- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/10/24 7:24:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the reason I provided some comment in regard to how the Conservative Party goes out of its way to prevent legislation from ultimately passing. The member heard correctly in regard to the throne speech. It was a throne speech. It was also in the mandate letter in 2021 for the minister, and we have been talking about it, but there is a finite amount of time for debates in the House of Commons.
When I take a look at the sense of commitment, whether it was going through the pandemic with the numerous pieces of legislation or all the different budget bills, not to mention all the other important pieces of legislation that were brought through, including this one, there is a limited amount of time. The opposition knows that, and that is one of the reasons the opposition chooses to bring in concurrence report after concurrence report, tries to adjourn debate, cries if we want to sit too late and uses all sorts of tactics in order to prevent legislation from passing.
Sadly, that does make it a bit more of a challenge. We might set the legislative agenda, but I do not underestimate the role the Conservatives play, in terms of that whole destructive force, in preventing legislation from passing. However, I am glad and grateful that it would appear as though we might be able to get it passed today.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I get a very good sense of the legislative agenda. If we take a look at the legislative agenda and factor in things such as budget debates, we will find that there is a very limited number of days and a substantial legislative agenda.
I would welcome the opportunity for more time, and it is one of the reasons I constantly advocate for changing the Standing Orders. For example, Friday could virtually start at eight in the morning and end at midnight, as far as I am concerned. Members would be able to speak endlessly on important pieces of legislation, which I think would help facilitate more debate.
I think that the issue of getting more debate on legislation so that we could actually see more legislation being passed needs to rest, in good part, on reforming our Standing Orders, and if we are successful—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 1:31:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member indicated that, with respect to the incident that ultimately led to the debate we are having today, it very clearly had nothing to do with the Speaker. It was the Liberal Party, which has given a formal apology to the Speaker's office and, through that, to Canadians. This is widely known; it has been publicized.
The issue, then, is this: Why would the Conservative Party want to continue trying to punish the current Speaker when, in fact, it was the Liberal Party that made the posting? I have drawn the conclusion that it is because the Conservative Party wants to continue to play a destructive force inside the chamber, preventing the debates on important issues. The member referred to the pharmacare—
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Maybe on another day, Madam Speaker.
I am pleased to talk about the motion we have before us, which one would think every member of the House of Commons would support. People who are following the debate should have an appreciation of what the motion would do, which is fairly straightforward.
On the one hand, we are seeing a lot of legislation. The government has a very healthy and progressive legislative agenda, and there is a limited amount of time during normal work hours, because the hours are set. The motion would give the opportunity, where there is a great level of interest, to have more debate on specific legislation or an agenda item from the government by allowing an extended sitting. This means we would have the evenings to continue debate.
Why would anyone believe having more debate is not a good thing here on the floor of the House of Commons? When we factor in all the whining and complaining we hear from the Conservatives at times about wanting more debate time on legislation, we would be giving them what they want. However, I suspect the Conservatives are likely going to be voting against that. When they take their time to stand or register their vote on the hybrid system, they will likely be voting against having more time for debate.
This is one important thing that the legislation would do.
The other thing it would do is provide the opportunity for us to prevent 24-hour voting sessions. The last time this happened, back in December, I can recall coming into the House early in the morning, starting debates and so forth and then the Conservatives saying that they wanted a standing vote and were going to force everybody to vote for the next 20 hours or so. I am going to go into this in a bit and talk about some of the things we voted on.
At a workplace where one is literally dealing with billions and billions of tax dollars and is expected to be aware of the content being voted on, or at least I would like to think members are aware of what they are voting on, it would be reasonable to expect one would not have to vote around the clock.
I had seen a nice graph provided by the member for Kingston and the Islands. If one looks at the graph, one sees there is fairly good participation until it became bedtime for the Conservatives. All of a sudden, instead of having 90% participation, it starts to drop. Once 11 o'clock hit, or getting close to midnight, it really plummets on the Conservatives' side. The good news is I think they stayed just above the 50%. I am not 100% sure of that, but I think it was just above. It might have dipped below, but I do not know for sure.
The point is the Conservatives saw the light back then, because at least half of them did not have a problem taking a health break so they could be more awake for the remaining votes. What we are proposing is to put in place a rule that would enable not only the Conservative Party members to have their sleep time but all members of the House to have a health break. I see that as a good thing. At least half of the Conservatives should be voting in favour of that one; otherwise, they may have a tough time looking in the mirror because that is exactly what they did the last time we had a voting marathon.
The other thing it provides for is for third reading to take place on the same day for which report stage is approved. That is an important aspect. Let me make it relevant to something that happened today where we had a sense of co-operation. There was, for example, a Conservative private member's bill that came up for report stage. All it would have taken was for any group to stand up when report stage was called, and say they would like a recorded vote. In fact, that happens. As a direct result, debate ends, or technically, does not even start, and then it is dropped until the next time it appears for third reading.
Instead of doing that, because we understood that the member wanted to have the private member's bill, Bill C-318, debated, we agreed, and then debate started at third reading. If we as a government recognize the value of that, and if private Conservative members recognize the value of it, then one would think there has to be a good percentage of Conservatives who would agree that the government should be able to have the same sort of treatment. It is a common courtesy. It was in the best interest of all concerned to have that take place.
From my perspective, those are the three big things taking place in the motion. It begs the question why any member of the House of Commons would vote against the measures being proposed. The short answer is that there is, I will not say a hidden agenda, because it is actually quite obvious, but a tactic that the Conservative Party has been using for years. I often refer to it as a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are some people, especially from the far right, and we can call them the MAGA element or whatever we want, who at times have a disdain for institutions like the House of Commons. They want to show as much as possible that it is dysfunctional, believing they benefit by that.
I want people to think about this: There is an opposition party that criticizes the government for not getting its legislation through, but the reason we cannot get it through is that the Conservative Party, the opposition party, is playing games and preventing it from going through. It does not take much to prevent legislation from going through in the normal process. We could allow 12 students from Sisler High School, Maples Collegiate, R.B. Russell, Children of the Earth or St. John's High School, any school in my riding, to sit in the chamber, and that could prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much at all.
I remind my Conservative friends to realize what a majority of members in the chamber have realized, and that was that in the last election, a minority government was elected. That means that the government has to, as there is no choice, work on consensus and build with at least one willing partner in order to get things through. Otherwise it is not going to happen. That is one of the things the government should take away from the last election.
