SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

May/27/24 10:55:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague is also a student of parliamentary procedure. My other colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, outlined a very good argument on why she believes this bill may end up back in litigation at the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. I wonder if the member would like to opine on that member's speech or, as has been the case for much of tonight, the fact that there are not enough members in this place to hold quorum. That may impact the constitutionality of the bill. When litigants are searching the Hansard, they may find that there was not enough people in the House for quorum.

113 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/27/24 10:56:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, it does seem that a substantially greater number of Liberals came in for my speech, like the member for Kingston and the Islands in particular, and the prospective leadership candidate, the Minister of Housing. The Liberals are busy planning leadership campaigns. To the member's point, a very important point, I will firmly agree with everything said by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. The government members love to talk about the Constitution, except when they violate it. It is all about the charter, except when it is inconvenient. Then, on Bill C-69, the court finds the government was ignoring the Constitution. It shows flagrant disregard for the constitutional order, and it gets its plans shut down. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Garnett Genuis: The member is asking if that leads to the use of the notwithstanding clause. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals actually just ignore the Constitution. They bring in a bill like this that does not at all address or respond to what the court has already found with respect to Bill C-69. The member for Kingston and the Islands wants to use constitutional issues as a pointed, partisan political attack, while he and his colleagues show shameful disregard for the Constitution in terms of their own legislative action. I have read, in the good book, that someone should not try to remove a sliver from their brother's eye when they have a log in their own. When it comes to respecting the Constitution, I think the government has a log in its own eye that it needs to address before it tries to hurl political attacks at others.

276 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 10:58:23 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

14 words

Simcoe
York

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/27/24 10:58:30 p.m.
Watch

I would like to check the requirement for quorum, Mr. Speaker.

11 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 10:58:34 p.m.
Watch

There are no quorum calls because of the autopilot order that we are under. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

25 words

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

May/27/24 10:58:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is when the court makes a decision, we respect that decision. Even if we do not like it or even if we do not agree with it, we respect it. We do not then turn around and say maybe we will use the notwithstanding clause in order to supersede the decision, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition does. The member talked earlier in his speech about the inflationary budget and all this spending was going to lead to inflation. Conservatives have been scaring the public about that since the fall. However, here we are, for the fourth month in a row, and inflation is within the Bank of Canada's targets. As a matter of fact, inflation right now is the lowest it has been in three years. Can the member explain to the House how the inflationary budgets the Conservatives mentioned never actually ended up materializing to produce inflation?

163 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/27/24 10:59:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands undoes himself with his own arguments. He says inflation is not as bad as it was three years ago. He says the Liberals are getting a little better than they were. The Liberals want to tell us they might be bad, but they are getting a little better, and they are not doing as badly as they used to. To the member's comments on the Constitution, the Liberals just show complete disregard for the Constitution. They just ignore it. They violate the law routinely. We see that with Bill C-69. The anti-energy, anti-development Bill C-69 has been found, in part, to be unconstitutional, and rather than responding to it, they are resuscitating provisions in Bill C-49. While I am on my feet, I just want to say the lack of extending the rural top-up to the people of Pefferlaw is a grave injustice. I stand with the member for York—Simcoe in calling for the immediate redress of that injustice.

177 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

May/27/24 11:00:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is from the area of the heartland in Alberta. He knows it well and knows how development can happen there. What has the member seen when development works? What could happen elsewhere in this country? What optimism does he have for what our country could be if it was developed like the heartland in his constituency?

60 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/27/24 11:01:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands has to be loud to make up for the absence of other colleagues who are able to say anything in the House. I want to credit the member. He speaks when nobody else is here, and he is carrying more water than some. In response to my colleague, absolutely the industrial heartland is a critical example of the benefits of energy-related manufacturing, and my riding is a real hub of that. Of course, it covers some parts of other ridings. I am very proud of the industrial heartland, what it has been, and I can only see the growth in potential when we finally have a federal government that is actually supportive of our energy sector.

