SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Apr/10/24 5:08:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is pathetic is a government that has been in power for eight years and says that what happened way back then is the problem. This is the reality. To blame the past, when the Liberals have been in power for eight years, is the most bizarre argument I have ever heard in my life. There has never been usage of food banks by military families this high; it is historic. That is their argument. I think we know who is pathetic.

84 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/10/24 5:09:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a sacred trust. The women and men in uniform in this country need to be treated with respect at all times. That is why the NDP actually produced the motion leading to the report that is on the floor of the House of Commons. We believe fundamentally that it is important to provide services for those who are willing to put their lives and physical well-being on the line for their country. I was incredibly dismayed, as were most Canadians, over the period of the Harper regime, when veterans services were slashed. Veterans were forced to drive hundreds of kilometres in order to access the services that had been available in their communities before. It was despicable. It was an absolute and total lack of respect for those who give their lives for our country and those veterans of our country. It is important to make those investments in housing, but it is also important to apologize for the past. Will the member apologize for the despicable actions of the Harper regime in cutting veterans services?

181 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Apr/10/24 5:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why we are not talking about what is happening right now. This is such a bizarre, distracting tactic to me. This is what is happening on the ground. That member is in government, talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is saying that they put forward this motion, but, at the same time, they are going to continue to prop up the Liberal government that has caused so much chaos and suffering. Which one is it? Whose team are the NDP on? Right now, that member's leader is holding the Liberal government in power. The government has caused the worst inflation in history, a record-high usage of food banks, and military families to not be housed and to have to use food banks. It makes no sense.

136 words

Happening

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/10/24 5:12:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that, back in the day, the time under Jean Chrétien and the Liberals was called the decade of darkness. I had a veteran tell me here the other day that, under the current Liberals, this has been a decade of disaster. When we were in government, never did anyone complain about housing, being unhoused or having to use food banks; that all happened under the Liberals' watch. Does my colleague believe that the Minister of National Defence should actually roll back this rent increase on our troops, properly support them and house their families?

100 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Apr/10/24 5:12:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, 100%; that is why we are here today. We are here to support them. The Liberal members can put their money where their mouth is, not that they have any money left; they spent it all. They can support this report, reverse that rent and actually send a message to people out there. There are kids watching who always thought it would be a dream to work for the Canadian Forces, to join the forces and serve their country. The Liberals can send a message that there is a place for them and that they will be taken care of.

103 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/10/24 5:13:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we were scheduled to debate pharmacare, which is going to make a difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. We need to adopt this report. I would like to propose the following motion for unanimous consent: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, (a) the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence presented on Monday, February 26, be now concurred in; and (b) the House now proceed to orders of the day.

83 words

Orders

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:14:05 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

24 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/10/24 5:14:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservatives do not want to debate pharmacare, and they do not want this report passed. I am a little concerned about their motives.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:14:14 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

18 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 5:14:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised, and I actually anticipated it. Day after day in the House of Commons, the simple objective of the Conservatives is to be as obstructive and destructive as possible. We are seeing that again today. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I see the House doctor of the Conservative Party agrees with that. Today we were supposed to be talking about pharmacare. I appreciate the fact that the NDP House leader attempted to bring forward a motion that would have seen the report pass. It could have passed just like that. However, we all know that the Conservative Party brought this motion forward today for the same reason as it has brought forward other motions in the past, which is to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation. The government has a substantial legislative agenda, and the Conservative Party feels entitled to prevent as much government legislation as possible not only from passing but also from being debated. The government cares greatly about the families in our Canadian Forces. Let there be no doubt about that—

189 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:16:12 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

16 words

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/10/24 5:16:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has not been relevant at all on the motion before us. We are supposed to be talking about the report. All he is doing is talking about—

35 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:16:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows there is a lot of latitude given. He has time to make his point. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/10/24 5:16:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63 Bill C-270

