SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 188

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
  • May/1/23 12:37:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Shepard, in his question, said that the government cannot pass legislation and that it passed only one piece of legislation last week, and yet the Conservative agenda is often to be a destructive force on the floor of the House. What the Conservatives prefer to do is prevent the government from passing legislation, and they do that by bringing in concurrence motions, by giving no indication in terms of how many speakers would accommodate the passage of a bill, and sometimes by not even wanting to sit late in the evening. Does the member not agree that if they are criticizing the government for not passing legislation and then go out of their way to prevent the government from passing legislation, that might be somewhat hypocritical?
132 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:41:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:36:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to nail down the Conservatives on a substantive policy. In parts of his speech, the member said that the grocery rebate was a good idea. In other parts of his speech, he said it was a bad idea. We have also heard members on the other side sometimes say that the Volkswagen idea is a good idea. Then they sometimes say that it is a bad idea. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus is standing. The Conservative Party has no plan. There is no depth to its policy. Could the member give a very clear indication on whether he supports the grocery rebate, yes or no? Does he support the investment that is bringing Volkswagen to St. Thomas, Ontario, yes or no?
131 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 3:19:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, we have seen a great growth in our Indo-Canadian community. Along with that growth, we have seen a considerable demand with respect to additional international flights, as expressed earlier, to Amritsar, New Delhi and Chandigarh, many international airports in India. Residents, in particular in the Winnipeg, in the capital region and in other areas, are hoping to see more direct flights, whether through Air Canada, Westjet or other international airlines. The idea is that we try to get more international direct flights. Ideally for me it would be Winnipeg to Amritsar, but the bottom line is that whatever the members of Parliament, the House, the minister, the different airport authorities and different stakeholders can do to enhance air service to India would be seen as a positive thing with respect to the petitioners.
142 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 3:24:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 3:32:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize the degree to which the government has been listening to seniors. Not only have we been listening to seniors, but we have been supporting seniors. Whether it is the huge increase to the GIS in 2016, the one-time payments during the pandemic, the budgetary measures that are meeting an election platform commitment of a 10% increase for those 75 and over, the grocery rebate or dental support for seniors, these are all supports that the government is providing to seniors. We can contrast those to the previous 10 years of the Harper regime. It is incredibly different, yet the Bloc members do not recognize the benefits and continue to vote against initiatives that are supporting seniors. Why do you not respect the seniors? You say you do, but your actions say otherwise.
144 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 4:16:32 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to the early nineties, when all political parties in the House ultimately advocated that the national government should not be playing any role in housing. For the first time in generations, we have a government that has committed billions of dollars, developed a national housing strategy that is investing in things such as housing co-ops and non-profit housing, helped municipalities and supported organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The government is going out of its way to ensure that Canadians are able to have that first home. Would the hon. member not recognize that the federal government can only do so much? It is important that we demonstrate leadership, which we have, but we need the other stakeholders, in particular our municipalities and our provinces, and other stakeholders as well, to step up to the table so we can provide the type of housing that Canadians expect. We need to all be working together. Would she not agree?
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 5:01:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of what the member has indicated that I would suggest are somewhat misleading. If we take a look at all of the accomplishments the government has been successful in through working with the City of Toronto and the whole 905 and 416 area, I think we would find that it has been overwhelmingly successful on the issue of infrastructure. We can compare that to the Conservative years. We have accomplished so much more in a far shorter period of time, on a wide spectrum of things. Could the member indicate if he believes the Conservative Party would be doing a better job?
108 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:16:44 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. I wish he were not a separatist. I like the idea that his contributions to the debate are delivered as constructive critiques. There is always room for improvement. The member highlights some areas which, no doubt, we can improve upon. I want to emphasize that we have a Minister of Agriculture who virtually lives and breathes agriculture. She is very sensitive to the needs of farmers and is a strong advocate for things like supply management and making sure there are supports out there for agriculture, our farmers, producers and so forth. I have had the opportunity, on a couple of occasions, to host her in the province of Manitoba. The passion and knowledge she exemplifies speak volumes, with respect to moving forward as a government and getting things done. My question for the member is this. Would he possibly look at taking some of those critiques and continue to advocate, maybe with the Minister of Agriculture, because he does have some good ideas? I look forward to—
177 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:46:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:46:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 7:00 p.m. so we could begin the late show.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:51:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member continues to push this particular envelope. I have actually been very clear, as have the Prime Minister and other ministers. No matter what the member continues to try to propagate to mislead Canadians, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister has had no direct or indirect communications with the Trudeau Foundation for over 10 years. It is actually a very simple truth. One would think that even members of the Conservative Party would understand that truth. I do not want to insult the member across the way. Maybe the Conservatives are just trying to avoid the truth in order to push an envelope that they have been in since 2014. I think that was the year the leader of the Liberal Party was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party. Virtually from day one, the Conservatives have spared no expense in advertising and in research in terms of trying to find ways they could make this personal and make personal attacks against the Prime Minister. Absolutely nothing has changed. All one needs to do is go back to the days when he was the leader of the third party and listen to some of the S. O. 31s back then. At the end of the day, 2015 proved that what the member just finished saying was wrong and Canadians did not believe the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have never changed the channel. There are so many issues that Canadians are facing today. Instead of dealing with those issues, the Conservative Party continues to use character assassination and attack the Prime Minister. Today, the Conservatives get a kick out of the name of the foundation. We have non-profit foundations that do a lot of wonderful things, including the Trudeau Foundation. The questions the member wants to ask or Conservatives want to ask would be better put to the foundation itself, which is independent, just like many other foundations out there. However, this does not meet the Conservatives' cause. In a tin hat sense, they say there is this and that and who cares if it is true or not. It does not have to be true to be put on the Conservative agenda. They just grab from all over the place, put it together and say there is this huge conspiracy. The reality is that it is very clear. The Prime Minister, over the last 10 years, has had no direct or indirect connection or communication with the Trudeau Foundation. No matter how the Conservatives try to spin conspiracy theories over there, it does not change the facts. The members across the way know the facts, but their approach is not to let the facts get in the way. Their job is to be critical of the person and the family, and that is what the Conservatives have been focused on since before the 2015 election, and it is still the case—
494 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:56:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting. I would wonder if the member opposite would walk outside the chamber. Inside the chamber, he has parliamentary privilege. He can say what he wants to say inside here, almost without any limitations. Outside the chamber, would he entertain going out there and having a press conference and saying that the Prime Minister has been directly involved with the Trudeau Foundation? My bet is that he would not go out and say that because if he were to go outside and have a press conference and make the allegation that the Prime Minister does have direct communication with the Trudeau Foundation, he might find himself in a bit of hot water. There is a bit more expectation that if one is outside they have to be a bit more truthful than they are on the inside at times if one is a Conservative member of Parliament.
151 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border