SoVote

May/2/24 3:12:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition decided to cozy up to far right extremist supporters, that was unbecoming of an elected official, much less the leader of a major Canadian political party. Canadians expect their leaders to stand up for Canadian values. That is why we are investing $270 million in the budget for Canada's first-ever action plan on combatting hate. That is leadership.

68 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/2/24 3:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yesterday 10,000 Canadian rail workers voted to strike, in part because Canada's two largest railway companies want to undermine key safety measures in their collective agreements. The safety of rail workers, the safety of rail communities and the safety of our environment are all at stake. Will the minister ensure that the parties remain at the bargaining table until a fair, safe and equitable agreement is reached?

71 words

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.)

May/2/24 3:13:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is a cooling-off period. It is a normal part of the collective bargaining process. Our facilitators and conciliators remain closely with both parties at the table. We remain committed on this side, as I know the hon. member is, to making sure that they remain at the table. The best deals are made at the table.

64 words

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

May/2/24 3:14:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, even for the Liberals, this is really something. It is a hat trick: three times, three different platform promises broken in one omnibus budget bill. First up, they broke the commitment to have UNDRIP honoured and consult with indigenous people. Second, they used their omnibus budget bill to change environmental legislation. Third, once again, they failed to fix the Environmental Assessment Act. Let us make it simple: Environmental assessment under Mulroney's law worked. Harper repealed it. It still does not work. This draft, in this ways and means bill, will go down to defeat at the Supreme Court once again. Fix it, once and for all, and use the environmental expert panel to guide the government's actions.

121 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/2/24 3:15:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, as the Supreme Court asked us to do, we have brought changes to the Impact Assessment Act of Canada to ensure that the federal government will do what the federal government is supposed to be doing while provinces do their part in impact assessment, and we are confident that this will help us to move forward. I would remind my hon. colleague that at the time Bill C-69 was adopted, we did not have clean fuel standards, we did not have zero-emission vehicle standards, we did not have regulations on methane and we were not working on a cap on oil and gas emissions or clean electricity standards.

112 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/2/24 3:16:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question period, we repeatedly heard Conservatives from Alberta refer to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions with false titles, and I know you will be ruling on that, but this is despite that overdose deaths have gone up 319% since Conservatives got elected—

55 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:16:21 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member, but this is veering into debate. I appreciate the member's comments with respect to false titles. He is indeed correct. The Speaker will be coming back to the House on this.

36 words

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

May/2/24 3:16:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader to inform the chamber as to what we will be debating for the rest of this week and the week ahead. Also, as I did not get an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, perhaps the government House leader can inform the chamber of the following: The Government of British Columbia has specifically requested something that only the government can do. It has asked the Prime Minister to recriminalize the use of hard drugs in public spaces, such as hospitals, parks and public transit. On what day will the government inform the chamber that the use of those hard drugs will once again be illegal in the province of British Columbia?

126 words

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

May/2/24 3:17:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

261 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:19:13 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

28 words

Nay
Opposed

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/2/24 3:19:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I think we have a collegial environment prevailing, and consultations have occurred, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table my private member's bill now.

41 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:19:52 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

May/2/24 3:21:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-388

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-388, An Act to fast track energy and mining projects and to facilitate the provision of munitions to Ukraine and develop its munitions industry. He said: Today I am tabling legislation to support our friend and ally Ukraine in its existential struggle against the ongoing illegal and genocidal Russian invasion. The abduction of children, the systemic sexual assault, the attempted destruction of all Christian churches except ones subservient to the Putin regime, the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the crime of aggression itself all require a strong response. Moreover, they have received such a response from the brave Ukrainian people. However, for too long, people in western capitals have wrapped themselves in the language of solidarity, while they have failed to see the urgency of delivering vital support. Bill C-388 would address two critical issues. The first is the need for more weapons. My bill would significantly streamline the process for delivering weapons to Ukraine by removing red tape. It would further require the government to send surplus military equipment to Ukraine, and it would require EDC and BDC to look for opportunities to support investment in Ukraine's domestic munitions industry. These measures address significant gaps in the Government of Canada's follow-through when it comes to delivering promised weapons. The second issue the bill deals with is energy security and sanctions. While the government is granting yet another major sanctions waiver to support the Russian titanium industry, this bill would require the government to fast-track Canadian energy projects as part of an overall strategy to displace Russian exports and stop fuelling Russia's war machine. It is time to kick Putin's gas and kick Putin's titanium. Urgent energy development in Canada would allow us and our allies to tighten and consistently enforce our sanctions. This bill focuses on core and urgent issues required for Ukrainian victory: weapons and sanctions. It is time to axe the attacks, rebuild the homes, fix the sanctions and stop the crime. Finally, I have been so impressed by the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people that I would like to take this opportunity to wish one resident of Zaporizhzhia, Svetlana Ostrovska, a very happy birthday.

