44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/28/23 10:15:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 10:47:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address an issue Conservatives have brought forward. They often like to use the term “common sense”. I would suggest that the common-sense approach the Conservative Party takes today is nonsense. In fact, today's motion highlights the degree to which it is out of touch with reality and what Canadians believe.
I do not believe for a moment that Conservatives understand the depth to which they are prepared to go to get “Axe the carbon tax” on a bumper sticker, which I believe will become the bumper sticker for the Conservative Party. They are prepared to sacrifice principles and, ultimately, attack parliamentarians, not only directly but, I would suggest, also indirectly.
It is amazing that Conservatives here are talking about this important piece of legislation and blaming senators because the Senate is not passing it based on the Conservative Party of Canada's political agenda. Members might recall the bail reform bill, which was not that long ago, in September. I spoke to the bill. There were a few people who spoke to it. In essence, the bill ensured there would be a reverse onus for repeat violent offenders when it comes to bail requirements.
The provinces, other stakeholders, law enforcement agencies and our whole judicial system were appealing to the government and the opposition parties to see that legislation come before the House and, ultimately, pass. That is what we were hoping to see. Back in September, we were pleased, as a government, when the Conservative Party suggested that we pass it with a UC motion. Here in the chamber, the Conservatives felt it was worthy enough to pass unanimously through the different steps, so we could get it to the Senate. Interestingly enough, today, the bill still has not passed at the Senate. Why is that? Arguably, it is because Conservative senators are playing games with the legislation. Where is the concern from the official opposition today with respect to that piece of legislation?
Conservatives sure liked to talk about it back in September. They wanted to make sure people had the impression that they wanted to see it pass. They do not today, because now they are playing games with it at the Senate. It seems to me that, when there are accusations coming from across the way about the behaviour of the Senate, they are very selective. Today, they are highlighting the price on pollution. They are offended because of it. Do members know how risky they are prepared to be on that issue? For them, everything is based on the price on pollution.
We now have a bill at committee called the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. When that bill first came to the legislature, much like the bail reform bill, I honestly thought it would pass with unanimous consent. It is incredibly difficult to understand and believe that the only party in the chamber that voted against the Ukraine trade agreement is the Conservative Party of Canada.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: If Conservatives do not understand its relevance, Madam Speaker, that is beyond me. It speaks to why they are so upset today at the Senate: the price on pollution.
Why, at least in part, did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine deal? Publicly, what they say is that it was because of the price on pollution, even though there is a price on pollution today in Ukraine and even though when it comes to trade agreements, the European Union has made it very clear that a price on carbon, a price on pollution, is important and is part of the process. That is the lame excuse the Conservative Party is using. Time and time again, Conservatives want to talk about the price on pollution. Their sole focus is to try to make that the election issue, and that is why I say it is so risky. Conservatives were prepared to sabotage the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. I suspect it probably has a little more to do with the far right element that we see day in and day out within the Conservative Party, and how the leadership office is run virtually by the far right today.
It is disappointing, because the Conservative Party of Canada is more concerned about the election in the next two years than it is about good, solid, sound policy. That is not in the best interests of Canadians. It might be in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada today under its new leadership, but it is not in the best interests of good, sound public policy. That is where the Conservative Party is found wanting. It was able to look at legislation and make a determination with respect to the bail reform bill, and I believe that was a good decision by the Conservative Party at that time. When Conservatives saw there was a great deal of effort that went into the bill from stakeholders and provinces saying this was legislation they wanted to see passed, ultimately, it passed with unanimous consent. Then it hit the floor of the Senate. We do not hear Conservative members of Parliament today asking where that particular piece of legislation is. They should put that on their caucus agenda and ask their caucus colleagues in the Senate, and there are about 14 or 15 of them, why they are not supporting that piece of legislation.
I am an optimist. I think the Conservatives could be shamed into ultimately supporting the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Let us see what happens at third reading. Even if somehow the Conservative caucus could collectively out-manoeuvre the leader of the Conservative Party today and get the bill through the House with some of them supporting it, we still have to get it through the Conservatives in the Senate. Are we going to see the Conservative wing in the Senate do what it can to prevent the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? I remember standing in my place and talking about the trade agreement, saying it would be wonderful to see the legislation pass through the entire system before Christmas. What a wonderful, powerful statement that would make in support of Ukraine. More and more, it is looking like that will not be the case. Why is that? It is because of the fixation the Conservative Party of Canada has on the price on pollution.
