44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
- Nov/14/22 12:02:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:08:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, imagine this. The opposition House leader says that he wants to have more time. He does not want the government to stop members from being able to debate bills. The very motion that we are talking about gives more hours of debate inside the House of Commons. Think about that.
The reason the Conservatives do not want to support the motion is that they do not want to sit later in the evening. New Democrats and Liberals have made the commitment and we are prepared to sit additional hours so that MPs will have more time to debate legislation.
When the member talks about hypocrisy, he might want to reflect on what it is that I just finished saying and maybe explain to his caucus colleagues that if they are in favour of additional time to debate legislation, they should be voting in favour of this legislation. Do not be scared to sit late at night. Many of our constituents work until midnight and beyond.
I would encourage members to revisit their tactical decision to prevent MPs from having more time to debate government legislation.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 3:21:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 3:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 777, 782, 786, 792, 793, 796, 798, 799, 803, 804, 809, 810, 812, 823, 827 to 829 and 832.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 3:27:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 775, 776, 778 to 781, 783 to 785, 787 to 791, 794, 795, 797, 800 to 802, 805 to 808, 811, 813 to 822, 824 to 826, 830 to 831 and 833 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 3:28:55 p.m.
- Watch
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Bloc and the Conservatives talk about inflation. They cover their ears or close their eyes when it comes to what is happening in the world around us. It is almost as if the pandemic was not there or there was no war taking place in Europe. Do the leader of the Bloc, the Bloc party in general, the leader of the Conservatives or the Conservative Party in general not recognize that there are things happening around the world that have had an impact on inflation?
In Canada, we believe we can do more, and we have been providing supports for Canadians. We understand the cost of groceries and the hardships Canadians are facing, and that is why we bring forward legislation and budgetary measures to support Canadians.
Will he not at the very least acknowledge that when we make the comparison, we are better off than the U.S.A., England and many of the European countries? Could he provide his thoughts on that aspect of inflation?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of the fall economic statement that I thought the Bloc would in fact support. We can talk, for example, of the Canada growth fund, an investment that, using our tax system, is going to ensure that we have a greener economy. I would think that is an aspect the Bloc would support.
I get it. There are some other aspects. Bloc members will say that sustainable development in their natural resources is not possible. The Conservatives will say we are not doing enough and we are neglecting the areas that the Bloc would argue we should neglect more.
Do Bloc members actually support the fall economic statement, or will they be voting against it?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, standing in the name of the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Without commenting on the merits of the amendments proposed at the committee stage, I would like to draw to the attention of members an amendment that raises some procedural difficulties.
The amendment in question would add subparagraph 136(1)(d)(d.001) to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is found in the new clause 4.1 of the bill. The amendment would seek to protect termination and severance pay in the case of a bankruptcy. This amendment, in my view, seeks to expand the scope and principle of the bill as set at second reading stage. Moreover, the amendment is a new concept that was not contemplated in the bill at second reading and therefore should be removed from the bill for consideration at report stage and third reading stage.
When the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. For the benefit of members who do not sit on the finance committee, I will quote the ruling. It states:
My ruling is that Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide for the solvency of pension funds in case of bankruptcy. The amendment seeks to create new categories of payments to specific former employees that would have to be paid by a bankrupt, which is not envisioned by the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair and for the above stated reason, the amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
A majority of the members on the finance committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to vote to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on November 3.
I submit that the ruling of the chair of the finance committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.
431 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and share some thoughts on a very important piece of legislation.
Over the years we have talked about things the government can do to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, whether we are talking legislative changes or budgetary measures.
What we have before us is a hybrid. We have legislative measures that have significant budgetary impacts on houses and homes across all regions of our country. It is a piece of legislation that I would like to think all members, upon reviewing and taking into consideration all the benefits within it, should be voting in favour of.
I was somewhat disappointed by the Conservative Party's amendment. I believe it does not give any merit to the legislation, and I would suggest it is just not necessary.
I would like to think that when we talk about what takes place here in Ottawa, from a government perspective, from the perspective of members of the Liberal caucus, it is about making an economy that works for all Canadians. That is a priority that we all take very seriously.
That is the reason, when we take a look at the fall economic statement, I want the people I represent and indeed all Canadians to see clearly what it is all about. I want them to see that we have a government, a Liberal caucus, that understands the hardship that Canadians are having to play today.
I have often made reference to the issue of inflation. Even when I made comparisons to other nations, it is not good enough that Canada's inflation is lower than that of countries like the U.S.A., England and many European nations.
Canadians want us to respond in a way that is going to be favourable to addressing what is happening here in Canada, whether it was the budgetary announcement made by the Minister of Finance months ago or, more recently, the fall economic statement that was issued just prior to the week we spent in our constituencies or doing constituency work, wherever we might have been.
Inflation is a serious issue. I am concerned about the price of margarine, and of groceries in general, and the impact it has, especially when the holiday season is around the corner. Many will go out and have to purchase all sorts of items, as Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognize and celebrate the holiday season.
