44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/29/22 10:31:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be concise.
This member said “instead of providing relief” as part of his comments today. All this government has been doing is looking for solutions to provide relief for Canadians. Look at the GST rebate, the assistance with rent, and the dental care for children under 12 that has been established. These are all measures the federal government is putting in place to help provide some of that relief.
More importantly, as it relates to the GST rebate we introduced, I understand now the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of it, which is great. Since they have made that position clear, will the Conservatives let us vote on that, or will they insist on letting every member speak and then put forward an amendment and then have another round of everybody speaking just for no purpose other than to jam up the political process in here? Will they let us get that GST rebate out to Canadians who need it right now?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 12:16:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a number of occasions, I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to explain his position on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. The Canadian public deserves to know.
He pulled a stunt a number of months ago, I believe five or six months ago, where he bought a shawarma with Bitcoin. That shawarma cost him the effective rate of $10 Canadian at the time. If he were to buy that same shawarma today, it would cost him $22.35, given the devaluation of Bitcoin.
I am wondering if the member can provide her comments, since her leader will not, on where she stands on Bitcoin or will she stand up and refuse to even utter the words “Bitcoin” or “cryptocurrency”, like the Leader of the Opposition has done every time he has been asked this question.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 1:17:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the most interesting thing and the biggest display of hypocrisy in this place is when this member stands up and talks about the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and the Liberals as though it is not something that the electorate voted for, while this member, in 2018, was elected as a provincial Conservative in New Brunswick, where they then formed a supply and confidence agreement with the alt-right party in New Brunswick. The hypocrisy is literally spewing off the Conservative benches right now from the member.
Could he somehow justify to this House and Canadians how he could be so critical of the Liberals and the NDP in this agreement, when—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 1:52:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak to this opposition day motion. I probably will not surprise members by saying that it is pretty much a non-starter for me, especially after one reads the first seven or eight words in the motion. It starts off stating, “That, given...the cost of government is driving up inflation”.
Here we are, once again, with a misrepresentation of reality being proposed by the Conservative Party, by suggesting that inflation is something unique to Canada. Inflation is a global issue right now. All developed countries around the world are dealing with it.
Let me just refresh for the members what is going on in the world. Of the G7 countries, Japan's inflation rate is 3%; France is 5.9%; Canada is 7%; Germany is 7.9; the U.S. is 8.3%; Italy is 8.4%; and the United Kingdom is 8.6%. The average inflation rate in the OECD countries right now is 10.3%,. For the Conservatives to come in here with their motion, saying it is the government's fault that inflation is where it is, is disingenuous at best and an outright misrepresentation of reality at worst.
Let us dig into why the Conservatives say that. What they are really saying is, and we will hear them say this from time to time, if the government had not spent all that money during the pandemic, we would not have inflation. What they are actually saying in reality, because all of the countries I listed did the exact same thing and are in the exact same position, is that if we had not spent that money during the pandemic, then we would not be in this position.
Therefore, what they are indirectly saying, and this is what the leader of the Conservative Party said about two years ago, is that they do not support giving Canadians the supports they needed during the pandemic. This is what their argument really comes down to even though it is very ironic that the Conservatives voted in favour of $300 billion of that spending during the pandemic.
The Conservatives are blaming the government for the inflation problem that is going on right now globally. I would remind them that it is slightly ironic, because they have a tendency to say the Prime Minister is incapable of doing anything, yet somehow he was able to create global inflation. We will set that aside for a second.
The Conservatives are saying that we should not have allowed that to happen, but they voted in favour of the money that we spent during the pandemic. If they are suggesting that it was the increased spending that has driven inflation, they are in the exact same boat as this side of the House, the Bloc, the NDP, the Green and, indeed, governments throughout planet Earth, as the leader of the Conservative Party likes to refer to it as.