The official opposition also has a role to recognize. The official opposition, in particular its current leader, has not recognized the responsibility given by the people of Canada back in 2021. That member has a responsibility that I have not witnessed. I have seen the games by members of the Conservative Party. They do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing and then criticize the government for not getting legislation passed. There are so many examples of that. We just finished an hour of debate on Bill C-318. In fact, I was the last to speak to it. There is no doubt that Bill C-318 is a very important piece of legislation. Listen to what people actually say about Bill C-318. Is there anyone in the chamber who does not support the principles being proposed? I would argue no.
We understand the value of Bill C-318. That is why, as a political party, with the Prime Minister, we made an election promise to follow through with the principles of Bill C-318. Let us look at the last budget. There was some preliminary work a year ago on this same issue about adoptive parents and how we could ensure they would get EI benefits. If we look at the mandate letters the Prime Minister gives to ministers, we can see that those principles are incorporated in them. Everyone knows that the government is moving forward on the issue.
The kicker is that it is actually in legislation today, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. It is a very important piece of legislation that would support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Where is that legislation today? It is still in second reading. The Conservatives refuse to pass it. When we call it forward, they come up with games. They do not want that legislation to pass.
Let us look at what happened during the previous fall economic statement. We were debating the budget of 2023-24 while we were still on the 2022 fall economic statement. That is bizarre. The Conservative Party members refused to pass the legislation. They would rather filibuster, knowing full well that there is a limited amount of time. Any group of grade 12 students would be able to do what they are doing, so it is no great achievement, unless, of course, they are trying to prove something. They are trying to say that the government is ineffective because the institution is broken.
The problem with this institution is that we do not have an opposition party that recognizes its true responsibilities. Conservative members' major objective is to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. What is the impact of that? Let us go back to the private member's bill, Bill C-318. If they had passed the fall economic statement when it should have been passed, then Bill C-318 would be virtually redundant and not be a necessary piece of legislation. In fact, it would have provided even more for adoptive parents in a family unit than Bill C-318.
However, it is not the first time, if we think of the types of legislation we have brought through. Sometimes, Conservatives will even filibuster legislation they agree with, as well as legislation they oppose. I remember my first speech on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I was very generous with my comments. I honestly thought everyone was going to support it. It is a trade agreement that even the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party supported. For the first time ever, Conservatives voted against a trade agreement and slowed down the debate on that legislation. Here we have a country at war, whose president came to Canada in September to sign the first trade agreement for Ukraine, sending a powerful message during a time of war, and the Conservative Party turned their backs on Ukraine and ultimately prevented the bill from passing as soon as it can—
1812 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member emphasized how this is a deeply personal issue, to use her words. That is why, at the beginning of my comments earlier today before question period, I tried to amplify why it is so important that the House reflect on what brought us here today.
I reflect on the debates that took place in early 2016, which were conducted in more of a non-partisan approach where members of all political parties talked about what is a very important issue. Nothing has changed in the sense of the importance of the issue. We are talking about an issue of death, and we see that Conservatives are putting a twist on it in an attempt to politicize the issue to the degree that there is some silliness as to what is being implied.
I like to think that anyone who is even entertaining the idea of accessing MAID takes it very seriously. That is the reason why, in good part, I believe that every member of the House, party politics aside, should be looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada right back to 2015, and the Charter of Rights, said our responsibility is as legislators: to come forward with good, sound public policy. I believe that over the years, including today with Bill C-62, we have been addressing a very important issue and that the three-year extension is needed because of the response we are getting from stakeholders, in particular our provinces.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, members of the Conservative Party might not like what I have to say, but it is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. If we go back to the original debates in May, we would find a great deal more compassion being expressed on the floor of the House of Commons, on all sides. Whether they were Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or any others, members demonstrated very clearly the difficulty of what Parliament had to do in bringing in MAID to respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Today during the debate, we witnessed the leader of the Conservative Party standing on a point of order on something completely irrelevant to the debate, to attempt to table a document. Why did he? He just could not wait until question period, I guess, which begins after statements by members that start in about 15 or 20 minutes.
We should listen to what some of the Conservative speeches have been about. Some Conservatives, the last couple in particular, have stood in their places and given a false impression that the legislation would be like suicide on demand. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said that today someone feeling depressed due to mental health issues could go to a doctor and book an appointment to commit suicide, with the government's support, on Friday. Members of the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation on such a sensitive issue. These are very difficult things that Canadians have to deal with every day.
Yesterday the member for Cumberland—Colchester referred to 12,000 or 13,000 people being killed in a very ad lib fashion, implying that the legislation just allows people to be killed. From my perspective, the decision to access MAID is not easy; it is a very difficult one. Family members and individuals are experiencing some very difficult times in dealing with a real-life situation. Conservatives, yesterday and today, are virtually making a mockery of it and spreading misinformation on such an important issue. What happened to the compassion of 2015-16 and even 2017? At that time, there seemed to be a sense in the chamber that, yes, at times there are going to be disagreements if members feel very passionate about an issue, as they should, but there was also a much higher sense of co-operation as members shared the experiences they were being told about by their constituents.
The member for Portage—Lisgar said that people are going to food banks and are thinking of committing suicide because of the cost of living. There are a number of things that come to my mind that speak to the manner in which individuals across the way make those types of stupid statements. That is, quite frankly, what they are; they are not legitimate contributions, such as discussion about supports and services would be, to the debate on such an important issue that the House is having to address.
In the debates taking place in 2015-16, we heard a great deal about issues like hospice and palliative care. We wanted to ensure that MAID legislation would not in any way be utilized as a direct result of not having proper services and systems in place to provide assurances to those individuals who were feeling so compelled to actually access MAID. Those are the types of things that I think really contributed a great deal back then.
Today, in contrast, Conservatives will say, “What about the $4.5 billion that the Liberal Party made a commitment to?” Members are right in that there was a substantial commitment by the government to deal with the issue of mental health, and the commitment was significant: several billions of dollars over five years. It is one of the reasons that the health care agreements we have put into place, which were highlighted last year, of just under $200 billion over 10 years, are to support health care not only today but also in future generations that will benefit by that sort of investment. Furthermore, the Minister of Health is working with provinces, coming up with agreements that deal with things like mental health and services. We recognize how important it is to ensure that these services are being supported.
Unlike a number of members from the Conservative Party, and I do not want to label them all, at least not at this point, this is a government that has continued to work with, in particular, provincial jurisdictions and other stakeholders in different forums in order to provide assurances that the people who are accessing MAID are, in fact, being informed in a very tangible way of the types of services available. In no way whatsoever is it as simple as their just saying, “I want this and I will get it”, and then two days later receiving it. We can look at the amount of public attention and debate that has taken place on issues such as palliative and hospice care since the MAID introduction, which I believe have been greatly enhanced.