Madam Speaker, the member is so sensitive to us calling out what the Conservative Party is doing. I just finished saying that the most important reality of our Canadian Forces is the families, and he is standing up on a point of order. Does he not realize that the families of the Canadian Forces members are, in fact, what this report is all about? As someone who was in the Canadian Forces and who was posted in Edmonton, I understand the issue of housing. I understand the pros and cons, the dips and so forth that take place, the waiting list for PMQs, for barracks and the whole process in which housing has evolved in the Canadian Forces, and I understand how important the issue is. I knew this not only today, and it did not necessarily take the report coming to the floor to be debated. This is not new. There has always been waiting lists to get into PMQs since the days when I was in the forces. I had to wait, and I actually lived in a PMQ. There have always been waiting lists. Why did the Conservative Party wait until today to introduce this motion? If, in fact, Conservatives were genuine and really cared about the families and the Canadian Forces, they could have introduced some form of a motion on an opposition day. They should have done that if they genuinely cared about families and those in the forces representing our country and doing a phenomenal job, whether in Canada or abroad. The Government of Canada has the backs of those members in the Canadian Forces and their families a lot more than Stephen Harper ever did. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2010, Stephen Harper literally closed down veterans offices, not two or three, but nine all over the country. Members can imagine the veterans who already served in the forces in many different capacities and were going into private homes and facilities, some even in the non-profit area, when Stephen Harper shut down those access offices. In Manitoba, it was in Brandon. I was glad that when we took over the reins of power, we actually reopened those offices to continue to support our veterans. There are two issues here that really need to be talked about. First and foremost is the motivating factor of the Conservative Party today and why the Conservatives are moving this motion. As the NDP House leader clearly attempted to get this motion passed, the Conservatives said no. It was not because of interest for members of the forces but rather to prevent legislation from being debated. Just yesterday, I was in the House and had the opportunity to speak to a private member's bill, Bill C-270, which dealt with the issues of child porn and non-consensual porn. I stood in my place and provided commentary on how serious and important that issue is, not only to the government but also to every member inside this chamber. Throughout the debate, we found out that the Conservative Party was actually going to be voting against Bill C-63, which is the online harms act. That was important to mention because the Conservatives were criticizing the government for not calling the legislation. They were heckling from their seats and were asking why we did not call the legislation if it was so important. The Conservatives realize that when they bring in motions, as they have done today, they are preventing the government from bringing in legislation and from having debates on legislation. Then, they cry to anyone who will listen. They will tell lies and will do all sorts of things on social media. They spread misinformation to Canadians to try to give the impression that the House and Canada are broken. There is no entity in the country that causes more dysfunction in the House of Commons, or even outside of the Ottawa bubble, than the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of the far right MAGA leader today. That is the core of the problem. They have a leader who genuinely believes and who wants to demonstrate that this chamber is dysfunctional. The only thing that is dysfunctional in this chamber is the Conservative Party. It does not understand what Canadians want to see. If we look at some of the commitments we are making to the Canadian Armed Forces, we are talking about billions of dollars in the coming years. We have a target, and a lot depends on economic factors, but we are looking at 1.7% by 2030. Let us contrast that to the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, who was the prime minister when the current Conservative leader was a parliamentary secretary and was a part of that government in a couple of roles. We saw a substantial decrease in funding. I made reference to the veterans and to shutting them down. What about the lack of general funding toward the Canadian Forces? We hit an all-time low under the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper. It was 1% of the GDP. That would be awfully embarrassing to go abroad and to start talking to people in the United States or to any of our ally countries in NATO. They were laughing at the Harper regime. The Liberal government had to straighten out the problems of the Conservatives' inability to get a jet fighter. For years, they tried and failed. The Liberal government is now delivering on getting the jet fighters. The Liberal government continues to look at ways we can enhance our Canadian Forces, not only for today but also into the future. We will have new search and rescue aircraft that will be operating out of places like the city of Winnipeg. An hon. member: They cannot fly. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I do not know if the member knows what he is talking about across the way. Yes, they can fly. Planes do fly. Madam Speaker, I can suggest to the members opposite that we are being challenged by the official opposition to get legislation passed, but the problem is that when it comes time to allow for that debate to occur, the Conservatives put in blockades of sorts. They will filibuster endlessly. They will bring in things like concurrence reports. What totally amazes me is that one Conservative member will stand up, and then another Conservative member will stand up to say, “I move for another Conservative member to be able to speak”. Then, they cause the bells to ring for 30 minutes. How productive is that? How productive is it to debate when the Conservative Party says that it is done for the day and that it is going to adjourn debate for the day, again, causing the bells to ring? That is one of my favourites. We all know the Conservative Party does not like to work late. It is more nine-to-five work, and if one goes a little beyond that, its numbers go down. In the end, we wanted to have more debate. To facilitate that debate, we are prepared to sit late into the evening. We will even sit until midnight to have debates. I am happy to hang around the floor of the House of Commons and to contribute to debates. I do not have a problem going until midnight. The Conservatives, on the other hand, need their sleep time and need their relaxation. After 6:30, they do not want to have debate, yet they will tell Canadians, “they are trying to ram things through, not allowing debate and cannot get legislation off”. It is like how a little kid wants to get a chocolate bar, and here is a Tory kicking him under his feet so that he constantly falls down and cannot reach the chocolate bar—

