44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/16/23 11:21:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we do not start to believe that the solution to our housing challenges is to close the door to more newcomers. We need to use our immigration policies to help bring in the people who have the skills we need to help build more homes.
I think that all members of the House, hopefully, support continuing to integrate newcomers into our society. We need to adopt policies to allow us to build more homes to ensure that people do not just arrive here but that they are also set up for success. This is something we have been working towards over the last number of years with the national housing strategy, and with new policies, we will have dedicated draws for skilled workers who have the talents we need to build more homes for Canadians who have been here for generations and for those who arrive in the future.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 11:29:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her advocacy on behalf of vulnerable people in Canada and around the world.
Of course, members will have seen by now that the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the safe third country agreement, recognizing that Canada and the United States have the ability to make decisions to monitor and control the flow of people who seek asylum in Canada in a way that respects the need to be compassionate toward the world's vulnerable but also to have an orderly and regular migration system.
To the extent that we want to look for ways to improve the agreement over the years ahead, we will continually monitor this particular issue to ensure that those fleeing violence who are vulnerable and may not have the opportunity to seek protection elsewhere have the ability to have their claims considered in Canada.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:31:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague and had the opportunity to spend my first few years as a member of Parliament on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with him. Unfortunately, in this particular instance I have a different perspective.
The use of time allocation, I remind him, was a routine part of proceedings before we formed government in 2015. There are many hundreds of examples when former House leader Peter Van Loan used the exact same tool to put forward significant omnibus legislation when the opposition wanted to have a say.
The reality is that, as a result of our trying to get a number of things done as we approach the summer session and as a result of certain tactics being deployed by His Majesty's loyal opposition, we found ourselves in a scenario where we were being threatened with filibusters that would potentially continue through to the end of the session and that were going to delay important things from getting done.
This is a particular piece of legislation that has been well litigated in this chamber and the other, and we now have an opportunity to move forward on an issue for which I expect there is largely agreement between multiple parties. This will enable us to move over to other priorities I know people in parts of Canada care deeply about, whether it is protecting the environment, advancing health care reforms or including investments that will make life more affordable.
We need to be able to have these debates and complete legislation in a timely way, and I am going to be pleased to see Bill S-8 form part of Canadian law hopefully in the very near future.
290 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:33:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, my answer is no.
I too have great respect for my colleague. Again, in this instance, I think it is appropriate to exercise the government's ability to use time allocation in order to complete a piece of legislation that would make a fundamentally important change to render people inadmissible to Canada who have been sanctioned for gross human rights violations, for corruption and now for serious injuries to international peace and security.
This is something on which I do expect there is largely agreement among the parties. It would result in ensuring that the many people who have been sanctioned as a result of their participation in Russia's invasion into Ukraine or the massive abuses that are taking place against innocent people in Iran are not admissible to Canada.
My view is that the House leader has done an exemplary job of managing the agenda of the House in order to implement important reforms that we have worked together with opposition parties to secure, and this is the latest example that will allow us to move forward expeditiously with legislation that would improve Canada's laws and better serve Canadians by rendering inadmissible people the government has sanctioned for serious injuries to international peace and security, which I hope is something that will receive the unanimous support of members in this chamber.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel this question period is a reunion among friends. I mentioned my friend with whom I sat on the transport committee for a few years. The next two questioners I have spent considerable time on the finance committee with, which I very much enjoyed.
I cannot speak for His Majesty's loyal opposition, but I can observe from my own perspective a desire to interfere with the government's agenda for fear that people may actually see that the government is advancing measures that help people in communities. I believe there is a dissonance between the Conservatives' perspective on time allocation today compared with when they actually held government prior to October of 2015, a time when we will see hundreds of examples of the government of the day using this very specific remedy in order to advance legislation when opposition parties were in disagreement.
I sense that when time allocation is being objected to on an area where significant debate has already taken place and where I expect potential unanimous agreement, this is more about the political effort to make sure the government cannot advance its agenda to help Canadians rather than it is the need to exhaust debate further.
These issues have been litigated in this chamber and in the other place. They would render inadmissible people conducting themselves in a way that seriously injures international peace and security. This is something I hope we can get behind, because the criminals responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the criminals responsible for the death of Mahsa Amini and for the many other protesters who have now been harassed, punished or killed do not deserve to come to Canada.
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:38:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I agree entirely with my hon. colleague who has posed the question.
The reality is that I have to come to understand over my now nearly eight years in this institution, that the greatest currency that any of us have in Parliament is time. There are a finite number of legislative days in which we have to advance laws that will improve the quality of life that Canadians get to enjoy. This particular idea is one that will render inadmissible some of the people who are responsible for the greatest sins committed globally in recent history. Those people should be inadmissible to Canada.
