SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC)

Jun/17/24 10:24:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, those were great remarks that really reflect what, if people are at the doors talking to individuals, they will recognize as being an issue. It boils down to the fact that Canadians have lost hope and they feel like they are drowning, and there are a number of factors that contribute to that. One of the things I have noticed about the government over the last number of years since the Liberals have been in power is that it loves to talk a great game. It is amazing the number of promises the Liberals continue to promise to deliver on that they do not actually deliver on. It is all summed up in an article that was in the paper in April 2016. It was titled “'Deliverology' guru schools Trudeau government for 2nd time at cabinet retreat”. I am guessing that he or she was there for a second time because they were having a hard time delivering the results, although it is pretty easy to make promises. One of the things that concerns me about the government is not just the spending. The member for Calgary Nose Hill laid that out very well in terms of the constant spending, and there have been other members in the House who have talked about the spending. However, one of the challenges is that the government continues to make promises that it has no intention of keeping, no intention of delivering or no idea how they are going to begin. I can give hundreds of examples, and I am going to give a couple of examples tonight during my speech. One of the members of the Liberal Party spoke earlier. We are in a housing crisis, so the Liberals talk quite a bit about their commitment to build 3.9 million homes over the next seven years. We can hear this number, and they talk about it all the time. They talk about all this money that they are contributing to the cause, yet we are not seeing any results. I know that we have had colleagues ask the question, and I want to break down the numbers for people at home, just to realize how absurd this number is. On building 3.9 million homes by 2031, that is seven years away. That is almost 560,000 homes a year, which works out to over 46,000 homes a month, over 10,000 homes a week, over 1,500 homes per day and over 63 homes per hour. Therefore, we are looking at pretty much a home needing to be built every minute in this country. When we look at what the current building situation is in this country, we see that this past year, we only built 240,000 homes, and part of the reason for that is the whole issue of red tape and regulations, and the fact remains that there is really no plan. Once again, there is a promise for what we would like to see happen. That is what the Liberal government does often times. The Liberals talk about what they promise or what they would like to do or what they would love to see happen. I am going to make my point tonight that the government is completely incompetent and does not have any idea how it is going to deliver any of the things that it actually promises individuals. To help them try to deliver this stuff, the Liberals do spend a lot of money on consultants. That has been a theme here in the House over the last little while. We see that there was over $15 billion spent in 2021-2022. We see the McKinsey situation. Originally, we thought that the company had been given $100 million in contracts. It turns out that number is actually $200 million in contracts. We have seen the size of the bureaucracy increase by almost 40% since the time we were in government. It was interesting that, right after COVID, people were going to get their passports renewed, and we remember the challenges they were having. They were waiting for hours and hours. We thought, okay, the government is hiring more people to help make this happen. In talking to my constituents, I have to say that the service is actually as bad as it was back then. I talked to someone the other day who went in for a passport and they waited for over three hours. Let us think about that. We are not in post-COVID times. We have a bureaucracy that is 40% larger than when we were in government, yet the government has no ability or competence whatsoever to deliver those things. We have not seen services improve at all. As a matter of fact, government regulations is the other side of that coin. The reason we cannot build homes is that government regulations are pretty tough at all levels. I am not going to say that is just at the federal level, as they are certainly tough provincially and municipally as well. Some people are not so lucky as I am. I come from an area in Niagara where we actually have four levels of government. We have a regional level of government that adds a layer of complexity to that. CFIB said that it costs small business owners nearly $40 billion a year for them to deal with regulations. CFIB representatives also said that probably 30% of that $40 billion a year is unnecessary, redundant and overly burdensome regulation. That leads me into talking about small business. I think that the government's record has been horrendous on small businesses. As a matter of fact, I think small businesses are being crushed under the government. I think that if we go back to COVID and see some of the unfair restrictions that happened with restaurants and the hospitality industry, those hangovers remain. We look at it right now in terms of large multinationals, global consulting firms and billion-dollar companies, which have never had it so good under the government. I mean, they are laughing. Their pockets are stuffed with cash, but small businesses continue to get crushed. I had a chance to talk to an individual restauranteur in my riding. I was at an event in Grimsby, Ontario, on Friday, and I had a chance to talk to Mark. Mark owns a couple of restaurants. I asked him how he has been doing since COVID. I asked him if he has been able to rebound since COVID. He said, “As a matter of fact, I am still killed. I am still crushed. I am struggling to make the bills. I am struggling to be able to maintain what is happening. I had to try to sell one of my other restaurants because of the issues there.” He is not unique. If one goes to Restaurants Canada, it will tell members that almost 42% of businesses went insolvent. The number is around 41% for businesses in general. When one adds in restaurants, that number goes up to literally 44%. The year before, coming out of COVID last year, we saw that only half of restaurants were losing money. That number, currently, this year, is probably up to 62%. When the government says to us that we have never had it so good, I would challenge that, and I would ask members to go to talk to a small business person to see if they actually feel the same way. One of the challenges is that people are losing hope. They are losing faith. Once again, the member for Calgary Nose Hill did mention the fact, and one of the questions mentioned this, that people are leaving this country in record numbers. We are seeing that all the time because people are trying to go to places where maybe they would have some hope. I think that is the sad part. We have a great country. I just think it is tremendously mismanaged. When I think about what is going on right now, I could stand here all night and just talk about the mismanagement. I just want to give members a couple highlights. I look at the most recent Auditor General report. It said that there were over 180 conflicts when looking at contracts, 186 times there were conflicts of interest. The Treasury Board said that there were over 160 conflicts when it came to dealing with consultants and contractors. That is for the people that self-disclosed. Imagine the people who did not mention it. It was 163 times. Blacklock’s Reporter does a great job. I encourage people to have a look at its news organization. It is a subscription, but it has great information. It came up with a story. This was done with some OPQs. We were able to figure this out. There were a couple of sole source contracts during COVID. We do not have to go back too far. We see a sole source contract for StarFish, which had new ventilators and was given $170 million. Some of them were scrapped even while the pandemic was going on. Others were sold for as little as $6. We certainly will never forget the juicy contract that Frank Baylis, a one-term MP here, got for ventilators for $237 million. These are the things that I think really frustrate people. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about a government that has a spending problem, and I think we have a government that is absolutely incompetent when it comes to being able to deliver the things it talks about. I would love to talk a bit about the Winnipeg lab story. It is kind of ironic. It is sad that we had a couple of scientists that were actually getting packages from Amazon. They were getting stuff from China, and they were sending stuff back. That is unbelievable. The government then covered it up. That is absolutely insane. It did not want to realize how incompetent it was. We also found out they were working for the Chinese military. Once again, there are many things I could go on about. One thing I will tell members is that the government is just not worth the cost. When we get a chance, we are going to give people hope, give people faith and give people a chance to have a better life once again.