I would like to think that provinces, which are ultimately responsible for the public administration of health care services, have taken note and understand that they too have a responsibility because they are the ones delivering the services that Canadians expect. The federal government has recognized that by supporting things such as the encouragement of long-term care standards and by providing substantial finances to ensure that provinces are better able to meet the demands on health care services. With respect to what I said earlier in regard to mental health, there are serious commitments that we continue to live up to and work on with other jurisdictions.
I have confidence, as I indicated yesterday, in the health care professionals, the social workers and the other individuals who have the expertise and confidence in the individual who feels that MAID might be the avenue for them to pursue. There is a great deal of effort put into every situation, and I have confidence in the system.
Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall one province or premier in Canada that has clearly said that MAID is not working. The provinces are asking for the three-year extension in one aspect of MAID: where mental health is the sole reason for the request. The issue of the sole underlying medical condition being a mental illness was added to the original MAID legislation, then brought in as a form of legislation and allowed a period for provinces and jurisdictions to have time to get what is necessary in place so Canadians could be served.
We then found that the provinces required more time. There were a number of provincial governments not saying to get rid of MAID, but rather saying that they needed more time for the implementation of that aspect of it. That is in essence why we have the legislation that we have before us today.
However, if we listen to members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they give no indication of supporting Bill C-62. It will be interesting to see how they actually vote. Logically, I would think they would vote in favour of the bill. If they do not vote in favour of Bill C-62, and, for whatever reasons, the legislation were not to pass, ultimately the criterion of sole underlying medical condition of mental illness would take effect on March 17 of this year. Therefore, it is important that members, no matter what side of the debate they happen to be on, would be in favour of the legislation because it is a direct response to what is being asked of the Government of Canada by our partners that are ultimately responsible for administering the legislation.
Members opposite will often try to say that it is up to the government. It is important to highlight what I mentioned at the very beginning: The reason we have MAID legislation today is that in 2015, the Carter decision by the Supreme Court in essence said we had to bring it in. There was no choice, if, of course, we respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will repeat what I said yesterday: There was a great deal of consultation, literally hundreds of hours of different types of meetings, including standing committees, chamber debate, outside meetings in ridings, canvassing and petitions. Even though there were all sorts of mechanisms to provide input, at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation met a threshold to, in good part, deal with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and to respect the Charter of Rights.
That was followed by a decision in appeal court in Quebec giving us another obligation to improve the legislation and that is exactly what we did.
We continue today to look for ways to improve the legislation. I believe it is a reflection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If members of the Conservative caucus are saying that they do not support the MAID legislation, then I would question whether they actually support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would further add that the leader of the Conservative Party's general attitude—
1552 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure if the member actually understood the question that was just posed to him. It points out a major issue within the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have said that they do not support it, yet they did not vote in favour of the motion that ultimately, by it passage, will guarantee that this motion is able to pass Bill C-62.
What is the essence of Bill C-62? It is to provide a three-year waiting period, so the concern that he has does not take effect come March 17 this year. If this legislation does not pass, what the Conservatives are complaining about will actually turn into a reality. One would think that they would understand that. I can appreciate that a majority, in listening to the discussion, is of the same opinion as the member across the way. If they support what they say, then they should support Bill C-62. If they do not vote for Bill C-62 and the bill does not pass, there will be no three-year extension.
I am very disappointed in the manner in which this issue is being debated. It is a very serious issue. I remind members that the reason we have the debate today is because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision back in 2015, which the then prime minister Stephen Harper did not act upon. That was back in early 2015.
After the 2015 general election, when we assumed office in November 2015, one of the first things we did was look at the legislative agenda. We did some positive things, but one of the things we had to deal with was the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the Conservatives actually ignored. That meant we had to bring in MAID legislation. It was not an option.
Is there a member of the Conservative Party today who would stand up and say that there was an actual option, that we did not have to respect the Charter of Rights, the rights that are guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
If one reflects on the debates that took place back then, it is quite the opposite with respect to what we are witnessing today. Back then—
380 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:16:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. One thing that stuck in my mind was when he made reference to the fact that the Province of Quebec took a number of years to design its legislation.
It is important to demonstrate the contrast with the federal government back in 2015; the member made reference to the Supreme Court decision. We had a very short window to get the legislation passed. I personally do not believe, and I suspect that no one really believed, that the legislation at the time was absolute, in terms of being perfect. However, we needed to get it through.
Could he reflect on the many discussions and debates inside and outside the chamber with Canadians as a whole, with respect to how important it was that, at least, we bring forward and get the legislation in, in order to meet court requirements?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:01:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the other day, I could not believe the number of times the Conservatives stood on points of order. I think they almost doubled the length of my speech because of the number of interruptions. Why were they interrupting then? It was because I was telling people following the debates how the Conservatives were voting; they took offence to my saying they do not support Ukraine and constantly vote against supporting it. They were up, one after another, saying that I cannot tell Canadians how they voted.
The point is that, as sensitive as the Conservative members might be in the House, their leader is sending very misleading messages. I will use the specific example that has already been brought up by a number of members today. Conservatives talk about the price on pollution. It does not matter how many times I say this, they ignore the facts and the reality. I will state the facts, something that they cannot deny.
I go to the University of Winnipeg and sit in classrooms for introduction courses or second-year programs, as well as high schools in the north end of Winnipeg, and speak with the students. I do not know if there is a Conservative member who has the courage to sit beside me and have that discussion, but I would talk about the facts and see what the member has to say.
Here is a fact: The price on pollution also provides a rebate, and 80% of Canadians or more get more money back than they pay. The Conservatives either do not understand it or are misleading Canadians. When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, what he does not say is that he is also going to be getting rid of the rebate. This would hurt average Canadians in the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the people who need it the most. That is the money he would take away. That is the reality.
However, it does not prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from touring the country and telling people that, if he gets rid of the price on pollution, life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. That is just not true. Like Donald Trump, he will say things that are not true. It is that very real MAGA-right element that the Conservative Party of Canada is courting in a big way; it is prepared to sacrifice sound public policy in order to capture that base of support.
At the end of the day, it is unfortunate, because people are concerned about our environment, unlike the Conservatives, who still, in good part, deny climate issues are real. They do not believe in climate change, at least not publicly, in their public policies. They talk about making life more affordable by getting rid of the price on pollution. I will remind them what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. We all remember the governor. He is the individual who runs the Bank of Canada and the one the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to fire. Then there was an issue on which he kind of agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so he has watered down that position.