1320 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:28:20 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/10/24 5:28:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Standing Order 18 is very clear: No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof. For the member for Winnipeg North to imply that any of us over here or that any member of the House is not working hard, as we all do, and we sit the same hours as every other member here—

89 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:28:50 p.m.
Watch

I do take note of the hon. member, but it is a debatable kind of thing. I would invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North to be, perhaps, more respectful of the other colleagues. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on the same point of order.

50 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Apr/10/24 5:29:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up. I think it is a question of respect, about people being in the House, and I do remember that my Conservative colleagues were there all night. It was their leader who was off having canapés—

46 words

Night

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/10/24 5:29:17 p.m.
Watch

We cannot mention absences or presences in the House, as the member well knows. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

18 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/10/24 5:29:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by the member, because it reminds me of something. We had 24 hours of votes on the main estimates, line by line, and one of those lines was an increase in salaries for members of the Canadian Forces. There are two things I want to highlight on that. Here is the problem. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my colleague asks how the Conservatives voted. Part of the problem was that it was around five o'clock in the morning. Some say they might have been sleeping, but I will not speculate. All I know is that it is public record. At five o'clock in the morning, the vote totals were really low. I can say that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives voted against increasing the salaries of members of the Canadian Forces. That is kind of hard to imagine. They had a choice. It is not as though they had to vote on the whole budget. It was line by line. For those who were around and decided it was important to vote, the Conservatives voted against that. A member stood on a point of order with regard to relevance. We voted on additional support for Ukraine under Operation Unifier. Members of our Canadian Forces were training and helping members of the force in Ukraine. Mr. James Bezan: It's not Ukraine. They're in England. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine against the Russians, Madam Speaker, for those who do not quite get it. At the end of the day, Canadian Forces provided supports; those supports were a line item in the budget. Again, the Conservative Party intentionally chose to vote against that. It is important to recognize that, when we think of the Canadian Forces, the first priority of the government is how we can support members of the armed forces and their families. For the short term, we should think of the $50 million-plus that are in the budget to help deal with the housing issue. We should think of the $290 million-plus over the next 20 years. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says the housing we doubled. I really wish Conservatives would do some homework and compare investments in housing by the Harper regime compared with ours. One would think that this in itself would shut them up, or at least they would be quiet about it. At the end of the day, we will invest tens of millions of dollars in the next year or two; over the next 20 years, we are talking about well over a quarter of a billion dollars. Unlike the Conservative Party, the government understands the needs of our forces, and that is why we will see budgetary actions for today and for tomorrow that will show such support. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party says it cares about the Canadian Forces but does not take the time to use one of the many opposition days it has. Conservatives could articulate specific concerns, whatever they might be, and then allow for a discussion on it, not for a few hours, but for an entire day. An actual vote would then come of it. To me, that just demonstrates the lack of integrity coming from the Conservative Party toward what are important issues of the day, because its sole focus is on being a destructive force. I can tell members and those who might be following the debate that, day in and day out, as a government, we are continuing to be focused on Canada's middle class and those wanting to become part of it, including generation Z, on that sense of fairness and on making sure that we are there to support our forces, their family members and so forth through budgetary measures in many different ways. I am speaking specifically to members of the forces to let them know that as a government, our attention is focused on ensuring that we are going to be there not only for today but also well into the future. That is why we put the target somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.7% to 1.8% of Canada's GDP, which would be really quite amazing to see when compared to what the former government budgeted, which was closer to 1% at one time.

741 words