessions so we have more time to debate legislation, something my friends on the other side say they want. This motion is not without precedent. It is the third time we have deemed it necessary to propose a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House so members can do their work. In the two previous cases, the House adopted motions to extend hours for a specified period. It is time to do it again. If this motion is adopted, the possibility of extending hours will remain in force until the House wraps up. The Conservatives say they want more time to debate before voting. This motion will allow that. Our motion therefore reinforces democracy. It will make it possible to better guarantee that one party, the Conservative Party, does not block the work of all the other parties in the House. Parliament works better when we work together, and not when one party obstructs progress. This motion allows more time so members can debate in the evening, until midnight. This does not mean every sitting will be extended across the board. The extension will only take place when necessary, and will take place on a given day only if the government receives the support of another party for it to take place that day. This support would therefore constitute a majority of members in the House. Moreover, this motion clearly indicates that the government could not surprise the House one day by stating that it will sit late that night. The government has no intention of using this motion at a moment's notice to extend the sitting hours. Indeed, the motion we are debating today clearly states that advance notice for a late sitting is to be given the day prior. The motion would also provide for early adjournment of the House. Before we start hearing the Conservatives claim we are trying to shut down the House in the days and weeks ahead, let us put the facts on the table. Such an assertion from the Conservatives would be patently false. The motion says that, in the last two sitting days of a fall sitting, the government could put forward a motion to adjourn the House early for the Christmas break. Similarly, it says that, in the last three days of a spring sitting, the government could put forward a motion to adjourn the House early for the summer break. In both instances, if this were to happen, adjourning early would not be something the government could do on its own. It would be a votable motion. The House would vote on whether to adjourn. It would only pass if a majority of MPs decided that the business of the fall or spring sitting were substantively complete. Let us put aside any ludicrous claims from the Conservatives about adjourning early. We have too much work to do. If they make that claim, it is because they do not want to talk about the overarching intent of the motion, which is to extend the daily hours of the House so that MPs could debate bills and come to a vote. We want more time, not less, for MPs to do their work in the House. If Conservatives have a problem with this, then they need to explain why. Finally, I would like to address another significant part of this motion. Last December, and we all remember this, in the final days of sitting, the Conservatives tried to turn the House of Commons into a sad spectacle to fulfill their leader's basic impulses as a political bully. The House was scheduled to vote on the budgetary estimates. This is a routine part of the parliamentary cycle and should have been dealt with through a handful of votes. Instead, the Conservatives decided to vote against the investments our government is making. They forced more than 130 consecutive votes, which took place throughout the night, so they could vote against funds in a wide variety of areas. I would note for my friends that all of those votes are recorded for posterity. We know exactly who voted against what in the House. Let me give some examples: constructing new homes; cracking down on terrorism financing; supporting communities recovering from hurricane Fiona, which is something the Speaker knows well; cracking down on firearms from illegally entering Canada; ending gender-based violence; supporting Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers; supporting the Montreal Holocaust Museum; training Ukrainian soldiers through Operation Unifier; and supporting our border guards to keep the Canadian border secure. The Conservatives stayed up all night, at least some of them did, to vote against all of these things. Who did not stay up all night? The very person who said he was going to keep us here until Christmas to block all progress for Canadians, all measures for Canadians, all vital supports across the board—

1139 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/26/24 12:33:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that we are not supposed to say when someone is not in the House, and it should be fair. The leader of the Conservative Party did show up in time to vote against Ukraine. Then he went home.

47 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/26/24 12:33:44 p.m.
Watch

I would suggest to everyone, as we dance on that line, that we are not supposed to say whether someone is here or not, whether that is in the future, in the past or even right now.