1756 words

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

Jun/17/24 10:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said that he is going to give people a chance to have hope, yet he is going to cut back on issues that people genuinely care about, such as seniors receiving dental care services and the pharmacare program being rolled out. Imagine the individuals with diabetes. Think of the school food program. The Conservatives are going to cut that away. There are so many things they are going to cut. My question for the member is this: Why do the Conservatives not recognize the need to be fair? Why are they opposing the capital gains tax? They voted against the 1% tax hike for—

109 words

Cut
Opposing

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:35:36 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member a few seconds to answer.

12 words

Mr. Dean Allison

Jun/17/24 10:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, do members know who is going to be upset when we form government? It will be Liberal insiders. They are going to be so disappointed because they will not be getting those fat, juicy contracts where there is no value for service and where things do not get delivered. The government had a sole-source contract for a quarter billion dollars, and then it scrapped the machines and did not even use them. What a joke.

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:36:09 p.m.
Watch

It being 10:36 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 31. 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.

104 words

Motions

Mr. Adam Chambers

Jun/17/24 10:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:37:16 p.m.
Watch

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 32. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 33. 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.

73 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Jun/17/24 10:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need another recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:37:53 p.m.
Watch

The recorded division on Motion No. 32 stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 37. 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.

77 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 10:38:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite was about to ask for a recorded vote. If not, I will.

19 words

Recorded

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:38:41 p.m.
Watch

The recorded division on Motion No. 34 stands deferred.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:38:52 p.m.
Watch

The next question is on Motion No. 38. 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.