I want to dig into something more important, and that is this newfound interest the Bloc Québécois has in calling out the Conservatives for the populism that is on full display right now. I want to hand it to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, especially today. A few times today they seem have jumped on board with the rest of the House, except for the Conservative Party, calling out the populous approach the Conservatives are taking. It is the populous approach we have seen in the House for the last year and a half. It is the same approach the Leader of the Opposition took during his leadership campaign. Indeed, it is the same approach they are taking now. What do populous individuals do? They suggest outlandish ideas to garner support from vulnerable people in particular.
What did the Leader of the Opposition do just six months ago? He showed up to buy a shawarma and paid for it with Bitcoin. He offered Bitcoin as an actual viable alternative to using the Canadian dollar. If he went out today and bought that same shawarma, he would effectively be paying $22.35 for that $10 shawarma he bought six months ago. Is that a viable alternative to the Canadian dollar?
The leader of His Majesty's loyal official opposition in the House of Commons in Canada has made the suggestion that Bitcoin should be a viable alternative. I think it is absolutely ludicrous that we cannot even get the Leader of the Opposition to state his official position on it now. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition three times in this House since he was elected as the leader what his position is on cryptocurrency, and if he could come clean and tell Canadians if he still believes that Bitcoin is a viable alternative. He would not even bring himself to utter the words “Bitcoin” or “cryptocurrency”.
I have asked other members from the Conservative Party the same question today. I asked if they would at least just say the words “Bitcoin” or “cryptocurrency”. It is like they have completely removed the words from their vocabulary. They absolutely refuse to even talk about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, let alone the fact that the leader of the official opposition only six months ago waved around a shawarma, with his phone in the other hand, while he paid in Bitcoin for that shawarma. Now where is he? He is absolutely silent on the issue. In my opinion, it gives Canadians an opportunity to reflect on their position.
They have been heckling me almost from the beginning because they do not want to hear this. I understand that they do not want to talk about this issue. I get it. It makes perfect sense. Why would they want to talk about this when the centrepiece policy of the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely taken a 180° turn and gone in a different direction? I can understand where they are coming from, but I also think they have an obligation to explain to Canadians why they have taken this position on cryptocurrency, and more importantly, why they are absolutely silent on it now.
I think it is high time that the leader of the official opposition came into the House and explained this to Canadians, especially those Canadians he recommended Bitcoin to six months ago, who may have taken his advice and purchased it, and who would now have seen their life savings devastated. He owes it to them to come into the House and explain his position on cryptocurrency. He cannot wait for it to just go up and down, and pick and choose when he wants to talk about it based on where it happens to be. He owes it to Canadians to give them an explanation and I hope he does it soon.
1157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 3:16:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I spent eight minutes prior to question period trying to inform the Conservatives that inflation was a global issue. However, it did not seem to resonate with them, because they spent the entire question period talking about “Liberal” inflation and inflation as though it were a problem unique to Canada.
The reality of the situation, which I honestly believe the vast majority of Canadians understand, is that inflation is a problem happening throughout the world right now. It is not going to be dealt with by using cheap antics, like the Leader of the Opposition buying a shawarma with Bitcoin, which would have cost him the equivalent of $10 Canadian in March and would cost him $22.35 today. The reality of the situation is that we are going to deal with inflation and the effects it is having on Canadians by working with Canadians, by bringing supports to Canadians and by introducing numerous pieces of legislation. As the House leader indicated just moments ago, we will be focused on them next week and in the weeks to come.
The Conservatives have an opportunity here. They can be onside with the rest of the House and work together with us to support Canadians, or they can continue the games and antics that we have been seeing up to this point.
I think it goes without saying that I certainly will not be supporting the motion put forward by the Conservatives today. I really hope they have an opportunity to reflect on their role in this House and will start bringing forward issues, policies, ideas and motions that will genuinely have an impact on the lives of Canadians.
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 3:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do. We can look at the initiative that this government has brought forward with respect to increasing the GST rebate for six months. On that issue, I heard Conservative members early on in the debate talk about the inflationary impacts, yet if we talk to any economist out there, they will report back that the inflationary impacts of that particular program are next to nil. It will not have an impact on inflation.