For many it is going to be that much more costly. I understand the impact. That is why I started off by saying members should take a look at what the Government of Canada has been doing since the presentation of the budget, since the presentation of a series of legislative actions that are designed to support Canadians during this difficult time.
Yes, we had a worldwide pandemic, and we have a war that is taking place in Europe. Both of them combined have had a profound impact on the issue of inflation.
When we talk about what we can do, we look for leadership and ideas from within the House. I have made reference to it before, and I will continue to do so, whether it is today or into the future.
We have a Prime Minister who wants members of Parliament to look at what is happening in our constituencies and bring that to the floor of the House of Commons, into the standing committees and into our caucus discussions to have those discussions among ministers. I believe, whether in the budget of 2022 or the fall economic statement, we will find those consultations, those reports and those comments. I know I have been canvassed on numerous occasions from different departments, and I am somewhat of an opinionated person. That is hard to believe, but I can tell members the thoughts and ideas I share originate quite often in the constituency I represent.
I look at the many different leadership roles that are played within this chamber. We had the Minister of Finance answer some questions today. That is something I have also made reference to. If members had been listening to the answers, they might feel a little more comfortable in knowing this legislation would go a long way in meeting the needs of our constituents. Then, there is always some free advice provided on the issue of leadership, which I truly believe we have seen consistently, virtually from day one, with this Prime Minister and the government, whether it was with the tax break for Canada's middle class back in 2015, the tax increase for Canada's wealthiest 1%, or the growth of social programs.
There was the GIS and the Canada child benefit, and the supports for small businesses, seniors, people with disabilities, students and many others all the way through the pandemic. Yes, we did spend a great deal of money, and we listen to the Conservatives today criticizing the government by asking why we borrowed so much, yet they voted in good part for the money we borrowed, which they now criticize.
There has been inconsistency coming from the Conservative bench. They stand up, speaker after speaker, often just to criticize the government, and that is fine. That is their role, I guess, but there is a need to hold the official opposition to account for some of the things it does. When it comes to financial matters, and that is what we are talking about today and have been talking about them for a long time, we have been talking about the issue of inflation.
The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, in one of his very first economic statements, and I remember it well, because he was talking about inflation, talked about how the Government of Canada needs to do something on inflation, and he shared his idea. Do members remember it? I remember it well. It was that one of the ways to fight inflation was to invest in cryptocurrency and Bitcoin. The Minister of Finance gave a fairly good articulation of the impact of the advice provided by the leader of Canada's official opposition party. It was somewhat ill-advised, I would suggest.
We think of our seniors, and the Conservatives criticize us and say we are not doing enough for seniors, which is not true. They say that, yet if those seniors they cite had followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party, depending on how much they invested, they would have lost anywhere from 30% to 60%, and even higher than that. A senior who had invested $10,000 following the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party would have been lucky if they had $4,000 left from that $10,000 in their savings.
I think it is valid when the Minister of Finance asks the leader where the apology is. Where is the withdrawal? I do not quite understand it. Did the leader of the Conservative Party actually invest in cryptocurrency? Let us get a show of hands. How many of the Conservative members of Parliament followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party and bought cryptocurrency? If we canvass the House, we are not seeing any hands. They might be a little embarrassed to raise their hands.
Today, the Conservatives are quoting the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the very same governor the leader of the Conservative Party said he would fire. One day he is going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but today they are quoting the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Do they support the institution of the Bank of Canada? Other prime ministers have, including Stephen Harper.
These are the types of things we should all be concerned about. It is about contrast. If we listened to some of the Conservative members' speeches, what did they say? They said that when it comes to the government's legislation to forgive the interest, to get rid of the interest on student loans, they took exception to it. We had a member who stood up and said it was a dumb idea. That is the essence of what he was saying.
Are we to understand that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support students and does not understand the impact that interest is having on student loans? This is a great way to support students in every region of our country, especially now, when they have to deal with inflation. The Conservatives do not support that.
The Conservatives say that not all the funding the Liberals spent went toward the pandemic. Of course it did not. Why? We have record amounts of dollars going toward health care. We are talking about additional hundreds of millions of dollars. Is the Conservative Party now saying that the money should not be spent, even though it and the Bloc will say we need to spend more and give more money? On the one hand the Conservatives say to give more money, but then they criticize us because we spent more money that was not related to the pandemic.
Let us talk about the issue of health care. Canadians should be very concerned about the Conservative Party. I believe a vast majority of Canadians understand and want to see national leadership on the health care file.
The member for Avalon brought forward a resolution dealing with long-term care, because he is right in his assertion that the federal government has a role to play. We have the Canada Health Act. There is a role. I am concerned that the Conservative Party is not much better than the Bloc when it comes to health care.
That is unfortunate for people like me and many others who reflect what Canadians want, which is a national government that has an interest in health care. That is why we negotiated agreements with the different provinces and territories. That is why we are recognizing long-term care. That is why we are investing in mental health. That is why we are looking at ways to save on pharmaceutical costs.
