44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 11:04:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated listening to the discussion and debate this morning. I want to thank my colleague and friend for bringing forward such important legislation.
A good percentage of us are provided the opportunity to introduce private members' legislation. My colleague has picked a substantive issue that impacts children from coast to coast to coast. I listened to the member speak to the legislation, and she emphasized that this bill is not about what food choices parents make. That is a very important part to emphasize.
I start off by saying that because, when I was listening to the Conservative Party's member talk about the legislation, they said, in essence, that the legislation is not good and they will not be supporting it. I assume that will be the position the Conservative Party might take on this as a whole. It is somewhat discouraging, and I will tell members why. When we think of sugar, salt and saturated fats, and the health consequences of the over-consumption of those products, one needs to realize that there is a substantive cost that goes beyond the health condition of the individual consuming the products.
I was a provincial MLA for just under 20 years. If we look at the greatest single expenditure that a province has, it is health care. Trying to marginalize, in any fashion, the impact that diets have on the health condition of our citizens is a disservice.
I thought it was interesting when the member opposite from the Conservative Party said that all children have to do is get out and play football, or get out of the house more. They said that the government needs to get less involved in issues such as this. The members have missed out on a wonderful opportunity. I would ask the member to review what he said and look at what the legislation would actually do.
This is substantive legislation. As the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party made reference to, we have to consider in the mentality of a child and the impact advertising has on them. The member from the Conservative Party is really out of tune.
In the areas I represent, it is not like someone can run outside to their front yard to play flag football in the traditional north end of Winnipeg. There are fields maybe down the block or around the corner, but there are all sorts of other things that factor into it. Some people have different opportunities than others do.
If we apply the very same principle that the government needs to be less involved to the issue of labelling, would the Conservative Party then reverse its course and its thinking on the importance of labelling to say the government should not be involved in it? I would argue that this is very much about consumer education. It is about the government providing assistance to consumers.
The member said that this is about advertising. For children under the age of 13, we would put in prohibitions to prevent excessive amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fats. We can look at the targeting that takes place in advertising today. It is significantly different than what it was 10 or 15 years ago. I will use Facebook as an example. I can target, through Facebook, genders and ages. I can break it down into communities where I want to advertise. We can take a look at what children are engaged in today on the Internet and social media and how much more they are susceptible to advertising and promotions of unhealthy food.
I agree with the parenting factor. I am not going to tell members across the way what they have to feed their children, but I believe that at the same time, there is an obligation on government to look at ways it can promote and encourage healthy eating habits. Where there is a window for some form of exploitation that could ultimately lead to problems in our collective health, I think there is a responsibility for government. We know there are other governments around the world doing this, and it has already been highlighted that the Province of Quebec has been dealing, at least in part, with what this legislation is talking about for the last number of decades.
I would emphasize that things have changed. We have seen, through that change, a great deal more obesity within our younger population. It is not just because of computer games or being in front of the Nintendo, Atari or whatever else one wants to call it. Yes, it would be wonderful to see more children out in our communities playing and participating in physical activities. There are things we can do to encourage and support that. As a government, we have done that by working with municipalities and working with the provinces. However, here, within Bill C-252, we have something very specific that will in fact make a difference.
Take a look at what our children are viewing and watching and how advertisers can focus in. It is not just putting one ad on a TV network or one ad that goes in a particular book. Today, we can focus in on individual children under the age of 13 in promoting a product that we know is unhealthy.
At the end of the day, it is not about saying to a parent, “No, you can't give your child this.” It is to ensure that a parent has more say, as opposed to child X seeing something on blog Y, because blog Y is about some game and is encouraging and promoting a particular product that is loaded with saturated fats, salt or sugar content.
All sorts of chronic health conditions are a direct result of the obesity taking place in our communities. This legislation would make a positive difference for our young people. I hope that members, in particular of the Conservative Party, understand and appreciate that they can contribute to healthier children by supporting this legislation.
1011 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could expand. When we look at the importance of the legislation to our ports and our rail yards, which are important to our whole supply chain, this is a critical updating of legislation that would make things that much more safe for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, quite frankly.