While the Conservatives continue to try to scare Canadians into trying to support them, as we have seen day after day, we will be focused on providing supports for Canadians that will have a genuine impact on their lives so that we can help them get through this time of inflationary impacts we are seeing throughout the world.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 3:20:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for taking one for the team, because it appears as though no other Conservative wanted to get up to ask me a question. I appreciate him doing that.
Nonetheless, once again, he referred to it as “Liberal” inflation. It is global inflation, and out of the G7 countries, we are the third lowest in terms of the inflationary measure.
How the Conservatives can get up time and time again to talk about inflation as though it is a problem unique to Canada absolutely gets me. By the way, as a piece of advice for them, the vast majority of Canadians realize this. I do not know who they think they are speaking to when they continually repeat that over and over, but Canadians do not believe what they are saying.
The member asked me specifically about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as he refers to it. What the Conservatives continually leave out of that discussion is the fact that Canadians get back, through the climate action incentive rebate, the price they pay into it. By the way, the only provinces that are impacted by that price on pollution are the provinces that have not stepped up to do their part. Unfortunately, the province I live in, Ontario, is one of them. However, members can look at British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which all have programs in place and as a result do not have a price on pollution.
259 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 3:22:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the sentiment of the comment. As a matter of fact, I had a great conversation with the member for Kitchener Centre earlier today about this exact issue and about the fact that perhaps we should be looking toward oil companies, which are receiving record-high profits right now, as an opportunity to bring in taxes, similar to what we did for big banks and other organizations.
I respect the question by the member from the NDP. He suggests that perhaps it is taking too long. I will not necessarily disagree with him on that, but I hope that the NDP and the Liberals can work together, because it is clear that some of the other parties are not interested in making sure that policies like that are put in place.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 3:48:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the deputy leader of the Conservative Party the same question I have repeatedly asked the leader of the Conservative Party. What is the Conservative Party's position on cryptocurrency?
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:26:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if we were to accept the Conservative position that payroll taxes are taxes and they are something that people have to pay for now, how would the member explain the fact that, if we do not invest in CPP now, those same individuals will have to pay for it later when there is no CPP available to provide for them and their pensions. I do not think we can have it both ways.
Are CPP and EI payroll taxes, or are they tools that help provide resources for people in their times of need?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:34:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Chair has ruled repeatedly that the term the member just used is not appropriate because it is doing indirectly what members are not allowed to do directly. Perhaps the Speaker could remind the member of that, and she could retract her comment.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:42:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think that answer was sufficient because the member from the NDP asked a specific question.
The member's entire speech was about affordability for Canadians and providing supports for Canadians. The member from the NDP asked a specific question about why the Conservatives are preventing a very important piece of legislation for people with disabilities from going forward. This is a piece of legislation that would help individuals and Canadians with disabilities.
Perhaps the member can reflect on the non-answer she just gave to the NDP and provide an answer as to why the Conservatives are holding up that piece of legislation.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 5:13:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to hear about believing in the market system and the free enterprise system. One would think, then, that the Conservatives would understand why pricing pollution is the right thing to do, because it builds into the equation of putting a cost on pollution. The member would know from this free market enterprise system, the system he speaks so highly of, that by doing that we then incentivize companies to look for solutions, to find alternative ways of doing business to reduce their costs. That is the whole point of putting a price on pollution, making it part of the economic model of pricing something and building the inputs into that product.
Can the member at least not reflect on why he would be against something like this, since he believes in that model?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 5:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30, so we can move along to Private Members' Business.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act. I appreciate the contributions of the member for Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek to medical assistance in dying, or MAID, which is a complex and deeply personal issue to many Canadians.
First, I want to acknowledge that the aim of the bill, which is to support the conscience rights of health care professionals, is indeed laudable. The government has always supported conscience rights, which is why, since the very beginning of Canada's MAID framework in a former bill, Bill C-14, these rights have been specifically recognized and acknowledged. However, at the same time, the criminal law is a blunt instrument that should be reserved for the most serious situations.