37 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. However, I would point out that votes are recorded. We will be paying close attention to that, as we always have. What we went through was standing up for the kinds of things that Canadians expect Parliament to do. We were standing up for the kinds of things they expect their government to do, and standing up, yes, for the very essence of the democracy that happens in the chamber. We were determined to stay here all night to demonstrate to Canadians that we are standing on guard for the things they cherish. We are standing on guard for the programs that they depend on the government for, and we are standing on guard for those things, despite the trickery and the maliciousness demonstrated by the official opposition. An hon. member: Trickery? You give us too much credit. Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, they joke about these things because it is all part of the plan. It is just a big joke for these Conservatives on the other side of the House. There is all this chaos and dysfunction they are bringing here on a daily basis, which is preventing us from voting on serious matters that Canadians are looking to us to provide. That is just a part of the long list of investments through which the Conservatives showed their true colours. The Conservatives have voted no, over and over again. The Conservatives showed us their true colours. The unfortunate outcome was a marathon voting session that lasted 30 hours straight. What does that mean? It means that members, their staff and House staff had to work all night to cater to the Leader of the Opposition's whim. Not only was his attitude childish and politically irresponsible, it jeopardized the health of many of the people who use these corridors. This kind of thing must never happen again. Our motion proposes that, if another voting marathon were to occur in the future, it would proceed as follows: votes could take place throughout the day and even late into the evening. However, as soon as the bells ring at midnight, the voting would stop. Members and staff would then be given time for a health break lasting several hours. They deserve the right to sleep. That is a perfectly reasonable request considering that we make decisions and allocate billions of dollars in support of Canadians. At 9 a.m. the next morning, the House would resume and the voting would continue. This would not prevent the Conservatives from chasing after their wild partisan objectives by launching another voting marathon. It would simply spread it over a longer period of time to avoid compromising the health of members and other people who work here and who support us. I see no reason why the Conservatives would object to this proposal. We need to set politics aside and put the personal health of each and every one of us in this House ahead of partisan gains. The purpose of this motion is to make this democratic chamber work better. This motion is put forward in the spirit of making this place work better, to make this place more productive and to allow members from all sides of the House to vote, as we are sent here to do in the most democratic of ways on things we feel are important for the people we represent. I will conclude my remarks there, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

587 words

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

Feb/26/24 12:38:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that type of revisionist history is why the Liberal polling numbers are so flaccid. Debate on legislation is why we are here. We are here to hold the government to account, and we are not here to make this easier for Liberal cabinet ministers because they failed to work plan. For example, responses to Supreme Court rulings, such as the one on MAID, have been introduced into the House at the last minute. The government then attempts to ram these things through without intervention, and that is because of its failure to work plan. It is often the Liberals who are holding up legislation. It is often they who are delaying Parliament. For example, last week, a Liberal on the government operations committee filibustered to block a Conservative motion to compel the owners of GC Strategies, a company at the centre of the “arrive scam” debacle, to be questioned by parliamentarians. Is the real reason the Liberals are putting this motion forward that their cabinet has failed to work plan due to the legions of scandals the government is facing?

187 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:39:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, here is what I can say: Every time we bring a bill to this House for debate at second reading, it does not really matter what it is. It could be called the “the sky is blue act”. The Conservatives would pose dilatory motions. For Canadians who are watching this, what the Conservatives do is they move concurrence on a committee report from six months ago that no one has talked about since. They bring aimless and pointless questions of privilege to the floor, things that prevent us from getting to the work we have to do. The member voted for child care. I will put it to her right now: Will she go to her leader and ask that we be able to put Bill C-35 to a vote today, at all stages, so that Albertans can have access to the child care they deserve?

151 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/26/24 12:40:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs come to the House of Commons to work, as you have seen, for pharmacare, for dental care, for anti-scab legislation, for the grocery rebates and fighting back against food price gouging with enhancements to the Competition Act, for supports for clean energy and for affordable housing. All of those things have come through the NDP's being the effective opposition in the House and pushing the government to simply put in place programs that will actually help people. As we know, Conservatives have done the opposite of that and voted instead to gut health care funding, housing and even things like CBSA, prisons and correctional services. They have voted to cut all of those things. What this motion represents is working smarter and working harder, having evening sessions that the NDP has long been a proponent of, but stopping the all-night voting marathons that have led to health issues with a number of members of Parliament and with staff. The NDP will be supporting this motion. Why have the Conservatives been so obstructionist during the course of this Parliament?

187 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the New Democratic Party asks why Conservatives have done this. We have seen this around the world. They think that if they come in and make these places, these precious chambers of democracy, so toxic, so laden with invective, so dripping with insult, Canadians will turn away and simply say that they do not want any part of it. That is how they come to suppress voting and try to get Canadians disillusioned with their politics rather than interested in the results that politics and government can have on their daily life. My friend from New Westminster—Burnaby outlined many of them, such as dental care, lower grocery prices and child care. These are all things that we work in earnest every day to pass through this House in a democratic way but the Conservatives spend all of their time trying to tie up in procedure and nonsense.