53 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Jun/17/24 10:39:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, but you can apply this result to the next 14 that you are about to read.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:40:52 p.m.
Watch

The recorded division on Motion No. 38 stands deferred. Following the hon. member for Simcoe North's request, the votes on Motion Nos. 42 to 154 will be deferred until tomorrow. Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

55 words

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

Jun/17/24 10:41:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am being encouraged to see the clock. If we could pass this bill, I would be happy to do so. At the end of the day, we have before us an important piece of legislation, and the first chance I had to debate the issue inside the chamber, I thought I was rather generous to the Conservative Party in my comments. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment indicating that they would be filibustering the legislation, and because of that, we are now in a position where the bill is limited in the amount of time for debate in an attempt to try to get the legislation to at least the committee stage. The minister, earlier today, answered a series of questions and talked, in essence, about how the minister is open to improvements to the legislation if, in fact, there is something that members opposite would like to see. I would encourage those members to bring forward their ideas and make those suggestions to the minister, possibly even directly. They do not have to even wait until we are at committee, but could maybe send an email or approach the minister. I talked about many things when I previously addressed the bill. However, in going through the legislation, a couple of things came across my mind about what the legislation would do and why it is that the Conservatives have indicated that they are going to be voting against the bill. It is a fairly well-known fact that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, is a big cryptocurrency fan. However, the problem is that it is a way to hide donating to potential candidates or to a political party, which is something that is incorporated in the legislation. It would ensure that there would be a higher sense of transparency and accountability with donations to candidates and political parties. I can appreciate that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, has some concerns regarding that, but I would hope that some of the Reform- Conservatives would see the merit of transparency and a higher sense of accountability in who is donating to political parties and candidates. The bill before us deals with things of that nature. Interestingly, if we go into some of the details of the legislation, members will see that there is a stronger stand on disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. We know for a fact that that actually takes place. It was not that long ago when we had a good example of it, which was when we had robocalls being made that were trying to suppress individuals' opportunities to go out and vote. Members might remember that there was even a high-profile Conservative member who ultimately went to jail as a result of it. This is the type of thing in which information is so vitally important, and we have the Conservative Party not even recognizing the need to fix the issue. I do not quite understand why it is that the Conservative Party is in opposition to the legislation. I look at it as modernizing, to a certain extent, certain aspects and encouraging more people to get engaged in the democratic process. The minister himself, in answers, provided some excellent examples of how it encourages people to get more involved. There are certain things that we learned from the pandemic, such as ensuring that those in long-term care facilities have the opportunity to have more involvement— An hon. member: Foreign interference. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member is right. This government has dealt more with foreign interference in elections than the Stephen Harper administration did. It is a very good point. We will continue to look at ways to enhance the strength of our election laws, and part of that goes to what I just used as an example: long-term care facilities and making it easier for residents to be engaged and vote. That is a positive thing. At the end of the day, it also allows, for example, for youth to be more engaged, with voting at campuses. Why would the Conservatives oppose this stuff? The bill even talks about going into the 2029 election and how we can make it easier, with the hope that Elections Canada will put into place such things as being able to vote at any polling station within a riding. I use the comparison of a provincial election, where people can vote for their candidate in a local constituency anywhere in the province. It is a step forward. The legislation would, I hope, move us in that direction. These are the types of initiatives that really make a difference. We could talk about expanding the number of voting days. We might not be able to implement it for the next election, but in 2029, we may have three days on which people can mark their ballots, with “election day” becoming “election days”. The legislation would do many things. The only thing Conservatives want to talk about is how we supported 32 Conservatives with regard to changing the election date. It is not about helping those 32 Conservatives. It is about making sure the committee understands and appreciates that there are things happening. Edmonton and Calgary were having elections on that day. The entire province of Alberta listened to what the Bloc had to say when it came to the date being too close to Quebec's municipal elections. Where are those Alberta MP advocates?

926 words

Filibustering

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/17/24 10:49:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe there was unanimous consent to lump all the votes together and defer them. We will need to take them one at a time and confirm whether any members in the House wish to have a recorded division. We need to complete that process.

49 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:50:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is correct. We did not receive the email confirming unanimous consent prior to 6.30 p.m., so we have to go back to moving the motions. The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 40 and 41. 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. An hon. member: Madam Speaker, we would ask for a recorded division. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The recorded division stands deferred. The question is on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 43. 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.

187 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/17/24 10:50:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:50:44 p.m.
Watch

The recorded division stands deferred. The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 45. 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.

70 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/17/24 10:50:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be in the best interests of all members of the House if we had a recorded vote.

21 words

Recorded