- Nov/9/23 2:59:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, a quarter of Canadians are using assistance services to meet their basic needs, such as food and housing. After eight years of this tax plan, this Prime Minister is not worth the environmental cost. The Liberals have literally killed every clean energy project. The Prime Minister killed GNL Québec's natural gas project in Saguenay. We have a Minister of Environment and Climate Change who is against nuclear energy, which does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions. The government is against carbon capture and storage.
When will the government stop killing clean energy projects and cancel its carbon taxes, which only punish Canadians?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/9/23 2:58:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of environmental failure, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition is not worth the environmental cost. The carbon tax, which the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase, is not an environmental plan. It is a plan to tax Canadians, and it has not helped this Liberal government achieve its environmental goals for seven out of the eight years it has been in power. In fact, Canada trails behind, ranking 58th out of 63 countries.
In light of these repeated failures, will the Prime Minister finally admit that what he has is a tax plan, a political plan, not an environmental plan?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:46:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby late last week seeking to constrain the Conservative Party from holding the NDP-Liberal government to account.
As the Speaker will recall, Conservatives asked a number of questions about the opposition motion to provide relief from the carbon tax for all Canadians' home heating regardless of the source of heat, which was debated on Thursday and voted upon yesterday afternoon.
Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. They are looking to their Parliament to address this concern and provide the relief they need to get through the winter, especially with the skyrocketing cost of heat, which is driven by the Prime Minister's unaffordable carbon tax.
Canadians who are looking to their politicians to take action and axe the tax want to know whether the government will, or whether the government will use its immense powers and tools to protect itself. This is unquestionably a concern of the administration of the government.
Indeed, the Speaker's initial reaction Thursday afternoon provides a pretty good answer here. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries rose to answer each and every one of the questions of concern of the NDP. If the government itself did not feel obliged to answer, surely it would not have.
The NDP House leader centred much of his argument around the January 2014 ruling by the Speaker's predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. When the Speaker reflects on that ruling, it is important to understand the context that precipitated it. There had been a number of questions from both sides of the House concerning senators as well as the internal operations of the other place, political parties and MPs' offices.
Furthermore, there was one key passage the NDP House leader omitted from the January 2014 ruling, which he otherwise quoted extensively: “The principle of responsible government is that the government has to provide an accounting for where the money goes and to provide reasons for why decisions are made.”
As I pointed out in my initial comments, we have a right to understand how the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberal and New Democratic parties will apply to key budget decisions and to important parliamentary decisions.
The agreement itself reads, “The agreement will mean that the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters – notably on budgetary policy”.
The carbon tax represents a huge chunk of money taken out of taxpayers' pockets. It is indisputably a question of budgetary policy, and one where the government is starkly offside the views and needs of Canadians whom it governs. That is why the official opposition, through its questioning, was looking for the government to explain the reasons the decision has been made.
As for the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, I would submit they were sidetracked by the description of the NDP-Liberal coalition.
Just yesterday, in fact, we saw the New Democrats vote in support of Liberal time allocation or closure for a 37th time under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. Throughout the CCF and NDP's history prior to its current leader, I believe they had only supported time allocation or closure a total of 14 other times. It has been 37 times now, and only 14 times before.
At the start of this week, I understand the New Democrats voted with the Liberals 296 times during the past 306 votes. That is 97% support. In fact, I would not be surprised if the chief government whip actually considers the NDP caucus to be more reliable in their votes than the member for Beaches—East York.
On the narrowest point about cabinet seats, which the deputy government House leader and the member for Elmwood—Transcona made, it is true that the NDP clearly failed in its negotiation to secure caucus representation at the cabinet table. However, all of the signs point to a cohesive team acting in concert for chamber and committee business.
The facts are quite clear that the confidence and supply agreement amounts to a parliamentary coalition, complete with obligations to consult, to discuss voting intention, to provide parliamentary support to the government and is complete with various mechanics like leaders meetings, House leaders meetings, whips meetings and a special stock-taking committee, which also meets regularly. I believe the member for Elmwood—Transcona might actually be a member of the last group.
Seeing how spectactularly the Liberals and the Prime Minister have been tumbling in public opinion lately, it is little surprise that the New Democrats bristle at the coalition label.
The concerns about what label to apply to this relationship between the Liberal and New Democratic parties amount to a question of debate.
We have a lot of those during question period. I am sure you would agree with that. No matter how you cut it or which term from the dictionary you prefer, we are talking about two entities coming together to collaborate in pursuit of common goals.