The member for Abbotsford was told not to tell the leader what to say, that type of thing. There was some sort of demotion, but I will not go into that. That is all internal Conservative politics.
However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada today seems to be a little more sympathetic to the Bank of Canada.
One Conservative member tries to give the impression of a 30%-plus increase—
Ms. Marilyn Gladu: It is 34%.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is 34%, as has been corrected by the member opposite.
However, as the Conservatives want to give that bit of false information, what does the Governor of the Bank of Canada say? We are talking about a decimal point, which is 0.15% of 1%. In my books, that makes the Conservative Party an absolute joke. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Conservative Party to try to tell Canadians that by cutting out the price on pollution life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. The MAGA right might believe that, and they will be talking about it at great length over the Christmas break until we come back. The Conservatives are going to continue that spin as if the price on pollution is what is driving up inflation, but nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that would change their behaviour, but one should not bank on it. The Conservatives will not, because they are more concerned about that simple phrase so that they can put it on a bumper sticker. It is unfortunate, because it is sound public policy, and we can think of the consequence of it.
When the Conservatives are talking about affordability, we can think in terms of what is impacting the price of our groceries. One of the major factors is what is taking place in the world; for example, the war in Europe. Russia has invaded Ukraine. There was a time when every member of Parliament stood as one in recognizing that we had to be there for Ukraine. We saw the world, in good part, recognize the importance of Ukraine solidarity. However, we have witnessed the MAGA Conservatives, over the last number of weeks, adopt a position that they do not support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Members can think about that for a moment.
We have had so many trade agreements, 35 or 40 trade agreements, and no prime minister or government in Canada has signed more trade agreements than this current Prime Minister, and it was nice that the Conservative Party supported every one of them. Even when they were in government, the Conservatives brought in trade agreements. Why? It is because they realized that they are in Canada's best interest. They provide more marketplaces and more competition, and more competition means better prices. However, the very first time I have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against a trade agreement was on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I do not understand how they can justify that sort of position. It is not going to make life more affordable here in Canada. So, when members opposite talk about affordability, how do they justify their MAGA behaviour dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement?
Now, the Conservatives are out there again trying to spread all sorts of information. They are saying “Well, we support Ukraine”. We see members stand up on S.O. 31s saying how they support Ukraine. Well, if they support Ukraine, they would be supporting more affordable grocery prices, especially in the long run. Why did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? Why did they vote, not once, not twice but at least on three separate occasions during the line-by-line breakdown of expenses for the government to actually spend money on?
On three occasions, the Conservatives intentionally voted that money down, yet they say they support Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. I would encourage my Conservative friends opposite to reflect on the flip-flop they made on the price on pollution. They say the price on pollution is going to make life more unaffordable. We know that is not true, but that is what they say. In the last federal election they did not say that. In the last federal election, they were in support of a price on pollution, but they took a flip-flop and now they do not support a price on pollution. It is marginal. We are talking a fraction point in terms of the impact on the inflation rate of groceries.
I would like to see them take what I would classify as an honourable flip-flop. An honourable flip-flop would be to recognize that the MAGA right is wrong and get behind Ukraine, and get behind the government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The New Democrats rarely vote for trade agreements, but even they see the benefits of this trade agreement. The Bloc and the Greens do too. The Conservatives are the only political entity voting against it. They are the only political entity that voted against the line-by-line expenditures. That has more of an impact on long-term grocery prices than the price on pollution idea.
I would encourage the Conservatives, over the next number of weeks as they go and talk to their constituents, to reconsider the way they have been behaving inside the House. They should look at the benefits of the legislation and budgetary measures the government is taking that will make life more affordable and start voting for some of those initiatives, such as the dental plan that we just announced that is going to help literally millions of Canadians; the grocery rebate that was given by the government that helped nine or 11 million Canadians; and the child care program that we made at $10 a day, a truly national program. By the way, that is a program that they called a slush fund in the last federal election.
These are the types of actions that, if the Conservative Party would abandon the MAGA right, we would have better public policy that would be in the best interests of Canadians and that would make life more affordable. This is a government that will continue, day in and day out, to look at ways to ensure that life is as affordable as it possibly can be by using good, sound government policy. We would look to the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, to recognize those facts. There is nothing wrong with supporting the types of initiatives that the government is bringing forward to provide the breaks Canadians want.
1675 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:36:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I talk about traditions, and all one needs to do is take a look at question periods. In the debates I have witnessed, the way in which members have voted is constantly being reflected on.
All I am asking is for some clarity, and I do not think clarity can be decided instantaneously. It is something that should be brought back and thought through, because it is a very important ruling you need to make, Madam Speaker, given the very nature of what I am asking for.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the most appropriate place to start off is the line of questioning that I just asked the member opposite. Prior to question period getting under way, we were having a healthy discussion at the third reading stage of Bill C-56. I know I was not the only one prepared to come to the House to debate Bill C-56.
What I would like to talk about for the next number of minutes is the purpose of moving concurrence reports such as this particular report. It is not necessarily to have the focus of the House of the Commons on debating the issue the member has attempted to bring forward. As we saw in a number of questions, issues aside from Afghanistan were raised. Rather, it is about a rationale and reasoning that I believe, as many others believe, we see from this particular member: He stands in his place time and time again in order to prevent debates of the government agenda. One only needs to look at the timing of when the member brings forward concurrence debates. They are all on the government's legislative dates when we are going to be debating substantive legislation.
This morning, as members would know, we brought forward Bill C-56. Prior to question period getting under way, I was the one speaking to it. Bill C-56 is very important to Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is about an issue that Canadians are very much concerned about from coast to coast to coast. To amplify that, all one needs to do is take a look at the last remarks, because as we were getting to question period, I had to stop speaking on the legislation because we were entering into members' statements, followed then by question period.
It is interesting that a big focus of question period was in fact the issues I was talking about in the lead-up to members' statements. Also, if we go through members' statements, we will find that these were the issues being amplified. Members of the House, outside of the Conservative caucus, came to the House believing that we would be debating Bill C-56. That is not to say that what is happening in Afghanistan today and what has taken place since 2001 are not important issues. We recognize many of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan. We understand the important role that Canada has to play in it.
However, we also need to recognize at this point in time the types of tactics and efforts from the official opposition, the Conservative Party, a minority inside this chamber, today to prevent debates and legislation from passing. A very good example of this is in a question raised by the New Democrats. We talk about Canada and its role in Afghanistan, and the member talked about the alliance that seems to be out there, indirectly referring to Russia, Afghanistan and like-minded countries. Then he posed a question about the Conservative Party with respect to Ukraine. I think it was a legitimate question to be asking the Conservative Party. Again, we saw the tactics it used last Thursday and Friday. The response was laughable. The question was why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but I believe three times in total voted specifically to deny Ukraine funds. One of those funds was with respect to the—
574 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:14:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing I take a great deal of pride in is the opportunity I had to represent the people of Inkster for just under 20 years in the legislature in the Province of Manitoba and, since 2010, being able to represent the people of Winnipeg North here in Ottawa.
