So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 122 - Nov/1/22

Apr/21/23 10:39:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, history is an interesting teacher for us. I want to point out to the hon. member that when Brian Mulroney took over as prime minister, the national debt was $200 billion. By the time he left, it was $514 billion, and that was without a pandemic. That was without an invasion of Ukraine. It seems that the Conservatives are following the same pattern of loving money more than people, looking at the price of everything but the value of nothing. Where is the factoring in of the pandemic? Our inflation rate is coming down to pretty low levels compared with the rest of the world. However, where is the factoring in of the difficulties with supply chains and the external influences on our inflation rate?

127 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/20/22

Nov/1/22 12:21:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be nice if the Conservatives could square a few things and pick a lane, because early in the pandemic all we heard from the Conservatives was, “Close the border,” and, “Shut it down,” and then, once the vaccines became more readily available, they sided with the people who would be quite happy to have unvaccinated people spreading the virus back and forth across the American border. Where are they on this one? Do they not like ArriveCAN simply because it does what it does?

92 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 2:00:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada Day is coming up a week from Friday, and it is a good moment to think about freedom in an age of COVID. Most Canadians exercise their freedom to contribute toward the common good by getting vaccinated, wearing masks and understanding that vaccine and mask mandates were about short-term restrictions in the interests of long-term health and safety. Others exercise their freedom to oppose those measures, some on principle and others with agendas exposed as exceedingly dark. In our parliamentary precinct, some gave themselves the freedom to exercise their lungs, their rhetoric and their truck horns. Some of them, we are told, are planning to return. To them, here is some free advice. Canada is a strong, free nation, thanks very much, where we get to yell “freedom” and blast truck horns. They can fill their boots, but the sound of votes slipping into a ballot box will drown out the noise, because that is how we do things here. That is how we preserve and protect real freedom.

176 words

Feb/21/22 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and his party need to pick a lane. On the one hand, he is saying we should have stepped in sooner, that we should have been proactive, that we should have gone in without any invitation from the provinces to deal with this. On the other hand, he says that Quebec does not need the federal government. Did we step in without Quebec's request to help out in long-term care homes? No, we did not. We waited until Quebec asked us. Would the hon. member not believe that is actually the way we would proceed in this circumstance, that if Quebec asked us to help with the Emergencies Act, he would recognize that and welcome it?

125 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 1:52:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a change that was. I am wondering if the member listened to the speech this morning by the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka. My goodness, what a change in tone that was, and not for the better.

42 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 12:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we need to respect the member for Nunavut's story because she is probably closer to the essence of what is really behind the protest that we have seen. We cannot take it at face value that this is about vaccines and mandates. This is about an attack on our democracy and perhaps she would have some useful insight for us as to what would draw people to support the very evil-minded folks who have been behind this protest. We need to know that to more effectively reach them and bring them back into a democracy that includes them.

104 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 9:14:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a year ago we saw Alberta lift its restrictions for the best summer ever, and it was not. Albertans suffered. The hospitals were overrun, and Albertans died who did not need to die, but this is the same message we are hearing from the protesters, at least some of them, the ones who are not trying to overthrow the government. Does the hon. member believe that it would be best to not have only politicians making the decisions to lift mandates, but politicians backstopped with good, wise, sage public health advice?

93 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 34 - Feb/19/22

Feb/21/22 8:01:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about freedom. I am wondering which freedoms he is trying to preserve. Is it the freedom to overthrow the government? Is it the freedom to terrorize people in Ottawa? Is it the freedom to choke off billions of dollars in trade? Is it the freedom to flout the law after everybody was very, very clear on what the people in Ottawa, at Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge, wanted? Are those the freedoms he is trying to protect?

83 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 34 - Feb/19/22

Feb/19/22 11:10:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there seem to be two conflicting views. One is that the convoy was all about vaccine mandates and personal freedoms. On the other hand, when listening to the leaders, it sounded like an insurrection, that they were coming with the intent of overthrowing the democratically elected government. The supporters of the protest, including the Conservatives, have either been naively blind to the fact that they were gamed by the true leaders of this, or they are wilfully blind to the evidence that those leaders presented. What are your thoughts on that?

