SoVote

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 10:14:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise virtually today to present a petition on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who are concerned about the climate emergency and who were inspired by Seth Klein's book A Good War. These petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that would reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, to make significant contributions to emission reductions in countries in the global south, to create good, green jobs and drive an inclusive workforce and to expand the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding, among other things. I am thankful for the opportunity to present this petition.

119 words

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

Mar/24/22 10:15:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

24 words

Stand

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/24/22 10:16:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise briefly in the House today to comment on the point of order raised by the member for Barrie—Innisfil earlier this week. The point of order was raised again—unfortunately, in my opinion—by the member for La Prairie. I am sure all members are aware of the subject of these points of order, which I consider frivolous. Nevertheless, I will address some of the points that were raised. My Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues have clearly—perhaps even deliberately—misunderstood the nature of the historic agreement that will enable us to deliver exceptional results for all Canadians. The Conservatives' and Bloc's entire argument rests on an erroneous depiction of this confidence and supply agreement, which they are incorrectly calling a “coalition agreement”. I would like to remind those members that confidence and supply agreements are not coalition governments, and the U.K.'s Institute for Government distinguishes very clearly between coalitions and mere confidence and supply agreements, as follows: Confidence and supply agreements, made publicly available, can provide for stable government that can operate without fear of defeat on key votes in exchange for specific policy and procedural concessions, and on the basis that support parties are consulted and kept informed of government plans. They do not, of course, guarantee majority support for the entirety of a government’s legislative programme, so ongoing negotiations are needed to enable the government to get its business through. But they do allow the main party to hold all the ministerial posts...and to control the policy agenda more extensively than when power is shared in coalition. For smaller parties, such agreements offer the opportunity to achieve certain cherished policy objectives and earn political credit for that. They must commit to backing the government on [certain] votes, including on often politically difficult budget plans, but they do not have to make the more extensive across-the-board compromises of coalition, allowing them to preserve their distinct identity. One need only look at the details of the agreement, which was made public, to see that it is a confidence and supply agreement, not a coalition. Under the terms of the agreement, the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters in exchange for concrete progress in various policy areas. The NPD remains as an independent party and an independent caucus, and continues to approach individual legislative items on a case-by-case basis and hold the government to account. There are no cabinet posts for the NDP. Several examples of such agreements can be found at the provincial level, and each of these legislatures has recognized the parties' right to maintain their own structure and the processes to which they are entitled in opposition. In British Columbia, the Green Party was actually given more committee seats and status as a consequence of the confidence and supply agreement, which stated: Both caucuses recognize that, in order to promote greater stability, the government must be able to negotiate with the three BC Green Party MLAs as a single, recognized caucus. Similarly, to be a credible partner and fulfill the responsibilities that will be required of them, the BC Green MLAs require access to legislative tools that are only available to recognized political parties and sufficient support staff. In Yukon, the Yukon NDP sits as its own caucus and is afforded all the rights and privileges accorded to opposition caucuses. Several examples also exist in other countries, and I would specifically point to the confidence and supply agreements that have been negotiated in countries that use the Westminster parliamentary system. In the United Kingdom, in 1977, the Labour Party was able to stay in power thanks to a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal Party. In return, the Labour Party agreed to make political concessions to the Liberal Party. In 2017, the Conservative Party won a minority government and entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. In Australia, in 2010, the Australian Labor Party formed a minority government and entered into a confidence and supply agreement with three independent MPs and one Green MP. In all of these examples, the opposition parties retained their full rights and powers to hold the government to account. In New Zealand, as noted previously by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the confidence and supply agreement saw Green Party members enter cabinet and still treated as an opposition party within Parliament. Confidence and supply arrangements are common in New Zealand due to the mixed member proportional representation system that is used there. Conservative and Bloc House leaders are wondering what is in the agreement. It is freely available online and I, of course, would be more than pleased to offer them a copy of the agreement. What is in the agreement? There is a historic expansion of our health care system to include dental care right across the country, which is important for more than 10 million Canadians. It includes the passing of the Canada pharmacare act, finally, for 10 million Canadians who cannot afford their medication. It includes historic investments in affordable housing for the first time since the ending of the national housing program decades ago. It includes significant investments for indigenous-led affordable housing. It includes just transition legislation to combat climate change, anti-scab legislation to protect workers and much more. In conclusion, I hope the Speaker will rapidly rule on this and remind the Conservative and Bloc House leaders that a confidence and supply agreement is not a coalition government. This agreement is clearly in the interest of Canadians.

