44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2024 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.
Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.
The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.
What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.
When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.
Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.
The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.
Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—
696 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the order has dropped to the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:24:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I was interrupted a couple of days ago, the motion is absolutely essential to doing two things. The first is for us to work harder on behalf of our constituents, allowing more time for debate in the evenings, which is something the NDP has always called for. Also, we believe absolutely fundamentally that we need to be respectful of our employees and staff who run the bastion of democracy here in the House of Commons and who have been forced into 30-hour voting marathons by the member for Carleton.
I will just remind you, Madam Speaker, that the member for Carleton, after voting six times in person, basically bolted from this place and ran away. The kind of boss that one sees—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:25:40 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member knows that members cannot make reference to presences in and absences from the House. I know that the virtual Parliament has given some leeway on that, but I would remind the hon. member to please refrain from making references.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:25:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is fair enough.
We know what the agenda of the member for Carleton is: Axe services, build up billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. We hear this every day. That is what the Conservatives stand for. We saw this when the Harper regime was in power; there was $30 billion for billionaires each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as a result of the Harper tax-free treaties for billionaires with tax havens.
There was axing of services; the Conservatives did that very well. They forced seniors to work longer. They axed every single program that actually helped people. There was fixing of elections as well, with myriad violations of the Canada Elections Act. The Conservatives stopped democracy, including cutting back and strangling the Auditor General's department and refusing to fund the Auditor General for the important work that the Auditor General does.
That is the Conservatives' mandate and mantra. That is what they have done: Axe the services, build up the billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. That is why New Democrats will oppose the Conservative agenda each and every day, and that is why we support the idea that we work smarter and not harder, that we actually show the respect that we need to show to the employees who keep Parliament running, and that we have a health break every day rather than running into the health problems we have seen.
I am looking forward to questions and comments from my colleagues. I just want to remind the House again, though, that the member for Carleton, after an hour, bolted from the House rather than going through the 30-hour marathon.
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:27:51 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member knows, and I just reminded him, that we cannot make references to presences in and absences from the House. This is not a new thing, and it is something all members are aware of.
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:28:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want some clarity here in terms of identifying people who we know are voting virtually, which is seen by the public, and people who are voting in the House. When two-thirds of the Conservatives voted virtually to end virtual Parliament, for example, people saw that Conservatives were voting virtually against something that they want to use. They were against using the app, but they used it to vote against.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:28:44 p.m.
- Watch
I take the hon. member's point, and I did mention that, obviously, virtual Parliament has blurred the lines a bit. However, it remains a fact that we do not, on purpose, make reference to absence or presence in the House.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:29:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question I have for my colleague across the way is on recognizing that there is a finite amount of time that is available for debate on government bills and that the motion we are actually debating would greatly enhance the amount of time for members of Parliament to debate. This way, with respect to government legislation and budgetary matters that come before the chamber, members on all sides of the House would be provided a lot more time. Given that many Canadians work well past six or seven o'clock in the evening, does he see anything wrong with extending the hours to allow for more debate time and being reasonable by saying that it is not going to go past midnight? I see that as a positive win for democracy. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we need to work harder and smarter. New Democrats have always said that; this is why we believe in, and I have always supported, having evening sessions. This is not new for New Democrats.
However, what I find perplexing is the Conservatives' opposition to the idea that we would provide health breaks for employees and that we would work through evening sessions. I find it equally perplexing that Conservatives oppose dental care. The NDP's plan for dental care helps, on average, 30,000 constituents of each and every Conservative MP, yet they voted against it. Affordable housing helps thousands of people. We saw, under the Harper regime, that they destroyed 800,000 affordable housing units. Now, the NDP is fighting to put those housing units back, and Conservatives vote against it. They voted against the grocery rebate, and I gather that they are going to vote against pharmacare, which would help, on average, 15,000 constituents in each and every Conservative riding.
If Conservatives are not standing up for their constituents, why are they here?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:31:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what has been very interesting in this discussion is that we are seeing the NDP desperate to distract from the fact that its members are forced to abandon their principles and prop up one of the most corrupt regimes in Canadian history. We have corruption on one side and lazy corruption in the leader of the NDP over there.
Why is that member forcing, through limiting debate on standing orders, something that should be done through consensus? Why is he showing Canadians that the NDP and the Liberals are allergic to work? That member has obviously never pulled a calf on a cold March morning, and he certainly never sat in a combine at 3 a.m. in September, when we know that the weather is turning. Why are they so terrified of working for Canadians in this place? Why is that member specifically so bent on propping up the corruption we see within the Liberal Party?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:33:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first off, the Harper regime was the most corrupt in Canadian history. I do not need to mention that members of that regime went to jail. Does the member not remember Conservative members of Parliament being led away in handcuffs?
