SoVote

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

Jun/7/22 4:55:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. His colleague was very critical of Canada Infrastructure Bank, yet it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in many areas in the country, and in particular in Brampton, for example, where it is actually responsible for ensuring that they get electric buses.

62 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Jun/7/22 4:55:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I myself have not seen much in the way of positive outcomes from Infrastructure Bank of Canada projects. On the contrary, I think there are good reasons to get rid of it.

34 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 4:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying I will share my time this afternoon with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I think questions about affordability are good questions. I think most MPs here understand the reality of this problem in Canada and around the world. I am delighted to have the opportunity to engage in a debate about policies that can help Canadians. I will talk about this problem in general terms while also addressing the specific points in the opposition motion. First, I think it is important to recognize that there are several reasons for the inflation we are seeing in Canada and around the world, because inflation is a global problem. According to Statistics Canada, the country's inflation rate was 6.8% in April. I just want to point out that many other countries are in the same situation as us or even worse off. For example, in Germany, inflation is at 7.9%. In the eurozone in general, it is 8.1%. In the United States, it is 8.3%. In Spain, it is 8.7%. In the United Kingdom, it is 9%. I absolutely understand that inflation is a problem in Canada. My point is not to minimize its impact on Canadians, since all Canadians and all parliamentarians understand that it is a problem for everyone in the world. What is causing this phenomenon? There is no single reason for the situation we are in right now. There are several causes. The primary reason for inflation is of course the supply chain. That is a fact. During the pandemic, there were a lot of problems with the workforce and with the supply chain because of obstacles created by the health restrictions put in place to protect our collective health. Another reason for inflation is the labour shortage. According to Statistics Canada, during the last quarter of 2021, there were roughly one million job vacancies. This is a reality in every western country because of the demographic situation resulting from the current or imminent retirement of baby boomers. A third reason is the war in Ukraine, about which I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce a question just before my speech. The situation on the ground is terrible. The Russians are targeting infrastructure that is crucial for both the Ukrainians and the world. Yesterday we listened to testimony from Yulia Klymenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, on how Russian soldiers are targeting bridges, factories and grain storage facilities. This is also part of the problem. I objectively recognize that another partial reason for inflation is of course the money spent by governments around the world at the height of the pandemic, along with certain restrictions imposed for the sake of protecting our collective health. I could go on at great length about the initiatives that this government has taken on since 2015 in relation to affordability. I am proud of that record. I am happy to quickly highlight some of them, but I do want to get to the text of the motion so that we can debate what is before us today. The first thing this government did, I was not a part of. My honourable predecessor Scott Brison was in the House when the first thing the government did was lower income taxes for lower- and middle-income Canadians and raise them for higher-income Canadians. On child care, we were the government that has and will continue to deliver national child care. This is something that has been talked about at great length. We have already seen a 25% reduction, on average, of fees in my home province of Nova Scotia. Those are concrete measures that we have taken forward. I am a rural member of Parliament. We know the importance of supporting seniors. That is exactly why our government brought the old age security age for when someone will be eligible down from 67, to which the Conservatives proposed to raise it. We brought it back down to 65. We have also increased old age security by 10% for those who are 75 and older, and we have strengthened the guaranteed income supplement. The results have been telling. Nearly a million seniors were lifted out of poverty. That is under our watch, and they are affordability measures that matter. We have heard a lot about the Canada child benefit. We reformed a program that had previously targeted higher-income earners. I have heard, on the doorsteps, the difference that makes in the lives of vulnerable families and single mothers, and I think it is something that should be celebrated. I want to highlight a couple solutions I think would be important as a member of Parliament. I know the government is seized with the question, as many governments around the world are, on inflation. I want to talk about the GST on gasoline and diesel. I asked the member for Thornhill about this. I do not mind the measure. I just do not think it is targeted enough. When I go to fill up at the pumps, I am noticing it. It is up over $100 right now. That is largely tied to the global market, but I am very privileged and fortunate. Every member of Parliament has a basic indemnity here that is higher than the average Canadian salary. I personally do not think that those types of measures, which could help support affordability, should be targeted to high-income Canadians. I think we also have to be mindful of the fiscal framework. I love to see some of my Conservative colleagues talk about the government having to do something and that it has to be there to support vulnerable Canadians, but we cannot throw the fiscal framework out with the bath water. That is something I believe in and we have to be measured and responsible in terms of how we use public funds in the days ahead, not just give benefits to Canadians who really do not need them, objectively. Looking at considering removing or expanding the programs that exist right now that reduce or eliminate GST on home heating fuels for low-income Canadians is also a really good idea. At the end of the day, as a rural member of Parliament, rural Canadians are more vulnerable to some of the costs around home heating. Many rural Canadians have not been able to make the same transition to the types of home heating systems where fossil fuel is not used. As an example, in Nova Scotia, nearly 50% of residents still use home heating oil. That is going to be a challenge as we head back to the winter of 2023, and I think something targeted in this domain would be beneficial. Last would be the grocery code of conduct. This is something that is extremely beneficial to be looking at for food affordability. I have already touched on (a) of the Conservative motion. On carbon pricing, this is in place to try to help incentivize to reduce emissions. It is inherently a Conservative principle. I have chatted with some of my Conservative colleagues about why they do not like a market-based system that actually allows consumers to be able to make choices. I take notice that in certain provinces, because they have not stepped up with their own program, the federal backstop is sometimes clunky, but I do think this is something that needs to stay. On fertilizer, I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce about this. I think the tariff should stay. The government should be looking at ways to indemnify farmers and certainly that tariff has to stay to dissuade the importation of Russian fertilizer. On the mandates, I think, certainly, in a domestic sense, the government should continue to be looking at making adjustments for domestic travel. I will finish on that and take questions.