375 words

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

May/2/24 3:24:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add some comments to the point of order that you are currently considering, specifically in response to the question raised on April 18 by the deputy opposition whip. This was related to the use of a false and derogatory title in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment. On Monday afternoon, the NDP House leader rose and made a substantial intervention concerning references to the “NDP-Liberal government”. Given that he has essentially hijacked the point of order before you for his own political concerns, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to offer some brief comments in response before you rule. The point of order raised earlier this month urged you to apply your views about fake titles, as mentioned in your October 18, 2023, statement, which you often quote, Mr. Speaker. I will read the specific sentence from page 17585 of the Debates. It states, “This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.” That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary had done when he used a false and derogatory title for the Leader of the Opposition, which the deputy opposition whip brought to your attention. An example of another false title would be if I were to, for example, describe the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as the deputy government House leader. While my colleague certainly does yeoman's work carrying the government's legislative agenda here in the House, encouraging and supporting so many time allocation and closure motions that Stanley Knowles would roll over in his grave, he does not actually get paid for that work. Therefore, to describe an NDP member as the government House leader's deputy would, indeed, be incorrect. The NDP House leader is, however, seeking to expand the scope of the Speaker's earlier ruling to suppress debate in the House on a matter of increasing political sensitivity to him and his party. In his argument, the NDP House leader cited the Deputy Speaker's ruling on March 29, 2022, at page 3689 of the Debates. This was delivered after the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party entered into their agreement for a parliamentary arrangement, the so-called supply and confidence agreement. I will read other passages of that ruling, which my colleague appears to have overlooked. It stated, “Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties.... In the current case, it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition.” In other words, the characterization of the agreement is a matter of debate in terms of what it is, what it means and how government decisions are understood and held to account. The facts are simply that, in the present Parliament, no single party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons and our Westminster system of government requires the government to command the confidence of the House. Therefore, if one party does not have the votes to achieve that alone, the votes have to come from somewhere else. In the present Parliament, New Democrats and the Liberals have voted together approximately 92% of the time. If we remove Private Members' Business and opposition day motions from that mix, that percentage rises to something in excess of 97%. If New Democrats are feeling the heat about their decision to prop up the tired, broken and broke government and are concerned about having to defend their choices on Canadian doorsteps soon, they could have simply shown us all the ultimate act of opposition and voted against the federal budget. Asking the Speaker to instead censor speech, which, as uncomfortable as it may be for the NDP, reminds Canadians of why the government remains in office every day longer that it does so, is simply not right. Fundamentally, the concerns of the NDP House leader are not a question of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that it also goes beyond your remit of maintaining order and decorum in the chamber. As you said in your October 18, 2023, statement, Mr. Speaker, “The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended.” Moreover, “the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible”. Later you added, “Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business.” Conservatives are vigorously holding the government, and those who sustain it in office, to account. The very essence of our responsibility as parliamentarians is to speak for our constituents and help them understand how and why decisions are made. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, you must deny the NDP House leader's request to censor political debate in the House of Commons.

876 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:28:59 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member. The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order.

17 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

May/2/24 3:29:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports part of the rubric.

18 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:29:15 p.m.
Watch

Does the member have consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

9 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

May/2/24 3:29:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “The Security of Research Partnerships Between Canadian Universities, Research Institutions and Entities Connected to the People’s Republic of China”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. We thank the clerk, the analysts, the witnesses and all the members who contributed to this report.

82 words

The Speaker

May/2/24 3:30:02 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Yellowhead is rising with respect to a dissenting report.

13 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

May/2/24 3:30:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this report needs to be started over because of repeated Liberal delays to hide from parliamentary scrutiny. Canada urgently needs a foreign influence registry. Universities do not have the capacity to make proper decisions on safe partnerships, and the committee has not had the opportunity to look into the new guidelines because of the government's delays in releasing them. Since the end of the study, the CSIS director has called PRC efforts to steal our technology “mind-boggling”. We need to look into this further. Liberal stalling means we could not adequately scrutinize the new policies that came out right after our report closed. What are the Liberals hiding from Parliament and from Canadians?

119 words

Prc

SoVote

House Hansard - 307