Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 261
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2020-09-29 10:51 [p.226]
Madam Speaker, to be honest, I have to say yes. That is why parliamentarians often find themselves in a tough situation. People look at us and would prefer democracy to happen in the street. That is why no one can say that what we are talking about this morning is not important. It is very important.
What is at stake this morning is the absolute confidence of those watching us in relation to how we conduct ourselves. We must set an example. In that regard, of course governments often use parliamentary sparring to try to put off those questions. I think some soul-searching is needed, and this morning presents a great opportunity to avoid doing what others would do in the Liberals' position. Some folks like to say that the Liberals and Conservatives are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-09-29 14:26 [p.244]
Mr. Speaker, for nearly two months now, the Prime Minister has been doing everything he can to prevent parliamentarians from doing their job.
Last night I saw something interesting on Twitter. The tweet said: “I wonder what the great Prime Ministers (PMs) of the past might think. During the entirety of the Second World War, neither the British [PM Churchill] nor the Canadian [PM Mackenzie King] ever sought to limit debate, especially on matters involving financial appropriations”. That tweet was by the Hon. Andrew Leslie, retired general and former member of Parliament and Liberal Party whip.
What does the Prime Minister think of this keen observation about letting all parliamentarians do their job?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-09-29 14:27 [p.245]
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an unprecedented pandemic, a crisis that requires everyone to work together. That is exactly what we have been doing since the spring. As parliamentarians, we worked with all the parties to implement ambitious programs to help Canadians, such as the CERB, the wage subsidy, and measures to help seniors and youth.
We will continue to address Canadians' needs and work with members of the House, because we know that this is what Canadians need.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-09-29 14:27 [p.245]
Mr. Speaker, the work we did in the spring was all well and good, but what has been happening in the past two months is exactly the opposite.
The Prime Minister unilaterally decided to shut down Parliament for six weeks. Then he refused to allow proper debate in committee of the whole. Now he is limiting a very important debate on more than $50 billion in spending to barely four and a half hours.
Why not draw inspiration from Churchill, who held proper debates even in the middle of World War II?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-09-29 14:28 [p.245]
Mr. Speaker, during this time of crisis, we must all work together. That is what we are doing to address Canadians' needs. It is a shame to see the Conservatives playing politics while Canadians are in need.
In the meantime, I want to take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians to download the COVID Alert app. We know there is a chance it will be available in Quebec soon. We want everyone to do their part by downloading this great app, which is free, to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member, in particular, about the programming motion we are dealing with today and the undemocratic way in which the government is proceeding. What we have seen in the course of this pandemic is that the government has put forward programs that have had technical problems with them. The Liberals have announced one thing that has contradicted what is actually in the legislation, which speaks to the importance of effective parliamentary debate and legislative oversight.
We have a Prime Minister who prorogued Parliament and then a couple of days later announced a new program which, because of prorogation, could not be legislated on for six weeks. If he had not prorogued, we could have spent weeks debating these issues, studying them at committee and working out problems. Conservatives were prepared to work through the weekend on this, and now we are going to have less than five hours of debate.
Is this remotely reasonable, in the member's view, in terms of a way to proceed and ensure that legislation actually achieves the objectives it claims to achieve?
View Lenore Zann Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Lenore Zann Profile
2020-09-29 16:06 [p.256]
Madam Speaker, as I said before, I am so sorry about the audio quality. Something has happened just in the last half hour. I am having terrible trouble hearing people, and I guess being heard as well.
I was trying to say that throughout COVID-19, I was on two committees that did meet. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was on one of them, the Canada-China relations committee, and also the northern and indigenous affairs committee. We did a lot of work through the COVID-19 period. I think the government is doing an extremely good job of representing Canadians, looking after as many people as possible in a very dangerous and unprecedented time. I tip my hat to the cabinet members and to the Prime Minister.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 16:40 [p.261]
Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on a number of areas.
The first thing I will do is pick up on the last question and answer and on some of the comments made by the members, particularly the Conservatives, about prorogation. It is interesting that the last questioner said that we shut down the House for six weeks. On the surface, one might think that is a terrible thing to do. However, when we understand what really took place, most Canadians would support what the government has done.
When we talk about the prorogation, it meant that instead of coming back on the Monday, we came back on the Wednesday, so we lost those two days. We also lost one day in August. However, keep in mind that this is the first government in the last 30-plus years to have the House sit in July and August. We sat more days in July and August than we lost in the prorogation.
A member across the way has said that this is not true, but it is true.
