SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 268

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
  • Dec/14/23 10:02:44 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 10:11:20 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 11:05:03 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the member is taking into consideration his calculation, does that include Premier Doug Ford's contribution also?
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 11:40:16 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the pattern I talked about the other day. We are seeing the MAGA Conservatives, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, taking this approach. What they want to talk about is Stellantis and the Volkswagen deal. I get it. MAGA Conservatives do not like it when the government invests in industrial expansion in areas that mean a great deal, with literally thousands of direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs. Why have the Conservatives fallen so dogmatically to the idea of MAGA conservatism that they are bringing it almost on a daily basis into the chamber? What is wrong with the Government of Canada recognizing the potential of an industry? Batteries and the electrification of vehicles are things of the future and they are happening today. We have an opportunity to see that industry grow in Canada. Why does the Conservative Party today not support the growth of that industry?
161 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 11:45:43 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-59 
Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I have a point of order. It is in response to the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, better known as the fall economic statement. I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to the provisions in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement but not referenced in the 2023 budget. Let me quote the standing order in question, which reads: (1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. (2) The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The legal title of the bill reads, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”. I can confirm to the House that the significant majority of provisions in Bill C-59 would implement measures announced and articulated in the 2023 budget. The fall economic statement was designed to respond to affordability challenges facing Canadians, and these measures reflect a minority of provisions in the bill. The key to the standing order is the ability for the government to provide a compelling rationale as to why there is a common element or theme that connects the various provisions. In my intervention on that matter last week, I stated that the provisions to implement the legislative measures announced in the fall economic statement were linked to a common theme of affordability for Canadians. This intervention therefore allows me to provide in greater detail how these measures demonstrate a clear link to addressing the affordability concerns of Canadians. Before I review the measures that were only referenced in the fall economic statement, I would like to point out that many of the measures identified by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle were referenced in the 2023 budget. Clauses 1 through 95 relate to proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act that in principle would ensure the robustness of Canada's tax system to provide benefits to Canadians, to create good-quality jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone. There is only one measure in these clauses that was not announced in the budget, that is, the information-sharing provision between departments to facilitate the provision of the government's dental benefit program. I would note that the dental benefit was a budget 2023 measure, and this provision was a technical fix to ensure the smooth operationalization of the benefit. This measure, along with the corresponding technical fix, is clearly a measure to address affordability challenges faced by Canadians who are eligible for the benefit. Clauses 96 through 128 would establish a digital services tax, which was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents. Therefore, it should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 129 to 136 relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act that are designed to ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly and properly affected by the excise tax, to enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination and a great place to do business, and to support Canadians' participation in the labour market. All measures contained in clauses 129 to 136 were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 136 to 144 also relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which would ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly treated by the excise tax. These measures would enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination, which not only creates excellent job opportunities for Canadians, but also contributes to the revenues to strengthen Canada's social safety net. A significant majority of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages. There are three measures that were not announced in the 2023 budget, but their purpose is clearly designed to address affordability challenges for Canadians. These include a measure that would exempt psychotherapy from federal tax, which would not only reduce the cost of therapy for Canadians, but also contribute to their well-being so they can productively contribute to the labour market. The second measure involves provisions to ensure that co-operative housing units are eligible for the 100% GST rebate on purpose-built housing, which is a real and significant investment to help build homes for Canadians and address affordability challenges for Canadians to find a place to call home. Clauses 145 to 167 concern the taxation of vaping products and cannabis products in Canada. These revenues provide investments for Canada to strengthen our social supports, and provide a price signal to Canadians of the health effects of the abuse of these products, while also providing for a fair and stable taxation of vaping and cannabis products. Clauses 168 to 196 would amend the laws governing financial institutions, which are designed to strengthen the governance of Canadian financial institutions. They are important to keeping Canadians' money and investments, as well as our financial institutions, safe and secure. All of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 197 to 208 relate to proposed leave entitlements related to pregnancy loss and bereavement leave, which are designed to support workers. Canadian workers are the backbone of the economy, and anyone who faces the tragedy of pregnancy loss deserves rightful access to bereavement leave. Ultimately, this measure would ensure that Canadians who are dealing with this tragedy are not also burdened by the loss of income. Again, all of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 209 to 216 relate to the establishment of a Canada water agency, which would create good jobs for Canadians and protect Canadians' access to fresh, clean water. It would also restore, protect and manage bodies of water of national significance. Canadians should be able to count on access to clean water. In an era of increasing climate disruption, an independent Canadian water agency, which would be located in Winnipeg, would help to protect our bodies of water. This measure was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 217 and 218 relate to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which would provide the government with the authority to develop and implement tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks. It would also limit the cost burden on taxpayers for the funding of federal tobacco and vaping activities. In essence, these measures would ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for paying for the development or regulatory frameworks related to vaping, which would not only free up funds that could otherwise be spent on the investments and supports Canadians rely on, but also provide Canadians who use such products with additional disposable income to spend on the essentials of life. Clauses 219 to 230 propose amendments to the Canadian Payments Act to make the Canadian banking system safer and more secure while delivering more innovative services for Canadians. