44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2024 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I have said before that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservatives. Over the course of the last few years, they have tried to block the dental care the NDP brought to Canadians. A million seniors have signed up for the dental care program, including thousands of people in each of the Conservative ridings.
Conservatives tried to deny dental care to seniors, pharmacare and affordable housing funding. All those good things that the NDP is forcing the Liberal government to do, Conservatives have been blocking.
Now we see the latest example of this with Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Conservatives are blocking it. They are refusing for the vote to be held on this legislation and for the bill to move forward. It is simply incomprehensible, I think, to most Canadians that Conservatives would be so mean-spirited as to block every piece of legislation, every bill and every law that is going to help Canadians.
To my colleague: Why do Conservatives seem to want to block everything?
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 5:29:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Conservatives are being disingenuous on the issue. There is no doubt that this is important legislation. Their previous leader, Erin O'Toole, allowed legislation to pass unanimously, and since the member for Carleton has become leader of the Conservative Party, his intent seems to be to burn the House down.
It is very unfortunate, because we have had 58 hours of debate and because the bill passed unanimously at third reading. I have the vote in my hands; 315 members voted for the bill at third reading. Not a single member voted against it, yet Conservatives are saying we should not proceed to a vote. It was passed, but they really want to stall more and block other pieces of legislation. That is tragically unfortunate, given the importance of truth and reconciliation.
I want to ask my colleague why the Conservatives are trying to say to the Canadian public that there is a reason for blocking the bill, when they voted, as all other members did, in favour of it.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 6:54:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found the arguments of my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to be extremely detailed, and I would like to add the NDP's voice to this question of privilege.
The 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was adopted unanimously. The points in the report are very clear, and I will not take much time. Let us look at the big picture. The witness, Mr. Firth, refused to answer legitimate questions directed to him. In our view, this constitutes a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of Parliament. Although it is rare, we have previously seen situations like this. In the vast majority of cases, when witnesses testify before our committees, they give answers and are ready to speak. In this case, it is very clear that the committee found that the witness did not answer any of the very relevant questions about the ArriveCAN app. The committee was seized with this issue and now Parliament is seized with it.
I would like to say that it is clear, when we look at the precedents that have been cited, and I will not repeat all of the various quotes from the procedural manual that governs our activities, that Mr. Firth's refusal to answer those key questions on the ArriveCAN application indicate that this is a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. It is clear, in my opinion, that this is an open-and-shut case of privilege. This is something that the Speaker could move to adjudicate in a very timely way.
I would add that the 17th report of the government operations committee is very clear. It was passed unanimously by all members. This is something that does not happen very often, but very clearly, when parliamentary rights to get to the answers on behalf of Canadians are violated, it is something that all members of Parliament should take seriously.
The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is our representative on that committee, believes as well that this is a case in which answers should have been provided. The fact that Mr. Firth was uncooperative, refusing to provide those answers, is something that should be of concern to all Canadians.
I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege being breached, of contempt of Parliament, and I hope that the Speaker will adjudicate as soon as he feels he has enough information.
413 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 8:12:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have seen the response from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, the Holy Eucharist Cathedral, which serves the Ukrainian community in both English and Ukrainian, and many other organizations have stepped up to fundraise in the community to provide supports for Ukrainian refugees who come to live there. There is no doubt that there is a consensus in my community of being as supportive of Ukraine as we can be. I note that my colleague said in her speech that she is very supportive of the Ukrainian community in Canada and of the fight for Ukrainian democracy against this horrible dictatorship led by Mr. Putin.
I wonder to what extent Conservatives can justify their opposition to the strategic security partnership and their opposition to a trade deal with Ukraine, an opposition that seems to be systematic, when so many Canadians across the country are supportive of the Ukrainian people at this dire time, as they face this imminent threat to their country and democracy.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 8:24:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, Canadians across the length and breadth of Canada have been very supportive, as my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona has said, in supporting Ukraine, but I think there is a profound problem when one party in the House refuses to support the strategic security partnership and refuses to support a trade agreement with Ukraine that we were asked, by President Zelenskyy, to sign.
The former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole would never have taken those radical, extremist stands. The current leader is an extremist. He is a radical. He takes his direction, I believe, from the Republicans in the United States, who have been steadfastly trying to stop any supports for Ukraine.
What does it mean when the leader of the Conservative Party calls Ukraine a “far away foreign land” and what does it mean when Conservatives stand with Danielle Smith, who is right beside the major Russian apologist for Putin, Tucker Carlson, who has provided so much damage in trying to attack Ukraine and reinforce the Russian dictatorship?
What does this all mean when Conservatives contradict themselves so vehemently?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:05:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I do not question the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on his loyalty to Ukraine. I think that is well documented. Certainly the member for Drummond is absolutely right in this regard. I do not question the loyalty and the support that his former leader, Erin O'Toole, had for Ukraine. I do question his current leader's support for Ukraine. He has denounced Ukraine as being a faraway foreign land. He pushed his caucus to vote against the Ukraine trade deal.
I know that the member is trying to defend his leader, and that is normal. Quite frankly, however, the idea that a trade deal that gives Ukrainians the decision whether or not to put a price on pollution is certainly not something the Conservatives could have voted against. His leader has not, in any way, confirmed that the strategic security partnership would be adequately funded.
It is true that Conservatives, last December, put Operation Unifier on the chopping block. A deliberate motion was moved to cut funding to Operation Unifier, and all Conservatives voted for it. If the intent was to show opposition to the government, the Conservatives had the ability to not move that motion and to move other motions. They chose to move the motion to cut Operation Unifier.
I think what concerns me the most is Tucker Carlson and Danielle Smith. The Conservative leader has not denounced that appearance with the Putin apologist, and my simple question is, “Why?”
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:15:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, we are all saddened by the news that Ukrainian children are trying to learn, struggling in this conflict, in bomb shelters. In places like Kharkiv, they have to go hundreds of metres underground to actually get the schooling that has been so cruelly interrupted by this massive invasion by the Russian dictatorship.
I think it is appalling to all Canadians to see a dictatorship that sees human beings simply as objects and tries to bulldoze over the Ukrainian people in order to take Ukraine, destroy its democracy and occupy the entire country.
Sadly, in the United States, the Republicans, the far right elements, are refusing to provide aid to Ukraine. To what extent does my colleague think Canada needs to step up additionally, given that the conservative Republicans have absolutely refused to support Ukraine and are siding with the Russian dictatorship? What does Canada need to do now to reinforce the supports for Ukraine, its democracy and its people?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