Where there is widespread agreement, particularly where this builds upon a multipartisan committee report and builds upon multipartisan support for the Magnitsky act sanctions that were put in place to begin with, we have an opportunity to quickly agree, do the right thing and then have serious debates on other issues that matter to Canadians. My constituents sent me because they wanted me to focus on things like making sure communities have access to primary care, making sure we protect our environment, making sure that we create jobs for people in our community and that life is more affordable for others.
It is important that we get to these issues where there may be constructive debates and differing ideologies, but on the things where we truly agree, where debate has been exhausted, it is important we make a decision to improve the quality of the laws that exist in Canada so that we can focus on improving the quality of life Canadians get to enjoy.
277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:40:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy questions from the hon. member. I find them to be thoughtful, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement. I think to have respectful engagement on issues that matter is very important.
With respect, there are a number of different kinds of sanctions that may be most appropriate for different kinds of scenarios. In fact, before the changes to Bill S-8, there are certain kinds, including for human rights abuses, that could be launched more through our sanctions regime. We also had the opportunity to sanction individuals for significant acts of corruption, both of which could have rendered a person inadmissible. Going forward, we will be able to render people inadmissible as well for violations that cause interruptions to global peace and security. For what it is worth, there is another expansion that will ensure that we are not just dealing with acts committed by countries but also substate actors and terror organizations.
I think, going forward, when the facts justify it, it may be most appropriate to use sanctions for human rights abuses, but in the present instance we have seen a significant increase, as a result, in particular, of Russia's latest invasion into Ukraine, of bad actors who I think are complicit in those kinds of actions that have interrupted global peace and security. Whether it is for gross and systematic human rights violations, whether it is for significant acts of corruption or whether it is for this new power that will be rendering people inadmissible based on their erosion of international peace and security, I think all of those groups deserve to be sanctioned with inadmissibility, not just the pre-existing consequences that were available under the particular piece of legislation that is at issue in this particular debate.
299 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:43:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to respond to my hon. colleague, it is important that we understand that time allocation is not inherently a good nor a bad thing. The appropriateness of its use depends on how it is implemented in a given set of circumstances. To one extreme, if the government is using time allocation to stifle debate or avoid accountability, I think most people would agree that is a bad thing, but on the other side of the equation, it is possible that time allocation can be used to get things done, particularly in an instance such as this, where there is widespread agreement on an issue and where there has been debate.
To answer the member's question specifically, my belief is that the opposition by the Conservatives to the use of time allocation in this instance is driven by a desire to eat up some of the legislative time that remains to avoid having the government accomplish other things it has committed to doing to improve the quality of life of Canadians.
Of course, when we go home in the summer, having completed debates and passed good laws, it is something we will want to talk to people about in our communities. To the extent that Conservatives see government members or other members of this House talking about the good they have done for Canadians, there may be a partisan disadvantage to having had Parliament accomplish more things.
My view is that we should spend less time thinking about the partisan advantage we may gain and more time trying to get things done, so we can serve the people who have sent us here from our communities right across Canada.
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:46:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I often try to put myself in the shoes of a non-partisan observer, thinking about what debates may transpire in this chamber, in order to determine what may be appropriate, in terms of both the substance and the procedure of our debates.
My sense is that people who come from my community would like to see that we give an opportunity for parliamentarians who have a particular point of view to put that view forward in the House of Commons and to have people who come from different communities and different walks of life and have different lived experiences do the same. At the end of that reasonable debate, there should be a vote to determine whether the proposal should be adopted by the House of Commons and adopted into Canadian law, should the other chamber in Parliament also agree on the same form of that legislation.
This particular instance provides an excellent example of when time allocation is perfectly appropriate. There has been significant debate; the other chamber has adopted the law, and we are now dealing with the final stage of proceedings when it comes to doing something I think all members in this chamber will eventually support, which is to render inadmissible people who have been sanctioned for egregious conduct of the highest order.
When we have widespread agreement and when we have had significant debate, I think Canadians expect us to put it to a vote and move on to things that will allow us to deliver additional supports to their families, improve the quality of the services they enjoy and protect our natural environment.
I think the debate has been exhausted. I think time allocation is appropriate, and we will be able to get this done to improve the quality of laws we have on the books in this country.
308 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with enormous respect for my colleague, it is revisionist history to suggest time allocation is being used more now than ever in history. I would point him to the many instances when the former House leader of the Conservative government, when it was in power before October 2015, implemented time allocation measures on hundreds of occasions in order to stifle debate.
The reality is, we use it sometimes and not others because it makes sense sometimes but not others. When there has not been sufficient debate to bring forward the best ideas from parliamentarians who represent communities across Canada, then I do not think we should be moving forward with time allocation.
It is the same when there is not an opportunity for people to have put their voices on the record in an attempt to further the debate and potentially change the legislation for the better. Those are opportunities where we should give space for people to contribute their ideas further.