93 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 8:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member finds this question entertaining. There are places in Canada that did not need the Emergencies Act. Coutts, Alberta, was one, because after the police found some pretty awful elements with huge stashes of weapons, charging some of them with conspiracy to commit murder, what did the blockade do? Those good people in the blockade said, “This does not represent us. Let us go home,” and they did. Would the hon. member put the same advice to the people who overstayed their welcome by at least two weeks on Wellington Street in downtown Ottawa?

102 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 9:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this does not apply to the people in the places that the hon. member mentioned. They can go and protest anything they like, and as long as their local officials do not believe it is illegal, they are good to go. However, the nature of this act really helps us pinpoint the areas where illegal actions cannot be condoned and supported by anybody in good faith and need to be dealt with very thoroughly.

79 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 9:55:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will refer to somebody on Twitter who said something kind of colourful. He said something like, “You know, if you've got somebody walking along waving a swastika and you've got 100 people walking along with him, you've got 101 Nazis.” However, I will set that aside for a second. What has happened here? The federal government has warned that it is concerned about this situation. We have offered additional support to the municipalities. We saw that the municipality, in this case Ottawa, was unprepared to deal with the issues it was facing, and the flouting of the law brought the law into disrepute. The escalation, step by step, brought us to where we are today, and the premise of my remarks tonight is that I believe the government is thoroughly justified.

139 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 9:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, these are crafty rascals that we are dealing with here. If we examine the words used by Mr. King, he did not say that he would do it and he did not call on anybody to do it; he just said that it could happen, but the implication and the inference is definitely there. Should he be arrested for that? Probably not, but he is gaming the system like the rest of them, knowing that they can get away with so much. Is it right, though? Would the member agree? I do not think he would.