The member who spoke before me talked about how the Liberals are bullying the Senate. That is an unbelievable comment. First of all, we need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has kept his word in terms of ensuring that the Senate is, in fact, independent. We saw this with the Senate appointments that have been made. At the end of the day, the only political, partisan senators are the ones who sit in the official opposition caucus meetings every Wednesday, the Conservative Party of Canada senators. They are the only ones who are aligned with a political party, but the party accuses the government of bullying the Senate.
My colleague put forward a question. Let us imagine, if we will, the former leader of the Conservative Party's developing and posting a wanted poster highlighting a senator's phone number and intimidating independent senators to take action. I got a copy of the one news article, and I would not mind making reference to some of the things that were said:
In a disturbing turn of events, Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader, [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man.
Following the threatening phone call, Senator Clement instructed her office staff to cease answering the phone. In a clear reflection of the heightened sense of fear, she decided to relocate from her Cornwall home to Ottawa, where her location could be safeguarded. The incident underscores the potential risks public figures face amidst escalating political tensions.
Senator Raymonde Saint Germain, a fellow member of the Senate, addressed this incident by raising a point of privilege with the Senate speaker. She called out attempts at intimidation and allegations of bullying, stating that one Conservative senator had labelled the independent senators as fascists. Furthermore, Senator Clement detailed a confrontation with Don Plett, the Conservative leader in the [Upper] House, who allegedly berated her and two other senators in a threatening manner.
Do the Conservatives really have the audacity to say that we as a government are bullying or intimidating senators, when they have the opposition House leader doing what he did, and a Conservative senator doing what he did to his senator colleagues? Can members imagine if something of that nature took place here on the floor of the House of Commons, if a member of the House of Commons made those sorts of threats? I do not know what allegations have been made, but I would be taking them very seriously. I would suggest that it might be a borderline privilege issue, and I would probably suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs take a look at it. It comes from the leadership of the Conservative Party today, and that is why I say it is so risky.
When we asked earlier the leader of the Conservative Party what he thinks about the actions of the former leader, his House leader, what did he say? He said that senators' phone numbers are already publicized. In essence, he does not have a problem with the behaviour of the opposition House leader. When we posed the question to the previous speaker, he seemed a bit more rational on the issue, implying that he would not support any sort of violence. However, that was the member who accused the government of using inappropriate tactics to intimidate, when the situation is the absolute opposite.
It all comes down to the issue of the price on pollution and the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to push that issue. We have seen that. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the Conservative Party, in the last federal election, was against what is being proposed in the Senate today. According to an election platform document, in order to be a Conservative candidate, one had to support the party's election platform, and the election platform clearly indicated there would in fact be a price on pollution. Every member of the Conservative Party was involved in the issue, and it is only since we had the new leader put in place that we saw a change of heart, or a change of mind, and the mind was concerned about the next election as opposed to public policy, which I talked about previously.
The consequence of that change has been very profound. As a result, we now see a Conservative Party that jumps at every opportunity to highlight the price on pollution at all costs in order to condemn the government and the other opposition parties, because it stands alone on this issue. It jumps at every opportunity to try to discredit the issue of climate change, a price on pollution and measures that are progressive in nature and are there to support Canadians. I do not say this lightly, because when we talk about the price on pollution, there is no doubt that if the Conservatives get into government, they will get rid of it. However, what they do not tell us is that in a riding like Winnipeg North, more than 80% of the constituents actually get more money back than they pay on the price of pollution. The member stood in his place and talked about the issue of affordability, but the price on pollution in Winnipeg North ensures that there is more money going into the pockets of residents than there is in contributing towards the price on pollution. There is a net benefit, and Winnipeg North is not alone.
