44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
- Nov/14/22 12:49:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am really hoping that you will encourage the member to stay on the subject of the motion. He seems to be widely off the subject right now.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:38:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that once an amendment has been moved, it is your obligation as the Chair to read the amendment, and the individual who is speaking no longer has the floor.
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:41:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the concern from this side of the House does not stem from the fact that debate wants to be had. The member said that we are trying to silence members. On the contrary, we are trying to open up more time to allow for more discussion to take place.
I would ask her for her thoughts on Bill S-5, which came before the House. Bill S-5 is about environmental protections. I realize that members of the House have passions about different issues. Some people really want to talk about the environment and some people want to talk about certain social programs. However, let me just recap Bill S-5.
Six Liberals got up to speak, four NDP members got up to speak, five Bloc members got up to speak and one Green member got up to speak. Do members know how many Conservatives got up to speak to Bill S-5? It was 27. If members listened to the debate on Bill S-5, which I did, they know that none of the Conservative speeches even talked about environmental protections. Then at the end, the Conservatives voted in favour of it anyway.
It has become very clear to me that the objective of the Conservatives in the House is not about scrutiny and oversight, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talks about. It is about obstructing at every possible impasse the ability to do anything for Canadians.
Could the member from the Bloc reflect on whether she thinks it is peculiar that 27 Conservatives spoke to Bill S-5, which they voted in favour of, while the rest of the parties only had four or five speakers?
283 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby can speak to one of the comments that was made by a Conservative colleague, the member for Simcoe North, earlier. He said, “we do not have a student debt problem in this country.” I would argue that we do have a problem when it comes to education in this country. The problem is that more and more is being expected of young people now when it comes to education. However, more importantly, it is expected that they will bear the financial burden of it.
Four or five decades ago, one could get a publicly funded high school education and have a meaningful career afterwards that provided for oneself and one's family. Nowadays, a bachelor's degree is not even enough. People are expected to get a master's degree and further post-secondary degrees. However, it is all being done on the backs of their having to pay for it. Whereas, when it was my parents and their friends who were getting educated in high school, they could leave high school and get a good job, and they did not have to pay for it because the public system paid for it.
Does the member not agree that we do have a problem when it comes to education in this country and that we should be pushing for more government support to give people the quality of education needed to get meaningful employment afterwards?
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier we heard the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke say she believed the climate crisis that the world faces is a climate emergency that was manufactured by the Prime Minister. I wonder if the member would agree that the climate emergency is all a hoax that is being put on by the Prime Minister, as the member from Pembroke has alluded to.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:44:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I am pleased to speak to the Government of Canada's extensive consultation leading up to the use of the Emergencies Act.
I will remind my colleagues that, in early February, disruptions and illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings had halted international trade and supply chains right when Canada's businesses were striving to take part in an ongoing global economic recovery. These illegal activities had shut down small businesses due to safety concerns. The City of Ottawa, the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario had all declared states of emergency. We had also observed illegal blockades in Alberta and Manitoba.
At the time, we maintained close contact with law enforcement, and provincial, territorial and municipal officials to share information and expertise, with the collective goal of ending these blockades peacefully. Invoking the Emergencies Act was a difficult, but necessary, decision for our government to make for the good of Canada. It was not taken lightly, but factors in the length of these illegal blockades, as well as the volatile and unpredictable environment at the protest sites, were considered.
I will remind my colleagues that the reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency are set out in a public document of explanation, as required in subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act. The document explains in detail why the Emergencies Act was invoked and is available for everyone to read, in line with our commitment to full transparency on this important issue. Furthermore, the houses of Parliament were provided with a document, which is also public, that documents all the consultations we undertook before invoking the act.
These documents highlight that, between the end of January and February 14, the escalation of the threats across the country had been regularly communicated by provinces, territories, municipalities and police of jurisdiction to the federal government. These partners requested the federal government's action in supporting police of jurisdiction to address the threat. It was within this environment that the Emergencies Act was invoked in mid-February. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was made after careful consideration of all other possible solutions to address this ongoing situation.
The Emergencies Act provided law enforcement with the additional tools to do their jobs and bring an end to the blockades safely and peacefully. Law enforcement was able to prohibit public assemblies that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace, prevent adults from bringing children to these areas and prohibit people from travelling to these assemblies. They were also able to clamp down on the use of provisions of property in support of an unlawful assembly, such as diesel for illegally idling trucks that were creating a blockade. We were also able to designate new protected sites or no go zones. This tool was instrumental in helping us bring an end to the blockades safely.
These actions, done in consultation with provinces, territories, municipalities and law enforcement, were a measured, comprehensive response to the threat to our communities' safety and security. The Government of Canada recognizes that it has a great responsibility to keep its citizens and communities safe. Through the temporary, time-limited use of the Emergencies Act, we fulfilled that responsibility and safely brought an end to the illegal blockades in our communities.
570 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member did not hear me, it is because he chose not to listen. I will repeat what I just read to the member so that hopefully it will settle in a little better this time.
I said, “These partners requested the federal government's action in supporting police of jurisdiction to address the threat.” If the member wants to split hairs between the exact wording of what was said, he can do that to his heart's content, but as I stated, the police jurisdictions were requesting support from the federal government.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I always get a kick out of it when Conservatives say they left this House in good fiscal order at the end of Stephen Harper's reign.
They are clapping when I say I get a kick out of it, and it is really interesting, because if we actually look back over Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, there were only three budgets that were balanced in the entire 13 or so years that they were in power for.
More importantly, when he talks about how they balanced this budget in 2015, they did it by selling off shares of GM at bargain prices, by slashing EI and by slashing veterans services. They did all that so they could “balance the budget”. They thought that when they went into the election in 2015, that would inspire people to bring them back into power. Of course, we know that never happened, because people saw right through it.
Can the member reflect on whether he thinks it was a good idea for the government of the day to balance the budget by slashing veterans services and EI, and by selling off the shares of GM at bargain prices?
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member said “round of applause, everybody”. He should know that he cannot talk to other members in the House. He can talk only to you.
I am more than willing to accept and recognize the fact that they balanced the budget in 2015 on the backs of veterans.
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess I am not surprised that Conservatives are against freeing up important money that students are going to be seeing as a result of not paying interest payments if the fall economic statement is adopted. However, I am surprised at the willingness and candour with which Conservatives are willing to say they are not in favour of that.
The member talked specifically about how those who are currently students are the ones who are going to see the economic benefit of going to post-secondary school. Has he thought about comparing the economic benefit of when my parents and his parents went to secondary school? Thirty or forty years ago, all someone had to do was go to secondary school and they were pretty much assured of getting a decent job that would enable them to provide for themselves and their family. They would have a good kick at the can, so to speak.
We now have a situation in which secondary school is not enough. Most people need post-secondary to come close to getting the same quality of employment that my parents and the member's parents were able to get a few decades ago.
Can he reflect on the fact that as there is more demand for people to go to post-secondary, the government should perhaps start playing a role in helping provide that education?
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