I have a passion for the debates that take place in the chamber, and at times even I can get somewhat political. I know that is a little tough to believe. There are some things that should be treated in an apolitical fashion. I would suggest this is one of those situations, and we should try, to our greatest ability, to ensure we treat this matter in an apolitical fashion.
I would like to read part of the motion that was introduced. The essence of the motion is that “the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” Based on how I read the motion, just as when I first heard it, I believe that members of the Liberal caucus would say with me that it seems to be very fair. Because we all recognize the serious nature of the issue, let us have the procedure and House affairs committee deal with the issue. We are okay with that. However, I want to emphasize that the motion makes very clear that the House is to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that PROC recommend an appropriate remedy. That is the most important part of the motion.
I am not a lawyer by profession, but I am concerned about some of the statements by the mover and seconder of the motion. I wrote down specifically what the most recent speaker said, which was that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he has lost the trust of the members of this House. That seems to be the absolute opposite of what the motion says. It is as if members of the Conservative Party have already drawn a conclusion, and that concerns me. It should concern all members of the chamber. I have confidence and faith in the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In the debate taking place on this important issue this afternoon, what is best is that we reinforce two points. Number one, this chamber and members should have confidence in the membership of the PROC committee, and number two, we should let the PROC committee do what is being asked of it to do, which is to recommend an appropriate remedy. The PROC committee has the resources to do what is necessary to come back to the House.
The problem I have with the amendment in particular is that it tries to put a deadline on the PROC committee. It wants PROC to report back to the chamber by December 14. Again, through an amendment to the motion, we are interfering with the PROC committee, if in fact one believes, as members of the Liberal caucus and I do, that we need to put partisan politics to the side on this issue because we are talking about the Speaker of the House.
At the end of the day, I would suggest, from a personal point of view, that the amendment not be supported and that we support the motion itself. If, number one, members believe in and have confidence in PROC and, number two, want to depoliticize this issue, I highly recommend that they seriously consider voting the way I have suggested from my perspective.
With those few words, I will leave it at that in the hope that PROC will be able to come up with a remedy, as recommended by the motion.
639 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the member's concluding thoughts in terms of the government's not necessarily being an expert. I think it is safe to say that is, in fact, the situation. The government is very much consulting with Canadians on the whole issue of the monument and its conceptual design. It is important to recognize that we are talking not about hundreds of people but thousands of people who provided input. The ones we need to be very sensitive to are, in fact, the veterans and family members of the veterans. I believe that the decision that was made was weighted in their favour. I think that is an important aspect to recognize.
Before I go into more of the details, I would like to put things into proper perspective. It would be wrong for me not to recognize that I do not necessarily agree with the timing of the debate itself and the decision of the Bloc to use a concurrence motion in order to raise the issue, given that there are only days left in the session and there is so much that still needs to be done under the government agenda. For example, many members who would have come to the House today would have been thinking about the affordability legislation, Bill C-56, I think, that was supposed to be debated at this point in time. I know that members, at least on the government benches, very much want to hear debates and discussions on those issues, because they are the ones Canadians are facing today. Canadians are looking to the government and responsible opposition parties to recognize the issues of affordability. The legislation that we were supposed to be debating today, I would suggest, should have been allowed to continue to debate.
I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised that the Bloc used this particular opportunity to raise this specific issue, when the Bloc does have other opportunities to do it. Even given the discretion that is often used with respect to relevance to legislation, the member could have raised the issue he is raising right now in the fall economic statement, not to mention even during this legislation. He probably could have found a way to raise it, to suggest a take-note debate or to wait until there is an opposition day opportunity. In other words, I would suggest that there would have been other ways. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the issue.
I will give a bit of a background. Prior to getting involved in politics, I served in the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege to march side by side with World War II veterans. I had the opportunity of visiting the legions with many veterans, especially when I was a member of the Canadian Forces, serving in Alberta and doing my training in Ontario and a portion of it in Nova Scotia. I gained a very genuine appreciation of the horrors of war when I saw people at the legions who had the odd drink, if I can put it that way, and would, in tears, try to get through Remembrance Day. There have been many different awkward moments when discussions have become very emotional. Even though the actions of the war were decades prior, to talk about it and relive it would bring tears, along with a wide spectrum of emotions. It was not necessarily from those who fought on the front lines; I could see it at times even with family members.
I appreciated every opportunity I had, especially while I was in the military, to have those talks and express my gratitude and appreciation to those who returned from war abroad. I understand and value the importance of war monuments. It is important that we never ever forget. Like members across the way, on November 11, I too participate in recognizing the sacrifices that have been made in order for us to be here.
I recall an occasion when veterans were present in the Manitoba legislature. I remember very distinctly being in a chamber of democracy where I could turn my chair around and touch the knees of war veterans. That is profound, much like when veterans sit in the gallery of this chamber. It is very touching because it speaks volumes about the sacrifices that have been made so we can do the things we do and can have a society based on freedom and liberty, and that operates on the rule of law. We have been blessed by the many men and women who have served our country and served in the allied forces, who have ensured that we have the benefits today as a direct result of their efforts and sacrifices. It is important we recognize that. It is one of the reasons I find it difficult to say we could have had this debate at another time. I still believe, having said what I have said, that we could have, because of where we are in the session.
There is a lot more we could be doing and saying in dealing with our veterans. As a member of Parliament, I have been aware of many issues in the veterans file. When Liberals were in opposition, we opposed, for example, the number of veterans offices being shut down across the country. Many members at the time raised questions on the issue and challenged the government of the day as to why it would close down offices. There have been concerns with regard to how services are provided to our veterans in a very real and tangible way.
Over the last number of years, a great deal of attention has been focused on Canadian veterans, whether it was the reopening of veterans offices that were shut down by the previous government or the reinvesting and topping off of hundreds of millions of dollars to support veterans. We do that in different ways, whether through direct financial compensation in overall budget increases or through the services provided.
We also recognize, as previous governments have, that we need to do what we can to support veterans when they come home, particularly veterans who have experienced the horrors of war. We need to support those who have returned because of the impact that has on them. I think of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, a former senator, who highlighted many things for Canadians—
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.
I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.
The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.
Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.
Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.
Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).
With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.
