SoVote

May/3/24 12:30:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our leader was expelled earlier this week for using the word “wacko”. My colleague has already said it twice, and has only been speaking for maybe two minutes. Is this considered unparliamentary language, yes or no? I would like to have a decision.

47 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:31:20 p.m.
Watch

I would ask for a bit of decorum in the House. I thank the hon. member for his point of order. Obviously, there is a difference between using that unflattering term to characterize a policy or a decision and using it to describe a person. That is how the Chair has interpreted the Standing Orders. I therefore invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to continue his speech. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

78 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like your interpretation a lot because it corresponds to what the member and the Conservative members could read in the rules of the House. We are not allowed to attack other members. That is what the Leader of the Opposition and member for Carleton did. He attacked the Prime Minister, he insulted him and he refused to withdraw his comments. The member for Carleton, who has been here for 20 years, should at least understand how things work in the House. He did what everyone knows and that is exactly the opposite of how we are supposed to behave under our rules. We can criticize ideas and actions, but we cannot criticize people. Every Conservative member should know that. In the last hour, the Conservatives have burned $70,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money. Members will recall how woefully terrible the Harper regime was at managing money. It gave $116 billion in the big bank bailout on liquidity supports. Each and every year, $30 billion was given in the infamous Harper tax haven treaties. It was a sweetheart deal for Canadian billionaires and the most profitable corporations in the country, and the Conservatives just splurged that money because money does not mean anything to them. They are terrible financial managers. Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. They are the worst financial managers anyone has ever seen, and the 10 dismal years of the Harper government will remain, in infamy, the worst years of financial management in our country's history: consecutive deficits throughout that period, massive handouts to the banks, massive handouts to the oil and gas CEOs and massive handouts to overseas tax havens. At this same time—

282 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:34:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/3/24 12:34:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. The member has called me and my party bad fiscal managers. I assure him that I was a money manager before I came to the House, yet I do not see any money managers over there. He is suggesting that I and other members of my party do not know how to do this, but I would strongly suggest that we have, personally, much better fiscal plans and much better economic plans than I have ever heard come out of the member's mouth. As such, I would like him to retract that remark, please.

100 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:34:38 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for his intervention. However, that is a matter for debate. I invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to continue his speech.

32 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:34:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have won consecutive business excellence awards, so I have no lessons to learn from any Conservatives in the House. The reality is that the member can consult the fiscal period returns produced by the Department of Finance. It is not a hotbed of social democracy, but the federal Department of Finance, over the last few decades, produced the fiscal period returns. They say that Conservatives and Liberals are terrible financial managers and that the best governments are NDP governments. Year after year, the fiscal period returns, which every MP, Conservative, Liberal or of any other persuasion, can consult, will show that NDP governments have the best record of managing money and of paying down debt. We do that because we are able to run programs like health care and education, and we do not fritter away money like the Conservatives are doing today. For $70,000, there is this debate around this frivolous distraction of deleting the short title of this bill rather than getting on to third reading so that we can actually get in place the—

182 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:36:10 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Unfortunately, his time is up. We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

32 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/24 12:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was rather enjoying a good portion of the member's comments. I want to pick up on one aspect, when he talked about the short title because, for those who might be following the debate, there is a valid argument to be made that the Conservatives are doing nothing more than playing an obstructive role. Even though they say they want the legislation passed, they go out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing. When the member makes reference to the short title, this is what the Conservatives are proposing to delete: This act may be cited as the “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. They want that aspect of the legislation deleted. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the obstruction that the Conservative Party is playing on such important legislation.

145 words

Short

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:37:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. It is not that they want to spend hours and hours debating that one sentence and whether we remove it, when it has absolutely no impact on the legislation or on the public complaints commission, but that they want to spend. They want to waste. I see the finance critic for the Conservatives in the House right now, and they want to waste $70,000 for each and every hour—

78 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:37:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

May/3/24 12:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are allowed to mention who is or is not inside the chamber.

