SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

May/21/24 10:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague has been out knocking on doors and talking to regular Canadians. We have been busy doing that, and the portrait she paints of this country is a lot different from what I am hearing from normal Canadians about the cost of living crisis and about how the government is not only doing nothing to help, but also causing hurt because as Ottawa spends more money, inflationary pressures get worse, interest rates go up and more pain is being felt. What would she say to the millions of Canadians right now who have lost hope because of the senseless wacko policies of the government?

111 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/21/24 10:49:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that question because it very much illustrates the point I was trying to make; continuing to tear down Canada is not serving anyone. It is not serving the House either. I am sure he did not listen to my speech because I certainly did not paint this perfect picture of Canada. What we are doing with the budget implementation act is building what we want to see for the future. It is setting up that green economy. It is setting up affordable housing for all. This is what the budget is about, making those plans and implementing them. I will say that when I have conversations with community members in my riding, they are very much focused on the climate crisis and actually support the initiatives we have put in place as far as the price on pollution, driving down our emissions and ensuring they are given those rebates to address the affordability challenges as well. That is just one example.

168 words

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

May/21/24 10:50:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her remarks. I very much appreciate her work and the approach she brings to this work. I am going to ask my colleague about an issue I raised several weeks ago. In British Columbia, the First Nations Health Authority has stopped funding counselling for non-status survivors of residential schools. This is affecting people in the riding I represent and across the province. It is due to federal underfunding of the First Nations Health Authority. Obviously, this is something she would share my concern about. I wonder if, in her role as parliamentary secretary, she has looked into this. What is her government's plan to ensure that non-status individuals who survived residential schools and are in need of counselling can get these vital services?

135 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/21/24 10:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to NDP members for bringing up indigenous issues because it seems to be a priority for them and not so much for the other parties in the House. I have absolutely looked into that issue. There is very much a conversation happening with provincial authorities as well. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary, I have really leaned into wanting to create equity across that system, looking at what non-status looks like, looking at ensuring that those who are disenfranchised are then brought into the system and looking at the second generation cut-off, which is another piece of this. It is incumbent upon us to look across the entire system and to make sure, especially for those in British Columbia who are dealing with this immediate challenge, that their needs are also met. I will continue to work with this member off-line and with our department as well because I know it is really important.

163 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

May/21/24 10:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join in the debate. We had some questions to the other members across the way about what Canadians are feeling about the disastrous Liberal government, and I would like to read into the record a couple of emails I have received. I am sure everyone here has received emails on the pain and suffering after nine long years of this failed regime. I just want to get this on the record from some of the people I represent, because as much as we are all here, the people who are really the masters of this country are the voters, the citizens of this country, who elected all 338 of us to come here to debate. I feel that we would be a better democracy and a better country if the people who are sent here would actually listen to what Canadians are feeling and would listen to how we can make a change in their lives. The budget comes out, and a flood of emails comes in. I would like to read just a sampling of those, to digest them a little and to explain a little of my feelings towards those emails and hopefully have some questions from others. Robert, who emailed after this budget was released, said that he just wants his voice added to everyone else's in Canada who are appalled by the $1 billion a month interest we are paying on this debt; more than we spend on health care. He wants us to please do everything and anything we can to turn this around. He also asks that we let the Prime Minister know that it is over. No matter how much money he squanders, trying to get ahead in the polls, he is yesterday's man. That was from Robert in my constituency. I thank Robert for writing in. I read every email that comes into my office. David wrote that the Liberal woke policies have put Canadians at—

334 words

Emails
Email

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 10:54:06 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have. It being 10:54 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the amendment. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

100 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/21/24 10:55:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 10:55:49 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 10:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Before we proceed, I wish to remind hon. members of the Speaker's ruling of Tuesday, January 30, regarding Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. At the time, the Chair indicated that, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question on the motion for the second reading would be divided to provide for separate votes on measures that were related to each other. Furthermore, on November 8, 2017, at page 15145 of the Debates, Speaker Regan explained how the Chair intended to implement Standing Order 69.1. He stated, “The vote at third reading will be conducted in a similar way to the vote at second reading, assuming all of the identified elements are still part of the bill by the time it reaches that stage.” Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1 the question will be divided at the third reading stage as follows: First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together. Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco. The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322 and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. I would like to remind members that when putting the question on groups of clauses for Bill C-59, I intend to follow a procedure similar to that outlined in Standing Order 76.1(8) for the putting of the question on amendments at report stage. I thank hon. members for their attention.