However, Conservatives, in taking that risk and that extreme position, are today emphasizing farmers. As a government, we have been very supportive of our farmers, and maybe in a question or two, I might be able to expand on ways in which we have been supportive of our farmers. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of a price on pollution that every one of them who voted actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, contrary to what Canadians as a whole, let alone people of Canadian-Ukrainian heritage, feel on the issue, how the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada feels on the issue or how the Ukrainian Canadian Congress feels on the issue, not to mention the widespread benefits. They voted against the agreement because of their fixation on the issue, which is all based on the far right, extreme element that is alive and well in the leader of the Conservative Party's office. Like lemmings, they all follow the leader with respect to votes, which is why we saw opposition members ultimately vote against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It was because of something Ukraine already has in place, a price on pollution. The Government of Canada and all the other parties except the Conservatives see the merit of that particular issue.
2280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:08:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the farmers in Ukraine have a price on pollution, just like the farmers in all regions of Canada. There is support for a price on pollution. Countries around the world, and all political parties in this chamber, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, understand that climate change is real and it can be addressed, in good part, by things like a price on pollution.
Only the Conservative Party of Canada says no to a price on pollution. It is so fixated on that issue that it voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which demonstrates it is taking Russia's side over supporting Ukraine at a very important time in world history. Shame on the Conservatives.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:11:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to give a good example of the leader of the Conservative Party and the risk that we all take with him as leader.
Last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party said that we should be resuming Parliament because the Conservatives wanted to pass the bail reform bill. He wanted us to come back early so the bill would be passed. In September, when we were back in session, we passed the bail reform bill. We passed it with unanimous consent.
Today, that bill is stuck in the Senate because Conservative senators have chosen to play games. The games being played in the Senate are, for the most part, by those in the Conservative caucus. The Conservative caucus is made up of Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators. It is a bad combination because they can be a destructive force on the floor of the House, as we saw with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and they can also be a destructive force—
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:13:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member put out a challenge, but rebates also go to rural communities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in our rural communities.
My question to the member, and also to the leader of the Conservative Party, is about what I would classify as a big lie. There is an issue out there when the leader of the Conservative Party says they are going to axe the tax. What he never says is that he would be axing the rebate, which is a part of it. Eighty per cent of Canadians have a net gain, so he would be taking money out of the pockets of Canadians, not to mention he is continuing to deny climate change. The price on pollution is a good sound policy.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:15:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony here. As I indicated, the only partisan politics that take place when a political entity is involved both here in the House and in the Senate are those of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative senators, on a weekly basis when the House is sitting, meet with the Conservative MPs at their national caucus. That is where they set their agenda for both places. I would suggest that it is somewhat hypocritical for them to be criticizing the independence of the Senate here on the floor of the House when they are the political side of the Senate itself. I think this takes away from recognizing the fine work that many senators put in on a daily basis inside the chamber.
I really do believe that the decision of the Conservative Party to have this particular debate is fairly consistent with other aspects, such as the price on pollution. It is so fixated on the price on pollution. Members can look at how many opposition days during that has been the issue debated. There are so many other issues, such as affordability, inflation and jobs, they could be debating. They choose not to do that. That is why I say they are risky.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:52:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that there is a disturbing Donald Trump type of pattern that we see from the Conservative leader today, which is consistent with what we heard in regard to the Senate intimidation and with how the leader of the Conservative Party responded to a question, in essence, supporting it, as well as what the member gave rise to with regards to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that there is a pattern the leader of the official opposition has taken that is in fact quite disturbing? It is a pattern of intimidation that I would classify as a Donald Trump style. We saw it with the media confrontation, and there was the example of eating an apple. All those types of things come together.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 12:18:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is because there are not enough Conservative speakers standing to breathe the hot air.
At the end of the day, this is an interesting bill, but I suggest that the member give some thought to the bail reform bill. If the member can recall, sometime in June, the Conservative leader said there was really important stuff we needed to pass and that we should come back in session to get that particular bill passed. Then, when we came back in session in September, we passed the bill unanimously through the whole process. Today, it is being held up and still has not passed because of the Conservative Party.