The fear was that, if we did no bring in time allocation, this legislation would never pass. At least, at the very minimum, it would not get through until sometime in 2024 or 2025, and only if the Conservatives were prepared to do so. That is the reason we had to bring in time allocation.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 3:55:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 5:20:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, right offhand, I categorically deny what the member is trying to imply with his statement. However, I will take note of what the member has said and then come back to the House.
If we are going to continue to have this discussion, members should be better focused on what the privilege is.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 7:46:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to give a bit of a different perspective. As a parliamentarian for about 30 years now, the vast majority of those years were in opposition. I am very much aware of the importance of opposition tools and how important it is to ensure that those tools are protected.
I have had the opportunity to go through this, as I know the member opposite has. There is nothing within the motion the government is proposing, which is supported by the Bloc, the NDP and, I assume, Green members, that would in any way prevent an opposition from being able to use tools to hammer home whatever their point might be. One could speculate on a few things, sure, but from an opposition's point of view, in my 20-plus years' experience being in opposition, I do not quite understand what it is within this motion that the member opposite believes, or the Conservatives believe, would prevent the opposition members from being able to do their job specifically. Can the member give a clear indication of what specific issue would prevent an opposition from being able to do its job?
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can expand on the idea that work as a member of Parliament goes far beyond the work that is done here on the Hill in Ottawa. I thought the member was doing a wonderful job talking about how members of Parliament can serve their constituents by being in their riding. However, I think at times that point gets lost. There are so many events and things that are happening in our communities where members of Parliament serve their constituents best.
When I look at the hybrid, I see it as a tool that enables overall better representation of the people who elect us. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of better quality representation opportunities by having a hybrid system.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question before I get the opportunity to speak. Could the member give a clear indication of why the members of the Conservative Party seem to oppose the voting app? Do they support the app?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:02:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an interesting point the member just raised. He says that the Conservative Party would support everything we are talking about if there were a sunset clause. If I am understanding what the member just said, he would then be in full support of the motion; I look to him to give clear indication that my statement is, in fact, correct.
Mr. John Nater: That was in the dissenting report.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, he is reaffirming that by his comments across the way.
I think we have to put things into proper perspective here, and part of that is recognizing the role the Conservative Party plays today on the floor of the House of Commons. I would suggest that it is very much a destructive force. They talk about the NDP voting with us on time allocation, and they try to give the impression that there is a solid coalition and so forth. However, the member does not realize that, in the last federal election, Canadians decided that it would be a minority government.
In a minority government, it is not only the party that has the majority of seats that is afforded the opportunity to continue to govern, as we were given. It also ensures that the government works along with opposition parties. The Conservatives, virtually from the get-go, made it very clear that they do not see themselves as a co-operative—
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is now the second time we see that Conservative members do not understand the rules. They stand on a point of order when they know that, after 6:30 p.m., quorum cannot be called. It is very rude for members opposite to interrupt a member's speech in order to ask for a quorum call when they know full well they cannot do so. I would ask the indulgence of the Conservative Party members to understand that they cannot call quorum and to allow members to continue with their remarks uninterrupted.
I was trying to emphasize that a clear message was sent in the last election, not only to the Liberal Party but also to opposition parties. This message was that in order to pass anything through the House of Commons in a minority situation, one needs the co-operation of at least one opposition party. Without that, one cannot accomplish anything. The Conservative Party is very much on the record saying they do not support this party being in government. Its members are going out of their way to play a role as a destructive force in every way to prevent legislation and motions from ultimately being passed.
A good example of that is when the leader of the Conservative Party, just last week, prior to coming into the House indicated to the media and anyone who wanted to hear that he was going to speak until the Prime Minister withdrew budgetary measures. It lasted four hours; the vote ended up taking place anyway, because of the rules. In my mind, this amplified the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to dealing with issues that come to the floor of the House of Commons. As a member of Parliament now for over a decade, one of the things I have recognized is that it is exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to make substantive changes to the Standing Orders unless one is prepared to take a strong stand. This is because getting that consensus is virtually impossible.
I sat in on PROC meetings and listened to all sorts of discussions taking place. I guess I would say that I am a frustrated parliamentarian who recognizes that we need to modernize the rules of the House of Commons. There are changes that are necessary. After every election, we are actually afforded the opportunity, as individual members, as parliamentarians, to share concerns on rule changes we would like to see.