398 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/21/24 10:59:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the very important piece of legislation before us. It is what we call the fall economic statement, which was, yes, introduced in the fall. Unfortunately, because of Conservative delay tactics and their continuing to put forward amendments and having multiple people speak to it, we still have not even gotten to the place where we can pass the fall economic statement. However, I will say that a lot has happened since then, particularly with respect to inflation. Members may recall that this particular piece of legislation came in at a time when inflation was still working its way downward but had not yet gotten into the range that the Bank of Canada dictates in its policy, which is within a range of 2% to 3%. We were seeing higher inflation. When I think back to when we were having these discussions in the fall, one of the things I think about is what Conservatives were saying about our budgetary measures at the time. They were saying that they were inflationary budgets. The Conservatives were saying to stop spending money because when the government spends money it is just adding to inflation. They said it over and over. All the experts came out and said that actually the particular programs that the government was running in order to support Canadians were providing money to some of the most vulnerable people, the people who would be utilizing the money for basic necessities, and this was not going to contribute to impacting inflation. However, that did not matter to Conservatives because it was not feeding their narrative, so they continued on, marching along and talking about the supports that we were making for Canadians as something that was going to affect inflation and continue to drive it up. We see today that the year-over-year inflationary rate is at 2.7%. This is the lowest it has been in three years. It has been within the range of 2% to 3% despite the fact that I know Conservatives were rooting for inflation to continue to rise because that would fit their political narrative, and they do not worry about the impact it has on Canadians. The Conservatives always just want the government to fail in any possible way it can, just so they can get a little political gain out of it, even if it means it comes at the expense of Canadians. We have seen inflation now, for four straight months in a row, within the target that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%. Conservatives were wrong. They were wrong when they said that investing in Canadians contributed to inflation, and they were wrong in predicting an outcome where those investments would actually drive inflation up. We knew that was going to be the case, because all the experts were saying it at the time, but what the Conservatives were doing is something that the member for Fredericton was talking about earlier. The Conservatives intentionally used and continue to use against Canadians the anxieties that Canadians feel. The Conservatives use those anxieties and turn them into a weapon against the very people that they are impacting, and they are doing it just for political gain. That is the only reason. It is the exact same reason that Conservatives say over and over that inflation is caused by the Prime Minister and the current government. An hon. member: Yes, you got it. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, in reality, we know that inflation is something that is going on throughout the entire globe. I know that the member for Saskatoon—University just ran back in here and sat down so he could heckle me. I challenge him to ask me a question, to actually think about a question that he can ask me when it comes time to do so, because I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say about what I am saying right now. I will, of course, respond to that question. What we heard is not only Conservatives being wrong—

689 words

Hon. Gary Anandasangaree

May/21/24 10:59:50 p.m.
Watch

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

43 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 11:04:30 p.m.
Watch

The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Hon. Mike Lake

May/21/24 11:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has been here long enough, though he may not be here for much longer, and he knows that he cannot mention the presence of another member in the House, which he just did.

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 11:04:44 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is quite correct. We do not reference members' absences or presences in the House, as is the practice in our Standing Orders. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