154 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/26/24 12:42:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Greens, like the members of the NDP, are certainly here to work. We are happy to stay late to move forward with the business of Canadians and their priorities. I would like to put to the government House leader two examples of those. First, the member knows, as do all members, that Canadians with disabilities across the country continue to live in legislated poverty. The government has committed to the Canada disability benefit for many years. With this extra time, does that mean we are going to see the Canada disability benefit funded with expediency? Second, as the member spoke about protecting our environment from the catastrophic effects of climate change, he likely knows that a climate no-brainer starting point is to give folks an incentive to retrofit their homes. There is a program that has been in place for 20 years in Ontario, called the greener homes grant. Ontarians are no longer eligible to apply for it right now. As a result of the extra time we are going to have here, will we be moving forward with significant measures to address the climate crisis, with the replenishment and expansion of the greener homes grant being an example of that?

205 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, debating things that help and have positive impacts for Canadians wherever they may live, in Ontario or elsewhere, on climate change, for disabled Canadians or in any other matter is precisely why we are making this place more open for debate, so that we can have greater productivity. We can debate more things and pass more measures that will help everyday Canadians.

64 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/26/24 12:44:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would agree that the motion we are debating today is an admission of failure. In his speech, my colleague criticized all opposition members, insinuating that the opposition parties are to blame for the fact that we cannot seem to deal with the major problems that currently exist in Canada. However, it is the Liberals who are in government. They also have a strong ally who supports them at every turn, even when they are not asked to do so. The reality is that this is a majority government that still cannot deal with the problems. We are grappling with a housing crisis, a climate crisis and a language crisis. The Liberals are telling us here this morning that the Conservatives and the opposition parties are to blame. Is this motion not inevitably an admission of failure?

143 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:45:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I salute my friend and the members from the Bloc Québécois for their constructive contribution. They are here to oppose. Sometimes they support our proposals, sometimes they reject them. However, they do not do what I criticize my friends in the official opposition of, namely using dilatory tactics that only create chaos and prevent my friend and all parliamentarians from expressing their point of view, taking a position and taking action in favour of Canadians or against something. Bills are introduced in the House so that we can debate them and vote on them. Then, we have to take positions and defend them. The fact is that this motion is being moved for this member and for all members in the House, so that this seat of democracy can work better.

137 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Feb/26/24 12:46:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are having this debate and this discussion today. I believe that every member of Parliament is elected to represent their constituents. I am really honoured and privileged to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. What I have noticed, whether in the House or within committees, is that each party has priorities. Each has areas of focus. Whether it is the Bloc, the NDP, the Greens or the independents, there are areas of interest in which each party is trying to work with the government to ask how they can deliver for their constituents. I echo the comments of the government House leader, that there is one party that believes that the role of the official opposition is to always oppose rather than actually constructively work with. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, they find it funny, and that is fine. We notice that when there are certain people speaking in the House, the volume in the House is a lot louder than when other people are speaking. I think that when it comes to this motion, what is important for us to actually focus on is how we deliver for Canadians. The leader of the official opposition lives in government-funded housing. Every member of Parliament is paid by the public purse. How do we ensure that we are delivering for Canadians? Government does have a role to play. I would like to hear the government House leader's comments on how this motion might actually be able to make us more productive if members of Parliament chose to come here actually to work constructively together rather than blindly oppose.

285 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/26/24 12:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a point that makes itself. We are sent here to make sure we get results for our constituents, that we participate positively in debates and that we put forward proposals and bills that help the people we represent. When we are blocked from doing that, systematically, by an opposition that consistently puts up procedural roadblocks to that, of course, any responsible government has to act in the way we are doing today.