I recall standing up not that long ago, I believe it was last year, when we had that debate inside the chamber, and I talked about some of the rules I would like to see changed. I would like to see more debate time, for example, and I set in process a way in which that could be accommodated. Other members talked about different forms of rules and changes, such as dual chambers and so forth.
There have been both on-the-record and off-the-record discussions among members of all political parties. I was actually very pleased when, back in March 2020, we had a consensus to look at ways in which we could accommodate the pandemic and allow Parliament to continue. There was a very positive attitude, where opposition parties of all stripes worked with the government and where the government worked with opposition parties. We came up with a system that has clearly demonstrated that even in a worldwide pandemic, the House of Commons can continue and be effective. We are able to deal with the issues that concern Canadians day in, day out.
There are many things that took place during the pandemic that I would suggest would be of great benefit in terms of modernizing the House of Commons. Not all Conservatives within the House of Commons would balk at the idea of having the voting application completely in its hybrid form, as the government House leader himself pointed out when he brought forward the legislation. Like him, I too have heard many positive things about the hybrid format.
When I posed a question to the member who spoke just before me, asking whether they do or do not support the voting application, the member's response in essence was that if there were a sunset clause, they would support the motion in its entirety. That is what he implied. I actually repeated what he implied as he was there, and he nodded in the affirmative. He said, “Absolutely.”
This is mixed messaging. On the one hand, the Conservative Party is prepared to continue doing what we are doing for the next couple of years. We are committed to continue to work with opposition members, particularly the New Democrats, who have expressed an interest in listening to what Canadians said back in 2021 and making this Parliament work, which means we could be going well into 2025.
The Conservatives are saying that as the official opposition, if we give them the sunset clause, they will accept it. That tells me that they do support what is here. Their problem seems to be that they want us to say that it would be reaffirmed after the next election. After the next election, the standing order could be withdrawn. I suggest that once this resolution or this motion is passed and adopted by the House, as I anticipate and hope that it will be, we are not going to see even a Conservative majority government withdraw it.
It is not because it is to the advantage of one party over another, depending on whether someone is in opposition or in government. I do not believe that for a moment. That is the reason I posed the question. Having been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now, I know that most of my years were actually in the opposition benches. I understand the importance of opposition tools that are utilized in order to hold a government accountable. That is why I said to give me a tangible example of something within this motion that will take one of those tools away, and explain what it is.
Some members say it is ministerial accountability. I can appreciate the concern about ministerial accountability, but it has a lot more to do with the personality of the minister than anything else. When I was in opposition and I approached a minister, I was often told to check with their staff or call their office. Some ministers would actually sit down and chat, I suspect, or pick up the phone, depending on the situation. I do not believe ministerial accessibility is lost.
Every member of this House is afforded the opportunity to file four questions. Once those questions are asked, I think it is 45 days before they are answered. I know; I table a lot of these. I think I am well into the thousands of questions, and they will get a response from the ministers.
They talk about ministerial accountability. Well, thousands of questions have been answered now. When was the last time we heard a minister or a parliamentary secretary answer a question virtually? We see that the answers are being provided from the floor of the House.
People may say, “What about the future?” I remember that when I was sitting in opposition, we would be counting the number of question periods in which one of the ministers in the Harper government was not showing up to answer any questions, and it went for days and days, going into weeks, going past months.
Ministerial accessibility is not really an issue. I would suggest that it is not a tool that is going to make members more ineffective. At the very least, it would not prevent opposition, because opposition members will use the absence of a minister who does not show up inside the chamber as a reason for questioning that particular minister, and that has happened for years. I do not think ministerial accessibility has anything to do with it.
We hear about some of the benefits that are being proposed in the hybrid system. I am a big fan of the voting application. I believe that the voting application is probably the single greatest change that we have seen in generations.
An hon. member: In 152 years.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I do not know if we had the technology back then, but I can tell members that when Canada was formed, Hansard did not exist. Hansard did exist in other parliaments, but not here in Canada. It took a few years before we actually got Hansard. I would suggest that a change of that nature was very important. It provided a lot more accountability, because when a member said something in the House, it was actually recorded. Prior to that, it was more of a secret club of sorts, and I suspect that when Hansard was brought in back then, we might have seen some members not necessarily supporting it, but it enhanced our democracy and accountability.