The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.
As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.
Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.
The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.
The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.
The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.
The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.
In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.
925 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 1:40:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting when Conservative members talk about the government not allocating enough time. It was not that long ago when the Conservatives were trying to adjourn the House and filibuster debate. In fact, they bring in concurrence motions. I said during the debate on one concurrence motion that the Conservatives liked to waste time, that they were filibustering, preventing debate from occurring. I also said that there would be a time in the future when they would stand and criticize the government for bringing in time allocation.
If we do not bring in time allocation, we can never get anything passed. This is what the member just demonstrated at beginning of his speech. He is criticizing the government because the government is not allotting enough time for debate, yet the Conservative Party continues to filibuster and be a very destructive force on the floor of the chamber. I suspect it has a lot to do with the extreme right of the Conservative Party today to try to be disruptive in the chamber.
Maybe the member can explain why the Conservatives continue to do things like adjourn debates and bring in concurrence motions to prevent debate from occurring in the chamber.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 12:19:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government has a very proactive and progressive legislative agenda. We would like to get a lot of legislation through. We just brought in the anti-scab legislation. Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have a full agenda. We know that it is in the best interests of Canadians for them to be passed.
The frustration is when the Conservatives stand on concurrence motions to filibuster debates or try to adjourn the House to prevent debates from occurring in the first place.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a cop out. That is what we just finished witnessing from a Conservative member. He says the Conservatives are not responsible for setting the government agenda and that is the reason, so do not blame them. The Conservative Party is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is absolutely no doubt about their intentions to prevent legislation from passing.
The real shame of it all is to look at where and how they are using concurrence motions to play games with very important issues that Canadians want us to address. I say shame on each and every Conservative member who continues to want to filibuster on important pieces of legislation.
I am sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.
There are many opportunities for the member and the Conservative Party to have the debates they want on all these reports that they continue to bring up in order to prevent debate on government business. The member, in his speech, made reference to the mean Russians and what is happening in Ukraine. I agree, the illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine is absolutely disgusting, and Canadians understand that and believe it also.
The President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, was in Ottawa back in September. A country is at war, the president comes to Canada to sign a trade agreement and the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games. As opposed to seeing this legislation debated and passed, we see the type of kid's play coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of it.
What does the member say? The most recent speaker said they were not the ones who set the government agenda, as if they have nothing to do with what is taking place inside the chamber. If we want to talk about being obstructionist and preventing legislation, we can say that we do not see any concurrence debates coming forward from the Conservative Party on opposition days. Where is the concern about the issues that they raise then? It is not there. It is absolutely bogus.
We were expecting to debate Bill C-57 today. We have been waiting for that debate to hopefully collapse and go to a standing committee. We get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Ukraine signing a trade agreement, and then we get the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering. It is filibustering free-trade legislation more than any other political entity in the House. Is that not ironic, to a certain degree?
At the end of the day, there are many different avenues. We are all concerned about Arctic sovereignty. It is an important issue. If it were really as important as the Conservatives say it is, so much so that they had to prevent the debate on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, why did they not bring it up as an opposition day? Why did they not introduce it as an emergency debate or request that the government have a take-note debate on it? Why did they not ask one question on it during question period today? However, they still felt it was so important to bring up.
Let me give a rationale: We get the member for Cumberland—Colchester standing in his place and saying that the Ukraine trade debate, the legislation to enact the agreement, is woke and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine. That is what one member of the Conservative Party has said. Do they not know any shame?
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are strong allies and support solidarity for Ukraine, then behave as we have witnessed. This is not the first concurrence report to prevent this legislation, Bill C-57, from being debated and passed. They even get members who will stand up and talk about sympathy.
Earlier this morning, one member said the free trade agreement is not only good for the economy, but it is also all about hope. Yes, it is good for the economy. There is no doubt about that. Canada and Ukraine will benefit economically, in many different ways, because of the legislation.
It is more than that. We are the first country to work with Ukraine during a war period, to actually go ahead and get a trade agreement. We can think of the morale boost of that and the statement it makes, worldwide.
As the world unites in solidarity to support Ukraine, what does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It filibusters important legislation that is going to make a powerful statement to the world in regard to the relationship between Canada and Ukraine and in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state, including Crimea. This is such an important thing, and Conservatives want to play games.
We have seen them move other motions for concurrence on other important pieces of legislation. It is not just the trade agreement.
However, I think the trade agreement amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party has one intention. Its whole political scheme is bumper sticker politics, trying to make things as simple as possible. They believe that Canadians are stupid and that they are going to believe everything that the Conservatives say on a bumper sticker.
That is the type of politics we are witnessing from the Conservative Party today. It is reckless. It is risky, and they are not going to fool Canadians at the end of the day.
We are concerned about the Arctic. We appreciate the fine work that all our standing committees put in. However, if the member was being honest in talking about the report, why did he not talk about the billions of dollars the implementation of this report is going to cost?
He referred to submarines. Does the member know how much a submarine costs? He is saying submarines, plural. He is talking about several submarines, with a bill totalling $10 billion. That probably would not even cover the cost.
The Conservative Party talks about how, if they are going to spend a tax dollar, it is going to cut and find a place for it. For these multi-billions of dollars that it is prepared to commit, based on this report, where are Conservatives going to find those cuts that they talk about? Are they going to go after our senior programs or child care? Where are they going to come from?
There is a hidden agenda across the way, and it will be unveiled. More and more Canadians are going to find that there is absolutely no substance to the Conservative Party that goes beyond a bumper sticker. That is what we are going to find out.
The best example of that is in regard to the Conservatives' whole idea of the environment. They have no clue whatsoever about what is in the best interest of the environment. They flip-flop like a fish on a dock, all over the place. They do not know where to land on the issue. I guess they cannot get their climate policy on a bumper sticker, and that is the problem.
We look to the Conservative Party as an opposition party that is supposed to be recognizing that Canadians, in the last election, voted for a minority situation. However, part of having a minority government is that it also puts some pressure on the opposition party to behave in a somewhat responsible fashion.
Its actions, in virtually every way, are to prevent legislation from passing. As we can see, I really believe that there are members that are actually thinking, in the Conservative Party, of voting against this legislation.
It is not as though we are asking for Bill C-57, the Ukraine-Canada trade deal, to pass third reading in 24 hours. However, I will say that Christmas is going come quickly. We have to get it to the Senate. It has to go through the standing committee. It has to come back to the House.
I think it is fair to request and see that important legislation of this nature should be able to pass through the whole system, royal assent and all, before Christmas. I would like to see the Conservatives stand up and agree with that point.