1315 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:06:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member one very specific question. The Liberal government has been talking today about employment stats and 3.5 million jobs created. He is talking about a lack of people to employ in jobs that are available. I am concerned that the government is overlooking a significant part of our population, and I would like to ask him if they are included in the statistics in regard to those who are unemployed. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were fired by the government or whose ability to earn an income for their family was impacted by the government's COVID policies. As well, they are denied the EI that they have paid into. I wonder if he is aware of the statistics in regard to how many Canadians do not have work and are not able to get a job.

149 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 5:07:24 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that whether someone is speaking in the House or virtually, if it is not time for them to raise their voice in the House, they should not be doing it. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

42 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 5:07:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that about 1% of federal civil servants have not been vaccinated. I think this policy was justified at the height of the pandemic. I think that as long as we continue to work ourselves out of the pandemic, from a legal perspective the government will have to look at adjusting the policies. She mentioned hundreds of thousands of people who have not been vaccinated. There are not those same principles in all workplaces, so I reject the premise that individuals cannot find employment in the country on the basis of their vaccination status. As it relates to federal jurisdiction, as I mentioned, the government will have to be mindful of whether there is a legal requirement to accommodate in the days ahead, particularly as we move forward and get beyond the height of the pandemic.

140 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Jun/7/22 5:08:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, clearly there are good things in the motion in question. We need to examine it more closely. There is a great deal of emphasis on the carbon tax, and therefore I am going to focus on something that the Bloc Québécois already criticized several weeks ago, namely the infamous 35% tax on everything purchased in fall 2021 or before March 2. The people of Laurentides—Labelle called my riding office to tell me that it is unfair and unjust, and it has a direct effect on inflation, which arrived quickly and will not be resolved. Given that even the official opposition mentioned this several times, what action will be taken to restore fairness to this situation?