In my remarks today, I want to raise some questions about whether new offences are an appropriate solution to the legitimate concerns raised by the bill's sponsor. In this regard, it bears recalling the primary reason the criminal law is concerned with MAID in the first place, which is to provide the necessary exemptions to ensure that persons who choose to provide or assist in providing MAID do not face criminal consequences for doing so. The MAID provisions found in the Criminal Code were carefully crafted to respect the autonomy of Canadians, respond to the evolving issues and protect vulnerable persons. In other words, the involvement of criminal law is necessary to permit MAID while ensuring it is carried out in a safe, responsible manner.
However, Bill C-230 seeks to involve the criminal law in two very different ways: first, to create a new MAID-specific intimidation offence, and second, to create an employment sanctions offence. With respect to the former, the intimidation offence, it is worth reiterating that the Criminal Code already provides provisions for several offences that would be available to respond to situations where a health care professional is a victim of coercive or threatening behaviour, including the intimidation offence in section 423 and the extortion offence in section 346.
To me, it is not evident that an additional specific offence is required to protect conscience rights. I should also say that I am not aware of any evidence of health care professionals facing threatening circumstances in the context of refusing to provide MAID or that there is a specific gap that needs to be filled in our law.
I have taken note of the fact that the proposed intimidation offence in Bill C-230 would be a summary conviction offence, which, if enacted, would stand out from other intimidation offences in the Criminal Code. The existing offences are either straight indictable or hybrid offences. In addition to being duplicative of existing offences, the fact that the proposed intimidation offence would only be prosecutable by summary conviction may suggest that intimidating conduct is less serious in a MAID context, which seems counterintuitive.
To further highlight why I have concerns about creating a specific intimidation offence as proposed by Bill C-230, I would like to draw members' attention to a recent example that offers a clear contrast. Last year, as members will recall, unfortunately in some parts of our country there was a threatening atmosphere of intimidation present for many health care professionals who were simply trying to go to work and care for members of their communities during the pandemic. That is why the government responded with Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which provided new criminal law tools to protect all health care workers and all Canadians who are seeking their care.
I believe Bill C-3 was an appropriate criminal law response to the credible threats to the safety and security of health care professionals and Canadians, but I am not convinced that a similar response is necessary when it comes to the situation of conscience rights and the provision of MAID. It seems to me that the charter and existing criminal law offences already provide the necessary protections for those rights, alongside the specific provision in the current MAID framework that expressly states that nothing in the federal law compels an individual to provide or assist in providing MAID. There is simply no obvious need to supplement what already exists.
Turning to the employment sanctions offence, I am struggling with Bill C-230's proposal to create a new offence that would exclusively target employers who dismiss or refuse to employ health care professionals who choose not to provide MAID. Moreover, in my view, Bill C-230's employment sanctions offence would not address the concerns described in the bill's preamble regarding conscience rights and certain requirements for professionals to make effective referrals for MAID.
As members are aware, in some jurisdictions, the professional orders that regulate health care professions have established requirements that their members provide effective referrals for MAID. While there have been cases where these requirements were challenged, the courts, including the Court of Appeal for Ontario, have upheld them, noting that this is a difficult issue that involves taking into consideration the conscience rights of professionals and the needs of their patients.
I do not believe it would be constructive for Parliament to intervene by creating a new criminal offence such as the one proposed by the bill. Rather, a more productive approach is for the government to continue its efforts to work closely with the provinces and territories on the implementation of MAID in a manner that supports persons who may be considering it and the health care professionals who provide exceptional care to their patients.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I have significant concerns with Bill C-230. While I agree wholeheartedly with protecting the conscience rights of all health care professionals, including those who choose to participate or refuse to participate in MAID, I am not persuaded that the two offences proposed in the bill are necessary or desirable.
997 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