1383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that has been fairly extensively debated over the last number of years. Members will recall that the reason we are having today's debate goes back to 2015, when a Supreme Court of Canada decision ultimately obligated parliamentarians here in the House to develop and pass a law that took into consideration the ruling made by the Supreme Court, with the necessity for the government to provide a framework.
It was not a very easy challenge when that decision was ultimately made. I do not know how best to put it, but the Government of Canada, at the time run by Stephen Harper, ultimately sat on the issue until there was an election. That election saw a change in government, and it was one of the first orders of business that the Government of Canada, under the current Prime Minister, had to deal with.
Over the years, I have been engaged in many different types of debates on all forms of legislation. When I am talking to young people who are trying to get a sense of what we do here in Parliament, I talk about legislation, and I will often make reference to Bill C-7. For Bill C-7, a very passionate debate took place on the floor of the House of Commons back in Centre Block. I can recall it vividly because of all the different emotions that were being expressed on the floor and all the discussions that took place.
It was not taken lightly. If we take a look over the years at the number of Canadians who have been consulted in one form or another with regard to medical assistance in dying, we are not talking about tens of thousands. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in many different forms. They came together to voice opinions and concerns. In fact, we had a standing committee that did an incredible number of consultations, not only with individuals in our communities but with many different stakeholders.
In the debates that I have seen, I do not think we referenced our health care professionals and the important role they played in the debates. I want to start off by talking about that, because I think it is really important that, as Bill C-314 will ultimately be voted on, we understand and appreciate the number of discussions and the amount of effort that took place for the current legislation we have, which was amended.
As we saw, there were some issues that ultimately came out of Bill C-7, which caused another government bill to come to the floor. Again, a lot of repeat discussions took place and it ultimately passed. I think that is why the member has made the decision to propose his private member's bill. The changes that were made in what I think was Bill C-39, although I am not 100% sure and the member can correct me if I am wrong in his closing comments, are what might have brought forward this particular piece of legislation.
To be clear on what Bill C-314 does, it proposes to permanently exclude the eligibility to receive medical assistance in dying on the basis of a mental disorder alone. Wording is really important. I know that in the original debates with all the different stakeholders, and I made reference in particular to our health care professionals, the quality of the presentations and the understanding of the serious nature of the issue were, I would suggest, second to no other out of the debates I have witnessed, in particular given some of the things we heard coming out of committees.
As I reflect on that debate, I think that, in good part throughout the process, we saw many members of Parliament put their party position to the side and reflect in terms of what each believed as a parliamentarian. Maybe it was a crossover of personal beliefs versus the canvassing that many people no doubt had in terms of their constituents and wanting to reflect the general will of their constituents.
At the end of the day, when we think of medical assistance in dying and the issue of a mental disorder, I do not think that we want to try to simplify the message. As we all know, I am not a medical professional, but I have an immense amount of respect for what our medical professionals have to go through in order to be put into a position, because it is not just any and every doctor or nurse practitioner; there is a whole lot more that is involved. Towards the end of the debate, particularly on the second piece of legislation dealing with this particular issue, we had members who stood up and said, “Well, just put in your order”, almost as if someone were going through a drive-through and then it is done. We all know that is, by far, not the case.
I will fall back on the fine work that our standing committees have done. I am going to fall back on the issues and how they were explained, in good part, by the different stakeholders. I am going to stand by what the health care professionals brought forward to us. I will look at the information that was provided and ultimately reflect on what I believe in this particular situation and what a vast majority of the constituents I represent would want me to say on this particular issue. I will do this with very much a sympathetic heart, understanding the difficult situation that, unfortunately, far too many people have to face.
We can have as much sympathy as we want for those individuals who are looking at the possibility of getting medical assistance in dying, but it is one thing to sympathize and it is another thing to empathize. Based on everything I have looked at and listened to over the last number of years, I have not been convinced that this is, in fact, the direction that we should be going with regard to Bill C-314. I am just not convinced.
I think that what we ultimately need to do is continue to monitor and look at ways in which we can ensure that there is no abuse of the MAID legislation. We need to continue to show compassion in every way we can. We need to continue to listen to what the experts, individuals and stakeholders are telling us and try to build more value to the legislation so there is a higher sense of comfort in the broader community, which I believe there is today. The mechanisms are there, and there are opportunities to continue to be able to review.
1143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is now the second time we see that Conservative members do not understand the rules. They stand on a point of order when they know that, after 6:30 p.m., quorum cannot be called. It is very rude for members opposite to interrupt a member's speech in order to ask for a quorum call when they know full well they cannot do so. I would ask the indulgence of the Conservative Party members to understand that they cannot call quorum and to allow members to continue with their remarks uninterrupted.
I was trying to emphasize that a clear message was sent in the last election, not only to the Liberal Party but also to opposition parties. This message was that in order to pass anything through the House of Commons in a minority situation, one needs the co-operation of at least one opposition party. Without that, one cannot accomplish anything. The Conservative Party is very much on the record saying they do not support this party being in government. Its members are going out of their way to play a role as a destructive force in every way to prevent legislation and motions from ultimately being passed.
A good example of that is when the leader of the Conservative Party, just last week, prior to coming into the House indicated to the media and anyone who wanted to hear that he was going to speak until the Prime Minister withdrew budgetary measures. It lasted four hours; the vote ended up taking place anyway, because of the rules. In my mind, this amplified the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to dealing with issues that come to the floor of the House of Commons. As a member of Parliament now for over a decade, one of the things I have recognized is that it is exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to make substantive changes to the Standing Orders unless one is prepared to take a strong stand. This is because getting that consensus is virtually impossible.
I sat in on PROC meetings and listened to all sorts of discussions taking place. I guess I would say that I am a frustrated parliamentarian who recognizes that we need to modernize the rules of the House of Commons. There are changes that are necessary. After every election, we are actually afforded the opportunity, as individual members, as parliamentarians, to share concerns on rule changes we would like to see.
I recall standing up not that long ago, I believe it was last year, when we had that debate inside the chamber, and I talked about some of the rules I would like to see changed. I would like to see more debate time, for example, and I set in process a way in which that could be accommodated. Other members talked about different forms of rules and changes, such as dual chambers and so forth.
There have been both on-the-record and off-the-record discussions among members of all political parties. I was actually very pleased when, back in March 2020, we had a consensus to look at ways in which we could accommodate the pandemic and allow Parliament to continue. There was a very positive attitude, where opposition parties of all stripes worked with the government and where the government worked with opposition parties. We came up with a system that has clearly demonstrated that even in a worldwide pandemic, the House of Commons can continue and be effective. We are able to deal with the issues that concern Canadians day in, day out.