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 5:09:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will state a few facts before answering the question. The Conservatives' current position is that the 35% tariff on fertilizer imported from Russia should be eliminated. In the case of farmers who purchased their fertilizer before the start of the war, that is the right thing to do, and I hope that the government will consider giving them a rebate. However, they must change their supply chain and look for other markets. I believe that buying fertilizer that costs less is a fair solution. I am of the opinion that after the war, however, we will have to keep the tariff and find other solutions for affordable imports.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/7/22 5:10:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians are going to the grocery store and to the gas pump, and they are seeing these eye-wateringly increased prices on the basic necessities. At the same time, the companies that sell those necessities are not simply passing along higher costs. They are also making dramatic profits. I am wondering if my colleague across the way could tell the House why his government has refused to consider a windfall profits tax on companies that are making dramatic profits, similar to the tax that the U.K. has put in place on oil and gas companies that are gouging consumers.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 5:11:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our government, in the budget of 2022, has introduced a higher rate for banking interests. We are looking at the grocery code of conduct. At the end of the day, there are a number of initiatives that the government is trying to take to create a balanced playing field. It may not be exactly what the member opposite is calling for, but the government is looking at a variety of options to try to make sure that those who have the propensity to pay are paying a more equitable share to support the programs that we all consider really important.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/7/22 5:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying, “Wow.” As if it were not enough that all of these items have already been dealt with in the House through various different opposition day motions over the last few months, the Conservatives have suddenly decided that it would be in their best interests to bring forward what the Conservative opposition leader referred to this morning as an omnibus motion. It is as though they do not actually think there is a chance that this would ever pass, yet they still bring it forward to the House in an attempt to do, I do not know what, because there are so many issues in here that anybody can literally get up and speak to. There is no ability to be concise and try to improve one policy or another. It is literally an airing of grievances, and it is so unfortunate to see the Conservative Party use its opposition day to do this. Having said that, I have been listening to the debate for the last several hours, and at the heart of the debate is affordability, which is a really good discussion and debate to have, so I will focus my comments primarily on the affordability issues right now and what I see as the difference between the government's position and the opposition's position in terms of how to deal with that. For starters it is very important to put on the record, and I know that several of my colleagues have done this today already, that the inflation problem we are seeing is not unique to Canada. As a matter of fact, Canada, among the developed countries, is toward the bottom in terms of the level of inflation. I am not suggesting for a second that it is acceptable in any way or that it is not creating a lot of hardships, because indeed it is, but it is important to address the problems in their totality. This brings me to a comment that was made earlier today by the member for Simcoe North. In response to my question about affordability and about inflation being a global problem, his response was basically that just because other countries have an inflation problem, the reason they are experiencing those problems is that they had the same monetary and fiscal policies throughout the pandemic that Canada had, which I found very fascinating. The member is basically telling the House that he disagrees with the position that developed countries throughout the world took in fighting against the economic hardships that were endured during the pandemic. It is what he basically said. It makes me reflect on where Conservatives would have preferred to see not just this government and Canada go, but indeed developed countries throughout the world during the pandemic. It is pretty clear through the member for Simcoe North's comments and what I have been hearing today, and for that matter over the last two years, that Conservatives would have preferred an approach that just left everybody to themselves to deal with their own individual hardships throughout the pandemic. Luckily, the Canadian government and governments throughout the developed world disagreed with the member and the Conservative Party when they decided it was in the better interests of Canadians and the western world to make sure that we invested in people to get through this pandemic. Did that lead to some issues with respect to supply chains and inflation? I think everyone can agree that to some degree those policies played a role. Now is the time for government, and we are seeing this throughout the western world, in developed countries and in Canada as well, to start developing and implementing new monetary policy to help deal with some of that inflation. I also found it very interesting when the member for Thornhill stood and somehow tried to suggest that when it comes to affordability, young Canadians are, in her words, fleeing Canada for “the British dream” and “the American dream”. Is the member for Thornhill not aware that the inflation rates in the U.S. and Britain are actually much higher? In fact, compared to Canada, which is at 6.8%, the inflation rate in the United States is at 8.3%, and in Britain it is 9%. This hyped-up rhetoric by the Conservatives to somehow try to suggest that this is a problem just within Canada and that only people living in Canada are experiencing it just is not the reality of the situation. That is quite obvious in the comments that have been made by the member for Thornhill and indeed other Conservatives. I also just cannot wrap my head around the fact that a member of Parliament would come in here and suggest it is the government's plan to make prices higher, that it is intentionally trying to make it more difficult for Canadians in terms of affordability. The member for Thornhill was asked a great question by the member for Kings—Hants and of course completely sidestepped it and did not address the question. The question she was asked by the member for Kings—Hants was why she thinks the GST should be eliminated for everybody. Would it not make more sense to ensure that any kind of reduction in taxes or rebates, however one would model it, was targeted at those who needed it the most? Indeed, the member for Kings—Hants was absolutely correct. I do not think any member of Parliament, knowing what our salaries are, really needs to have the GST eliminated from their purchases. I think the member for Thornhill would agree with that. Why she was unable to provide an answer to that question really hits at the heart of what the Conservative agenda is here. The agenda is to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. This is what Conservatives have always done. I hear the member for Regina—Lewvan laughing right now. I would encourage him to get up when it is question time and explain to the House and to me why it is that he, the member for Thornhill and Conservatives generally speaking are so much in favour of the idea of ensuring that he and I get GST tax cuts. That is exactly what they are asking for in this, so I would like the member from Regina, when the time comes, to explain to me why he thinks he and I should get a tax cut. I do not think we should. I do not think we need the GST eliminated from our purchases right now. I can definitely see the need for a good policy discussion on the many Canadians out there who are struggling, the ones who Conservatives get up on a daily basis and talk about. They refer to them by name quite often in the House and talk about how they are struggling with the increased prices at grocery stores. Those are the people who would benefit from the policy objectives the Conservatives are suggesting through the GST cut. It is not the member for Regina—Lewvan, the member for Thornhill, the member for Simcoe North or myself, yet they continue to promote that idea. I can respect the NDP's desire and passion to push forward the agenda when it comes to taxing businesses more that have made excess and huge profits during the pandemic. I respect that and agree with it, but I do not understand why they will not just accept the answer. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood stood up and answered the question from an NDP member directly, who then just stood up and asked it to another Liberal. We are already doing that. We have already increased the excess profits tax on companies that have made a windfall during the last two years. I know it is not enough, because the NDP's job is always to ask for more. It would not matter what was given; its members would want more. I get it. It is part of their job and I respect it, and I am sure they will continue to do that. I obviously will not be voting in favour of this. There is absolutely no way any Conservative is expecting any member in this House other than themselves to vote in favour of it. This brings me back to the beginning of my speech, which is to ask why they are bringing forward this motion they know will actually help nobody.