Whether you prefer to call that a joint endeavour, a common venture, a partnership or a coalition, that choice is ultimately a question of debate.
It should not be for the Speaker to police debate in the House with a dictionary to enforce the preferred message discipline of any given side.
Debate itself has always been useful in shedding light on the truth, and it should continue to be so.
In closing, the questions which Conservatives have been raising are important and fall squarely within the administration and conduct of the government. These are the questions that many Canadians, including the constituents of Liberal and NDP members, have long been asking.
When will the government take the tax off so Canadians can keep the heat on?
995 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/6/23 2:52:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are going to get a stone-age government.
We are going to vote on a motion that calls on the government to pause all carbon taxes on home heating for all Canadians. The Bloc Québécois has picked sides: It wants to drastically increase carbon taxes. It is throwing its support behind the Prime Minister, who imposed a second carbon tax that will add 20¢ to the cost of every litre of gas sold in Quebec. Voting for the Bloc is costly.
What did the Prime Minister promise his new partner in this costly Bloc-Liberal coalition, a coalition that is going to radically hike taxes at the expense of all Quebeckers?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/6/23 2:51:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, this Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, has found a new partner to help him stay in power for the next two years. Yes, the costly new Bloc-Liberal coalition will soon vote against our common-sense motion to pause Canadians' pain and pause the carbon tax on all forms of home heating. It is costly to vote Bloc. In today's La Presse, the Bloc leader confirms that he has no qualms about propping up the Liberal Prime Minister for the next two years.
What concessions has the Prime Minister made to secure the Bloc's unconditional support?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to help you in your deliberations, I would like to remind you that all the questions asked by an opposition member were addressed to a government member or a member of the government coalition, given that we know that the Liberals and the NDP have signed an agreement of mutual understanding and support.
It is entirely reasonable for us to refer to this agreement and to potential joint decisions when we ask the government questions, given that we know that the NDP will ultimately have to support the government under this agreement. It is only right that, when we ask our questions, we refer to the party that has formed a coalition with the government.
I would like to advise you that we will surely have more to add on this point over the next few days.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:23:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise for this very exciting time of the week, when I get to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the Thursday question.
I have a burning question that I cannot wait to ask. In addition to knowing the government's schedule for tomorrow and next week, I would like to know whether oral question period on Wednesday will be held as it has been for the past few years, at least since the Prime Minister was elected, with the Prime Minister answering all the questions.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:22:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to respond to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said.
It is the custom and tradition of the House that, after question period, members raise points of order on topics mentioned during question period. That is the proper time for that. My colleague did exactly that. He mentioned an aspect of question period. He wanted to seek the unanimous consent of the House to support what was said during question period. That is the tradition. That is what we have been doing since I have been here and, I assume, for many years before that.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:04:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he should take a closer look at his briefing book because it is 16% of the inflation rate that is affected by the carbon tax.
I have another question. The NDP has only one member in Quebec, but it will be interesting to see whether he votes for our motion to make the pause on the carbon tax on home heating fair across the country. Will he stand with Canadians, or with the Liberals?
Also, will the Bloc Québécois stand with the 972,000 Quebeckers who rely on food banks every month, or with the Liberals?
After eight years of divisive and inflationary policies, will the Prime Minister allow the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to have a free vote on our motion on Monday?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:03:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, all members of the House will be asked to vote on our motion to eliminate the carbon tax on all forms of home heating in a bid to bring financial relief to all Canadians. After eight years, the Liberals are going in the opposite direction and are refusing to press pause on the suffering of Canadians as a whole. Worse yet, the Bloc Québécois wants to step on the gas and drastically increase carbon taxes. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
During their phone call, did the Prime Minister ask the Bloc Québécois leader to come to his rescue and vote against our motion on Monday?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 2:43:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, even more shocking is that after eight years, one in 10 Quebeckers has used food banks every month in 2023. That is after eight years of this Liberal government.
The Bloc Québécois wants to keep punishing the middle class by radically increasing the carbon tax. As for the Liberals, they are choosing who gets relief on their bills based on which party they voted for. That is unacceptable, divisive and unfair to Quebec families.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is not worth the cost? Will he announce today that he is fully and permanently scrapping the second carbon tax that unfairly punishes Quebeckers?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 2:41:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal Prime Minister looked at the polls and panicked. After eight years, he has finally realized that the common-sense Conservatives were right in saying that the carbon tax created inflation and drove up the cost of everything.
