44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/22/22 11:03:57 a.m.
- Watch
This becomes a point of debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, questions and comments.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his recent victory.
What we are fully aware of, and I think Canadians are quite aware of it as well, is that during his leadership contest, the member started off by talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a solution for people to invest.
I already hear the heckles coming from across the way because they do not want me to bring this up, but I have a sincere question for the Leader of the Opposition.
He started to change his position on it and pretty much stopped talking about it right around the time that cryptocurrencies took an absolute dive and anybody who was investing would have seen their investments absolutely devastated. Therefore, I have a genuine question for the Leader of the Opposition.
Has he had an opportunity to reflect on that position and perhaps has he evolved his position on that and would he be willing to share that with the House?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the only way for all Canadians to avoid inflation is for the government to stop causing it in the first place. The Canadian dollar is the only national currency and will always be the only national currency of our country. Unfortunately, the government is devaluing the purchasing power of that currency.
With a half-trillion dollars of inflationary deficits, it has driven inflation to its highest levels in 40 years. It has doubled housing prices, which has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar in terms of real estate by half, That is what we have to fix. We need to reinforce the power of the Canadian dollar by cancelling the inflationary deficits and inflationary taxes that have caused this inflation crisis in the first place.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the new leader of the Conservative Party on his election. I just want to remind him, however, that the leadership race is over and that we are debating Bill C‑31.
This bill is yet another federal encroachment on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, which brings me to the subject of health transfers.
My colleague's speech was very long indeed, but it did not include a single word about health transfers. I have been here for three years, and every time I ask Conservative members a question about health transfers, I get the same meaningless answer. They say they are going to sit down with the premiers and then make a decision. The problem is that the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have already sat down together and have already figured out that they need health transfers to go up to 35%.
Now that the Conservative Party has a new leader, will it finally commit to giving Quebec and the provinces the 35% health transfer increase they want? Is the party ready to provide a meaningful answer? Does it have a different answer now?
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is right about the fact that the Liberals are creating new programs when they cannot even manage the existing ones. Our health care system is already in crisis, and the federal government has done nothing to fix it. The government is doing nothing to protect our borders from people crossing illegally and from gun smugglers. This government cannot even issue passports.
Why should we believe that this government can manage the housing crisis and dental benefits? A government that cannot assume its existing responsibilities should not be taking on new ones.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too offer my congratulations to the Conservatives' new leader. I am a little perplexed, though, because in his 20-minute speech, we did not hear a single mention of dental care, one of the major components of the legislation we are debating this morning.
I have heard from constituents, seniors, who cannot chew their food; from parents who cannot afford to get their kids the basic dental care they need; and from people who work in dental offices, who see everyday Canadians who cannot afford the procedures they need.
A year ago, the Conservatives voted against our motion to create a national dental care plan. I am wondering if the leader of the official opposition intends to continue that legacy.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is quite right to say that Canadians are suffering under the policies that he is supporting. He is a part of that costly coalition.
Everything that is happening in Canada is the paradise for which the NDP has been dreaming of all these years. They are now realizing all of the policies they always wanted. Basically, we have an NDP prime minister. What has that given us? Forty year highs in inflation, double the housing prices, record-low home ownership rates, people who, like the member said, cannot afford the basics of life. That is the consequence of that costly coalition of bigger government and smaller citizens whereby Canadians are carrying this heavy load.
Here is the question. Why would we trust the government to create new programs when it cannot run the programs it already has? It cannot protect our borders. It cannot keep out the guns. It cannot stop the crime even though the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility. It cannot even deliver a passport. How can we expect it to run our lives?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my congratulations as well to the leader of the official opposition.
I understand that he is concerned with the rising cost of housing, particularly for young folks. On that we can agree. However, in his speech, he skipped right over institutional investors, pension funds and real estate investment trusts that are treating the housing market like stocks, making huge profits on the backs of young people and other low-income folks for whom he says he wants to stand up.
Does he agree that homes should be places where people live and not treated as commodities in which that folks trade? Is he not also concerned that there is nothing in the bill to address that, like removing preferential tax treatment for real estate investment trusts?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that institutional investors have been able to outbid everyday working-class Canadians for housing. Why? Because the government flooded the financial system with $400 billion of newly created cash. When it pumped that cash into the financial system, it went into mortgage lending. Who is preferred to borrow that money? Wealthy, well-connected institutional investors. They got their hands on that money and they used it to bid up housing prices out of the reach of the working class, meaning that young people, who not long ago would have been able to afford a home, are now permanent renters.
We need to change this system. We need to stop the money printing, ensure that we have a financial and monetary system based on hard, sound money.
Finally, we need to incentivize local government gatekeepers to get out of the way, deliver faster and more affordable building permits, so we can get houses built for our youth.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the official leader of our opposition for not only winning our Conservative leadership race recently, but also for laying out a clear vision as to how we can actually fix all of the problems created by the Liberal government.