There are many things that took place during the pandemic that I would suggest would be of great benefit in terms of modernizing the House of Commons. Not all Conservatives within the House of Commons would balk at the idea of having the voting application completely in its hybrid form, as the government House leader himself pointed out when he brought forward the legislation. Like him, I too have heard many positive things about the hybrid format.
When I posed a question to the member who spoke just before me, asking whether they do or do not support the voting application, the member's response in essence was that if there were a sunset clause, they would support the motion in its entirety. That is what he implied. I actually repeated what he implied as he was there, and he nodded in the affirmative. He said, “Absolutely.”
This is mixed messaging. On the one hand, the Conservative Party is prepared to continue doing what we are doing for the next couple of years. We are committed to continue to work with opposition members, particularly the New Democrats, who have expressed an interest in listening to what Canadians said back in 2021 and making this Parliament work, which means we could be going well into 2025.
The Conservatives are saying that as the official opposition, if we give them the sunset clause, they will accept it. That tells me that they do support what is here. Their problem seems to be that they want us to say that it would be reaffirmed after the next election. After the next election, the standing order could be withdrawn. I suggest that once this resolution or this motion is passed and adopted by the House, as I anticipate and hope that it will be, we are not going to see even a Conservative majority government withdraw it.
It is not because it is to the advantage of one party over another, depending on whether someone is in opposition or in government. I do not believe that for a moment. That is the reason I posed the question. Having been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now, I know that most of my years were actually in the opposition benches. I understand the importance of opposition tools that are utilized in order to hold a government accountable. That is why I said to give me a tangible example of something within this motion that will take one of those tools away, and explain what it is.
Some members say it is ministerial accountability. I can appreciate the concern about ministerial accountability, but it has a lot more to do with the personality of the minister than anything else. When I was in opposition and I approached a minister, I was often told to check with their staff or call their office. Some ministers would actually sit down and chat, I suspect, or pick up the phone, depending on the situation. I do not believe ministerial accessibility is lost.
Every member of this House is afforded the opportunity to file four questions. Once those questions are asked, I think it is 45 days before they are answered. I know; I table a lot of these. I think I am well into the thousands of questions, and they will get a response from the ministers.
They talk about ministerial accountability. Well, thousands of questions have been answered now. When was the last time we heard a minister or a parliamentary secretary answer a question virtually? We see that the answers are being provided from the floor of the House.
People may say, “What about the future?” I remember that when I was sitting in opposition, we would be counting the number of question periods in which one of the ministers in the Harper government was not showing up to answer any questions, and it went for days and days, going into weeks, going past months.
Ministerial accessibility is not really an issue. I would suggest that it is not a tool that is going to make members more ineffective. At the very least, it would not prevent opposition, because opposition members will use the absence of a minister who does not show up inside the chamber as a reason for questioning that particular minister, and that has happened for years. I do not think ministerial accessibility has anything to do with it.
We hear about some of the benefits that are being proposed in the hybrid system. I am a big fan of the voting application. I believe that the voting application is probably the single greatest change that we have seen in generations.
An hon. member: In 152 years.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I do not know if we had the technology back then, but I can tell members that when Canada was formed, Hansard did not exist. Hansard did exist in other parliaments, but not here in Canada. It took a few years before we actually got Hansard. I would suggest that a change of that nature was very important. It provided a lot more accountability, because when a member said something in the House, it was actually recorded. Prior to that, it was more of a secret club of sorts, and I suspect that when Hansard was brought in back then, we might have seen some members not necessarily supporting it, but it enhanced our democracy and accountability.
We could go to a few decades after that, when we saw televised debates. Television changed the way in which politicians responded to questions and to debates themselves. I like to think that it contributed in a very positive way. As a parliamentarian in the Manitoba legislature, I remember having these types of discussions on the impact of television when it was brought in. Believe it or not, there were still some members when I was first elected who argued that television was a bad thing to be brought in to the Manitoba legislature. However, I would suggest that it raised the bar. It ensured additional accountability.
I believe there is a great benefit to the voting application. It is not a tool that is going to diminish opportunities for opposition members. If they believe that to be the case, then they should explain why that is the case and then explain why they are prepared to allow it to continue for the next couple of years, because that is what they are prepared to do. I think that in their heart of hearts, they actually recognize the value of the voting application, and it is valuable.
Imagine that wherever a member is in the country, they would actually be able to participate in a vote. Imagine what that would mean for a member representing British Columbia if there were going to be a vote on Monday.
They do not even have to be from a far coast. Let us take my colleague representing the community of Brandon. It involves taking a taxi to the airport and waiting at the airport. Then there is the plane ride to Winnipeg, hopefully not having to go through Toronto, and then getting into a vehicle once there and driving two hours to get out to Brandon. That has to be reversed in order to be able to come for a Monday vote, possibly on a procedural call.
What is the real difference? I would suggest that by enabling that member to vote virtually, we are doing their constituents the favour. The member benefits, but the real individuals who benefit from the electronic voting are the people of Canada, our constituents.
When we have committees happening or meetings taking place throughout the parliamentary precinct, very important meetings, very important standing committees, and a member is meeting with x, whoever x might be, sometimes the bells start to ring, which means that meeting is interrupted. It could have been a meeting on something of an urgent nature, a foreign affairs matter or a very important discussion one was having via Zoom. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might not necessarily be able to attend a particular meeting. Now, that person has the option to be able to vote using the application. I see that as a positive. I have not heard an argument that has convinced me otherwise.
Being able to participate and be fully engaged here on the floor of the House of Commons, whether virtually or in person, is important to all of us. I think when members look at the rules being proposed, and hopefully adopted, it is not too late for the Conservatives to support it. If they truly believe what they say about supporting it if we would put in a sunset clause, the government House leader provided them with the rationale that three or four years from now, any future government, through a Standing Order, could reverse the changes. We can look at the 2020 discussions that took place, where there was a consensus developed, to what we are seeing today and what the member has said, which is that they in essence support everything as long as there is a sunset clause. I would suggest that the desire to see the changes that are being proposed is in fact there, but there is a lot of political posturing taking place.
At the end of the day, Canadians will be better served if this motion is passed. I would ask and suggest that all members look seriously at supporting the motion.
2193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 8:01:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my friend should take a look at many of the things Conservatives say, whether in question period or in other debates. I am being somewhat mild in my comments. I am being truthful, but mild.
There is a general feeling from Canadians that this is good legislation. It is legislation that should pass. It is with pleasure that we can say that we will finally see some movement on it. That is good for all Canadians.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
