44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
- May/30/24 2:24:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, this Prime Minister and his Bloc Québécois supporters are not worth the cost. Their $500 billion in inflationary spending is forcing parents to skip meals so they can feed their children. While the leader of the Bloc Québécois and several of his members are campaigning to radically increase gas taxes, Quebeckers in the regions are paying the price because they do not have access to public transit.
Talk about being completely out of touch. Will the Liberal Bloc set aside its ideological agenda to raise taxes on Quebeckers and vote in favour of our motion to suspend federal taxes for the summer?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 2:26:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where they are pulling their numbers from. As usual, they are making things up. We know full well that Quebeckers who will be paying at the pump every week are going to notice the difference at the end of the month.
That is the reality facing Quebeckers, who pay too much for food and rent, cannot make it to the end of the month and are lining up at food banks. They have no problem understanding Liberal math. It is costing them too much. Will the Liberals listen to common sense and put gas taxes on hold for the summer?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 3:15:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is the usual Thursday question, but for the last few days, if not weeks, the government has been having a hard time sticking to a schedule. It keeps moving more and more time allocation motions and muzzling parliamentarians on a lot of important bills.
Can the government House leader tell us what business is planned for tomorrow and next week? Can we be certain that the schedule he shares with us today will be the same we will see next week?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 3:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we would like to take a few moments before responding with our comments on this question of privilege at a later time.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that two people from my riding are here in Ottawa. These two young people are just embarking on their political careers. Audrey-Anne and Annabelle have been learning a lot during their time in Ottawa. I hope they will enjoy the debate. I am very pleased to have them here in Ottawa with us. I would also like to thank my colleague from Calgary Midnapore for her excellent speech.
After nine years, this Prime Minister and his Bloc Québécois supporters are just not worth the cost of $500 billion in Bloc-endorsed inflationary spending that is forcing parents to skip meals to save their families.
Today's motion is about suspending the gas tax for the summer. While the Bloc Québécois leader and a number of the MPs on his team are campaigning to radically increase gas taxes, Quebeckers in the regions who do not have access to public transit are paying a hefty price. Talk about being completely out of touch with Quebec. I will say more about that later in my speech.
I have a few statistics about the impact that nine years of this Prime Minister's government has had on Quebeckers. This year, food banks are helping 872,000 people every month. That is a 30% increase over 2022 and 73% over 2019. In 2019, 500,000 people were helped by food banks every month. Now there are 872,000. Behind those statistics shared by the press are human beings, vulnerable people, families, children, single people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not know whether they will have enough to eat each day. More and more working families are seeking help because people just do not have the means to cope with all the increases imposed by nine years of this Liberal government.
I want to quote from an article entitled “Housing has become a privilege”:
Soon, there will be nowhere for us to go, those of us who do not make a lot of money and who live in vulnerable situations. Housing prices are so high!
Among them, there are people who will end up in the encampments that are popping up everywhere.
In another article entitled “Housing crisis and mental health: Quebec organizations call out for help”, a spokesperson for the Regroupement des comités logements et associations de locataires du Québec states the following:
We hear from tenants who intend to commit suicide. This is more than just despair. They do not see a way out, and they want it to be over. That is what it has come to.
I have one last article from the Journal de Montréal entitled “Proof of of the housing crisis, she will soon be forced to live in her van”. Here is a quote:
This is what's become of me. I feel ashamed. I'm mad at myself, but also at the government, which treats it like a political issue. It's not a political issue, it's a crisis!
Nine years of Liberal governance has led us to this crisis, and we need to find solutions. We need to take action to help Quebeckers and Canadians get through this. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not helping Quebeckers by supporting $500 billion in inflationary spending by this government.
What is $500 billion in inflationary spending? It is the government's budgetary appropriations. These appropriations represent the money we voted on in Parliament. What are they funding? They are funding the bureaucracy, the consultants, the agencies, and the contributions to corporations and lobbies. In short, it is the money being used to fuel the big federal monster from which the separatists want to separate. It is rather surprising. We would think that a separatist party would vote against this budget that helps fuel this big federal monster. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The leader of the Conservative Party raised a very important point in the House. He said that he found it fascinating that a so-called separatist party from Quebec literally never supported reducing the tax burden on Quebeckers. That party never supports tax cuts. One would think that a separatist party would never support forcing Quebeckers to send their money to Ottawa, but no. In their own words, Bloc members want to drastically increase taxes.
When we think about it, it is true. Today, the Bloc Québécois claims to vote in the interest of Quebeckers, but we see that it is not true. We see that it is just a slogan. What the Bloc Québécois is really saying is that it will always vote in the interest of its party and its little brother in Quebec City, the Parti Québécois. The Parti Québécois does not represent all Quebeckers.