We could go to a few decades after that, when we saw televised debates. Television changed the way in which politicians responded to questions and to debates themselves. I like to think that it contributed in a very positive way. As a parliamentarian in the Manitoba legislature, I remember having these types of discussions on the impact of television when it was brought in. Believe it or not, there were still some members when I was first elected who argued that television was a bad thing to be brought in to the Manitoba legislature. However, I would suggest that it raised the bar. It ensured additional accountability.
I believe there is a great benefit to the voting application. It is not a tool that is going to diminish opportunities for opposition members. If they believe that to be the case, then they should explain why that is the case and then explain why they are prepared to allow it to continue for the next couple of years, because that is what they are prepared to do. I think that in their heart of hearts, they actually recognize the value of the voting application, and it is valuable.
Imagine that wherever a member is in the country, they would actually be able to participate in a vote. Imagine what that would mean for a member representing British Columbia if there were going to be a vote on Monday.
They do not even have to be from a far coast. Let us take my colleague representing the community of Brandon. It involves taking a taxi to the airport and waiting at the airport. Then there is the plane ride to Winnipeg, hopefully not having to go through Toronto, and then getting into a vehicle once there and driving two hours to get out to Brandon. That has to be reversed in order to be able to come for a Monday vote, possibly on a procedural call.
What is the real difference? I would suggest that by enabling that member to vote virtually, we are doing their constituents the favour. The member benefits, but the real individuals who benefit from the electronic voting are the people of Canada, our constituents.
When we have committees happening or meetings taking place throughout the parliamentary precinct, very important meetings, very important standing committees, and a member is meeting with x, whoever x might be, sometimes the bells start to ring, which means that meeting is interrupted. It could have been a meeting on something of an urgent nature, a foreign affairs matter or a very important discussion one was having via Zoom. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might not necessarily be able to attend a particular meeting. Now, that person has the option to be able to vote using the application. I see that as a positive. I have not heard an argument that has convinced me otherwise.
Being able to participate and be fully engaged here on the floor of the House of Commons, whether virtually or in person, is important to all of us. I think when members look at the rules being proposed, and hopefully adopted, it is not too late for the Conservatives to support it. If they truly believe what they say about supporting it if we would put in a sunset clause, the government House leader provided them with the rationale that three or four years from now, any future government, through a Standing Order, could reverse the changes. We can look at the 2020 discussions that took place, where there was a consensus developed, to what we are seeing today and what the member has said, which is that they in essence support everything as long as there is a sunset clause. I would suggest that the desire to see the changes that are being proposed is in fact there, but there is a lot of political posturing taking place.
At the end of the day, Canadians will be better served if this motion is passed. I would ask and suggest that all members look seriously at supporting the motion.
2193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:24:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the member opposite, I will walk that fine line and hopefully not cross it.
In order for the House to convene, we have to have at least 20 members inside the House. Last week, on more than one occasion, there was only one political entity that actually had members when the House was getting under way, when the prayer was going on, and it was not the Conservatives. That might have crossed the line there a bit, and I apologize for doing that, but the point is that dilatory motions, quorum—
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:25:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point is the member might not realize it, but even when Stephen Harper was prime minister, and in governments before, often members would be sitting late in the evening, and there were no quorum calls. That actually happens quite a bit with all different political parties—
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:27:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that needs to be factored into the member's comments is the amount of filibustering that takes place in many standing committees.
To not take that into consideration is to not respect the fact that there is a finite amount of resources. We have to work with the resources that are there. Where they can be enhanced, they have been, as much as one would expect.
Our standing committees play an absolutely critical role. They are really the backbone of our Parliament and the work that is done. I would like to think that we would have more functional standing committees in different areas.
At times there is a need for filibustering. Often filibusters end as a result of more political partisanship than I, personally, would like to see.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:29:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to acknowledge that for many people there are all sorts of good, personal reasons for why we should be supporting the hybrid model, whether it is the birth of a child or issues related to a parent of a member of Parliament, and everything in between, including graduations and so forth.