Members have to stop listening to the Conservative spin and see the reality of what we face today. Instead of listening to their constituents, they are listening to the Conservative spin and that is a serious problem. It is one of the reasons we are doing what we are today.
I give credit to the NDP and the Green Party members, who can be pretty brutal with some of their comments on the floor of the House. They are not necessarily friendly in all matters toward the government of the day, but they recognize that this is important. They recognize what the motion is trying to accomplish. They understand it and they appreciate it. They might have some issues with it, but they are supporting it. Unlike the Conservatives and the Bloc, they believe it is in the best interest of all Canadians that we remain focused on their needs and ultimately see legislation pass. We should not look at it as a possible option; it is absolutely critical that it pass.
I take exception to many of the comments from members who are saying it is undemocratic. I was in opposition in the far corner for a number of years when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. If members want to talk about assaults on democracy, they just need to go back to the Harper era.
Let us look at what has taken place with the pandemic. Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister has been very clear. He wants the House to focus on the pandemic and do what we can to protect the interests, health and well-being of Canadians. From day one, that has been the issue with this government. In the last number of weeks, we have talked a great deal about the economy and restarting it.
When we talk about accountability, I challenge any one of the members of the Bloc or the Conservatives to stand in his or her place when it comes time to ask a question. I would like those members to tell me when was the last time they met on the floor of the chamber and were afforded the opportunity to ask not just hundreds, but probably thousands of questions of the government of the day.
Opposition members had a wonderful opportunity to convey their thoughts and ideas with respect to the pandemic, share their concerns with the government and press the government on those issues in the months of July and August, which, at least in my 30 years as a parliamentarian, I do not ever recall being provided to opposition members.
Going back to my days in opposition, we would get a question and might get a supplementary one. What was provided here for opposition members was they could go five minutes steady, have three quick questions, a long question, a preamble and then go back-and-forth and the minister was obligated to respond in that same time frame.
At the end of the day, opposition members were afforded the opportunity to hold the government accountable. I did not try to tell them that they should not ask questions about this or about that. We all know where they focused a lot of their attention. I do not think it was with respect to, at least not for the most part, the health and well-being of Canadians even though we were into a pandemic.
Now those members are upset, saying that they want more time to debate Bill C-4, which is why they oppose this. However, they had no reservations at all this morning to bring in a motion for concurrence on a report, which literally killed two hours of potential debate.
They have a great deal of experience and have no reservations at all in using what parliamentarians often refer to as a “filibuster”, and they are good at it. I give them full credit for that. In the last five years, I do not know how many times I have seen two members of the Conservative Party stand. After one speaks, the other one moves that another Conservative be heard to precipitate the bells to ring in order to waste more time. Another example is that they argue for debate and then move a motion to adjourn for the day.
It is not that they want to see more debate, the focus of the Conservatives is more on wanting to show Canadians that the House of Commons is dysfunctional and cannot work. It does not matter who sits in the prime minister's chair, unless it is a Conservative. The House of Commons cannot do its work. I have seen that time and time again over the last five years, with Conservatives as the official opposition.
There was a budget where one member consumed virtually 98% of the whole debate time allocated. I remember that well, and it was not me. It is not that I was jealous or anything of that nature, but having said that, again, those members have no reservations. When they stand now and say that they want more time to debate, based on what I have witnessed, that is just not true.
If the members had 10 hours, they would want 15 hours. If they had 15 hours, they would want 20 hours. They want to frustrate the government. The Conservatives consistently try to prevent the government from passing legislation or any other measures. I believe that is the reason, at least in part, why the NDP and the Green Party are having to support the type of motion we have before us. They realize that if we do not bring in motions of this nature, they would never pass. We cannot please the Conservatives.
It is not because Conservatives want more debate. I do not believe that for a moment. It seems that this is their sole purpose for existing, at least the Conservative leadership's. It is not meant as a reflection on any individual member of Parliament, but the Conservative driving force, the leadership team, if I can put it that way, its focus is not what is happening in terms of the pandemic. When I say “Conservatives”, I mean the Conservatives here in Ottawa. I believe their focus is to be as critical as they can about the Prime Minister and other ministers. They will zero in on any Liberal and point out every blemish they believe is there.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2020-09-29 17:02 [p.263]
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I listened to it carefully. He said that help for Canadians was vital, that it was important to pass bills and that we should have done more.
I want to tell him that we could have done all of this earlier, well before the prorogation.
At the end of April, and in May and June, when we had a token version of Parliament where we could not move motions or debate or pass bills, other places in the world and even not too far away, in Quebec, were holding parliamentary committees where members could move motions and vote on bills. We could not do that here.