98 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Feb/17/22 9:42:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a message tonight for all my colleagues here in the House of Commons and especially for everyone at home in Fleetwood—Port Kells, who are rightfully having a good debate right now about the justifications for using the emergency measures act. I want to provide my own thoughts and the rationale behind my support for the government's actions. To do that, let us focus specifically on the questions in this debate. Is the government's use of the emergency measures act justified and are the measures being invoked legally? The second question is the easiest to answer because that answer is yes, if the measures being used to deal with this situation conform with the legislation that has been on the books since the 1980s. Given that this is the first time the legislation has been used, there should be scrutiny of the measures to make sure that they do conform with the law. However, that is the easy part. We have to talk about the justification. The act is right to the point. It says: a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada Let us take that apart and look at the evidence. Does the current situation endanger the lives of Canadians? Well, the border disruptions certainly endangered the economic quality of life of Canadians and therefore their well-being. There is ample evidence of that in Windsor, especially in the auto sector, and for so many businesses and their employees in Ottawa. The threats of physical violence toward people in Ottawa's downtown neighbourhood have been real, and charges have been laid against 13 people in Coutts, Alberta, apparently because they appeared ready to murder RCMP officers. Does the activity endanger our health? There is no doubt that the premature lifting of public health measures, as demanded by the protesters, would do this. We saw this very clearly in Alberta last year when it lifted the mandates for the best summer ever. It was not. We do not want a repeat of that. However, the stated aim of the protest is to force the government to abandon public health measures regardless of the advice from the Public Health Agency of Canada and provincial authorities. Do the blockades endanger safety? When protesters harass and bully people and threaten assault, yes. When protesters allegedly try to set fire to a residential building in Ottawa, gluing the doors shut in the process, yes, indeed. When police found that cache of weapons that was seized in Coutts, Alberta, how could there not be a perception that public safety was endangered? Does the situation exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? This is not true in every case, but certainly in some, notably in Ontario. It is why the use of the emergency measures act clearly sets out that it can be specifically targeted to locations where provincial authorities need additional help to restore order. One point that has been raised a few times is that all these things were cleared up just as the emergency measures act was being announced. Let us face it. We want to prevent people from bringing disorder back to those locations, which is a real and current threat. Do the current actions threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? The manifesto of this group calls for Canada's democratically elected government to be deposed and for the government to be turned over to a committee made up, in part, of them. We can put a check mark next to that one. There will be some who say the answer is no and that if we consider the protesters at face value, it is just some good old boys and girls and kids in big trucks challenging the government to preserve God-given and charter-enshrined rights and freedoms. However, people who believe that, like some of our Conservative colleagues, have been deceived. They have been gamed by crafty, intense, grey-faced agents of passive aggressive manipulation and sedition. One can only imagine the information our security services have on them. The gaming that they performed has been intense indeed. Canada has had a long and sometimes very colourful history of civil disobedience where people break the law and the police show patience and restraint while protesters make their point. Then, having made their point on a reasonably transparent agenda, they and the government trade ideas, the deal is done and the protesters go home. Well, those behind the blockades and occupations know this and have gamed us to a fare-thee-well. They allegedly gamed the Ottawa Police Service too, telling them they will do their thing for a few days and then leave, while planning to use the grace period to dig in. They may have also gamed Ottawa's mayor, who thought there was a deal to get some of the trucks out of the residential areas until one of the leaders, Patrick King, stepped in and said there was no deal and they were not going anywhere. Do the current actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Well, the evidence says yes. When we take a close, honest look at the people calling the shots in the protest, do their actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Yes, absolutely. Patrick King, who has demonstrated significant influence in the Ottawa occupation, has deposited a great deal of material online. I am going to quote him, and the “you” in the quote refers to the Prime Minister: “someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna...do you in.” At another point he said, “The only way that this is gonna be solved is with bullets.” The 13 people charged in Coutts, Alberta, by their history of arrests and violence, represent a very clear danger to police and to Canadian society. Do members want to know what their motto is for change in Canada? It is “gun or rope”. How many times have we seen news of mass shootings, tragic bloodshed and loss of life only to find out in the aftermath that there were signs the authorities should have picked up. Well, signs have been picked up, and the government will not want the postscript to an act of domestic terrorism to be an indictment by Canadians that we did not act. This gets us to the real point of the protest, the real agenda of the people behind it. Theirs is a world of anger, resentment and hate, of minorities, immigrants, liberal values and the democracy they represent. The core people behind the protests are precisely as the Prime Minister has described them. Many agree. Glen Pearson, writing in National Newswatch today, noted: This hatred for hatred's sake doesn't find an easy landing in Canada, as it might do south of the border. But as the convoy protest revealed, the hate movement is increasingly interested in this country, hoping to undermine its authorities and replace them with chaos. The goal of such insidious agents was never to help the truckers succeed but to make sure the governments and security forces didn't. Some of the messages put out by the protest leaders make it abundantly clear than Glen Pearson is right that the blockades and occupations have little to do with vaccine mandates and even less to do with truckers. They say Canada should eliminate vaccine mandates for truckers operating back and forth across the U.S. border. They know this is a ridiculous rationale for the protest as long as the U.S. demands anyone entering their country be fully vaccinated. We could eliminate our vaccine mandate right now for truckers, but those truckers would still be out of work and still be out of luck. Some 90% of our truckers agree. They are fully vaccinated, so this foolish premise for the protests has no traction. The protest leaders and their political familiars frame their actions as legitimate dissent of government actions. That is allowed in Canada. However, the protest leaders have tried to obscure the methods they are capable of using and are possibly threatening to use. Well, we are onto them. They know and we know that those methods are not allowed. They are illegal, and given the size and scope of the blockades and occupations, and even the amount and sources of funding to support them, Canada's security and sovereignty are most certainly under attack. Two-thirds of Canadians agree with justified, careful measures applied with the emergency powers in the act, with parliamentary and legal oversight and in co-operation with the provinces that need our support. That is what this debate is intended to examine. The majority of Canadians will be looking for justified, careful and measured opposition in this debate, offered in the interests of doing what is best for the country, because what is best for Canada, even when difficult to do, is our government's agenda. It should be the agenda of everyone debating this measure over the weekend.