1432 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:21:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at all that the member opposite is so out of touch with Canadians. Is he unaware, for example, that his own Prime Minister said that higher gas prices are exactly what they want? Is he unaware that his government has put a carbon tax on that is 25% of that higher gas price, and that there is a tax on that? Is he unaware that when it comes to housing unaffordability in this country, supply and demand in housing are under his government's responsibility? It has been there for seven years and has not done a thing. Is he unaware?

107 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 5:22:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is suggesting that I am out of touch. That member and her party want a GST cut for everybody, including her, including me and including the people who are making ridiculous amounts of money right now as a result of going through the pandemic and the people who have experienced a lot of windfall from that. The reality of the situation is that we do not need a GST tax cut. I do not need it, and I will go out on a limb and suggest that she does not need it. However, there are people out there who do need supports, and that is where the government is focused. It is focused on providing support to the people who need it. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

131 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 5:22:56 p.m.
Watch

I know this is a very passionate debate, but, again, unless I have recognized members, they should not be speaking in the House. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Montcalm.

31 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/7/22 5:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while our public finances have posted huge deficits and SMEs have been forced out of business because of the pandemic, we have seen oil companies, multinationals and corporations making massive profits and, unfortunately, doing very little to pay their fair share of taxes. Since targeted measures will eventually have to be put in place to help people with affordability, does my colleague not find it shameful that oil companies heavily financed by the state and big Canadian banks are not paying their fair share because the government is not fighting tax havens and is therefore complicit in their use?

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 5:24:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for starters, about two weeks ago, I voted in favour of the NDP motion to eliminate the oil subsidies. I am not sure if this particular member did. I would totally agree with him. I do not disagree with him. There are other companies out there that have seen windfalls and huge profits during the last two years and that, quite frankly, through the proper policy, should be contributing more, in particular to assist those who are on the other end of the spectrum. We have to remember that what the pandemic has really done to our society and the fabric of our society is that it has driven the wedge between the haves and the have-nots further. I think we need to work on addressing that, instead of working on addressing how we get a GST cut for members of Parliament and everybody out there, in particular those who do not need it.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/7/22 5:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the U.K. has just announced a 25% windfall profits tax on the oil and gas sector. Suggesting that the current government is doing anything close to that is patently absurd. However, that is not my question. I have constituents, as I know the parliamentary secretary does, who have chosen not to get vaccinated. It is a choice I disagree with, but it is a choice they have made and I feel that I have a responsibility to answer their question. Here is the question they asked me: “How does preventing me from flying within Canada contribute to combatting the spread of COVID-19?” Could the parliamentary secretary explain it to them?

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 5:25:55 p.m.
Watch

No, I cannot explain that, Madam Speaker, because I am not a medical expert. I know that this particular member from the NDP has been playing this game lately of skating very close to that line of what his constituents and indeed his supporters would deem to be acceptable or not acceptable, but I would suggest to the member that it is in his best interest to listen to the advice of the experts. If we do not believe the experts and if we have lost faith in the institutions, as the Conservatives continually do, time and again, in questioning the institutions, which is extremely problematic for the democracy that we have, that is when we are going to run into a problem. I would encourage the member to be very careful about what he is doing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

142 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 5:26:39 p.m.
Watch

Again, I see there are additional voices rising during the responses. I hope the hon. members will ensure that the next speaker will have the attention of the House that she deserves. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