When there is such widespread agreement, when people have had the opportunity to put their voices on the record and when there is not a lineup of speakers who are still trying to improve the quality of the laws we are debating, it is entirely appropriate to use time allocation to prevent opposition parties from using procedural delay tactics designed to prevent the government from implementing the agenda it has committed to Canadians that it would implement.
This is a perfect example of when time allocation is appropriate. There is widespread agreement, and there has been sufficient debate. We can all move forward knowing that this is going to improve the quality of our sanctions laws and inadmissibility regime in Canada, and I think it is appropriate that we wrap this debate up and continue to work on the things that matter most to Canadians.
309 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has included a number of aspects in his question. I will do my best to address them in the time provided for in this particular instance.
I think it is important to recognize that, in any given instance, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of a procedural measure used in the House of Commons. In this particular instance, where there is widespread agreement and where there has been sufficient debate, I think it is entirely appropriate.
The member cited Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. With enormous respect to all members of this House, I did not hear a novel argument put forward in that debate. We had an opportunity to debate the measures that were included in the budget. We had an opportunity to further debate some of the measures that were being implemented in Bill C-47.
My view is that with the supports that were going to be delivered to Canadians, including tax breaks for skilled tradespeople, advancing child care, other pieces of law that were dealt with previously and getting grocery rebates to people, there was an opportunity for us to deliver the supports that people had counted upon expeditiously. In my view, having not heard novel arguments being presented in the House of Commons, and needing to get supports to people in a timely manner at a time when those supports were most needed, it was also appropriate.
The wonderful thing about our democracy is that this decision is not made by any one individual, even by the cabinet. It is made by a majority of members who are elected to the House of Commons by the communities who sent them here. In each instance, time allocation has been supported by a majority of members.
I think that is the appropriate way to deal with the present issue, particularly given the widespread agreement and significant debate that have already taken place.
323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:55:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, though my colleague may be a new member, I can say she provides immense value to the debates that take place in this chamber, and I thank her for her presence here and the representation of her community. The member has learned a lesson, though she may be in her first term, far more quickly than I did when I was in my first term.
When I was first elected, I wanted to chase every car, make every argument and take part in every single debate. What I came to understand was that the greatest currency we have as parliamentarians is the time during which we can put forward the arguments that support our communities. Every minute that we spend on one issue is a minute we do not spend on another.
When we are dealing with an issue such as in Bill S-8, something a simple as rendering inadmissible some of the worst criminals who are responsible, in this case, for the latest invasion into Ukraine by Russia, and when we are dealing with the people who are responsible for the persecution of innocent people in Iran, following the death of Mahsa Amini, because they had the audacity to protest this egregious behaviour by their government, I think we can agree that we have had the debate we needed to have and that now we have the ability to move on to deal with other pressing issues, such as those the member referenced in her question. I look forward to hearing her perspective on those important debates as soon as we are able to wrap up this measure as quickly as possible.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the opportunity to engage with my hon. colleague. He is one of the most articulate members in the House of Commons.
With enormous respect, it is important that we not adjudicate the ability of a government to make a difference in people's lives by the number of bills that a government has adopted. It may be that there are bills that have an enormous impact that will take longer to debate. I think, for example, about Bill C-35, the opportunity to put an affordable early learning and child care strategy in place in this country, which has now received a significant amount of debate and will be implemented over time.
To the extent that our use of time allocation reflects the same number of instances per bill, I have no reason to doubt the figure that the member is citing. However, what is important is not just the number of times that it has been used, but the context in which it has been used. If we look at this present piece of legislation that is being debated on the floor of the House of Commons, we can see that there is widespread agreement, and we can see that there has been significant debate.
This is a sea change in the appropriateness when I look at some of the instances where it was used before I was a member of Parliament; in particular when omnibus budget legislation was used, not for relatively uncontroversial measures but for things that would significantly erode the environmental assessment process that we use for waterways and our oceans. These are the kinds of things that I know attracted a lot of controversy at the time, not just because time allocation was being used, but because of the widely divergent views on important issues that were existential to the debates that we have in these chambers.
My view is that this is an appropriate time to use time allocation. It does not reflect anything other than an attempt to get something done that, I think all members will agree, is the right path forward. I look forward to having debates where appropriate and moving forward expeditiously with legislation when we are able to find common ground and agree, after a healthy debate has taken place.
386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 12:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare also said this:
And do as adversaries do in law,Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
Although we disagree on the appropriateness of time allocation, I will continue to conduct myself respectfully in this debate.
The reality is that this is not an erosion of democracy. It is important that we have the opportunity to debate legislation. That has taken place, both in the other chamber and in this chamber.
We now have the opportunity to move forward with an important change that will render inadmissible some of the worst criminals and financiers of egregious acts that have threatened international peace and security. I trust that all members will agree that this is a good thing and we can put this to bed to focus on other priorities that are important to the people I represent in Central Nova.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
