SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Mar/24/22 3:16:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I am rising to add to my point of order of Tuesday afternoon and further to the intervention by the member for La Prairie yesterday concerning the coalition agreement between the Liberal and New Democratic parties. Firstly, a timely ruling is essential and today is the last day of the supply period, which means that a new one starts tomorrow. That means we need to know how the eight opposition days this spring will be distributed. Of course, we have question period every day where ministers now receive eight lob questions from two government parties, instead of the typical three lob questions daily. Then there is the matter of the Liberals' coalition partner being stationed in the opposition lobby behind me right in between the Conservative and Bloc sections. This all needs to be addressed, and I say that respectfully. The Speaker is recovering from surgery and I did hear from him today. It sounds like he is doing well and we are all thankful for that. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Mr. John Brassard: I know the House is unanimous in wishing him a complete and speedy recovery, but we cannot wait for his return for a ruling, nor would we wish to stress or tax him with these matters. Subsection 43(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act vests you, Mr. Speaker, with full and adequate authority to address this matter. It states: Whenever the House of Commons is informed of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker thereof by the Clerk at the table, the Chairman of Committees, if present, shall take the chair and perform the duties and exercise the authority of Speaker in relation to all the proceedings of the House, as Deputy Speaker Secondly, there is the matter of full disclosure of this agreement. My counterpart from the Bloc Québécois put it bluntly yesterday, saying, “The news releases bore the same titles and were identical.” Was it pure fluke and coincidence that both parties each managed to issue identical-looking press releases at the same time of day? We both know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that there were a lot of emails, text messages and the like flying around about this agreement to coordinate that much. It would not shock me to hear that there may even be some emails or memos that demonstrate how both sides interpret and understand the terms of their backroom deal. Would you be able to indicate whether it would be helpful for you in approaching your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to know whether there are any signed versions of this agreement or additional side deals? I expect that you would and I expect that to be so. This was a government that claimed to believe in the principle of “open by default”. If ever there was a time to show that it means it, it is when it has entered into a unprecedented power grab arrangement to govern Canada. Transparency and openness used to be watchwords for the NDP. I hope that they still are. Therefore, in the interests of transparency and openness, I am calling upon the government to make full disclosure to the House and to all Canadians by tabling all relevant documents concerning the negotiation of this unprecedented agreement and, in the meantime and in closing, I would ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, copies of the press releases issued Tuesday morning by the Prime Minister's Office and the New Democratic Party, so that you formally have before you, Mr. Speaker, the versions those parties have chosen to let Canadians see.

622 words

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

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

Mar/24/22 3:20:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point of order. It is surprising to me that the House leader of the official opposition is doubling down on something that he knows is fundamentally incorrect. For him to come into the House and pretend that this is a coalition government when, as a new member of Parliament, he received the information that clearly identifies what a coalition government is and what things like “confidence and supply” mean. As we know, earlier today we outlined the many cases in Canada and worldwide where confidence and supply agreements have been put into place. At no point have we had parties actually trying to punish other parties for doing the right thing, and this is indeed what the House leader of the official opposition is attempting to do. He should be thanking us, as 30,000 people in Barrie—Innisfil will have access to dental care because of this agreement. The reality is that what we are doing is in the interests of his constituents as well. He does not need to thank the NDP, but what he does need to do is acknowledge the fact that this is a confidence and supply agreement that has no impact at all on the Standing Orders and the regular processes under which we operate. He has asked for information on the agreement. It is freely available online, as we know. I offered, earlier today, to send him a copy. He has not asked me for that. This is a frivolous and really vexatious attempt to take away time from the House of Commons. I think it is very clear that this holds no water whatsoever.

281 words

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/24/22 5:00:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things we saw early in this pandemic was that rather than having domestic production of vaccines, the Liberal-NDP coalition decided to raid the COVAX group and take away from countries that desperately needed it. What I would like to see, and what members on this side of the House would like to see, is an improvement in being able to produce more vaccines domestically so that we have a little more protection when it comes to the future of Canada's health.

88 words

All Topics