It seems like we have seen this movie before. I look back to when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada and we saw inflation go out of control, because of out-of-control government spending and skyhigh interest rates. I bought my first chunk of farm land back in 1984 and I paid 21.5% interest on my mortgage. That was because of irresponsible Liberal government programs and increased money being spent, which affected our economy.
Is this a problem again of Liberal times always being tough times? Does the official leader of the opposition think that this is again, like father, like son?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are like the Bourbon dynasty: They learn nothing and forget nothing. They are right back to the same policies.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran monstrous money-printing deficits. Of course, that led to 12% inflation, 12% unemployment and then ultimately 19% or 20% interest rates. If we combine unemployment and inflation, we get the misery index. It reached a record-smashing 24% under the first Trudeau, which delivered the highest suicide rates in Canadian history in 1983.
My earliest memories are of that time, and my parents suffered because, while they were school teachers and did not lose their jobs, they got hit with those interest rate hikes just like everyone else and lost their rental properties. We ended up having to move to a smaller place because of that. We were among the lucky since we were able to get into a home.
We are following the same policies. We have 40-year highs of inflation. Inflation is higher than at any time since the last Trudeau. If we do the same things, we get the same results.
The good news is that after Canada was liberated from Pierre Elliot Trudeau, we spent a lot of years doing the exact opposite: shrinking the size of government, reforming our taxes, opening up our economy and standing up for working-class people. That is exactly what we are going to do again, and we are going to get even better results next time.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:12 a.m.
- Watch
We have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to interrupt today's debate, but this is an important question of privilege. I will be as brief as possible.
I rise on a question of privilege regarding threatening comments made by Mr. Dale Smith, an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, following a question I raised in the House yesterday. I am raising this issue as soon as possible after having been made aware of these comments.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Smith posted the following comments on Twitter yesterday: “Genuis tries to includes lyrics from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in his question, and I cannot adequately tell you how lame it is. When horses are this lame, you shoot them. #QP.”
Mr. Smith said he thought I was lame, and that when horses are lame, we shoot them. This is not normal political discourse, and I ask how I should respond to a comment like that. Some would say, “Oh, surely he was joking.” However, the problem with so-called jokes implying threats toward public officials is that as the target of these comments, I am somehow supposed to understand and be okay with a threat on the basis of someone's presumed intentions. I am just not okay with this.
If there is context to such a threat, not everyone is going to understand that context. Mr. Smith has 26.3 thousand Twitter followers. His tweet about me has, at the moment, 122 retweets and 824 likes. The process by which violence is incited against public officials is one in which comments are made that do incite violence that may or may not be serious, but then others pick up on them.
Furthermore, I do not think I should have to explain to my wife, my five young children or my parents what level of risk is associated with a violent comment like this. The plain language is going to be interpreted a certain way, especially by those who are close to me.
In the current climate, we should all know the risks associated with explicitly inciting violence against public officials. There is significant precedent for recognizing threats against members as constituting a violation of privilege. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells of an incident in 1758 when the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.
In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of Debates, stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”
On February 6, 1984, the member for Peace River rose on a question of privilege arising out of a telephone conversation between a member of his staff and an official in the office of the president of Canada Post Corporation. The member alleged that the official had been abusive. The official complained that the member for Peace River's office had not cleared questions asked by the member in the House with the president's office and warned that if this was not done in the future, the member could expect little co-operation from Canada Post.
The member for Peace River argued that this was an attempt to inhibit his freedom of speech, influence his actions in the House and hamper him in his role as spokesman for the official opposition. The Speaker, on February 20, 1984, ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way: “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a Member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no Member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”
All of these past cases involved a threat from a person who did not have parliamentary access. Mr. Smith is currently an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, which gives him relatively unfettered access to the Hill. He may be up in the press gallery some time today. He may follow me in the halls or hang around outside our caucus room waiting for me. I should not have to consider whether or not I will encounter someone who has made a threat to me in the halls of Parliament. That current reality of access impacts my ability to perform my functions as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Smith is an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, and the gallery has its own policies and its own responsibilities. The press gallery's own website says the following regarding “Generally Accepted Journalistic Principles and Practices”:
Misuse of this access by any one member or member organization could erode the professional relationship that exists between the institution of Parliament and the Parliamentary Press Gallery, leading to negative consequences for the ability of members to perform their work.
As a result, accreditation is a privilege—not a right.
Madam Speaker, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of members, and I have no doubt that you will discharge that responsibility promptly and properly.
The press gallery also has responsibilities, and I would like to see the gallery take swift action to revoke Mr. Smith's privileges. This is an opportunity for the gallery to show that they do take seriously the issue of threats made against public officials. At the very least, Mr. Smith's privileges should be immediately suspended pending further review. I do not want to see a person who has made threats against me in the gallery anytime today or in the future.
I note that today, Mr. Smith is doubling down on his comments and accusing those who raise concerns about this behaviour of so-called rage farming. He has made it clear that he does not see his behaviour as wrong and that he will not relent.
I hope that all members of the House, along with the many principled and thoughtful members of the press, will be able to stand together in denouncing these kinds of threats and in defending our democracy and the security of public officials from these kinds of statements.