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Canadians hard-earned money is safe in the financial institutions they rely upon. Clauses 231 to 272 would amend the Competition Act to help increase competition, most notably in the grocery sector where Canadians have experienced rising prices that have impacted their ability to feed their families with healthy and nutritious foods. These amendments are designed to make life more affordable for Canadians by lowering prices and providing more choice, which in turn stimulates competition to compete on pricing and encourage the development of more innovative products and services for Canadians. Clauses 273 to 277 would exempt post-secondary education institutions from the laws governing bankruptcy and insolvency. By educating our young people and conducting world-leading research, post-secondary educational institutions play a critical role in Canada's social, scientific, and economic development. These amendments would help protect the solvency of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address—
1579 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 11:58:23 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-59 
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there was a point when I talked about the water agency, and I did go a little off-script. I said that was something that was happening in Winnipeg, which was somewhat spontaneous on my part, to try to liven it up a little. I will stick to my script so I can get right to the point. I am very close to being done. Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism, and the threats they pose to the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. These threats have real costs for the Canadian economy and for Canadians. Not only will these amendments help keep Canadians hard-earned money safe, but also keep our financial system sound. These measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. Clauses 318 and 319 would require the publication of information relating to the transfer of payments to the provinces. The federal government provides transfers to the provinces and territories that help deliver the services Canadians rely on, such as child care, which is a key measure to ease Canadians affordability concerns with respect to the care of their young children, and importantly to help deliver the health care that Canadians need when they are at their most vulnerable state. Clauses 320 to 322 would amend the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to ensure that workers are represented in the governance of the public sector pension investments by giving a voice to labour representatives in making investment decision for workers' retirement benefits. These amendments would contribute to stronger investments that would support jobs for middle-class Canadians. The final clauses referenced by my colleague are clauses 323 to 341, which would clarify the department mandate of Infrastructure Canada to include powers, duties and functions of the department to take a lead role for improving housing outcomes, and to enhance its activities and powers in relation to public infrastructure. These proposed amendments will assist the department in helping to deliver on Canadians' desire and need for housing in a more efficient and effective manner. In conclusion, I submit that a significant majority of the provisions in Bill C-59 were announced in the 2023 budget and, as such, these measures should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. The minority of amendments in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement were designed to ease Canadians' concerns about affordability. These provisions, which seek to advance measures that address affordability concerns, represent a common theme and should be grouped as such. as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. I thank the Speaker and all members for their patience in getting through that.
482 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 12:13:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, anti-scab legislation has been an important personal issue for me for many years, dating all the way back to 1988 and 1989 in my first few years as a parliamentarian. I was really glad when the Prime Minister incorporated that into our last election platform, and I am really glad that three political entities in the chamber are committed to getting anti-scab legislation through. What I find interesting is that the Conservatives have yet to say how they are going to vote on the legislation, yet out in the communities, they are telling people that they are for the workers.
104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 12:35:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier, the Conservative House leader was asking to table documents of a Speaker and what he classifies as inappropriate behaviour. Now the Conservatives are saying no to tabling a document that shows inappropriate—
36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 12:46:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to just pick up on the member's last comment, in regard to the importance of the legislation and how wonderful it would be to actually pass it through to the committee stage. The Conservatives like to go around the country telling Canadians that they are pro-worker, that they are there to support workers. I think it would be a very strong, powerful message, collectively, from the House and all political parties, if we could see this legislation ultimately collapse the debate. Then, we could allow for it to actually go to committee before Christmas. Would the member not concur with the thought that sending this, in a unanimous way, to a standing committee before Christmas would be a wonderful gift for the workers in Canada?
132 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 1:17:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that anti-scab legislation will promote more harmony in our labour force, which will help out in terms of issues like inflation. I know the member is concerned about inflation because earlier today he posed a question in regard to inflation. I did not quite catch the reference he was making. Could he expand on the reference when he was talking about the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the issue of inflation?