126 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

May/27/24 11:02:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this time of the night, and I do want to congratulate Lin Paddock, who won the Baie Verte—Green Bay by-election in Newfoundland. Kudos to him, a progressive Conservative, as he won with an almost 80% victory. Actually, two years ago, in a by-election, he had 48%. The Liberals went from 52% to 24%. So that is Newfoundland, the Maritimes, but there has been a plethora of polls the past year that have the Liberals trailing. I know that we do not count our chickens before they hatch, but this one did hatch this evening. I think that the Liberals and the NDP should get this message that they are out of touch with Newfoundlanders, Maritimers, British Columbians and everyone in between. What is the problem? Is it just because people like the change of colour? No, the issue is that the Liberals' policies are hurting Newfoundlanders, Maritimers and all Canadians. They are putting a squeeze on Canadians. Now, the member for Kingston and the Islands just finished talking about bringing down inflation. Well, he fails to recognize that all those past number of years when inflation was extremely high have not gone away, and Canadians are struggling to pay for the increases that have been happening because of the out-of-control spending. I have been in Newfoundland. I was in Labrador once in Goose Bay in 2016. I was very impressed. I went to St. John's, rented a car, went down the Avalon Peninsula, and I was surprised at the wealth. I saw a lot of construction, a lot of nice houses and it is a beautiful part of the country. It has been transformed from a have-not to a have province. However, that was in 2016, and already there were starting to be some problems. With the anti-energy policies of the Liberals, the Newfoundlanders and the Maritimers had a lot of flights going directly to Fort McMurray, but their policies squeezed that and those direct flights and that income were cut off, which has hurt. So, a tip for the government is that it should listen to the Conservatives, which might help it a little bit, because we are listening to the people of Canada. However, the problem that we have with Bill C-49 is that it is essentially just going to be adding more regulations and more red tape to an already cumbersome, if not impossible, process. Yes, it is pretty much impossible to get projects approved in Canada, and that is very unfortunate. I think the comments from the member from Nova Scotia a little earlier bear repeating, about the tidal project in the Bay of Fundy that was ready to roll. It was tested, they were bringing electricity into Nova Scotia, and then it got cut off. It got cancelled by the Liberal Department of Fisheries. This is a prime, and incredible, example of a potential project that could have been a reality with green energy, yet the Liberals cancelled it. It is just contrary. Looking at this bill, the Liberals are saying that it is pro-renewable energy. They had something right in their hands that could have gone forward and would have supplied hundreds of megawatts, and it was just cancelled. This is what the Liberals will also be doing with these other projects. I am from British Columbia. We saw similar things happen for energy that is clean, for example, the LNG. The presidents of Germany and Japan wanted LNG and wanted production because of the invasion of Ukraine and their source of energy from Russia being cut off. They said that they needed it. The Prime Minister's response was to see if there was a business case. That was basically flipping the bird. Then they went to Qatar, which is a sponsor of many terrorist organizations. This is something that we could have gotten. These are jobs. The biggest private project in history is happening right now in Prince Rupert, the LNG. That was approved under the Harper Conservative government. It reduces global emissions worldwide. However, the Liberals have blocked everything else from happening. They talk about consultation with indigenous people. The northern gateway project was supported by all the different first nations along the route. The Liberals thought about it and asked what they were going to do there. The first nations wanted it, but what were they going to do? They decided to find a few elders who were not even part of the leadership and put everything upon them. Then the Liberals cancelled the project because those elders were against it, even though the first nations, the Wet'suwet'en First Nations and everyone else, wanted it. The Liberals blocked it. This is just a sham, as far as what the Liberals say toward the first nations, that they really want to consult and work with them. This is just a way to block and not allow first nations and Métis people to really benefit. As far as the energy projects, it seems what the Liberals are really just building more regulations, more red tape and more bureaucracy. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development worked with the Auditor General to do a study on the net-zero accelerator initiative, a $7.4-billion project. Their conclusion was that there was no due diligence happening. They could not even determine if emissions would go down. The contracts were not clear. It is just a mess. It is the same thing with the $1-billion green slush fund. The Liberals appointed Liberals to a board, and those Liberals directed hundreds of millions of dollars to their own personal companies. This is the type of mess that we are facing here in Canada. It is all about what is in it for me, or what is in it for the Liberals. We saw that with the WE Charity, where the Prime Minister's family got significant money for contracts. We saw that with former Liberal MP Frank Baylis with the COVID contracts. We see it all the way through. We just have to question if that is the Liberal objective, to build bureaucracy and build more opportunities to give money to their friends and family.

1055 words

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

May/27/24 11:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the member this question a number of times, and he neglects to ever really answer it. It is about the fact that he was an MLA in British Columbia when the carbon tax was introduced, and he voted in favour of it. He is on the record having voted for it. Now, he will not answer the question. I have asked it of him many times before. What I really want to know is, is it awkward? Is it awkward to have voted in favour of it, and then to come here and pretend to be against it? Does the member sleep well at night knowing that he is such a giant hypocrite? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

123 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:09 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member will have to withdraw that hypocrite statement. Would the hon. member mind retracting that one?

20 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/27/24 11:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will retract “hypocrite” and replace it with ”the hypocrisy of it”. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:28 p.m.
Watch

Why does this happen every time? The hon. member starts and creates his problem in the late night on this one. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

36 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/27/24 11:13:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you deem the name “hypocrite” to be offensive, I appreciate that, and I withdraw it, but I just want to know this: Does the hypocrisy really bother him? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:49 p.m.
Watch

Order. I said to retract it, and that was all I needed, but the hon. member wanted to replace it. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is rising on a point of order.

34 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

May/27/24 11:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the chair occupant has made a precedent on this, and it is incumbent on you to restore order in this place and to name the member.

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:14:14 p.m.
Watch

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

14 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

May/27/24 11:14:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member has still not been brought to order. Bring him to order. Name him. If he will not— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

27 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:14:24 p.m.
Watch

I am standing right now, and I hope that I am the only one standing right now. Will the hon. member come to order? Are we calmed down? Will everybody be calmed down for a second? I am not going to do this again because it is getting too late in the night. The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

62 words