I do not understand why the government is now blaming the Bloc Québécois by saying that our party does not want to help Canadians quickly, when that could have been done in the spring.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 17:04 [p.263]
Madam Speaker, a number of members of Parliament were hoping that we could have some sort of voting mechanism in place that would have enabled the House to participate by following health experts' advice and providing that physical distancing and so forth, but because we could not get the Conservatives to agree to having virtual votes, it limited what we could do. The Bloc and the Conservatives have a lot of things in common; that is not one of them.
Maybe the Bloc members should be talking to some of their friends in the Conservative Party, for example, and looking at ways we can improve upon this. We have already passed through the summer, and it would have been nice had the Conservatives agreed to some mechanism that would have enabled MPs to be more empowered, but it was the Conservatives who chose not to do that.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary raised a very interesting point a few minutes ago when he thanked the New Democratic Party for at least, in addressing him, asking an actual question of substance in respect to policy.
We have Bloc and Conservative members who, during what they are characterizing as extremely limited time to speak, are still continuing to talk about this apparent limited time that they have to speak. That is coupled with the fact that this morning a concurrence motion was brought in that had absolutely nothing to do with this agenda, let alone this session of Parliament. What are the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on the games that are being played within the House right now?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 17:09 [p.264]
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was not surprised. I somewhat anticipated that the Conservatives might try something of that nature, primarily because I do not believe, at my core, that they are really arguing for additional debate. Their ultimate goal is to make Parliament, the House of Commons, and the debate look as dysfunctional as possible.
I believe that is their real objective, even at a time when Canadians need the Conservative Party to be more responsible and to co-operate, as other political parties are doing, in order to deal with this pandemic and protect our economy. However, it is never too late. Maybe we will see some more encouraging signs from the Conservatives in the coming weeks and months.
View Gary Vidal Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
In 2019, my pitch to voters in northern Saskatchewan was that I would take my experience as an accountant, a multi-term mayor and a Crown corporation chair to Ottawa and represent the people of northern Saskatchewan to the best of my ability. In my relatively short time of service I have said to many of those around me that if I had run my business like the current government governs, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago. If I had shown the same contempt for my elected council as the Liberal government has for the elected members of this House, I would have had a mutiny and would definitely not have survived multiple terms as mayor.
Over the past several months the Liberals have shown a pattern of leaving things until the midnight hour and then essentially holding Parliament hostage to get their legislation passed. We have seen four examples of this: one in March, two in April and one in July. When I wrote this, little did I know how true the midnight hour comment would be as we see this literally playing out tonight.
Here we are on September 29 and the government is looking for approval for over $50 billion in spending with very limited time to either scrutinize it or for us to offer suggestions for ways to improve it. Each time this happened the line always was, “We must do this quickly or else.” Each time it meant there was no time for scrutiny and we should just trust the Liberals as they know what is best for Canadians and they do not need feedback from Canada's elected representatives in this House because they have got this.
Announcing these proposed measures the day after shutting down Parliament and then waiting until after the CERB ended to introduce the legislation seems a little suspicious to me. We definitely do not need any committee work on this; after all, committees are a bit of a thorn in the side of the Prime Minister, are they not? I do not know if members see a pattern here, but I do.
There is a second pattern here that is not just about this but about timing as well. There is a pattern where a lack of oversight and transparency is desired by the government, and it goes back further than the pandemic. In my very first experience as an MP, I was asked to participate in a committee of the whole proceeding on December 9, 2019, when we were asked to scrutinize over $4.9 million in a mere four hours. My first reaction was, “Seriously?” In my role as the mayor of my little city, we spent many hours and even days scrutinizing spending and I can assure members we were not dealing with numbers of this magnitude.
Let me fast forward a bit. I will never forget at the beginning of the pandemic when the government attempted to give itself unfettered powers to December 31, 2021, by slipping these powers into the very first emergency legislation. Members can call me naive if they would like, but I could not believe that any elected official would have the nerve to try and pull off something like this. I asked myself over and over in the days following who was crass enough to think that this was somehow a good idea and that it would fly.
The Liberals clearly have an issue with any kind of openness and transparency. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. May I be so bold as to suggest that a bit more scrutiny may have actually prevented some of the scandals we are seeing. May I be so bold as to suggest that a little more consultation up front and a better parliamentary process might have led to, for example, indigenous businesses being included in the original business supports, like CEWS and CEBA, instead of being added only as an afterthought when they were left out of the original legislation. This is the relationship the Prime Minister likes to repeatedly say is the most important one to his government. If that is in fact so, why did it take weeks of pressure and lobbying to have indigenous-owned limited partnerships included in CEWS? Why did it take months for indigenous businesses to have access to a version of CEBA when a little consultation would have clearly identified that the original version would not work for them as they do not utilize traditional banks.