If the Bloc Québécois really wanted to vote for all Quebeckers, it would not hesitate to vote for Bill C‑234 as it was written. It was designed to abolish the carbon tax imposed on farmers. As everyone knows, if we tax the people who make the food, the food will cost more. Who is going to pay for more expensive food? Everyone, obviously.
If the Bloc Québécois were truly the party for Quebeckers, and not the federal branch of the Parti Québécois, it would think about people in the regions. I am talking about people in Matane, Joliette, Thetford Mines, Mirabel, Saint-Hyacinthe, the people who need their vehicles to get around, to go to work, for recreation. Yes, these people need their vehicles to get around.
A study was published by Le Journal de Montréal in 2023. The article was entitled, “Cost of living: How much does it cost to live outside the big cities?” I would like to quote from it:
Living outside the major centres of Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Gatineau and Sherbrooke can get expensive pretty quickly. The further away you live, the higher the cost of living. A family of two adults and two children can survive on a livable income of $71,161 a year in Montreal, but it increases to $76,918 in Sept-Îles. In Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, in the Gaspé Peninsula, that number rises to $78,621.
Why? The answer is simple, “The big difference between the cost of living in town and in the regions is the need for a car. If you have a family, you have two cars.” A father of four in Cap-d'Espoir said, “They need gas and gas is more expensive than it is in Montreal. It all adds up, so yes, there are things that cost more.”
Like the Liberals, the Bloc wants people in the regions to pay more for getting around. They would like the carbon tax to be drastically increased. I have a pile of statements here from Bloc Québécois members calling for the tax to be drastically increased, who say that the tax is not high enough and that we should immediately triple it to make people pay for pollution. For people living in the regions, pollution is the fuel they put in their car to get around, to go to work, to take part in leisure activities.
Not wanting to budge from that sort of ideology has consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences are that Quebec families, workers in the regions are paying the price. I would like the Bloc Québécois to realize that. The Bloc Québécois members want to punish Quebeckers to appease their conscience by making them pay more for fuel. It is an essential commodity for those who live in the regions, who do not have access to structured public transit services like those in the big city.
I am eager to see whether the Bloc Québécois will support our motion today to suspend federal taxes on fuel. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Quebeckers should keep their money in their pockets instead of sending it to Ottawa? If we were to ask that question to anyone in Quebec, they would say that that is surely not what the Bloc Québécois wants.
However, from what I have heard today from the representatives of the Bloc, it is apparently not that easy or straightforward. One would expect it to be a no-brainer for a party that wants to separate from the big federal machine. Unfortunately, I would be very surprised if the Bloc Québécois supported us, because, as I said earlier, they want to drastically increase gas taxes. To keep expanding the big federal Liberal machine, the Bloc Québécois will keep sending Quebeckers' money to Ottawa. Once again, I will quote the member from Carleton:
The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing. We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.
When we look at the facts and at the action taken by the members of the Bloc Québécois in the House, we cannot help but agree with the words of the Leader of the Opposition. To really change things so that Quebeckers have more money in their pockets, members need to support this Conservative motion, which seeks to suspend the federal gas tax. I think that there is only one real option for Quebeckers who want more money in their pockets and that is the Conservative Party's common-sense plan.
1715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is one thing I am sure of. I hear the member for Winnipeg North trying to distract from the debate at hand, but there is one number I am sure of, which is that 100% of people who put gas in their vehicles want lower taxes. That is a fact. No one is happy paying tax when they are putting gas in their vehicle.
We are asking for common sense. Right now, people have less money in their pockets. We want to leave them with more by cutting gas taxes for the summer at least, so they can enjoy summer too.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:38:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the carbon tax, federal carbon pricing, does not apply in Quebec, because Quebec has the carbon exchange. However, that does not matter. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Quebeckers are still not paying enough yet.
Here is what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert had to say on the matter:
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.
I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030.
That is three times the price we are paying in taxes right now. The Bloc Québécois is not saying it out loud, but what it wants is for Quebeckers to pay more at the pumps, period.
Can they vote in favour of our motion to give Quebeckers a break this summer, yes or no?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's government has done a lot of damage to this country over the past nine years. It has doubled the cost of housing. It has caused inflation to reach its highest level in 40 years. No one, not a single young family, can still dream of owning a home or property, because it is too expensive.
Without a doubt, the NDP has made its bed. It chose this Prime Minister's Liberal government.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 9:49:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
Firstly, I want to thank our colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, for rising in the House and providing a clear first-hand account of his association with the social media post in question.