We understand that health care is important to Canadians and the federal government has a role to play. We are not just an ATM. In fact, if we go back to the seventies, we would find that there was an agreement that took cash out of the system in favour of tax point shifts, which premiers actually wanted.
Now we have a government that continues to support health care, because it is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians want us to do. However, they should be concerned by the Conservative Party of Canada. We could fast-forward and take a look at child care. Again, there are hundreds of millions going into the billions of dollars. Yes, I agree, that is a lot of money. However, we are investing in Canadians.
We recognize that bringing in a national child care program is costly, and it was not directly pandemic-related. However, Canadians would benefit by it, and it has been proven. All one needs to do is to take a look at the province of Quebec, which initiated the idea. Much like other issues on health care, one province brings it forward and the national government takes the idea and expands it so that it benefits all Canadians. We are seeing the same thing here with child care.
Canadians need to be aware. The Conservative Party of Canada does not want it. It is going to get rid of it. These are the types of differences between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. We could even go to more recent things. Let us look at the dental legislation that we passed. We are saying, as a government, that we want to be able to support those who are 12 years and younger by providing some dental insurance. That is going to be money in the pockets of individuals, and it would assist them in getting dental work for children.
Do members realize that one of the biggest reasons for admissions into our hospitals today from a child's perspective is due to dental work? Indirectly, we are actually helping provinces on the health care file. By investing in dental care, there will be fewer children going into our hospitals. That is not to mention that it is the right thing to do. However, it is another initiative that the Conservative Party voted against. It is hard to believe, but Conservatives do not support children under the age of 12 receiving that.
There are more direct grants that I have not had time to talk about. I have not even talked about some of the other benefits, whether it is the doubling of first-time homebuyers tax credit or the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. I love that program. I could speak for half an hour plus just on that one program and how our communities would benefit. If I had leave from the chamber I would do just that, but I am already being told to wind up. I cannot believe it.
There is the anti-flipping tax. This is incredible. If members want to talk about housing-relating issues, this is in the legislation. We should be passing this. There are increases for taxes on banks. That is something that is critically important. There is a doubling of so many things that are positive.
However, I will sit and hope to get a question or two.
2265 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a lot in there that I would like to be able to attack. However, the biggest thing that I have to address is that the member said that the Prime Minister and the government, my Liberal colleagues, are manufacturing a climate emergency. Seriously, does the Conservative Party really believe that our government has manufactured a worldwide climate emergency? Why are they even meeting at COP? That is absolutely incredible.
This is a government that recognizes that the climate is changing. I can only encourage my colleagues and friends within the Conservative Party to sit down with the member and explain that it is worldwide and it is not because of this government that there is a climate emergency around the world. We like to think that we are actually making our communities better through many of the initiatives within this budget.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry if the member feels that I have hurt his feelings and I am being too harsh on the opposition, but at times it is necessary to be harsh on the opposition and some of the things that the members say.
The member talks about housing issues in the legislation. The Bloc members talk about the cost of housing, and I will use it as an example because I made reference to it. Within the legislation, there is the anti-flipping tax. When we talk about initiatives that are necessary for the federal government to continue to demonstrate leadership on the housing file, this is one example where we are looking at ways homes are being used for the marketplace as opposed to being used to live in. Are there things we can do? Yes, there are. Within this legislation there are at least one, two or three good solid policy ideas.
I am glad that the Bloc members are voting in favour of the legislation, but I would reinforce that just because they are in opposition does not give them right to make irresponsible policy announcements.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. When I think of housing programs, a number of initiatives come to mind right away. The rapid housing initiative is one example. We have indigenous housing commitments from the government. There are programs that are both urban and rural. One of my favourite ones is housing co-ops. I am a big advocate for housing co-ops. We now have a government that is committed to looking at ways to increase the number of housing co-ops.
Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic organization. We have a national government that is investing in Habitat for Humanity. Many initiatives were taken to support Canada's housing industry and it goes right back to when we made the multi-billion dollar commitment in a national housing strategy, which is a first in Canada, a number of years ago.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when we look at the needs our communities have, and if we want to be able to assist young people, one of the best ways we can do that is to take a look at the loan capacity students have had to go through over the last number of years.
We want to say to our students that we will directly help them by not having them pay interest on loans. That is going to give students and apprentices in every region of our country the opportunity to save money. That money is going to assist them, not only with the issue of inflation that we are dealing with today, but also into the future. We are making schooling that much more affordable.
We have a responsibility to work with provincial jurisdictions. Supporting students by coming up with this particular fall economic statement and Bill C-32 is one of the ways Ottawa can demonstrate leadership.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we recognize that in every region of our country people are having a difficult time. I recognize that. That is one of the reasons we will find Liberal members of Parliament consistently advocating for supports that will help citizens in all regions of the country where the demand is high. It is one of the reasons we have been so successful in lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. It is one of the reasons we have seen initiatives such as helping over three million seniors over the age of 75 in dealing with inflation, no matter where they live in Canada. There is a lot in here and we continue to work hard every day to make a positive difference so Canadians have better lifestyles.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