Here we have the Conservatives now saying we should pass this bill. They seem to have forgotten this other important piece of legislation, which has a wide spectrum of support from different stakeholders. Every member of the chamber is supportive of it. I wonder if the member sees any irony there. Why are they being very selective about raising this issue on the floor? Why not the bail bill?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 12:36:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the price on pollution gets such a reaction from the Conservative Party that its members will actually vote against, as they have, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, all because of that red herring of an excuse.
When it comes to the Senate, again, there is legislation that is dealing with bail reform. The Conservative Party of Canada itself, in August, said that we should come back in session so we could pass the bail reform bill. The provinces and stakeholders were saying that it was important that we pass it. Why has it not been passed? All members of the House passed it unanimously, but the Conservative senators are now actually proposing amendments to it. They are preventing the bail reform bill from passing. There is no word now from the Conservative Party in regard to that important legislation; it completely evaporated, and why? It is because the Conservative Party is so fixated on the price on pollution that it will do anything on the issue. It is completely high-risk as a political entity.
My question is this: When the Conservative caucus meets tomorrow, and the Conservative senators meet with the Conservative MPs, will they ask what the holdup is with the bail reform bill?
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 12:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member would provide her thoughts on the following media report:
...Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man.
...Senator Clement instructed her office staff to cease answering the phone. In a clear reflection of the heightened sense of fear, she decided to relocate from her Cornwall home to Ottawa....
My question for the member is this: Does she support the type of intimidating factors used by the Conservative Party today being applied to the Senate of Canada?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:05:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have two quick points. First, there are no Liberal senators. The only politically aligned senators are Conservative senators. Second, I am sure, if we are a little more patient, that we will find the member in fact referencing it. He is highlighting some very important points for the debate.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:11:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a very real way, it is about the price on pollution. The Conservative Party, under the current leadership, is so anti-price on pollution that it even voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Given his highlighting of the importance of the Canadian economy, could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:20:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, on several occasions, yelled from his seat for members to stop lying in the House. He used the word “lie” on several occasions. I would ask that the member withdraw his comments.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:02:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this has very little to do with the substance of the legislation. I would suggest to the member opposite that it has more to do with the intimidation tactics being used by the Conservative Party of Canada.
I see a disturbing pattern taking place that Canadians should be concerned about. I call it the Donald Trump syndrome. We are seeing that by the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is very disturbing and is a pattern we are seeing more and more.
Does the member believe it is appropriate to intimidate senators to push things through the Senate, intimidation that makes some senators so scared that they are scared to go home and are telling their staff to stop answering the phone? That is serious stuff. It is the Donald Trump syndrome, and the Conservatives are falling for it. Does the member disagree with the leader of the Conservative Party?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:18:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we should try to clarify the arguments for those who are trying to follow this.
When it comes to the issue at hand, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada opposes the price on pollution. Many would say it is because Conservatives are climate deniers. They will go out of their way on all aspects in order to amplify that. The best example I can actually provide members across the way is how the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party and their office. They actually, collectively, voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. They want the price on pollution to be the campaign issue.
I am not going to disappoint them. I am going to tell my constituents that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Conservatives constantly vote in a negative fashion on Canada's environmental issues. They are climate deniers. That is the bottom line. Today, they are using the excuse of farmers. I find it unacceptable—
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:36:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the underlying fact is that the Conservatives, who deny climate change, are against a price on pollution, and they continue to look for ways to amplify that they are against a price on pollution. We saw that just last week, less than seven days ago, when the Conservatives collectively voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We saw how extremely hurtful that vote was.
I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how reckless the Conservatives are being on a price on pollution.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 5:05:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two components to what is being proposed today. The first is in regard to the fixation that the Conservatives have with the price on pollution, which ultimately led them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The second part is also very disturbing. It is a form of intimidation that we have seen that comes from the former leader of the Conservative Party, reinforced by the current leader of the Conservative Party, intimidation that saw a senator being uncomfortable returning to her home, messaging her staff not to answer the phones and so forth. It is in fact an intimidation factor.
Many look at the general direction in which the leader of the Conservative Party is going, in terms of his actions. Does the member support the type of actions being taken by the former leader of the Conservative Party and the current leader of the Conservative Party with respect to intimidation and bullying? It seems to be a pattern of behaviour.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