76 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Feb/26/24 12:49:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, while the Liberal Prime Minister proves day in and day out that he is not worth the cost or the corruption. What we are seeing today is a perfect example of how the government is focused on the wrong things. While the Conservatives are putting forward tangible and practical measures that will lower costs, bring interest rates down, get homes built around the country and put dangerous criminals behind bars, the Liberal government is focused on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Canadians are going to food banks in record numbers. People have moved away from home and have found jobs. They are now finding themselves having to renew their mortgages and are being forced to move back with their parents. Communities once safe and secure, where people would go to bed at night without locking their doors, are now investing in security cameras and other measures because their neighbourhoods have become so dangerous. All of this is going on in Canada, while the Prime Minister continues to break so many aspects of Canadian society. While the Liberals come in with a programming motion, using a valuable day of House time debating how bills are going to be debated and how many hours the House will sit, the Conservatives will continue to raise the important issues that Canadians face. The Liberals want to debate and delay, have a day-or-two-long debate arguing about how the process should be handled in the House of Commons. We are not going to let them off the hook. Let us go through these points one by one. The government is saying that it has to do this to get its agenda through. We in the official opposition would happily help advance an agenda that would actually accomplish these priority items. If the Liberals were to bring in a bill to cancel the carbon tax or at least cancel the increase that they have scheduled for April 1, we would support that. If they brought in tangible measures that would actually get homes built, we would support that. We found out just a couple of weeks ago that the current housing minister launched a brutal and devastating personal attack on the previous immigration minister, who, by the way, are the same people. The former immigration minister is now the current housing minister. The current housing minister attacked the former immigration minister, blaming himself for mismanaging the immigration system in our country, which has caused terrible consequences on the housing side of things. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada builds fewer homes than the number of new Canadians added every year. The minister admitted at committee that all of the Liberals' billions of dollars, their fancy photo-ops and their repackaged announcements did not build specific homes. The vaunted and much-celebrated, in Liberal circles, housing accelerator fund sounds active. It is one of those buzzwords. I wonder how many consultants they had to hire to come up with a name like the housing accelerator fund. That sounds exciting. It sounds like it will really pick up the pace of home building. We asked him a simple question. How many homes had this housing accelerator actually built? He said that it did not actually build any homes. Pardon the official opposition members if we come to this place to defend taxpayer dollars and if we oppose billions of dollars of spending that does not build new homes. One of my Conservative colleagues, and I believe it was my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, asked a very simple question of the government when it came to the carbon tax. He asked whether the government could tell Canadians how many greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by the carbon tax. We would think that if the signature economic policy of the government is the carbon tax that it might measure that, that it might actually count how many greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by its signature policy. However, the answer that came back was that it did not keep track of it. It does not know; it does not measure that. The Liberals have imposed this carbon tax on Canadians and have hiked it year after year, after promising not to, by the way. Remember that promise going into the 2019 election when former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, promised that they were never going to raise the carbon tax? The Liberals attacked me for telling Canadians not to believe the Liberals, that once the election was over, when the Prime Minister did not need the votes of Canadians but still needed their money, he would absolutely raise the carbon tax. Catherine McKenna's other famous comment was that if we repeated a lie louder and over and over again, eventually people would believe us. That certainly bears out how Liberals have communicated about the carbon tax. They promised not to raise it and now they are forcing a hike on everyone year after year. In the fiscal update in the fall of 2022, the Liberals promised that they would stop pouring inflationary fuel on the fire. The current Liberal finance minister said that in order to fight inflation, they had to get a grip on government spending, and there was that glimmer of hope. After telling Canadians that the Prime Minister did not think about monetary policy, in the few days after the fall economic update in 2022, there was that brief moment of hope when Conservatives thought that maybe he finally got it, that maybe someone finally read that part of macroeconomics textbooks to the Prime Minister and explained to him how, when governments go deep into deficits and force central banks to create brand new money out of thin air to bankroll government spending, that caused inflation. We thought maybe he finally got that and that the Liberals would work toward getting back to balanced budgets. Of course, that hope was very short-lived. Just a few weeks after that, they went right back to their Liberal ways, borrowing and spending, plunging the country deeper into deficit. Immediately afterward, inflation started going up again. That is why so many Canadians cringe every time interest rates go up, because the Bank of Canada has to raise interest rates to fight the inflation that it caused in the first place by bankrolling the government deficit spending. The Conservatives want to stop the crime. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are less safe. In fact, many areas in Canada are experiencing a dramatic spike in violent crime, which we have not seen in decades, hitting all-time highs in many areas and for many different types of crime. Crime, like inflation, does not just happen. It is not like the weather. It is not like we can read the Farmers' Almanac one year and say that we will probably have an early frost or that inflation might hit 3.5%. Inflation and crime are directly linked to the government's policy decisions. The previous Conservative government brought in tougher penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders. We are not talking about young people making a mistake for the first time in their lives. We are talking about hardened criminals, people who use dangerous weapons to commit their crimes, people who commit the same crime over and over again or people who cause grave bodily harm or even death in the commission of their crimes. We toughened those penalties. What did the Liberal Prime Minister do early on in his mandate? He started repealing those common-sense Conservative tough-on-crime bills and made bail much easier to get. It used to be that if people had prior convictions, had proven to society and the courts that they were dangerous offenders and were accused of committing new crimes, it would be harder to get bail. In other words, it would be harder for them to be released before their trials. The Prime Minister's ideological obsession with putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians decided to make bail easier to get. He actually mandated judges to err on the side of granting bail, even for dangerous and repeat offenders. Again, we are not talking about a young offender being picked up for the first time for shoplifting or someone who has lost their temper for the first time and maybe lashed out at someone in a restaurant or a park. We are talking about people who commit the same crime over and over again. The government decided to put them back on the streets as early as possible. It is no surprise that crime started ticking up. Now we are in the midst of a crime wave that we have not seen in over a generation, and it is all directly linked to the government's agenda. The Conservatives offer practical solutions. We offer many different ways of providing Canadians tax relief when it comes to the carbon tax. Obviously, we would like the government to acknowledge the failure of its signature economic policy. It does nothing to reduce emissions. The government does not even count how many emissions are affected by the carbon tax. It increases the cost of literally everything. Everything that needs to be produced, shipped, refrigerated, heated or sold in a store that has to have lights or any type of refrigerator or freezer has to pay the carbon tax, and that is built into the price that consumers pay. We are going to hear Liberals saying throughout the day, and we hear it all the time, that Canadians are better off with it, because of the rebate they cooked up. What they do not tell Canadians is that the budget watchdog, the person the government appointed to scour through all the data and to go into a room, read all the reports and measure everything, account for everything and model everything, the non-partisan independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, has concluded that the vast majority of Canadians pay far more in the carbon tax than they hope to get back in any rebate. The reason for that is that when the Liberals designed it, they deliberately excluded the knock-on effects of the carbon tax. Therefore, the only thing the rebate even contemplates, when it is being calculated, is the actual line item we might see on our bill when we fuel up or when we pay our utility. What we do not see, and what the calculation does not take into account, are all the price increases that go from farm to plate and from forest to Home Depot. All the aspects of the supply chain where costs are added on, the carbon tax applies every single step of the way and increases that price. We offered a common-sense plan to scrap the tax, and it was rejected. Then we proposed to at the very least stop raising the carbon tax in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. When we are in a hole, we stop digging. Homer Simpson has the idea that when we are in a hole, we can try to dig up, but that does not work, and it certainly does not work to keep digging, to add on those costs. The government is hiking the carbon tax. It is due to go up again on April 1 by 23%. Media reports say that the rebate is only going to go up 17%. Even with the fact that the rebate does not cover all the costs, as the government hikes the carbon tax, the rebate does not keep up with it. Canadians are falling further and further behind. We proposed to at the very least stop hiking the tax, and that was rejected. Then we talked about grocery prices going up. There is that heart-breaking scene that so many of us see when we go to the grocery stores in our communities. We see well-dressed men and women, often with children, going through the grocery aisle. They pick up a package of beef and they stare at it for sometimes a full minute or maybe even a minute and a half. Maybe they pick up something else to compare with it. Then they put both of them back because they cannot afford them. Grocery prices have gone up so quickly and so dramatically because of the inflation and the carbon tax. What is the government's answer? It is to keep hiking it. We proposed to at least take the carbon tax off groceries and farmers, to remove the carbon tax off farm production so that we do not tax the farmer who grows the food and we do not tax the trucker who trucks the food or the retailer who sells the food. That was rejected too. The government does not want the carbon tax to be lifted off our agricultural producers. That is a tangible practical way we could bring costs down. The government rejected that. We have proposed a common-sense approach to tackle car thefts. Our leader