44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, we had a good, constructive opposition day this week. Throughout the day, both Liberal and Conservative members told us that there was no time to talk about such important issues in the House.
I would like to ask the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle if he believes that the fact that the Liberals and the NDP tripled the number of closure motions in the House leaves us more time to debate such important issues as the monarchy.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would ask the consent of the House to share my time with the eminently honourable member for Joliette.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are 338 members in the House. We were elected by people who went to the polls and asked us to work for them in a constructive manner to develop better public policies, better transfer programs, to improve their quality of life and the quality of services. I am utterly convinced that despite our different views on a number of things, the 338 people seated here today are here for the right reasons. That is why we need to work together.
When we develop public policies like the ones in Bill C‑31, we have to work hard in a non-partisan way to deliver better programs, especially with an ambitious bill like this. This forces us to collaborate, reflect, draft several versions of the bill, amend it, consult people, experts, the communities and respect the voice of those who elected us. That too is part of our job.
That is the part of our job we were prevented from doing with the botched process surrounding Bill C‑31, which was disrespectful of parliamentarians. This bill was concocted at the last minute in the middle of the summer because the leader of the NDP went on the news and said that their agreement might be off. Now we find ourselves stuck with Bill C‑31. Truly, this bill seems like it was drafted on a napkin. When something is cobbled together at the last minute, the parliamentary process becomes even more important. The role of members of Parliament and the opposition parties, the experience and the expertise on both sides of the House become even more crucial in improving this bill, which is obviously more likely to be flawed than bills that have been introduced once, twice or three times in the House and that have already been examined in parliament.
How can we contribute to this work? Through hours of debate in the House and the work we do in committee. That takes time, planning and preparation. We can speed things up a little, but it takes energy, time and witnesses from society at large. We cannot do our work in a vacuum. We cannot do that. The people who elect us deserve better. We need numbers, like the ones we get from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It takes time to introduce amendments, to consider those amendments, to study and debate them. Sometimes, amendments enable us to ensure nobody is excluded by these policies. That is definitely true of Bill C‑31.
Then we come back to the House at report stage and third reading. The hours we spend debating bills to improve them are important. Anyone who truly believes in the parliamentary system and in our institutions sees the value in that.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North over there. He knows this better than most because he spends 23 hours a day debating in the House.
After doing that work, then at least we can be confident that the work was done. Obviously we are not all going to vote the same way. Most of the time, we are not going to agree, but we will all have the sense that we did what we were supposed to and that we are voting on work that is as complete as it should be.
In this case, we did not skip one step, we did not skip two steps, we did not skip three steps. We skipped every step of the legislative process. Parliamentarians were fully prevented from doing their job. We were subjugated by the executive branch of government. In effect, parliamentarians were muzzled, both in committee and here in the House. It felt like we were being told that we had nothing to say, that we were not being constructive, when the government imposed not just closure, but super closure.
After muzzling the House, the government told us we had nothing more to say. Apparently we did have things to say, things that could have improved this bill. Members on this side of the House are just as competent as members across the way. We were told that the committee would sit on a Monday evening from 7 p.m. until midnight. If the work was not done at midnight, if there was a fire alarm or some such interruption, the amendments would no longer be negotiated and would no longer be discussed. Our work would go in the garbage, and the bill would be adopted as-is at report stage.
We were prevented from hearing from some witnesses. Oddly enough, we had originally agreed to have four hours of testimony. We had an in camera meeting two days later, and the witnesses were gone. We had only an hour and a half with two ministers at the same time. I must say, the ministers were ill prepared and visibly uncomfortable with the bill. The Minister of Health is an excellent economist of international renown. I could see in his eyes how uncomfortable he was with certain parts of the bill. It was palpable.
Thus, it was decided that witnesses would no longer appear and, in the end, we wound up with a bill that was not amended by the committee. What is worse, we were prevented from presenting amendments after the ministers appeared, even though we had already been prevented from hearing from witnesses. The whole amendment process was therefore short-circuited. We know that sometimes amendments are not adopted. We know that the government and the NDP, which joined forces—that is not an accusation; it is a fact—might not have adopted the amendments, but those amendments still deserved to be discussed.
This bill is therefore going to be rammed through today without any parliamentary scrutiny. As a relatively new parliamentarian, I am very disappointed by that. This is not just a closure motion. It is a super closure motion.