78 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 1:37:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to patterns. One of the patterns that I have seen is with respect to the Conservative Party having adopted the MAGA politics, which are coming from the south into the office of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives say one thing, for example, that they support workers, yet none of them stood up to say how they were going to—
70 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 1:38:45 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-58 
Madam Speaker, we all know the degree to which there is a lack of respect for organized labour from the MAGA right. This is something on which we have been challenging the Conservative opposition party. What will Conservatives do with respect to Bill C-58? Will they or will they not support the legislation? They have not been able to answer that question. I suspect, if it has anything to do with their pattern, it is because of the MAGA movement from the States that is coming to Canada via the Conservative Party. Can the member say whether or not he is voting in favour of the bill?
108 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 1:41:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Number one, Madam Speaker, that is not a point of order. No such question was put to the House. I would suggest the ruling on the member's point of order is that it is not a point of order.
40 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 2:00:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is investing in Volkswagen. The Government of Canada is investing in Stellantis. These two companies are going to literally create tens of thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly. It is setting a new industry standard— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 2:01:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is supporting Stellantis. The Government of Canada is supporting Volkswagen and the battery plant. Think about that. This is going to be one of the largest manufacturing plants in North America. We are talking about the creation of tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. We know that the MAGA Conservatives across the way do not support government investment in industries, and this is a very important industry for all Canadians. It is going to provide good, solid middle-class jobs. My question for the Conservative Party is this: When are the Conservatives going to get behind Canadians and support good, solid middle-class jobs? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 3:36:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of anti-scab legislation has been important to me and I know to many of my colleagues for many years. It is encouraging to have the legislation before us. It was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party, and inside the chamber we have substantial support for it from the Bloc and the NDP. Even the Conservatives, when they go around the country, often say they are there for the working person. I think we have a wonderful opportunity here to see this debate collapse and send the bill to committee. I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on my perspective. How nice would it be to see the debate collapse today so the bill will at least have a chance to go to committee sooner as opposed to later? I think that would be a wonderful gift at Christmas for the labour movement in Canada. Would she agree?
156 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 3:54:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, in my friend's comments, he referred to other pieces of legislation the Liberals overturned that Stephen Harper had put in place. When I look at this anti-scab legislation, it was part of the election platform that the member and I ran on. I am quite happy with the legislation. I posed this question to other opposition members. We know the Bloc and the NDP are supporting it. We are not sure what the Conservatives are going to do as of yet, though they say they are for workers. Would it not be wonderful thing for the debate to collapse so that the bill could go to committee before Christmas and a wonderful gesture for the union movement in Canada?
123 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 4:07:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to see the anti-scab legislation. This legislation was promised to Canadians in the Liberal Party's election platform. I notice the member seemed to take a bit of delight when he was talking about back-to-work legislation. What he did not mention is that provincial NDP governments have also brought in back-to-work legislation, so I do not think it is quite as simple as the member tries to portray it. To the member's disadvantage to a certain degree, I was a parliamentarian in the Manitoba legislature for many years and the NDP did not bring in back-to-work legislation. In fact, as a compromise, it brought in final offer selection. Would the member agree that it appears we have good support inside the chamber from at least the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals? Conservatives go around the country saying that they support workers. Would it not be a wonderful thing to see this legislation pass to the committee stage? It would make a wonderful statement if that was unanimous. At the end of the day, with Christmas upon us, it would make a powerful statement for our unionized and non-unionized workers.
204 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 4:36:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member truly understands anti-scab legislation. This is for companies existing today that have a workforce from a national perspective. When a strike mandate is given and the workers go out on strike, then the anti-scab legislation would be applicable. The legislation is there to ensure that the employers are not able to hire workers to replace the workers who are out on strike. That is the simplicity of the legislation. The legislation seems to have fairly broad support within the House. The only thing we are having a difficult time with is trying to determine whether or not the Conservatives actually support it. Will the member and his caucus colleagues vote in favour of this legislation ultimately going to committee, or do the member and his Conservative caucus plan to vote against the legislation?
144 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 4:54:03 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the things that the member has said. The only thing I want to qualify is that there are many individuals in the Liberal caucus, and I can attest to this, who are very strong advocates. I represent the north end of Winnipeg, and I have done that now for 30 years, in one way or another. We can talk about the 1919 strike, the replacement workers and how that ultimately caused the overturning of a street car. It is known today as Bloody Saturday, something that made North American news, possibly even worldwide news. There is a long history in supporting anti-scab legislation. I appreciated when it was incorporated into the election platform and today, we have it. It is not to undervalue it. I think it is great that it has the support from the Bloc and the NDP. I am glad we have the province of B.C., which was NDP when anti-scab legislation was brought in, and the province of Quebec, which had a Liberal administration when it brought it in. At times, we get strong leadership, and what really needs to be emphasized is that parties should work together, get behind labour and see that the legislation gets passed. Would he not agree?
215 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border