Debates of Dec. 6th, 2022

Questions on the Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we must once again rise in the House to condemn the fact that the government is using a gag order to get its bills passed. This type of approach should be used only in extreme situations and as a last recourse. Gag orders should be used parsimoniously, but they have now become the government’s modus operandi. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that, in the past seven years, it has used closure far too often, and that is an attack on democracy.

We do not need gag orders, especially since this is a minority government. We should keep in mind that the government received fewer votes than the official opposition. We should keep in mind that we must all work together for the good of Canadians. We should keep in mind that we are 338 duly elected representatives and that we have the right to express our opinion about every bill introduced by the government. The government grants the right to speak to the same few individuals—with whom I always enjoy debating, incidentally. These few people have virtually a monopoly on the right to speak, but that is not how we work in the official opposition.

Why is the government once again imposing closure on a bill that affects every Canadian’s wallet?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague.

Before answering his question, I would like to mention that this is a sad day that marks a tragedy motivated by hate and misogyny. The École Polytechnique massacre will always be seared into our collective memory. My heart and my thoughts go out to the families of the victims who died 33 years ago, as well as to the families of all women who suffered a violent death. The minister and all of my colleagues in the House have my full support in the fight against misogyny. We need to put an end to violence against women and against those who identify as women.

We know that times are hard for Canadians, and Bill C-32 will provide them with essential support. We will eliminate interest on student loans, help families purchase their first home and reduce income tax for growing small and medium-size businesses. These are concrete measures that form the basis of our bill.

Rather than supporting Canadians who need the measures set out in Bill C-32, the Conservatives continue to vote against the bill and are now using delay tactics. I understand that there can be some back and forth in the House, but when the issue is the title of the bill, enough is enough, and we should move on to a vote.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I was a child, there were stories on TV. They all used to end with “they got married and had many children”. The NDP and the Liberals got married and had many closure motions. They impose closure on themselves. They impose closure on the House of Commons. We have never seen an opposition party so eager to keep quiet. Sometimes, when we hear them talk, we can understand them.

Seriously, the government has negotiated 20 closure motions with the NDP. There was a motion that said the government could extend sittings until midnight up to June 23, if it so desired.

Let us look at the legislative agenda: Today we are studying Bill C-32; tomorrow, Bill C-32; Thursday, Bill C-32; Friday, Bill C-32. That is what is on the agenda.

They can extend the sittings until midnight, but that is not enough for them. They are in a hurry. Their bill is urgent. What do they do? They decide. My colleague, the Minister of Tourism, said that they are fed up. I would like to remind them that they are in Parliament. This is a democracy. I know that the Prime Minister once said he admired China and China’s dictatorship, but at some point he will have to learn to listen to the opposition, because the opposition parties often have important and relevant things to say. It might inspire them not to introduce bills like Bill C-31. That is why the NDP is on its knees licking the Liberals’ shoes; it is all for Bill C-31.

I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I have never seen such a rotten bill. It is not me saying that, it is Mario Dumont, when he wrote about dental insurance and Bill C-31 in his column. The bill was so badly put together that they must have been hanging their heads in shame as they drafted it. That is why the NDP supported 20 gag orders. It is a little embarrassing.

My question is for the NDP. Are members of the NDP not ashamed of having supported 20 gag orders and not saying anything?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from La Prairie, and I know that—

[Alexandre Boulerice]

That would be nice—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Clown.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Can we please hear the minister's response?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question from the member for La Prairie, this is not a question of muzzling the House. It is a matter of delivering—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is rising on a point of order.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate to hear such language in the House, but the member for La Prairie used unparliamentary and insulting language as a personal attack against me. I would very much like the member for La Prairie to apologize to the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Noted.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the support measures in Bill C-32 will help Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. It is time that the government rolled out these support measures. We need to act and vote, because Canadians are counting on the measures in Bill C-32. These measures include strengthening our economy and positioning ourselves as the G7 country with the lowest deficit. Now is the time to act. That is why we are here today. We want to vote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it will not surprise anyone here to know that I cannot support a motion to have time allocation even on a bill on which I plan to vote yes. We are far too often, almost 100% of the time, falling into the practice of time allocating bills. The New Democrats and the Liberals decried it, just as much as much as I did, when it was happening to us under the previous Harper government.

Now that it is happening to people we are prepared to support in general on bills sometimes, we somehow think it does not matter to have full debate in this place. Could we please revisit the traditions of this place to ensure time is not used in debate by members who read a speech aloud? If we were not reading speeches, we would have far fewer speakers. Returning to our rules in all things will help the House work better and help House leaders organize the work. I sympathize with the reasons, but we now seem to use time allocation every time. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to see this place be a place of fulsome and focused debate, but we are talking about an objection by the Conservatives, who are using the dilatory tactic of opposing the short title of the bill. That is like having a new medicine ready to go out to people and stopping production because they do not like the name of the medicine. It is absurd.

We are talking about 27 hours of debate, 140 interventions and $1 billion that needs to get to Atlantic Canadians to help them recover from Fiona, on top of the $300 million already put into the system for Atlantic Canadians. I am for fulsome debate, but not for dilatory tactics. Canadians need these supports. That is why we need to get to a vote.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I actually emphasize with the comments made by the leader of the Green Party, but the reality is that I am old enough to remember the last fall economic statement, which the Conservatives would not let us vote on until well into the spring, almost the summer of this year. It was the fall economic statement of 2021 that we could not get to vote on until almost the end of the session last spring.