952 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/24/22 10:22:45 a.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his intervention.

7 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/24/22 10:23:00 a.m.
Watch

moved:

1 words

Mar/24/22 10:23:00 a.m.
Watch

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/24/22 10:24:02 a.m.
Watch

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2022, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now? Some hon. members: Agreed.

50 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:24:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on this important issue. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who will also speak to the importance of today's motion. The Conservatives have brought forward this motion calling on the government to end all federal vaccine mandates now. After two years of Canadians doing all that was asked of them, including following the rules and being in lockdown, unable to visit their family or travel, the effects of these restrictions exacerbated the mental health challenges of many Canadians and was incredibly difficult for those who are on the margins of our society. These restrictions also caused delays and the postponement or cancellation of diagnostic screening appointments and treatments, leaving patients lacking for care. Canadians did everything that was asked of them, even boasting some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, but we cannot live under these restrictions indefinitely. When we look to countries around the world, our allies, and provinces across this federation, they are ending the mandates. Every province in this country, following the advice of their chief medical officer of health, has either lifted the mandates or has publicly released their plan to lift the mandates. However, Ottawa, which is governed by this NDP-Liberal coalition, is not following medical science; rather, it is looking to the political science it has used to divide Canadians and communities at a time when we have needed real leadership. I want to take members back to the beginning of this pandemic, when members on this side of the House, without wavering and without hesitation, were prepared to support reasonable efforts to make sure we could get Canada in a position to manage the great unknown at the time, which we now know to have been COVID‑19. Co-operation and collaboration were the name of the game. However, as we moved through the pandemic, we saw many examples of the Prime Minister taking every opportunity as a political opportunity. Even in those early days, when we looked to offer unwavering support to Canadians, the Prime Minister looked to undertake a historic power grab that would have given the government the ability to tax and spend without parliamentary oversight for two years. We then heard unbelievable language from the Prime Minister in the intervening period, calling people misogynists or racists if they did not agree with his policies on COVID‑19. Recently, we heard condemnation, not just from across Canada, but from around the world, for this type of divisive language. In all of these examples, he was not making decisions based on science. Therefore, when we are having this discussion today, I encourage all hon. members to ask the government which federal agencies and which doctors called for these mandates, these lockdowns, and the vaccine and mask mandates that the federal government is responsible for. Now, we know that 10 out of 10 doctors in the provinces agree, and all provincial chief medical officers of health agree, on the medical science that says it is safe to lift these requirements. Canadians are rightly confused. People can go into a sporting venue in this country and sit shoulder to shoulder with neighbours and members of their community, people who they have been hoping to see for two years, wearing the same jerseys and cheering on a sports team without proof of vaccination or a mask required, because the top doctors in all of the provinces have said it is safe to do that. The Prime Minister is saying that while people can sit together in a theatre with their families, neighbours and members of the community to enjoy an experience they have not had in a long time, and watch a movie together without proof of vaccination and without wearing a mask because it is safe to do, they cannot get on a VIA train or a plane for 30 minutes or 10 minutes unless they show both of those things. Today, I hope members in this place ask members of the government what the federal government knows. What science is the federal government withholding from the chief medical officers of health for all of the provinces? What science does the federal government have access to that it is not sharing with our international allies that shows that it is unsafe? We know that the government will not give an answer. It may reply and it may try to scare Canadians, but that is more of that fear and division that it is trying to sow on this issue. Again, we are one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. Canadians did their part. They did what was asked of them, but that was not enough. Instead, the government looks to turn the screws on members of the federal public service, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and federally regulated employees. Even today, in every provincial jurisdiction where they all work, the chief medical officers of health, following the science, have said that it is safe to gather and work without those vax mandates and mask mandates. The government has not said it is going to offer those folks their jobs back. It has not given them a path to re-entry, and to what end? What is the benefit to Canadian society when these people are unable to provide for their families? After offering themselves in service to this country in the federal public service, and members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police putting on a uniform, they were unceremoniously booted from their jobs and told they did not have a right to provide for their families anymore because the Prime Minister saw a great political opportunity. Let us take a new opportunity today to follow the medical science, to listen to those chief medical officers of health across the country, including in the province where this place is located. People can gather at an arena with friends and family unmasked and without that vax passport. Why is the government saying that it knows better than the experts and the physicians: the top physicians in our province? Canada's Conservatives are going to stand up for Canadians. We are going to stand up for the science. We are going to stand up for what is right. It is time to end the mandates.

