SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:07:26 a.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: Agreed.

15 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Dec/14/23 10:07:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent.

9 words

Seek

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Dec/14/23 10:07:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk for long because we have important work to do. It is with regret and some sadness that the Bloc Québécois is presenting a dissenting opinion, but the impartiality of a Speaker is really very important to us. There must be zero tolerance for bias. We are of the opinion that the Speaker's mistake is unforgivable and that he must resign. In our dissenting opinion, we provided a detailed explanation as to why we asked him to make the right choice and step down, because he failed in his duties. We want the House to run smoothly, and the best way to make that happen is to have a Speaker who has the full confidence of all the elected members of the House.

133 words

Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 10:08:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and and Immigration, entitled “In Demand Yet Unprocessed: Endemic Immigration Backlog”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

52 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Dec/14/23 10:09:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I have the honour to table today a Conservative supplementary opinion to the report on backlogs and delays. Eight years of Liberal-NDP leadership in the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship were described by one witness as “nothing short of a dumpster fire”. The main report includes many Conservative contributions and recommendations that we proposed to the committee. That said, some common-sense recommendations were rejected by the NDP-Liberal majority while other recommendations could not be accepted by the Conservatives. For example, the Liberals are moving toward a “click for your citizenship” system, while Conservatives believe that taking the oath of citizenship should be treated with gravity and respect and be done in person, unless there are exceptional circumstances. After eight years, we know the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and his Liberal-made immigration backlog is causing more chaos in the department, as well as destroying the faith of Canadians in our immigration system. However, they should have no fear because soon a common-sense Conservative government will be here to restore faith and clean up these backlogs. Let us bring it home.

205 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 10:10:35 a.m.
Watch

moved for leave to introduce an Act to establish a national day to honour Canadian women's contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce a private member's bill entitled “An Act to establish a national day to honour Canadian women's contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics”. While I am on my feet, I move: That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

80 words

Moved

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:10:54 a.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/14/23 10:11:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:11:27 a.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:56:05 a.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/14/23 10:56:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regretfully have to inform the House that there is evidence of another partisan activity that the Speaker was engaged with. I have, in my hands, a picture of the Speaker at an event with the hon. member for Pontiac, which was labelled and advertised by the Liberal Party as un cocktail militant. The Instagram post for the hon. member reads, “This week, I had the privilege of participating in a remarkable event in the company of my colleague [the Speaker]. In this time when the political sphere is in full swing, supporting our colleagues is crucial. I want to express my gratitude to my provincial counterpart and friend André Fortin, as well as his liberal team, for organizing a stimulating evening focused on political discussions, both provincial and regional.” This is not even the Speaker's riding. This is a neighbouring riding. It is billed as a cocktail, with activists and volunteers. I would like to seek unanimous consent to table these documents. If any member of Parliament has ever said anything about the importance of the independence and integrity of the Speaker, they should allow me to table these documents and they should have allowed the debate on the Speaker to continue today.

217 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:57:57 a.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: No.

7 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/14/23 10:58:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we certainly did listen to what the House leader from the Conservatives had to say. If you would perhaps provide us with an opportunity to review, reflect and provide comments on that before making a ruling, we would really appreciate it.

49 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/14/23 10:58:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of tabling the documents is so that you can read them.

16 words

Tabling
Read

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 10:58:38 a.m.
Watch

We are not going to have a debate on this. The information is apparently public now. People can go and have a look at it.

25 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/14/23 10:59:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, for those who are following the parliamentary calendar, that the government is making last-minute changes to the projected order of business, but I am nonetheless very happy to speak today to Bill C-58 and address the government's profound failures when it comes to workers, and talk about the excellent work that the Conservative Party has been doing and will continue to do to support workers here in Canada. Our priority is creating powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, supporting jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers. In that process, our leader, the member for Carleton, has been travelling across the country meeting with workers, and hearing about their priorities and their concerns. I can tell members that the number one priority for the workers he meets with, and all of us on this side of the House are meeting with, is around jobs and opportunity. It is to have an economy that works for working people, an economy that puts the interests of working people ahead of those of the well-connected insiders the government has so persistently tried to prioritize. We see this profound disconnect in so many different ways. We see the way that the Liberal government is focused on the interests of well-connected insiders and how it loves shovelling money out to consultants who specialize in encouraging companies to fire more people. These are the kinds of relationships the government is cultivating. These are the kinds of people the government is trying to serve, whereas Conservatives are focused on jobs and opportunity for workers, and creating the kind of economy where more people can work, prosper and succeed. There are many different aspects in the government's agenda in this regard. We see the context, for instance, of its unjust transition plan. The government, in fact, is now admitting that its so-called just transition rhetoric is unpopular with workers. I was very struck by the fact that the labour minister got up in the House fairly recently and said they do not use the terminology of just transition anymore because workers do not like it. It is true that workers do not like it, but it was not the name that they had a problem with. It was the substance of the government's agenda. The government talks about so-called transitioning workers as if what workers wanted was to be able to not work. A big part of the reason people work, yes, is for the paycheque, as that is a critical piece of it, but it also comes from the satisfaction they get from being able to accomplish something significant. This is what is so important about work for workers. They appreciate the ability to both earn a paycheque for their family and be able to participate in the creation of value. Both of those things together are important. The government says to workers that it wants to transition them out of their jobs, but it will have social programs for them on the other end of it. First of all, I think members are rightly skeptical about whether those promises will be delivered on. Second, the people in my riding who work in the energy sector and other sectors are not looking for easy money. They are looking for the opportunity to be able to work hard and build themselves up, along with their families and their communities in the process. This is the dignity inherent in work. The paycheque is critically important, but it is not just about the paycheque. It is about the satisfaction that comes from work, and this is something that the government just does not understand. This is an essential piece of why the government's unjust transition agenda is so unpopular with workers and calling it something else is not going to change the picture. In the midst of this larger discussion about workers and the failure of the government to support or respond to the needs and concerns of working people, we have it bringing forward this legislation on replacement workers. I would say what is quite curious about the government's approach to this is that at the same time as it is championing its legislation allegedly dealing with the issue of replacement workers, the government is signing massive corporate subsidies to companies that are, in fact, bringing in foreign replacement workers. That is another example of the duplicity that we see from the other side. We have been working on this issue at the government operations committee and wearing down a Liberal filibuster. Conservatives came to the committee saying that we had evidence that over $40 billion in corporate subsidies was being used, not to hire Canadian workers, not to create jobs and opportunities for workers in Canada, but to subsidize companies that are bringing in foreign replacement workers. By the way, over $40 billion is a massive amount of money. It is a big number overall, but if we break it down it is $3,000 per family. That means that all the Canadians who as we speak are at home glued to CPAC, and I salute them for their dedication, and watching this are on the hook for $3,000 because of these subsidies.