1585 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 23 - Feb/3/22

Feb/10/22 5:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, many decisions have been made throughout the pandemic, and when politicians made them without the backstop of good medical advice, they were tragic. We saw this last summer in Alberta. In fact, we saw it in some form even here in Ontario. Quebec, fortunately, has had good leadership. We want a concrete plan from the Prime Minister and the federal government, but does the member agree that the plan has to have the backstop of good medical advice on what we should be doing next, before politicians in this place can give Canadians the answer they are looking for?

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Feb/3/22 3:21:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives oppose this bill. Do they oppose better ventilation for schools? Do they oppose more COVID tests? Do they approve improving the number of weeks of EI that workers are capable of getting? Do they approve of more relief for the businesses that took advantage of the Canada emergency business account? These are all seemingly pretty important things, particularly as we hopefully near the end of worst part of the pandemic. Do the Conservatives really oppose those measures?

81 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Dec/3/21 2:23:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that throughout the time up until we came back to the House, we had the Canada sickness recovery benefit that was in essence a backstop to this. To the other point, I think that election was necessary for precisely the reason that we are here talking about this today. We had to examine what role government should play. The finance critic for the official opposition when the larger programs were first rolled out said that is not something Conservatives would do. Well, we would be in pretty tough shape as a country if that in fact was what we took forward in managing the pandemic. Yes, Canadians in the election answered the question about what government is for and what government should do. This is the government they chose to do it.

142 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Dec/3/21 2:21:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, this is an example of how things morph over time just like the COVID-19 virus itself. New challenges are presented. We have been dealing with a moving target now for quite some time. What this demonstrates is the government's willingness to be flexible, to be innovative where necessary and certainly to be informed by the arguments presented by our colleagues in the opposition.