Unlike the recent controversy over the Speaker's summer rally, where the Liberal response was never directly put before the House, and instead, we had the New Democratic House leader quoting a Liberal tweet addressed to the member for Hull—Aylmer, this is a refreshing change.
For her part, the NDP deputy House leader described the Facebook post as a “Conservative Party advertisement.” It was simply none of those things. It was, in fact, simply a free Facebook post on a riding association Facebook page.
As the hon. member for West Nova just shared with the House, he neither saw nor approved the photograph or wording of this social media post for a free meet-and-greet function.
Unlike the Speaker's famous Liberal Convention video, he did not pose in his gown for a photo specially taken for this Facebook post. No House of Commons resources were used for this riding association invitation. This is a material and very clear distinction. In glancing at the photo used, it simply appears to be a standard photo one could expect to see on the House of Commons website. It seems like the post was probably the result of a volunteer quickly assembling a short posting who may have simply grabbed a flattering, publicly available photo. In fact, when one does a photo search on Google for the member for West Nova, the photograph in question is among the first half-dozen results.
However one cuts it, it is a far cry from the circumstances we saw with the Speaker 's summer rally invitation published on the red, slick professional Liberal Party of Canada website, which included the following words, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams”.
Just to be clear between the two events in question, first, one event concerned an event organized by the Speaker's own riding association and promoted on a national political party's glossy website. It also featured nakedly partisan language trashing a political party and its leader. The other was a free ordinary Facebook post by a riding association on its own Facebook account and, to be certain, it was not the West Nova Conservative association's. It made zero reference to any other political party and was actually free of any partisanship in its wording.
As the member for West Nova shared, he asked the riding association in question to remove the post, and I have been informed that it was removed promptly this afternoon.
Of course, if the NDP members think this is bad, I would ask them to get their own affairs in order. On the New Democratic Party's slick orange website, one can find, at www.ndp.ca/team, a picture of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and if one clicks on it, one will see her title of “Assistant Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole in the House of Commons” along with not one but two “donation” buttons and another link to volunteer for the party. The New Democratic Party is literally fundraising on the fact that one of its members is a chair occupant.
However, this is not new behaviour. From the day of her first appointment to the roster of chair occupants on December 8, 2015, the NDP published a press release celebrating her appointment, titled “NDP MP...named Deputy Speaker”. In it, the party gushes, “People in Northern Ontario will be seeing more of [the] NDP MP [for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing] during televised parliamentary debates now that she has been named Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole in the 42nd Parliament.”
Nonetheless, the NDP deputy House leader, in her zeal for a gotcha moment, neglected to cite or perhaps even assess or review several critical procedural authorities.
First, this question of privilege concerned a Facebook post published on October 31, 2023. That was seven months ago. The hon. member may claim she only just became aware of it, but it was in full, plain sight of the public for seven whole months. This fact alone betrays the NDP's intention in raising this specious argument.
Regardless, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains, at page 145:
The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.
The member for London—Fanshawe missed this requirement by a long shot.
Second, the hon. member for West Nova is not the Speaker. He is the Deputy Speaker.
As Bosc and Gagnon comment, at pages 361 and 362:
While the Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s impartiality and independence by prohibiting participation in any debate before the House, there is no such clear statement as to whether the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers should take part in debate. Until the 1930s, it was not unusual for Deputy Speakers to participate actively in debate and there has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair Occupants, other than the Speaker, should remain aloof from partisan politics.
In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by “good taste and judgement”. Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as co-chair of her party’s leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties, and unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.
To expand on Speaker Fraser's ruling, found on page 16685 of the Debates for March 9, 1993, I would ask him to add that he also made the following pointed comment: “I am deliberately careful in not extending such a responsibility [for impartiality] by way of ex cathedra comments in this decision.”
Indeed, this decision was cited in the ruling we received just three days ago, on Monday, at page 23828 of the Debates, with the Chair saying, “While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants.”
Clearly, it would seem that the New Democratic Party's brain trust, which is loyally devoted to defending its coalition government with the Liberals at all costs, missed these important points. Indeed, that is disappointing and troubling.
As Deputy Speaker Armand LaVergne told the House on June 19, 1931, at page 2840 of the Debates, “A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair.”
It certainly seems that the New Democratic Party applies that particular standard when it comes to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, given the aggressive views of her office on fundraising and volunteer recruitment. In the present case, we had a publicly available photo that was innocently used in a clear and obvious volunteer-run social media page. It was in support of an event for which long-standing authority and precedence make clear that the hon. member for West Nova was at complete liberty to attend. The NDP complaint should be dismissed for what it is: a petty, short-sighted partisan attack.
1478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