33 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/21/24 11:04:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that Conservatives were wrong when they predicted inflation would go up as a result of the supports we were investing in for Canadians, and we know that they were also wrong when they tried to suggest that inflation was created by the current government, because inflation is something that is being seen throughout the world. It is something that was being seen in the United Kingdom, which had a much higher inflation rate than we do. It is something seen in the United States, which continues to have higher inflation than we do. As a matter of fact, I got a real kick earlier, when we were debating the budget bill, out of how a member from the Conservatives got up and tried to make a witty joke by saying he does not know what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine, as though he was trying to somehow suggest that there is no connection between the two. The rich irony is that there is something fundamentally connecting Kraft Dinner and Ukraine, which is the resources and the supplies. The CEO of Kraft himself said that the supply constraints and probably wheat coming out of Ukraine were impacting the ability to keep food prices low, so I just find it absolutely remarkable that Conservatives believe what they are saying. I believe that they have convinced themselves to believe what they are saying, but the reality is that it is just not true. They were wrong when they suggested that investing in Canadians was going to lead to inflation, and they are wrong when they continue to try to make the point that inflation is something unique to Canada, but I think that the vast majority of Canadians understand this. I think that they understand what Conservatives are doing, how they are trying to utilize those specific anxieties against them and weaponize them. We look at exactly what the measures are that Conservatives were objecting to, and they are the exact measures in the fall economic statement that Conservatives said would lead to inflation. It is things like strengthening the Competition Act to ensure that the Competition Bureau is empowered to hold grocers accountable and prioritize consumer interests. Just so Canadians understand, this is really important because in the United States, the largest grocery retailer owns or controls 11% of grocery sales, and that is Walmart. Do members know which is the largest one and what its percentage is in Canada? An hon. member: Loblaw. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That is right, Madam Speaker; it is Loblaw. Does my colleague know what the percentage is? He does not. It is 42%, so 42% of groceries in this country are controlled by Loblaw and their retail. With Loblaw and a couple of the other large grocery retailers, very quickly I see how we have created an oligopoly here. There is an oligopoly operating in our country when it comes to grocery sales. It becomes very important to identify what is going on here and to put measures in place to ensure that they are properly dealt with, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is what Conservatives are against. They are very loud and have a lot to say when it comes to government spending, but they are absolutely silent when it comes to the profits that are being made by Loblaw, probably because the Leader of the Opposition's own chief campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, is an actual lobbyist for Loblaw. The campaign manager of the very individual who is standing up trying to fight against lobbyists and saying lobbyists are useless is a lobbyist for Loblaw. She has a vested interest in ensuring that Loblaw keeps its prices high, so how can anybody actually listen to what the Leader of the Opposition, the member from Carleton, says, and actually think that he is being genuine in any regard when he suggests that he understands the impacts of the greedy corporations we are seeing, in particular the retail grocery giants and Loblaw, which I mentioned specifically? A few of the other initiatives that are in this particular piece of legislation, the fall economic statement, include unlocking $20 billion in new financing to build 30,000 more apartments per year. Conservatives love to get up and talk about how no apartments have been built, apparently. However, I can tell members that, in my riding alone, we are now on the 13th affordable housing project that has been built in Kingston, in which the federal government has, in one way or another, been a partner. I get a real kick out of it when I hear Conservatives go on and on about it. Meanwhile, when the Leader of the Opposition was the housing minister, he built a total of six units, not buildings, not duplexes, but six units. The number seemed so wildly low to me that I thought it was impossible, that somebody was doing something with the numbers, that there was no way that this could be real, until I realized that this information actually came forward from an Order Paper question that was tabled. That information is tabled and available for everybody to see: In the one year when the member for Carleton was the minister responsible for housing, he built a total of six units. Those six units happen to be in Quebec, if one goes and looks at the numbers. However, he built a total of six units throughout the entire country. Another thing we have done, through the fall economic statement, is to launch the new tax-free first home savings account. This has helped over half a million Canadians start saving for their first home. We have supported seniors through the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, all of which are indexed to inflation. Canadians are not going to forget very easily how the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government previously, raised old age security, the OAS, to 67 years old. If there is anybody out there who is in their early 60s and planning for their retirement, they should seriously give some thought to whom they want to elect as their next government and whether it is a former member of a government that has a track record of actually increasing old age security requirements from 65 years old to 67. In all likelihood, it is going to happen again. Earlier tonight, when we heard Conservatives talking about how they “balanced” the budget in 2015, I guess that, from an accounting perspective, they did. However, let us look at what they did to get there. They increased old age security to 67. They closed veterans' offices, doing this all on the backs of veterans. They did a number of initiatives to “balance” the budget. They did it in that one year in 2015, if one actually accepts the fact that one would consider that a balanced budget. People have to understand that, when Conservatives talk about balancing the budget, they are really talking about cuts. Out of every Conservative budget that was introduced between 1990 and present day, only two of them ran surpluses. There is that made-up surplus I just talked about from 2015. There was also another one that Stephen Harper had at the beginning of his term as prime minister, and that was because it was coming off the heels of Paul Martin's surplus that he had. This is factual. Those are the only two budgets that ran surpluses. The reason governments will run deficits is that, as long as one's economy is growing at a faster pace than one is taking on that debt, one is still in a very healthy position. It is why we continue to get AAA credit rating reports from independent third parties for the manner in which the government is spending and taxing. It is why we continue to see, year over year, more investments made in Canadians. It really just comes down to whether one thinks that there is a role for government to play in ensuring that people have equal opportunities. That is exactly what we see as a government, which is that at least people have to have a shot at being able to strive and get what they want and hope to get out of their career and their life. There are a number of other issues in here. The other one I wanted to touch on was $10-a-day child care, which was another issue that was updated in the fall economic statement. This was a very important piece of legislation that brought in an opportunity to empower more people to get out into the workforce. We have already seen it. We did not have to go far in order to study it. All we had to do was look at what was happening in Quebec and how more people, more spouses and, in particular, more women were in the workforce as a result of $10-a-day child care. This is another advancement our government is continuing to push forward in the spirit of fairness, equality and opportunity for everybody. I look forward to the question from the member for Saskatoon—University at this point. I am sure it will be great.

1564 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

May/21/24 11:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very telling that we have a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy. We have members of the government who obviously do not think about the long-term financial help of Canada. We have seen this over nine years. There is almost no one in Canada who thinks they are better off than they were in 2015. Right now it is approaching midnight here in Ottawa, and this is a financial bill. Why is the finance minister not here? Instead, we have a backbencher leading the debate. How does he feel toward a finance minister that has indebted our—

106 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 11:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Before I let the hon. member finish, we have a point of order from the hon. member for Fredericton.

19 words

Fredericton

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/21/24 11:17:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—University signalled the presence or non-presence of a member in the House, and he is not allowed to do that.

28 words

Presence

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 11:17:19 p.m.
Watch

I apologize for my distraction. Order, please. I make the same comment I made to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I remind the hon. member for Saskatoon—University of that.

35 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/21/24 11:17:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the finance minister is here or not here. What I am asking is why this member is leading the debate for the government versus the actual finance minister. This is very telling in terms of why we are in so much trouble.

49 words

Finance