67 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 6 - Nov/29/21

Dec/3/21 2:08:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga. I would like to acknowledge that I am addressing the House today from the ancestral, traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. It is a unique opportunity to rise in the House today, surrounded by my colleagues who I am really happy to see again, to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-3. I will spend the time available to me today to provide some more details about the proposed legislation. First, it would amend the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of paid sick leave per year to workers in the federally regulated private sector. This would affect nearly a million workers in Canada, most of whom work for larger enterprises. However, we also have to take care of the smaller operators and the impact this will have on them. I will have more to say about that in a bit. Those employed in the federally regulated sector for private enterprise would include interprovincial transportation companies, pipelines, banks, postal services and broadcast outlets, among other things. These are all industries that people count on every day, yet workers in these jobs cannot necessarily count on appropriate support if and when they become ill. If they get sick, they feel the pressure to go to work, because putting food on the table is not a choice. Paying the rent or the mortgage is not a choice. I know from my past, too many people want to be the hero. They want to go to work and they drag themselves there. As a broadcaster, I remember fighting my way through blizzards and alligators and dungeons and dragons to get to work so I could tell everybody to stay at home. This kind of heroism looks good on the surface, but when it comes to an illness, especially one as critical as COVID-19, it is really not a good attribute to have. The bill we have before puts people first. As the Minister of Labour has said, people have always been at the heart of Canada's labour program. Let us talk about the Canada Labour Code. It sets out rules that protect worker health and safety. Today's bill would amend part III of the Canada Labour Code, which sets minimum labour standards for the federally regulated private sector, and it is in part III that we will find the provisions dealing with things like standard working hours, leave, holidays, wages and important issues like sexual harassment. However, today's bill has to do with the leave provisions. Currently part III of the code provides employees in federally regulated industries with a number of leaves related to personal illness or injury. I will mention three of them now. The first is personal leave, which provides employees with up to five days of leave per year, the first three of which are paid. This would be for things like personal illness or injury or urgent matters concerning themselves or their families. The second is unpaid medical leave. Workers have up to 17 weeks if they are unable to work due to personal illness or injury or medical appointments during working hours. Employees may also take up to 16 weeks of unpaid leave as a result of quarantine. The last leave that I will mention today is leave related to COVID-19. In March 2020, the Canada Labour Code was amended to create this new leave provision. Prior to its repeal law November 20, it allowed for employees to take unpaid job-protected leave for up to four weeks if they were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. This leave was designed to align with the suite of Canada recovery sickness benefits, and workers have been able to file claims for income support under that law. On November 24, the government introduced legislation under Bill C-3, the one that we are debating today, that would reinstate the leave, extend its maximum length to six weeks and ensure it would remain available until May 7, 2022. Ultimately these leave provisions mean that employees cannot take more than three days sick off work that are paid by the employer. It is clear, especially since the onset of the pandemic, that three days are not enough. Even looking at 2019 data, and that is pre-pandemic, Canadian workers took an average of 8.5 days of leave for illness or issues related to a disability. What would Bill C-3 do? With Bill C-3, we are taking action to ensure Canadians in federally regulated industries have access to paid sick days. It would amend the Canada Labour Code to do three things. First, it would make a change to repeal the personal leave that employees may take for treating their illness or injury. This is to avoid duplicating paid leave provisions relating to illness or injury and to set people up to use the new leave that would be created. Second, on the new leave, the bill would provide that employees might earn and take up to 10 days of paid medical leave in a calendar year. They might take these sick days in one period or more. Third, the bill would have some built-in flexibility. It would authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to modify in certain circumstances the provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay. Before I conclude, I would like to pause on what is a bit of a sticking point for some. It is one I referenced earlier, namely that the changes proposed today would have an impact on employers, especially of smaller businesses. The government wants to make sure that employers have some lead-in time to handle these changes. That is why the coming-into-force date would be fixed by order in council. We would also commit to engaging in consultations with federally regulated employers to better understand the impact of these changes on their local realities. There are a few other mitigating factors. The workers covered by these new amendments mainly work in medium- to large-sized businesses where the financial impacts would be more diffuse. For example, 87% of the workers impacted by this are in firms of 100 employees or more. That leaves 13% in smaller companies who would likely feel the pinch of paid absences more acutely. They can also request a medical note from employees when they use their sick days. Again, this is obviously an opportunity, for smaller employers especially, to make sure that the leave being taken is legitimate. In addition, if an employee has used up all of the leave in the previous calendar year or is a new employee, the employee would start to accumulate paid sick leave at the rate of one day per month. This reduces the exposure for employers. For employees who do not use 10 days in a year, the proposed legislation allows for a limited carry-over of days. This means that the employee is not starting from scratch in a new year. However, the maximum number of paid sick days for the year remains at 10. The Government of Canada is working hard to finish the fight against COVID-19. However, as we have heard regarding the other part of the bill, there is resistance to this and there are impediments. There are people who, for variety of reasons, be it fear, ideology or just plain stubbornness, do not necessarily want to contribute to the most fundamental of Canadian values: acting for the common good. Bill C-3 would help both come through. It would make sure that nearly a million more Canadians at least have access to enough paid sick days. This would be more in line with what some of the provinces are doing, such as British Columbia, which allows for five paid sick days and three unpaid sick days. The idea, of course, is that if somebody is sick, they maintain their position in the company, ensuring ongoing employment, especially for employees who are hard to find, talented and technically able. They would be maintained even if they do have to take time off when they are sick. Bill C-3 would make sure a million or more Canadians have access to enough paid sick days. As the Governor General said in the Speech from the Throne on November 23, “As we move forward on the economy of the future, no worker or region will be left behind.” Bill C-3 is intended to do just that, and I believe the debate and comments we hear from all sides of the House seek to enrich, inform and make this legislation better.

1459 words

All Topics