While in this case it is my privileges that have been violated, I know that politicians and journalists receive these kinds of threats in other contexts. This case is fairly unique because of the prominence and position of the person making the comments. When people like Mr. Smith make comments like this, it gives other people a feeling of licence to behave in the same way. Under these circumstances, and for the good of all members, the press gallery and the House must take a clear stand.
Madam Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
1106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:21:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the question of privilege by my hon. colleague, I rise in my capacity as the shadow minister for public safety to add to his remarks about a tweet sent out last night from a member of the parliamentary press gallery who insinuated that my hon. colleague should be shot dead. This is incredibly serious and I would ask that you give it your full attention and investigate further measures that can be taken.
This comes at a time when we are increasingly aware of threats of violence against members of Parliament and politicians of all stripes at all levels of government. This comes at a time when female journalists have felt brave enough to speak out against the violence they are receiving online. This comes at a time when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was threatened very aggressively and harassed over the summer when she was touring Canada.
This comes at a time when politicians have all experienced an aggressive person at the door, at events or when walking down the street, and we stay quiet. We do not want to seem like we are whining. We do not want to complain about it, and we certainly do not want to encourage others to act in a threatening manner.
I can say that I have certainly been threatened. I have certainly been aggressively pursued and shouted at by people far larger and more intimidating than me. We try to slip away. We try not to encourage them. We shrink ourselves down and try to remove ourselves from the violent situation. However, as the shadow minister for public safety, I feel that I have a strong responsibility to stand up against the bully who insinuated violence against my colleague.
We know in the House that we are going to encounter a lot of criticism, sometimes very personal criticism, and we just have to take it with a stiff upper lip; we all do. However, when someone insinuates that we should be shot dead, a very clear line in the sand must be drawn and must be drawn immediately and clearly.
This individual in particular is a member of the notable parliamentary press gallery of Canada, which is supposed to have the highest ethical standards of journalism in this country. They are supposed to lead by example. Just as we have a public obligation, they have a public obligation. They have a responsibility to investigate this in full. They have a responsibility to lead by example and send a message that this is completely unacceptable.
As my colleague mentioned as well, this man who sent the tweet out insinuating that my dear colleague should be shot dead for his question in question period yesterday could be up in this gallery today looking down at me, looking down at my colleagues, looking down at Liberal members, NDP members, Bloc members and Green members. When members get up with their courage to ask a question to the best of their ability, that man could be tweeting out criticism and insinuating that they should be shot dead in a tweet. That is unacceptable behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that you ensure this is quickly and swiftly investigated in full, and I would appreciate if the strongest consideration was given that the individual be banned from West Block, that a discussion be had with the parliamentary press gallery and that he be removed from the parliamentary press gallery pending further review or permanently.
584 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:24:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue, which really affects us all. It was directed at him, and I certainly sympathize with how that must have felt, to see that member of the press gallery openly calling for him to be shot after he did not like the question that was asked.
I would like to point out that, as we move around the very building we are in right now, we can see that the House administration has put up signs in every hallway and near every entrance to stop harassment. They are signs with a big red stop sign that encourage all who work here, staff, MPs and visitors, to stop and call out incidents of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation. I just wanted to flag that.
We have all been seized with this, as an institution, over the last few years, and members must, after every election, take training to make sure we are aware of the very highest standards of professionalism as to how we conduct ourselves individually, how we structure our offices and how we expect our staff to interact with each other. We gladly do that. In fact, members of Parliament from all parties got together to enhance the code of conduct for members and their staff.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, there is a direct relationship with the parliamentary press gallery. Its members' accreditations for security run through the House administration. I believe it is entirely reasonable for you and the Speaker's office to look into this matter to find a prima facie case of privilege. To not find a question of privilege, I believe, would seriously undermine the efforts that are constantly being made to make this building and this environment more safe and secure.
I sincerely hope that you, Madam Speaker, will find for my hon. colleague's question of privilege.
318 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:26:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise here as a member of Parliament, but first and foremost as a man and a citizen of this world. As a citizen, what I saw yesterday was completely unacceptable. We see intimidation all around us, but I do not recall ever seeing it this bad.
I am also speaking as a former journalist. I was a journalist for 20 years, including six years as a parliamentary reporter at the National Assembly. I even served as president of the National Assembly's parliamentary press gallery for over a year. I know what a great privilege it is to be a journalist, and even more so when you have direct, daily and even physical, immediate access to our elected decision-makers.
We must have zero tolerance for intimidation of this kind, especially since this individual has access to places we frequent. The member did a good job describing the reality of the situation. As a former journalist, I call on all journalists to take a very strong stand against this utterly unacceptable situation.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:28:03 a.m.
- Watch
I want to thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for raising this serious issue through a question of privilege. I also want to thank the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her interjection, as well as the official opposition House leader for his.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
This is certainly an issue that we will take seriously, and the Chair will make a ruling soon.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with my admirable colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:29:05 a.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker: It is agreed.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