What people need to recognize is being an MP is unique. There are demands that are very different. It is very much a seven-day-a-week job. MPs are often looking at 16-hour days. That is not to complain, I love what I do. I just recognize that it is different, and the hybrid model could make life a little easier, which would allow for us, ideally, to get more quality people running to become members of Parliament, and in particular more women and minority participation.
Having said that, to the specifics of the question, I do believe that we are exploring all sorts of options, including having translators who would not have to be in the Ottawa circle. There could be someone from St. Boniface, Manitoba being the translator. I hear that is being considered, and I think it is a wonderful thing.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:33:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure where to go with that particular question. The members of Parliament work whether they are here or they are in their ridings. I can tell the member that I do and my colleagues do.
At the end of the day, the member needs to ask himself a question: Why does the Conservative Party support everything that is in this motion on the condition that it be sunset for two years, as opposed to just forgetting about the sunset for a moment? If they support it for the next two years, then what is really wrong with the motion?
I suspect that the member does, or many members of the Conservative Party do, support the motion, but the House leadership team is having a difficult time showing any sort of consensus building.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:43:18 p.m.
- Watch
What about the questions?
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:59:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would argue that the interests of Canadians is best served by having a hybrid Parliament, as has been suggested in a motion that the Conservative Party has indicated it would support if there was a sunset clause where it would have to be reaffirmed three years from now.
Does the member not see anything within that statement that is rather odd with respect to the Conservatives saying that they will accept the changes if we put in that sunset clause, which, in essence, is saying for the rest of this Parliament and at least a year going into the next Parliament that these rules would be accepted? Does he not see any inconsistencies?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 12:04:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a number of thoughts come to mind. First and foremost, we can understand and appreciate the degree to which inflation is hurting Canadians. I would ask the Conservative Party to collectively understand what I just finished saying and support some of the initiatives that the government is doing to assist Canadians, whether it is the dental program or the grocery rebate program. These are helping Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
The member talked about the price on pollution. Even though 338 Conservative candidates made a campaign promise to have a price on pollution, I respect that they did flip-flop on the issue, even though they did promise Canadians.
What is misleading is when Conservatives stand up and try to give the impression that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was wrong when he made the statement saying that 80% of Canadians would receive more money, real dollars, compared to money that is put in.
That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are going to be receiving more of a rebate, which, again, helps with inflation.
There is a consistency problem. The Conservatives talk about inflation rates. As I said, we are concerned, and we are taking action, even though the Conservatives do not support it. We need to recognize that around the world, inflation is hitting. It is not unique to Canada. What is unique to Canada is that Canada's inflation rate is substantially less than the inflation rate of many of the European countries. It has been less than the rate of the U.S., England, Germany and other European countries.
Relatively speaking, Canada's inflation rate is high. We recognize the hardship that it costs and, as a result, we have put into place a number of budgetary measures to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
Imagine the frustration that we do not hear ideas coming from the Conservative Party, outside of the issue of cryptocurrency, and we are still waiting for the apology. Remember that the leader of the Conservative Party said, look, do we want to fight inflation? Go to cryptocurrency.
Those people who would have followed that advice would have lost 60%-plus of their investment. Other economic recommendations coming from the leader of the Conservative Party included things like getting rid of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
It is very well respected not only here in Canada but across other jurisdictions in the world, recognizing the important role that the Bank of Canada plays in our society, a society that is doing exceptionally well, whether it is the deficit, the GDP or our ability to be able to have better controls on the issue of inflation.
How does the Conservative Party respond, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party? Fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. How silly an idea?
I do not think we need to take advice from the Conservative Party, because it has clearly demonstrated that it does not understand.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 12:09:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's initial comments, he should read the speech that he gave in his four minutes. He will find that I addressed it directly, with one exception and that was when I talked about Conservative ideas related to dealing with the issue of inflation. All I was doing was regurgitating ideas that were generated from the leader of the Conservative Party. I suspect that likely makes him a little bit nervous, as I am sure it makes a lot of Canadians nervous.
The bottom line is, and I have said this consistently, this government is very much aware of the issue of inflation. We have a budget that is reflective of what Canadians have been telling us. It is a budget that deals with the issue of inflation in a very tangible way.
We will continue to work with stakeholders, to minimize the negative impact of inflation on Canadians while, at the same time, building a country and an economy that is there for all Canadians.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