Once again, however, the Prime Minister completely forgot Quebeckers, who are also overwhelmed with the stress of being unable to feed their families. We know that the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase the carbon tax, but that is certainly not what Quebeckers want. We know that it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is not worth the cost?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 11:23:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are asleep at the wheel. We saw this all too clearly yesterday in an article in the Journal de Montréal, under the headline “872,000 Quebeckers are using food banks every month: a national embarrassment”. That is what eight years under the Liberals looks like.
The article states that “the face of poverty is changing: it includes families, workers, sometimes even unionized workers, women, newcomers, university students...”
After his dizzying free fall in yesterday's polls, did the Prime Minister panic and forget about Quebec? Will he cancel the second carbon tax that he forced on all Quebeckers, yes or no?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 11:22:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell the story of 870,000 Quebeckers who, each month, have to use food banks because they are hungry.
That is one in 10 Quebeckers, 30% more in one year, 73% more than in 2019. Worse yet, 70% of food banks have been short on supplies.
The “Liberal Bloc” wants to radically increase the carbon taxes that, as we know, will continue to increase the cost of everything.
When will the Prime Minister cancel the second carbon tax of 20¢ a litre that he imposed on the backs of Quebeckers?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love it when a member who was not here at the time of a particular event asks another member who was not here at the time of that particular event to comment on decisions that were made at that time.
The important thing now is to recognize that the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected 10 amendments that would have dramatically improved the bill in committee. However, we did get four of them through, and those amendments will protect Canadians, making this bill more acceptable.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was not at the committee, but what I do know is that these amendments did not target companies and investors from countries with which Canada has a free trade or trade agreement. Saying things like that today is a little like scaremongering because we all know the Conservative amendments were no threat to those investments.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am always surprised, astonished, when a government member, an MP, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North, asks me whether or not a bill will be introduced and passed by a given date.
The government House leader is responsible for the government's agenda. It is the House leader who is responsible for ensuring that bills are passed according to the government's agenda. If the government House leader cannot get bills through in a timely fashion, perhaps he should ask his leader, not me.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on his excellent speech. His knowledge of hockey should deter my colleagues across the way from ever taking him on on this particular rink. They would find themselves on thin ice, just like anyone else who would want to challenge him on the subject.
I want to mention something else before I start my speech. We know that several MPs have the joy and good fortune of being able to rely on parliamentary interns who shadow us for two parliamentary periods. I have the honour and pleasure of having Jean-Samuel Houle working by my side as a parliamentary intern. He is the one who helped me research and write this speech that I am delivering today. It is with much gratitude that I thank him for his work and commitment, as well as all parliamentary interns who are working for MPs. Do members know why this is a good program? Interns learn to work with the opposition parties and the government. It is a rather extraordinary school for people who might lead our country one day. I am sure that our future colleagues are among them.
I will now begin the speech prepared for me by Jean-Samuel. For years, the Liberal government has continually failed to address the issue of foreign interference because it does not take it seriously. Our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of Parliament have been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing. Unfortunately, our colleague from Wellington-Halton Hills had to learn about this from The Globe and Mail. That was two years after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service submitted an important management memo to the Department of Public Safety stating that the member was being targeted by a diplomat of the Communist regime, right here in Canada.
The minister responsible for the matter, who was the public safety minister at the time and is now the Minister of National Defence, said in committee that he was never informed in 2021 by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. However, his testimony was contradicted by that of the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, who said that he forwarded this information to his office, to the department, to the minister, in a very high-priority memo that came with a very clear stipulation to pass on this information to the minister.
Unfortunately, the minister continued to deny any knowledge of the matter when he appeared in committee this week. He made all kinds of excuses. He said that the special, secure encrypted computer to receive the email was somewhere else in the deputy minister's office, not in his office. They are both on the same floor of the same building, by the way. In short, there were all sorts of reasons not to take responsibility for the actions. Everyone recognized that this was a very serious error in the transmission of information. Even the minister himself recognized that. The problem with this government is that there is never anyone to take ultimate responsibility for these actions. Everyone knows how hard that is for the Liberals.
The Prime Minister must be held responsible for this monumental failure that is jeopardizing our democracy. This was confirmed by the testimony of the former member for Durham, who appeared before the committee today and told the government how it is failing to act when it comes to foreign interference. While the government and the Liberals are asleep at the switch, foreign actors are setting up shop and intimidating us more and more.