1085 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 10:33:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult time with the motion that has been proposed by the Conservative Party. What I have found is that this is a party that has been absolutely inconsistent on this issue. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus one actually talks to. That will determine whether they are progressive or conservative in their approach. The only party that has been consistent from day one is the Liberals: the Prime Minister and the government of Canada have said that we are going to listen to science, listen to health experts and follow the advice that we are being given by professionals. The Conservatives would not even listen to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who suggested that the Conservative caucus should all be vaccinated. They are still not all vaccinated. I wonder this. Could the member inform the House what percentage of the Conservative caucus today is actually vaccinated?

154 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:35:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, 100% of Conservatives are following the science that the chief medical officers of health in their provinces prescribed. I hear the member opposite saying it is a joke. The member for Kingston and the Islands is saying that Dr. Kieran Moore is a joke, but we follow the science that he has offered.

55 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/24/22 10:35:34 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, rising on a point of order, Dr. Kieran Moore is an incredible doctor who came from the city of Kingston. I revere him and hold him to be in the highest position. For this member to suggest that I think he is a joke is ridiculous.

48 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:35:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member does not want to stand behind his heckles and wants to rise, but that is exactly what he said. The member for Kingston and the Islands saying that Dr. Kieran Moore is a joke is something that we do not agree with.

46 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/24/22 10:36:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never said that Dr. Kieran Moore was a joke. Why does this member keep repeating that? I did not, Mr. Speaker, and I think you know that and everybody else in the House knows that.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/24/22 10:36:17 a.m.
Watch

This is why heckling sometimes does not work for all of us. Let us just try to keep the heckles down. This goes for all sides of the House this morning. Let us try to keep it down to the occasional smart heckle and keep the roar down so that we can get this debate through. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

69 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:36:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, the member for Kingston and the Islands has just said he could do that all day. While you were ruling and advising members of the House to return to order, the member for Kingston and the Islands said he would do it all day. The chair had pronounced on the matter and called members to order and this member effectively challenged the chair in doing that.

74 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/24/22 10:37:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how what the member just said is a point of order. What I said is that I could argue this issue with him all day long, and I will. I will be here all day long—

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/24/22 10:37:25 a.m.
Watch

We have not been in a point of order since this started. This is debate among members. I thought it would be best to just remind everyone to keep the decorum in the House so that we can continue on with debate. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

55 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:37:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, 100% of members of the Conservative caucus support the advice of Dr. Kieran Moore and their provincial medical officers of health. That is 100% of them. We are not hearing any disagreement. Where is the evidence that the Liberals are offering? They were gesturing to doctors in their caucus. I would like those doctors to stand up and say that they disagree with the science that says it is safe to end the mandates.

76 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/24/22 10:38:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we agree with some of the things that were just said, including the politicization of the crisis by the Liberal government. We also agree that we are all fed up with the restrictions and this crisis in general. As our official opposition colleagues know, when they moved a motion on February 10 to force the government to present a timeline for lifting restrictions and a plan for reopening, we voted in favour. However, presenting a plan and a timeline means setting out specific dates for the different stages, including which restrictions will be lifted when. What happened in a few short weeks for the official opposition to go from a progressive reopening timeline, with dates determined in a rational manner like the provinces are doing, to an immediate lifting of all restrictions?

135 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 10:39:24 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we proposed that motion at the beginning of February calling for a timeline, we gave the government ample opportunity. Of course, seeing the reasonableness of the proposal, we are happy to see that the member's party supported it. Now, we are nearing two months since that time. It has been a month and a half since then, and the provinces continue to accelerate the lifting of their mandates. We have parliamentary secretaries and the Minister of Seniors who could not even handle that I was calling for the federal government to follow the science and reduce the harm that their divisiveness is causing Canadians. Now we are asking the federal government to simply apply the provincial standards that have been adopted, which saw the end to masking and vax mandates.

134 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 45