The reality is that we are seeing game after game being played by the Conservatives, and it is all being done at the expense not of members of the House who are sitting here having to debate them, but of those who will benefit the most, those who are struggling the most right now and who will benefit from these supports that will roll out.

I am wondering if the minister could comment on who is really suffering the most due to the delay tactics that are being caused by the Conservatives.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly there are small businesses in the member's riding, in my riding and in the ridings of the Conservatives, the Bloc, the Greens and the New Democrats that want to keep growing and want to make sure they are going to get some tax relief when they do.

There are families looking forward to saving money so they can put it into a new savings account for their first home, but they cannot do that unless we vote and pass this law on to the next stage, unless we get to vote on Bill C-32.

We are talking about making sure that hydrogen investments, clean-tech investments and the good labour agreements we need to build the economy for the future get passed into law. We are talking about billions of dollars of investment into our country. That is what is at stake. That is why we need to get to a vote.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Canadians are suffering right now. There is no question that people are having to use what little they have in their savings accounts just to make ends meet.

Since New Democrats have been elected to this place, we have always been steadfast in our mission of ensuring that we continue to deliver the promises we made to Canadians. Many of those promises are included in this fall economic statement and within Bill C-32. It is imperative that we get these supports to Canadians now.

This House is a place where traditions of debate live. Yes, that is an important thing, but in our condition of democracy today, what we are seeing is the Bloc Québécois do what it has done traditionally, which is to blame, blame, blame everybody else, and then we have the other block party, the Conservative block, which blocks everything else.

We really need to get this legislation passed. We need to get the support to Canadians. We are here to support Canadians, and that is what this bill does.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, not only are we talking about growing the economy, but we are also going to pay down our deficit. We will have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio.

The supports that are in here are real supports to help people to buy their first home, to make sure businesses can save money and to make sure we speed up the benefits for workers. We are also going to make sure that if companies have enough wealth that they think they can buy their shares back, they are going to pay a 2% tax to the country. If they do not want to do that, they can invest in the economy and grow the economy, which would be good for my colleague's riding, for my riding and for ridings across this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, while today the government is asking the House to expedite its spending, we have the Auditor General revealing tens of billions of dollars in inflationary waste associated with the government's past spending. Tens of billions of dollars went out the door to people with clearly identified risk factors for not actually being eligible for the programs they were receiving money for: There were no spending controls before the money was spent and no spending controls afterwards. Essentially the government is handing out money through its programs on the basis of an honour system. If one says one is eligible, one gets the money, and there is no checking before or after. Over $30 billion in spending was identified, associated with very likely risk factors in the Auditor General's report.

I have a simple question for the minister with respect to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has come up with clear recommendations to try to address this problem of tens of billions of dollars of inflationary waste. Will the government accept and implement all the recommendations of the Auditor General, yes or no?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would like to talk to all the people in his riding who got CERB benefits or CEBA loans and were able to get through the pandemic, and if he would then say it was irresponsible spending. I wonder if he would be prepared to do that.

Quite frankly, we are seeing a primary contrast in this House. When we support Canadians, the Conservatives say it is a waste of money. We are investing in Canadians. We got them through the pandemic. We did the right thing. We got supports to people who needed them the most.

If we are talking about getting to the fall economic statement, and if the Conservatives would actually have substantive debate on the issue, perhaps we could continue, but their number one objection is to the short title of the bill. It is absurd; it is dilatory, and we need to move on and get supports to Canadians.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak because I am a bit amazed by everything I am hearing from both sides of the House.

I do not understand the idea of imposing closure on Bill C-32. In every speech we made, we said that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-32. I also heard the NDP say that it supported the bill. The government therefore has everything it needs to move Bill C-32 forward, properly and in a reasonable manner. It also has the option of having us sit later to accelerate the process. Why would it impose closure? I really do not understand.

I would also like to say that I completely disagree with the allegation made by my colleague in the NDP that the Bloc Québécois is obstructing proceedings. That is not true. That is misinformation. On the contrary, we have given our support to many bills. We work seriously and thoroughly on the bills. Members can say anything they want in the House, but they should not say things that make no sense. As whip, I can say that Bloc members are thorough, that they work hard, that they contribute and that they do not obstruct proceedings to block the legislative agenda. In fact, the opposite is true.

With respect to Bill C-32, I will say it again and tell the minister that we support it. The government has the support of a majority to move Bill C-32 forward properly. Why impose closure? I am sorry to say that I truly feel that closure is an abuse of power when used to pass a bill that the government already has majority support for. Compared with other minority governments, this government has managed to have a record number of bills passed. More bills have been passed under this minority government than under previous ones.

I do not know what they are complaining about. It seems that the Liberals are worn out, that they are basically fed up with managing our institution, Parliament, our debates. It is true that it takes a certain amount of effort. They need to listen, negotiate and be open. I really feel that this government is worn out.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Bloc Québécois whip, I have never been accused of being worn out or lacking energy. The same is true of our government. It is not a question of managing the House. It is a question of providing Canadians with the support they need.

When the Conservatives obstruct proceedings with a dilatory motion to oppose the short title of a bill because there are no other objections they can make to this bill that will provide support to Canadians, rebuild the economy and reduce deficits, I think it is time to move on.

We are grateful for the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. It is time to put an end to dilatory motions and to vote on the bill.