43 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:27:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Sarnia—Lambton. Once again, I find myself standing in this place, along with my Conservative colleagues, to speak on behalf of my constituents of Hastings—Lennox and Addington and on behalf of struggling Canadians who are concerned about the cost of living. Just this week in particular, one of my constituents posted this on her social media: “As per our weekend routine, today I went to fill up my car and buy groceries for our family. This routine normally costs around $300. Today it was $500. Seriously, how are people surviving right now? I don't normally get so shaken up about things like this, but we've been in a constant state of transition for three-plus years now, always pivoting, always trying to figure out a new plan for the way we do things. I know there were parents out there struggling before inflation, and I can't even imagine what is keeping you up at night now.” While the current government often hand-waves its role in inflation domestically, there is one area where it could make things better: lowering prices at the pumps for Canadians. They cannot wait until carbon tax rebate season for money to buy groceries and the medication they need today. Then again, I suppose the point of the tax is to make it prohibitively expensive to drive. Of course, this completely ignores the plight of rural Canadians, who literally depend on a vehicle in order to survive. The carbon tax is only driving up fuel prices and is disabling business owners in my riding. That is why the Conservatives tried to put a halt to the bleeding by introducing an opposition day motion to reduce prices by 5%. Sadly, it was not supported. In March of this year, while speaking to that motion, I urged the members of this place to consider the official opposition's realistic, tangible and direct solutions for Canadians suffering from high prices. I noted that, up until that date, this legislature's reaction to those gas price increases was completely inadequate. Two and a half months later, nothing has changed, except that the price of gas continues to rise. In a few short weeks, this House will adjourn for summer recess while we go home to our respective ridings to work locally. As a legislature, we will have no capacity to provide relief for single parents, low-income families, seniors or small businesses. They will face continuing increases on groceries, gas and the basic necessities of life. In my humble opinion, this country is spinning in a downward spiral and we need leadership. We need to provide something to Canadians so they do not feel abandoned for the next two and a half months. Today, in our motion, we are offering a chance to put politics aside and deliver the relief that Canadians need. Every single day, I speak to constituents in my riding. They are worried. They are having trouble sleeping. People just do not feel like they can get ahead. Young families are being busted apart because of financial stress. Too many seniors are feeling helpless and ignored, and their quality of life is failing. On top of that, food insecurity is staring people in the face. On this side of the House, we have been trying in vain to provide some sort of relief, to no avail. I know my hon. colleagues have already pointed this out, but I feel it necessary to reiterate. As previously stated, when gas prices continued to increase, we asked that the government suspend the GST on fuel to give Canadians a break. We asked again for relief for Canadians by suspending the carbon tax increase on April 1, and we also asked that the tariff on fertilizer bought before March 2 be removed in order to help our agricultural producers. I recognize that it can be difficult for some people to accept a good idea when it comes from somebody else. Perhaps that is why the government stubbornly refused to follow through with the previous government's decision to purchase the F-35s, despite everyone, apart from the lobbyists working for competitors, knowing it was the right decision. Barb aside, I implore the government and this House to take substantive, meaningful and timely action to help Canadians out, because they cannot afford to wait. I know that I am not the only one seeing regular, everyday Canadians struggle with the cost of living. We in this chamber have a tremendous responsibility. It is enormous, but we must also never forget the people who sent us here. Canadians are suffering with the high cost of fuel, food and housing. The taxpayers who put the confidence in us to be in this place do not get a housing allowance. They do not have travel points and they cannot claim any meal allowance. It is no wonder that many Canadians are losing faith in their elected officials. They turn on the news and see the highlights of question period, which often is little more than theatre. I suppose this is the natural result of a legislature that puts more focus on communication and sound bites instead of good policy. A very wise man, if at times a very difficult man, saw this trend starting in the 1980s. The late member for Yukon and deputy prime minister, Erik Nielsen, lamented this shift to focus on commentary, interviews and opinion papers. The sound bite was the goal, not the substance of the discussion. Nuance was dying in front of his eyes, and in his autobiography, he tried to warn us. In a similar vein, the individual who gave the inaugural televised speech in the U.K. House of Commons, Ian Gow, said in November 1989: I have always voted against the televising of the proceedings of this House, and I expect that I always will. The brief intervention earlier of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did nothing to alter my view. Despite my strongly held opinions, a letter that I received—three weeks ago—I believe that a copy was sent to each of us and possibly even to you, Mr. Speaker—made the following preposterous assertion: “The impression you make on television depends mainly on your image (55 per cent) with your voice and body language accounting for 38 per cent of your impact. Only 7 per cent depends on what you are actually saying.” This is sad. While Ian Gow and, indeed, the entirety of the Parliament at the time thought those claims preposterous, there is no denying that the quality of debate and the level of co-operation have declined and been largely replaced with imagery, with theatre. A cursory reading of the historical Hansards will show this. The fact that the NDP felt it necessary to surrender its money-scrutinizing authority to the Liberal government in order for a promise shows this. Every single person in this room, including my good friends on our side of the House, needs to do the job we were sent here to do: to work with other parties and fight for the best interests of all Canadians. I ask my colleagues across the aisle to please exercise a minimal amount of humility. Adopting this Conservative opposition day motion would do just that.

1245 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 83