19 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:38:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. NDP House leader knows the rules of the House. He cannot say who is present in the House and who is not. He has a few seconds left to finish his answer.

34 words

Rules

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they have wasted $70,000, so far, on this meaningless debate and delay tactic. I think Canadians would say to get on with the public complaints and review commission. Why did they not accept the UC that I moved prior to question period, which would actually allow us to move to third reading debate on this bill?

59 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/3/24 12:38:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about, really, restricting or censoring the ability of members in the House to speak and voice their concerns about legislation. Does the hon. member think that all members of the House should have an equal right to speak to any bill at any stage of the debate, and if he does not, as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, how does he censor or restrict his members when they are speaking in this chamber?

83 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:39:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his French question a little while ago. I was quite impressed with that. His French is coming along well. The reality is that there is no censorship, when one is paying $70,000, to debate deleting one line that has absolutely no impact on the bill. The short title has no impact on the bill itself. This is nothing but a delay tactic. I point out Conservative hypocrisy, when Conservatives rise in the House and say that it is really important that this bill passes and wonder why this bill has not passed, and it is their fault that it has not passed. They held this bill up for months in the public safety committee by bringing forward meaningless motions, constantly, so that we could not actually get to the nuts and bolts of the bill. I spoke earlier about the many amendments and improvements that the NDP brought. As the worker bees of the House of Commons, as the adults in the room, we wanted to improve the legislation so that it was better. However, the Conservatives just want to block it and block it. If one blocks legislation, at least step up and have the guts to say that they have been blocking it for months, that they are going to block it even more and that they do not mind if Canadians are spending $70,000 an hour listening to us debating this meaningless amendment that deletes the short title. If one is going to block legislation and stop good things from happening, at least have the guts to own up to it.

275 words

Censorship

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/3/24 12:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. The accountability and transparency of many agencies, including the CBSA and the RCMP, is fundamental. I would like my colleague to explain to me in French why the Conservatives are delaying the passage of this bill right now, even though they say they support it.

52 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:41:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is one of the best MPs in the House. He does a tremendous amount of work and is always very productive. We listen carefully when he asks questions. Honestly, I do not have an answer. Why are the Conservatives saying that this bill is important while doing everything they can to block it, even though their filibuster costs $70,000 for every hour of useless debate? They do not want the bill to go to third reading. That is a useful debate, but they do not want to do it and I cannot explain why.