I see members of the Standing Committee on Health here in the House. We are in the habit of working together, talking to each other and understanding each other. We do not agree on everything, but we are able to compromise. We know that we are capable of doing that. However, the government prevented us from doing so. I felt the discomfort on both sides of the House. I felt it from the Bloc Québécois and from the Conservatives. I also felt it from government members on Monday evening in committee because they were not being allowed to do their job.
Who pays for that? We know that voter turnout is dropping. People are becoming increasingly cynical about politics. People are less and less interested in it, and now we are showing those people that this is what the democratic process is like, that MPs serve no purpose, that there is no regard for their work. Then we wonder why the public has lost confidence in our institutions.
Who will pay because people were left out of Bill C‑31? It will be the progressive parents and children in Quebec who decided to pay for certain services for those 10 and under, services that are also paid for by the federal program but that we will not be compensated for. Progressive parents in Quebec are therefore being penalized, and future generations are being jeopardized.
The Liberals and the NDP say that dental care is health care, and rightly so. It is part of overall health, but we are talking about the future of universal public health care. Essentially, the provinces are being told that if they develop these services and eventually integrate them into their health care system, the federal government will penalize them.
Who will pay for that? It will be the 86,000 people who do not qualify for the housing benefit because they live in low-rent housing or co-operatives, which are progressive housing construction models adopted by Quebec. With a small, two-line amendment, we could have included these people in the federal program, but the government refused. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and I wrote again to the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion and the Minister of Health. Since they love the Queen and the King, we implored them to use their royal prerogative to include those people. We received an acknowledgement of receipt, but that is about all.
Despite all the good intentions, how can we encourage strategic assistance for housing with a bill based on such a principle? How can we encourage the provinces to create permanent programs for housing construction when the federal government establishes programs that will penalize them for it later?
The government is basically saying that since some provinces have made an effort, it will take Canadian taxpayers' money and send it to the provinces that have not made that effort. That is the issue. Clearly, this is a flawed and unacceptable process.
The Bloc Québécois would have liked to do more to improve this bill, but as it stands, we will not be able to support it at second and third reading.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are talking about the children of Quebec, so we must try to be non-partisan when it comes to this issue.
We did not have enough time to contribute and reason with the government about the right way to respect Quebec's programs. Simply put, Quebec already has a program that provides this care. It could be more generous. The provision of care is enshrined in the Constitution as a provincial jurisdiction.
I think there should have been a discussion so that we could enhance the work being done for children. Today, we are demeaning all the efforts that have been made not only by Quebec, but also by Nova Scotia, to build this care. Under the pretext of taking action for dental care, the government is in fact taking action against dental care.
It is obvious that we cannot support this principle.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I could understand why the government might want to use a procedure like closure, although maybe not the super closure motion, if there were a filibuster at least.
The bill we are debating contains so many flaws. In a minority government, we could have worked with the opposition to improve it. This makes the closure motion doubly unacceptable. We are talking about 130,000 parents in Quebec who will not have access to the benefit. We are talking about 86,000 people who make less than $20,000 or less than $35,000 or so and who live in low-rent housing or in co-ops but who will not qualify.
Do these people deserve a closure motion? It is worth asking the question.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, during the Quebec election campaign, groups that have been calling for expanded dental coverage for years held a press conference the same day that Bill C-31 was released, which clearly has not changed. They basically said that the bill was all nonsense.
Quebec parents will be ineligible for much of the care, not all, but a large amount of care, because Quebec has already taken some steps. Now we are told that Quebec should get some help to pay for those efforts. The ministers keep telling us that all parents will be eligible and so on. The problem is the word “eligible”. Their definition of “eligible” excludes 130,000 Quebec parents.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, sometimes there is a lot of invective thrown around in the House.
Earlier, those on the NDP side of the House said we were playing politics with families. The experience I had at the Standing Committee on Health was that the Bloc Québécois wanted to hear witnesses and work for Quebeckers. The Bloc wanted the bill to include people who had been left behind by the NDP. We were prevented from doing our job.
I would like the member who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health to confirm whether it was us, the real opposition parties, who obstructed the bill or whether it was the Liberals with the NDP who prevented us from being inclusive and doing our work properly. Who has hindered the parliamentary business of the House, them or us?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
