SoVote

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 11:33:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate on this important subject today. I have heard from a number of colleagues and a number of parties, who have raised concerns that this bill addresses two very different issues. Although both are very important to discuss and debate in this place, the fact is that they are quite different. One is related to protecting health care workers from being restricted from entering hospitals and whatnot, and then the other is regarding paid sick leave. I am wondering if my colleague has any comments about whether these two distinct issues should be debated separately and if there is value in that to ensure it has the fulsome discussion required to make good policy that comes from this place.

130 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 1:55:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again ask a question in this important debate. I want to note that the bill addresses two very distinct areas and that I asked earlier whether or not it would be relevant to split the bill into two separate ones. However, specifically regarding health care facilities, it brings up a very important point. No Canadian and no health care professional should be hindered from being able to access their workplace or from being able to access care. Specifically, I wonder if the member would support that being expanded to include something like critical infrastructure, pipelines and railways and so on. Especially at a time when there are serious supply chain challenges within this country, I am wondering if the member would be open to including that in this legislation.

137 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 4:18:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend and colleague's comments regarding the irony that the government, which promised a number of elections ago to never introduce omnibus legislation, is in fact addressing two very, very different types of issues within this bill. The member for Kingston and the Islands said earlier that it was not important to address access to other critical infrastructure such as pipelines, ports and maybe schools. It is unfortunate to see that the bill does not go further in ensuring that Canadians can not only have access to their workplaces and health care, but can also feel safe going to other critical infrastructure across our country.

111 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 4:58:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how this bill very clearly articulated some of the challenges that existed, but on Friday, November 26, the Minister of Justice said that the challenges the bill tried to address were not a new problem. As I read through the bill and some of the challenges it attempts to address, terminology like “minor disturbances” raises concerns. There is a lack of clarity—

71 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 4:59:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member was passionately suggesting that he had the the same question I do. I have some concerns about how terminology like “minor disturbances” might be widely interpreted. It is a term that could be very subjective. I wonder if the member has any comments about that term and maybe some of the other challenges where in committee this terminology might be able to be tightened up.

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 5:06:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's frustration. I would simply ask for unanimous consent to allow him to switch places with the next speaker. That would give him 15 minutes or so to work with IT in order to figure out the technical difficulty and address it accordingly.