105 words

Filibuster

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/24 12:41:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House. When I think of Bill C-20, which we are debating today, I cannot help but reflect on what the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland said today, which was that the Conservative Party was disappointed, in essence, that the legislation has not been passed. He was challenging the government on why we have not passed the legislation. The type of hypocrisy we see flowing out of the Conservative Party of Canada is truly amazing. The Conservatives have a far-right mentality of trying to say to Canadians that everything is broken, and that includes what takes place here on the floor of the House of Commons. They like to spread misinformation, and they like to filibuster and do everything possible to prevent things from actually happening in the chamber that is positive for Canadians. On Bill C-20, I agree with the member opposite who spoke to the bill. He talked about the fine work that our RCMP and our border control officers perform, day in and day out. Everyone recognizes the importance of this legislation, but there is only one political party that is going out of its way to see this legislation actually not pass, and that is the Conservative Party, that alt-right group that we witness every day across the way when the House sits. We see that in the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. They do not want to see a productive House of Commons. To those who follow this debate or who follow CPAC on a regular basis, recognize that no matter what sort of filibuster or block the Conservative Party puts in place on a daily basis, we will continue to be there to fight for fairness for all Canadians. We saw that in the presentation of a budget that builds upon Canada's middle class and that provides a higher sense of fairness so that those who have more could cover for other individuals, so that everyone would pay their fair share and so that we would not forget about millennials and generation X. Bill C-20 would go a long way in providing a substantial initiative that is needed to support our RCMP and our border control officers. However, we are debating, instead of trying to get to the matter at hand, in hopes that we could try to pass this legislation. Opposition members know full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation, and one would think they would take that issue seriously, especially if they say that they support the legislation. However, instead of allowing the debate to go into third reading, the Conservative Party of Canada has moved an amendment to a substantial piece of legislation. There is a long title for legislation, and there is a short title. This is what the bill itself, under “Short Title”, actually says: “This Act may be cited as the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act.” How much simpler could it be? How could that possibly be controversial? There is no controversy surrounding that issue, so I would ask this question: Why did the Conservative Party member opposite decide to bring in this particular amendment? The short answer is that they do not want it to go to third reading. Rather, they want us to debate that aspect in the form of a filibuster. This is obstruction, something we witness far too often on the floor of the House of Commons. Today, it is a ridiculous amendment meant to prevent legislation from going into third reading. Then the Conservatives will cry that they want more debate time, that they want this and they want that. They bring forward absolutely illegitimate arguments to justify behaviour that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would not support. There are some in society, being the far right Diagolon group, that would support those types of actions. I would say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the vast majority of Canadians would not support or condone the type of far right extreme behaviour that we are seeing being implemented by members of the Conservative Party. This includes bringing in senseless amendments like this one today, which has the sole purpose of preventing the bill from moving forward. At the same time, the Conservatives are tenacious and persistent in their critiques of the government for not bringing forward legislation or not getting it passed. Look at what the member said in his speech. He was critical of the government for not supporting CBSA border control officers. Does the member not even realize that it was the former Conservative prime minister who cut hundreds of jobs in that area and millions of dollars from that department? The member criticized our government on that issue, but we reinstated the funding and added to it. Do the Conservatives not have any shame whatsoever? Do they not realize the hypocrisy that is overflowing from the modern, right-wing Conservative Party? We are witnesses to that hypocrisy, day in and day out, when the House is sitting. The Conservative Party is not there to support Canadians. When we talk about supporting, it means not only getting behind legislation like what we have today and allowing it to pass but also recognizing the initiatives that are there in the budget to support our border control agents and the RCMP by developing the board that the legislation will put into place, being the independent and enhanced public complaints and review commission. That is, in fact, needed. Everyone in the chamber recognizes that, but only one party wants to prevent it from becoming law and having it enacted. The Conservatives will criticize, just as the member opposite tried to criticize us for not taking action on the issue of gun smuggling. Are they serious? The member can take a look at the actions we have taken in comparison to the previous administration, under Stephen Harper. When Conservatives talk about auto theft, the greatest auto theft that was taking place in Manitoba was in that 2004-08 era, under national Liberal and national Conservative governments. The federal government, provincial government and non-profits such as Manitoba Public Insurance came together to deal with the problem. That is why we had a summit. The government took action, contrary to what the Conservatives said. Actions speak louder than words, but all we get is wind from the Conservatives. It does not smell good at all. I would ask the Conservative Party to grow up on the issue.

1107 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

May/3/24 12:52:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberals stand in the House today and say it is a waste of time to be debating this very important legislation. It is not a waste of time for all the civil society organizations that have very serious concerns about the bill, concerns that were not fully addressed at committee. The National Police Federation, union officials and working people are concerned that, if there is an unfounded allegation against them, they are off work for a year and are not going to get paid. Conservatives put forward amendments to try to ensure that they would get back pay if the allegation was unfounded. The Liberals defeated them. That is why it is so important to have debates on this in the House. I would draw the attention of the House to the parliamentary secretary himself. He is saying that these are ridiculous motions. On November 26, 2018, he himself moved a notice of motion to delete the short title of Bill C-87; again, on March 6, 2017, the parliamentary secretary put a motion on notice to delete the short title of Bill C-22. The Liberal parliamentary secretary is being a hypocrite in the House. He has done this on numerous occasions, and he should be ashamed.

212 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 308