The same point could be made about many small businesses and farmers as well. A little consultation would have easily determined that there was going to be a significant problem preventing many of them from accessing CEBA. This literally took months to resolve, leaving many fearing for their ability to survive.
Yesterday, my colleague, the member for Thornhill, shared some very wise words in his speech. I think they are worth repeating, so I will quote one paragraph. He said:
The COVID crisis is not just a health crisis. COVID has taken a terrible toll on our Canadian economy, as it has on economies around the world. Canada today has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, despite having almost the highest spending in the G7. With the amendment to Bill...[C-4], now before us today, Canada's deficit and debt would soar to historic record new levels.
Yesterday, I asked the people of my riding a question on social media. I asked what I should say to the government when I had an opportunity to speak today. Their number one answer was, “What is the plan for all the spending?” They then added that when someone takes out a loan, the lender wants to know how it will be paid back, along with other criteria. It is an interesting concept, that of a plan. What a novel concept. The answer I am giving my constituents is that I do not believe there is a plan. There is no plan to ever balance the budget, let alone repay any of the debt incurred.
Former Saskatchewan NDP finance minister Janice MacKinnon co-chairs the C.D. Howe Institute's Fiscal and Tax Working Group with former Liberal finance minister John Manley. In a recent report, they urged the federal government to set limits on spending and ensure that when spending is approved, it is truly necessary and contributes to Canada's longer-term productivity. That sounds like a plan.
In a recent Globe and Mail article, economics reporter David Parkinson shared some very interesting thoughts with us. He talked about the misery that was the second quarter of 2020. He talked about the lost quarter. He then referenced an 11.5% plunge in gross domestic product, which is the worst quarter-to-quarter decline ever.
Millions of Canadians are out of work, more than double the pre-pandemic unemployment rate. However, in the midst of all this, Canadians' incomes actually grew. Details contained in the last quarterly gross domestic product report revealed that household disposable income in Canada surged by 11% in the second quarter. That obviously led to the question of where this surprising income explosion came from. It certainly was not wages, because they tumbled by almost 9%. The answer is that federal government crisis income supports more than filled that income hole.
The employment compensation in our country was reduced by $21 billion, but disposable income went up by $54 billion in government transfers. That is astounding. This tells us that the government response has gone way beyond the goal of simply replacing lost income.
Let me be really clear: Some will take my comments to mean that I do not believe that some of the extraordinary emergency funding was needed, and continues to be needed to support Canadians in their time of need. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any compassionate and just society has a moral obligation to help people in a time of need.
However, I am a little bit dismayed by the lack of transparency and accountability displayed by the government. I am dismayed by the unacceptable snub of Parliament, and by the time lost during the unnecessary shutdown for all to consider debate and more reasonably determine some outcomes. I am dismayed by the constant rush to ram legislation through the House when in fact the rush is simply one of partisan, self-serving survival.
Finally, I am dismayed by the lack of a plan. What is the plan for our future that I can take back and share with the residents of Northern Saskatchewan?
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-09-29 22:14 [p.298]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his speech. I particularly appreciated the part about parliamentarians' role in a debate.
We can agree with the principle of Bill C-4, but everyone knows that the devil is in the details. This bill has a potential lifespan of one year and will have significant consequences for workers, businesses and the economic recovery.
Using a gag order that the NDP has been kind enough to support, the government is forcing us to pass a bill very quickly because it wants to protect itself from difficult questions about WE Charity. However, this bill would have benefited from support from the people it is intended to help. Workers and businesses could have testified in committee on ways to improve it, since we do not know everything.
Does my colleague agree that this gag order is an affront not only to parliamentarians, but also to the people we represent?
View Gary Vidal Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question, and I apologize but I will answer in English as I do not speak French yet. I am working on it.
I would agree 100 per cent with my colleague's comments. This is a massive change to the Labour Code. In many ways we are concerned about a conflict with provincial jurisdictions, employers, boards of trade and chambers of commerce. None of these people was engaged. None of these was consulted. This was put before us to pass in a very short time frame, under a bunch of pressure at the 11th hour.
I would 100 per cent agree that there are some really deep concerns when we talk about the WE scandal. One of the comments I have consistently made is I am afraid that all we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg. When we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a short time frame, how many other WE scandals are under the surface?
Results: 121 - 135 of 261 | Page: 9 of 18

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data