49 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 6:04:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour and privilege to once again rise and enter into debate in this place. If members will indulge me, I will share a few thanks and a few thoughts prior to getting into the substance of what we are here to debate today, which is the Liberal's new bill, Bill C-3. It truly is an honour to serve, and along with that there are some thanks that I need to pass along. First, I need to thank my wife Danielle, who has stood through what has been a very interesting first term in Parliament. Of course, when we had that discussion about whether or not I would let my name stand again, she was very supportive, and we hope that we can see a return to at least some level of normalcy as we move forward. I send my love to my wife, Danielle, and to my boys Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I love them, and I am so thankful for the support that they give. Even though sometimes it may be a little hard for the boys to understand, as they are five, three and soon to be six months, I am so thankful for that love and support. I thank my staff, my campaign team, my EDA and all those who help make an election happen. I would also like to take a moment to thank, in what was undoubtedly a difficult election in many ways, those other candidates who ran and showed up. There was one party that notably did not even show up in this last election, and that was a travesty for democracy in central Alberta. Anyone who puts their name on the ballot deserves thanks and respect, and I have that for those who ran in Battle River—Crowfoot. I thank all those poll workers and local individuals who helped to make sure that an election could happen, even though it was an election, I would suggest, that nobody really wanted except for the Prime Minister who sits across the way. However, they also deserve our thanks. Of course, I am deeply grateful for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for once again sending me to be their voice in our nation's capital to ensure that the interests of rural, east central Alberta are heard, and that is certainly what I plan to do. I will share a few thoughts and observances from the election. I found it very interesting that just two or three months prior, the Prime Minister's itinerary came out saying that there was a visit to the newly appointed Governor General's residence, and I could not help but think that he would be going back on his word. Now, it would not surprise many within this place and many Canadians that we cannot take the Prime Minister's word all that seriously. The signs were already there for a fourth wave, yet he put his personal political interests before the lives of Canadians. It is a shame. I have some unparliamentary language that comes to mind, but I will spare members that. Over the course of the summer and during the election, I had a chance to speak with many constituents who brought up a myriad of concerns. One constituent, a man by the name of John Dillon, brought forward something that I told him I would share in this place. I had spoken with him during the previous election, and I was reminded when I went to his door again. This 40-year Air Force veteran asked a question about why parliamentarians get preferred treatment over the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Why does it take him decades to qualify for his pension while it takes a politician six years? We continued to talk over the course of a fairly extended period of time about some of the frustrations that he has, and about the hypocrisy and the frustration with the political status quo in this country. I hope to get to as much in as possible in 10 minutes, which is not a lot of time. I also spoke to constituents who were frustrated beyond belief on all sides of the political spectrum, and about how divisive and polarized politics are in this country. A number of times, I would encourage constituents I was speaking with to make sure that they looked a little beyond Facebook in terms of making sure that we were having dialogue. Certainly, there is politics and partisanship in the House, and that is okay, but we also need to make sure that we are always working for the best interest of Canadians. The concerns around western alienation are very real. I have talked to many people who have given up hope on Canada. It is heartbreaking to speak with many constituents, more than I can count, who suggest that an independent path forward is the only option. I pleaded with them. We spoke about the issues and talked about how it is not too late, and to not give up hope on this country in spite of the many frustrations. We heard rumours that the Liberals would be mandating a reduction in fertilizer, which could very well take away the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. We heard rumours about further activism when it comes to the oil and gas sector, which turned out to be more than accurate when the Prime Minister appointed a criminal activist as his environment minister, and the Prime Minister went to COP26 and decided that the only justice in a transition was to put my constituents out of work. That is shameful. From COVID challenges to the challenges with our economy, it is Canadians who are paying the price. I certainly look forward to being able to stand up for their interests. Now on to the substance of Bill C-3. It is interesting that we see an issue that Conservatives have actually talked a fair bit about and provinces have taken action on, and that is access to critical infrastructure. Almost all Canadians would agree that a health care professional going to work or a patient needing care should not be denied access to a hospital. I would hope that is simply common sense, although as I am often reminded by many, including my father, common sense seems to be not so common anymore. What I find interesting is that in the midst of this debate being part of this two-part bill, and I will get into that in a second, it is in the political interests of the Liberal government to now bring forward something that it saw a political opening for, whereas Conservatives had actually called for this sort of action when critical infrastructure had been placed at risk. Supply chains had been put at risk in the past, and a number of Conservative governments across the country have actually taken action to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected. I would suggest that is a good thing, although I do have a few concerns about some of the ambiguous wording. I found it interesting that the Liberals are quick to defend the appropriate balance that needs to be had to ensure freedom of speech but also to ensure safety of health care workers. I am glad that there are some Liberals who are encouraging that discussion to take place. Certainly, when it does not fit their political best interests, they will try to shout down any freedom of expression that they can. As this bill, I would suspect, goes to committee, it certainly is one of those issues that we need to keep at the front of our minds. Before I get into the substance of part two of this bill, I think it is interesting that we have what is kind of a mini piece of omnibus legislation. We have two very different subjects that are addressed within this one bill. I would suggest that this goes against, certainly the spirit, if not directly against what the Liberals promised back when they ran for election first in 2015. There are two very distinct issues, and I would certainly be encouraged if the Liberals were willing to send it to the two different committees where this could be addressed. When it comes specifically to the issue of paid sick leave, I have some very basic questions. How many people does this affect? One would think that, if the government is planning on implementing paid sick leave for all federally regulated industries within the country, that question would be one of the first to be answered. However, I have yet to hear a Liberal member articulate the answer to that question. There is some further ambiguity about what this actually applies to in terms of contractors or simply federally regulated services, but if a contractor works in a federally regulated service but that service itself is not regulated, what is the application? That is, quite frankly, why it is concerning that these two very distinct issues are put together in one bill. Had they been separate, it would have been certainly more—

1536 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 6:15:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, if that member can clearly articulate some of the questions I have expressed about this particular part of the legislation and is willing to see it split up and sent to both committees to be studied, he is absolutely right: Ottawa plays a role. I also hear daily from constituents, who are quite frankly sick and tired of hearing an Ottawa-knows-best strategy about all aspects of public policy within this country. There certainly is a great deal of frustration with how the Liberal government seems to only call for a team Canada approach when it has failed. I am fearful that is exactly what we are starting to see as this legislation goes through the process.

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 6:16:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. In fact, I find it tragically ironic that the day of the election was meant to be the day the House was back in session. That took weeks upon weeks, let alone the administration required to set up committees and whatnot. Even at this point, that sees us with only a few committees being set up and months of delays. This is in addition to the prorogation the Prime Minister promised he would never do and all of that, but the Liberals will say that is simply old news and it was different because they are Liberals. Delays have cost Canadians and have probably cost Canadians' lives. I would suggest that Canadians demand leadership. They certainly have not seen it from the Liberal government.

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 6:18:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I find it very troubling that we would have the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, playing into the divisive vaccine politics we saw during the election. This caused a level of division and, quite frankly, mistrust when it comes to such an important issue and is something that should have been the definition of not political. The government decided it was more important to play politics than to do what was right for Canadians. When it comes to the reality faced by so many Canadians, including workers, I find it rich that the NDP is standing up and saying it supports workers. Thousands of workers within my constituency are having their livelihoods shut out because of the activism of a Liberal-NDP coalition. In fact, more Canadians decided Conservatives would be a better option than any other party in this country when it came to a plan that would get our economy working again. It is unfortunate that the Liberals would rather play politics and put people out of work than stand up for what is best for Canadians.

181 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/6/21 6:20:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, if I said anything that was not true, I unreservedly apologize.

13 words

All Topics