Second, for that member to raise the issue of working people to a person like me, who worked as a labourer for many years, worked the midnight shift in factories, worked in an oil refinery and did real, hard work, when the member for Carleton's sum total of work experience, before he arrived at the incredible Conservative milk machine of pouring all kinds of money into Conservative candidates, was one month at a Dairy Queen. That is all he brought. He had no work experience whatsoever, yet the member tries to question the work experience of real working MPs who are here. There is a member who worked as a farmer behind me, and the member for Elmwood—Transcona worked as an electrician. These are people who did real work, who got their boots dirty. Meanwhile, the member for Carleton actually shows, on Twitter, his boots with a little bit of mud—
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:34:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, Canadians demand an answer from the MP as to whether or not he is saying that younger Canadians should not be involved in politics because that is an absolute disgrace—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:34:36 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate. That is not a point of order.
I will allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish his answer.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:34:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the sum total of his work experience, outside the Conservative Party and all this money that comes from billionaires for Conservatives, was a month in a Dairy Queen. For somebody to run, saying that they have the experience to run a country, when all they have done, aside from work in the very Conservative infrastructure, is worked in a Dairy Queen, is a little too rich.
The member for Burnaby South, who is the leader of the NDP, brings a rich work experience, not only working from in a whole variety of manual labour and service jobs, but also from working as a lawyer.
We will put our—
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:35:25 p.m.
- Watch
It is time for the next question.
The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to try to lower the temperature.
I really want to put today's motion in the context of Bill C-50 because I think that bill in particular illustrates the reasoning behind the motion. When Bill C-50 was at committee, the Conservatives, I highly suspect, used ChatGPT's AI technology to generate 20,000 amendments. Their plan failed, and those amendments were actually cleared in about an hour's time because they did not do their homework. The Conservatives are now trying the same thing at the report stage with 200 amendments.
I think some people watching this debate may get the incorrect idea that we are doing away with votes. I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be clear that we are still going to have those votes, but the motion would allow members to have those health breaks and would allow the important staff who support this place to have those health breaks as well, so we are not putting anyone's health at risk while still conducting the democratic needs of the nation in the House.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is asking the kind of thoughtful questions that should be asked in this place.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives never seem to ask a question that has any depth at all. In the case of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, he does extraordinary work in the agriculture committee, and he has done work in a wide variety of areas that help to really advance public policy in Canada.
The member is absolutely right, that what the Conservatives are endeavouring to do is to basically stop Parliament and stop getting legislation through that would actually help people. They want to block everything. Bill C-50 would actually provide for energy workers good well-paying jobs in the energy industry. I come out of the energy industry, having worked in an oil refinery, the Shelburn oil refinery, sadly now closed, in Burnaby, B.C. I know for a fact that it is important for energy workers to have access to good, unionized, well-paying jobs.
What was the Conservative response? A little like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who wants to shut down clean energy and ensure that those jobs do not come to Albertans, Conservatives want to block legislation and make sure that those good, clean energy jobs are not available.
That is why it is important to get it right. That is why it is important to have the health breaks when the Conservatives provide for obstruction. The members of the NDP, as the adults in the room, are going to make sure that we get the job done, and we do it in a way that does not harm the health and safety of the many employees who keep this place running.
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, something needs to be cleared up here.
The member is suggesting that somehow young people should not be involved in politics. The Leader of the Opposition is proud to be involved, in this case, in Conservative politics. That member is suggesting, somehow, that young people do not have a role to play in our democracy. That is certainly disgraceful and something that the old NDP, which used to have principles, would have resoundingly rejected.
When is the NDP going to stand up for the namesake of its party and actually defend democracy, as opposed to simply being lackeys for the Liberals and supporting their corruption?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 7:39:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to take that question seriously.
The point I was making is that the member for Carleton is simply a workplace tourist. When he shows videos of himself with a little mud on his shoes, and he has only worked in a real private sector job for one month of his life, in a Dairy Queen, he does not bring a lot of depth or gravitas to the job of running what is a G7 or G8 country. That is the point I was making.
Also, in contrast to the member, I started volunteering for the NDP at the age of 14. I did not have money poured on me. I worked by day in a brewery. At night, I was a volunteer, knocking on doors—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