announced a signature policy to deal with this scourge that is now plaguing Canadians from coast to coast. Stolen cars are becoming one of Canada's fastest-growing exports after the Liberal government weakened penalties and made it easier to get bail. It also diverted much-needed resources from frontline border service agents, who have the responsibility to inspect and track things leaving the country, and it spent those resources on the arrive scam. An app that should have cost $80,000 ballooned to over $60 million because of phony invoices, work that was never done and all kinds of corruption that we are uncovering. The government paid billions to consultants instead of investing in the frontline resources that would actually bring that crime down. We offered to fast-track that bill too. We could have easily had those types of things passed. Instead, the government is doubling down on its failed agenda and using the coalition it has with the NDP to ram through more of the same agenda, the very same policies, the very same ideology that caused the cost of living crisis, the inflation, the massive interest rate hikes, the crime wave plaguing our cities and the housing shortage that has driven the dream of home ownership out of the reach of so many Canadians. The government wants to double, triple and quadruple down on that and ram its agenda through. While Canadians are going through this cost of living crisis, as they have to pay more because of the Liberal Prime Minister, he has decided to put everything on pause and to use this valuable House time to effectively try to make changes to the Standing Orders. If one went door knocking in their constituency and hit 100 doors this evening, how many Canadians does one think would say they are really concerned about how the House of Commons manages its time and to please go back to Ottawa to sort that out? The government is wasting the valuable time of the House and of members of Parliament because the government cannot admit its failures. The Liberals cannot put their egos aside. The Liberal Prime Minister cannot put his ego aside and admit he is the reason so many Canadians are suffering right now. The Liberals also have a coalition partner in the NDP. It used to be that the NDP and the Conservatives could agree on a few things. We disagreed on many policies. I live in Saskatchewan, and we know what NDP economic policies can do to a province over time. NDP members promised in the last election that they would not enter into a coalition with the government. They broke that promise. Canadians believed them when they said they would not enter into a coalition. As soon as the election was over, they started hatching their scheme. One thing Liberals and Conservatives used to agree on is transparency and accountability. The NDP members have decided to protect the Prime Minister personally against political embarrassment and to help him cover up his corruption. Time and time again at committee, we see the NDP vote against Conservative motions to investigate corruption and scandals, vote against our attempts to summon witnesses and vote, in essence, to protect the Prime Minister from his corruption being exposed. Their policy agenda is not working. That is why Conservatives are holding them to account. I will make one final point about how Liberals are handling the proposed changes to the way the House operates. These are substantive changes that would fundamentally alter the timeline for bills to be debated and moved through the House. It would give the government incredible new powers that are not in the Standing Orders and that have not been contemplated by any of our procedural books. Normally, those types of major changes require all-party support and go through the proper process of procedure and House affairs examining the proposal, studying it and allowing all recognized parties to have some kind of say in it. The government is establishing a precedent today by using this type of motion. I want to point out to the government that it is now doing, through government motions, what used to be done through consensus and through all-party support. If its members want to talk about protecting democracy, one of the most fundamental ways to protect a democracy is to ensure that even when there is a working majority, because of the NDP support, they still hold that tradition of not making major changes without all-party support. That would mean any party could work with the government, in a minority parliament, and could ram through massive changes to the Standing Orders over the objections of other recognized parties. That has consequences. However, they are choosing to do it this way, and they are establishing a precedent for future governments. They cannot come to this place and start talking about the rights of members of Parliament and the ability of opposition parties to hold the government to account if they are going outside the normal process to make major changes in the House. That being said, we are going to continue to oppose their agenda because it has failed. Their economic agenda continues to drive up inflation and interest rates. Their housing agenda continues to drive up home prices by rewarding local gatekeepers and by preventing new homes from entering the market. Their crime and justice agenda continues to let dangerous and repeat offenders back out into the streets where they terrorize law-abiding Canadians. For those reasons, we are going to oppose this motion, and we are going to oppose the rest of the government's agenda.

3163 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.)

Feb/26/24 1:09:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech by the opposition House leader. He alluded to the fact that somehow the Conservatives did not win the last election or that he was not the party leader anymore because of something that the Liberals did. In fact, the reason that member is not the leader of the Conservative Party anymore is that it came out that he actually misused party funds to pay for private schooling for his children and to pay for clothing for himself and his children. I wonder if the member thinks it is common-sense economics to misuse funds to pay for private schooling for his children.

109 words