44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/14/23 1:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:28:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have not seen any news that says that there is a strike at that mushroom farm, so I am not sure what the member is talking about. We are dealing with anti-scab legislation and not mushroom farms.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I would remind members that, when they rise on points of order, they should indicate which standing order they are rising on.
The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the mushroom farm, we know that the bill simply gets handed down to customers and makes those Ontario-grown mushrooms that much more expensive, which is causing the issue that we see today in Canada's labour market where, right now, when there are open negotiations, unions are rightfully saying that the cost of living has gone up. Of course, there is pressure for those workers to receive more. That is the reason we are here today. It is because the current government ultimately has created an environment where it does not work.
Instead of actually addressing the issue by reducing its inflationary deficits, and instead of getting rid of its plan to quadruple the carbon tax, essentially raising it by 62¢ a litre, which are things that would tangibly affect every single Canadian, including those who are federally regulated under this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-58, the Liberals just decided to throw this out. It is something that they opposed long before. That is why we cannot let workers and Canadians and families fall behind. We know that the always-spending Liberal-NDP costly coalition will continue to be part of the problem and not the solution.
Getting back to the bill, this legislation would potentially impact some of Canada's largest airports and ports far more severely in big cities like Montreal than it would in any city in my riding. That is not to say that labour disruptions in federally regulated sectors do not have an impact across our country, as they most certainly do. However, I am just recognizing that some of Canada's largest cities, most often represented by MPs from the government side, will typically deal with a federal labour disruption first-hand far more than those of us who have rural communities in our ridings.
Therefore, as a B.C.-based MP who represents some federally regulated workers, I do ask these questions about the government's approach. Instead of addressing the main concerns about the inflation that we are suffering, why are the Liberals not addressing the root causes instead of just finding these small bills that affect only a very small amount of our population? Increasingly, with the Liberal government, we see that it is totally out of touch with where Canadians are struggling. When I see Canadians, particularly the citizens in my riding, in coffee shops, they will often simply say, “Where are my tax dollars going now? Are you getting good value for money?” The answer is that we just do not know.
For example, in Ontario, there are two different electric vehicle plants. I, as a Conservative, love to see different competing technologies fight to see who has the best mousetrap to serve the population. However, when we suddenly add the extra element where the taxpayer and the government are writing big cheques to subsidize certain activities, we start to come to the place where people resent that they do not know the business case, do not know what the contract is for these large deals and that we are bringing in people from outside of Canada. In my province, when B.C. LNG was proposed, I met with union representatives who said their members were prepared to work and have the expertise, even though they had not done one before. They included boilermakers, etc. They all wanted those jobs, yet we are not in the position for that today.
Rather than working for Canadian jobs and Canadian know-how, putting it to work and using tax dollars for a better outcome, what do we get? We get a government that is focused on the wrong things and not giving those opportunities to Canadians. Instead, its members are hiding at committee with the help of other parties, such as the NDP, to block those contracts from being presented. I lament that. I do hope that we have another chance to debate this bill so we can get into the meat of it.
675 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:33:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), it is only the government that can bring bills for debate.
In her statement on Thursday last week, the government House leader stated that the government would give priority to bills in the House “in their final stages of debate” including Bill—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:33:47 p.m.
- Watch
Is this another point of order?
I am going to see where the hon. member is going with this. I will come back to the parliamentary secretary as soon as the hon. member is done.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government House leader said that they would give “priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57”, so you can imagine my surprise—
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:34:26 p.m.
- Watch
Can the hon. member again indicate which standing order he is speaking on? Is this a unanimous consent motion? Is this a point of order on something that arose in the House?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:34:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is Standing Order 30(6), which sets out that the government is the only one that can call bills for debate. I have a point of order on that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:34:50 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. I need to hear the point of order. The hon. member has not told me if he is looking for unanimous consent yet. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent?
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:35:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order and then I am going to move a motion.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
I want to get an understanding of what the hon. member is asking. If he is tabling a motion and asking for unanimous consent, he needs to be careful not to go into a lot of detail.
I will go to the hon. member so I can have an understanding of what he is asking, because I am not quite sure yet.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there, but I keep getting interrupted by members of the Liberal Party.
I was saying that only the government can choose bills to come forward for debate. It has stated that Bill C-57 is a bill it urgently wants to be concluded in the House. It has not called it for debate today, so—
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:36:23 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member can bring a unanimous consent motion.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:36:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am now going to, assuming that I have the unanimous support of the House, move that, notwithstanding any—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:36:48 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. Hold on.
The hon. member is able to move a unanimous consent motion if he wishes to. I will allow him to ask for unanimous consent. If there is none, then we will move forward and continue with the debate.
I would ask the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for the unanimous consent motion.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:37:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House—
Some hon. members: No.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:37:07 p.m.
- Watch
There is already no unanimous consent. It is obvious that somewhere along the line something went wrong. I would ask members who are looking for unanimous consent to make sure they have it from all parties before they come to the House.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is bringing U.S. politics into something that does not even relate to what we are discussing here today, so—
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