We know that Beijing has set up police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese Canadians. There are at least five in Ontario, western Canada and Montreal.
This week, members of the House were notified by Global Affairs Canada that a number of Canadian politicians had fallen victim to another interference campaign designed to silence any criticism of the Communist Party. According to Global Affairs Canada, it is a campaign known as “spamouflage”. I had never heard of it before, but I learned that the word actually does exist. It is a combination of the words “spam” and “camouflage”, and it is spam that is camouflaged so no one can tell where it is coming from. The campaign began in August and targeted dozens of MPs of all political stripes, across several geographic regions in Canada. Victims include the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition and several ministers. A number of my colleagues have also been victims of this campaign.
The integrity of our elections and conducting our internal affairs without foreign interference should not be partisan issues. However, it seems that the Liberals have difficulty hearing and acting when our agencies take measures and try to advise them of the importance of what is happening.
It really makes me wonder what the Liberals have been up to. For years, the Conservatives have believed that agents of foreign governments should be registered. On April 13, 2021, Conservative MP Kenny Chiu introduced a bill to create a foreign agent registry. However, an election was called and the registry did not pass.
To make matters worse, it was our colleague Mr. Chiu who was the target of an intense disinformation campaign by the Chinese Communist Party during the election, because he wanted to implement this foreign agent registry. That is totally unacceptable. We need to know who is operating within our borders.
Months ago, the Liberals promised that such a registry was one of their priorities, but they have yet to do anything. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has not even included the issue on the list of the government's fall priorities. When will the Liberals take action? With the Liberals and the Prime Minister asleep at the switch and doing nothing about foreign interference, Beijing's influence is taking hold. That is the consequence. The regime sees Canada's lack of reaction as an invitation to go further and do more. This has to stop.
That brings me to the subject of Bill C‑34, which is before us today. After eight years under this Liberal government, Canadian companies continue to be bought up by actors with malicious intent. More and more state-owned companies that are connected to dictatorships like China have acquired interests in flagships of the Canadian economy. They have bought shares directly or even taken control of certain companies. They are particularly interested in Quebec's and Canada's intellectual property in our high-tech sectors but also in people's private information, which is very worrisome. This is an extremely serious situation.
We must admit it is not a problem in and of itself that foreigners want to invest in Canada. In fact, such investments make a major contribution and help grow our economy. However, an important line must be drawn. Some actors do not come to Canada in good faith. When it comes to money from state-owned companies led by dictatorships, that is a problem. When it comes to money from countries that do not respect Canada or our values, that is a problem. Unfortunately, there are still companies that do not respect us at all and that come and buy our businesses, not to help the economy grow, but to become richer and take possession and control of our resources and intellectual property. For years, we have talked about Canada's findings, research and technology being copied. Who was the expert in that? It was the Communist regime in Beijing. Today, not only are they still imitating products that are made all over without respecting property rights, but they also want to directly purchase the intellectual property that they copied in the past. That cannot continue.
In 2017, the Minister of Industry did not require a full national security review prior to the acquisition of telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by Hytera Communications, a Chinese company. Hytera Communications is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications equipment to Sinclair Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International, which was acquired by Hytera Communications. The headquarters of Hytera Communications is located in Shenzhen, China. I repeat that the company is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. A company that belongs to the People's Republic of China cannot hide any information from the government if they request it. That is why it is so important to take action.
That is why, with the Conservative amendments, we intend to support Bill C‑34. We were able to improve it, but frankly, it was time to take action and do something.
1478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 3:01:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is involved in so many scandals that even the Prime Minister cannot keep them straight. Yesterday, in response to an important question about the SNC-Lavalin scandal, he gave an answer related to the $54‑million ArriveCAN scandal. That is how bad things have gotten after eight years of this Liberal government's scandals, ethical breaches and wedge politics.
Why should Canadians keep trusting a government that paid GC Strategies, a two-person firm, $11 million to develop the ArriveCAN app when the company had no IT expertise? Will the Prime Minister admit that he is not worth the cost?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the RCMP appeared on Monday, at the request of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, prepared to testify about the RCMP's investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair. The commissioner was muzzled. He did not get to say a single word. Why? Because the NDP-Liberal coalition and even the Bloc Québécois voted to adjourn the meeting before the testimony and questions could even begin. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois, which is preventing us from getting to the bottom of another Liberal scandal.
After eight years, why is the Prime Minister still so afraid of the truth?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