879 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/14/23 11:05:10 a.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. As we get to questions and comments, I am sure the hon. member can ask it at that time. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

40 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/14/23 11:05:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that obviously was not a point of order, but, in a way, it was revealing the way the member spoke about it. He thinks when different levels of government spend money it comes from the individual, that when the Government of Ontario spends money that it is Doug Ford's money or when the current government spends money that it is its money somehow. There is only one taxpayer: the people of Canada. Whether it is through provincial, local or national governments, the people of Canada are paying for this. We are talking about very large sums of money individually, so Canadians have a right to ask what value they are getting for this spending. If they were to find that a very large portion of those subsidies was going to subsidize foreign replacement workers, I think they would have a right to be concerned. Conservatives have taken a very moderate and reasonable approach on this. We just want to get the information, so we asked the government to show us its work. We think Canadians should be able to see the contracts. It is interesting that every time we bring this up, that Canadians should be able to see the contracts, members of the government say that these are great deals, the best that members have ever seen for workers. I would not say that these are the best deals we have ever seen because we have not seen them. We do not know if they are the best deals we have ever seen because we cannot see them, so let us see them. If the government is so proud of what it is doing it should show us its work. Maybe we will be surprised, but I doubt it. Maybe we will be pleased and say that these contracts are fantastic. Maybe once they are submitted to the committees we will look at them and say that the government has done a great job. We probably will not, but maybe we will be shocked and they will be good. Maybe we will find that the government did not include any protections for Canadian workers. Either way, we want it to show us its work, not to say that it was the best essay it ever wrote but the dog ate it before it could hand it in to the teacher, or that it cleaned it up so well, but somehow the dog got in and no one can see it. What absurdity from the government. If it did the work well, if the workers are protected, then it should show us the contracts. If the government is proud of its approach, if it thinks it has done good work for workers, then it should show us the work. I believe that in questions and comments we are going to hear members stand up and say that these are the best deals we have ever seen. Enough of the best deals we have never seen. Let us see the deals. Let us see what $40 billion got Canadian workers. Did it get workers anything? Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk: Come to Windsor and see the battery plant getting built. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that I should come to Windsor. I would love to come to Windsor. I will come and door-knock vigorously in Windsor in the next election. We will be there. When we door-knock in Windsor we will tell workers that they have the right to a member of Parliament who wants to show them the work. We will tell them to vote for a member of Parliament who is not going to hide that work, that they deserve a member who is not going to go to committee to filibuster and fight to cover up the work the government is doing. They deserve a member of Parliament who is going to show them what it accomplished, not someone who does not want to show them the work. Therefore, I challenge the members across the way, if they care about Canadian workers, to let them see the work and release the contracts.

693 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 11:09:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my hon. colleague should come to Windsor and see the hundreds and thousands of workers who are building the battery plant right now. I would love to introduce him to every single one of them. There is a sense of tremendous optimism in my community, because we know we are going to have 2,500 great-paying jobs in Windsor. They will be for local, Canadian, unionized workers to build batteries, and not just for years but for generations. Eight years ago, I remember, in Windsor, under the Conservative government, we had 11.2% unemployment. The Conservatives lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Windsor was ground zero for that. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that as well, because he was the minister of employment, or as I would like to call it, the minister of unemployment. A big part of that optimism is what the unions bargained for at the bargaining table: huge pay increases for workers. When will Conservatives support unions? When will they support workers? When will they support Windsor? When will they support the bargaining table and Bill C-58?

191 words