Debates of March 22nd, 2022

Health

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will put my mask on as soon as I sit back down, like the rest of my colleagues who are committed to following the science. This pandemic is not over. Canadians—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Can we just wait until after question period is done? We can then go out and run around or do something.

I am going to give the member an opportunity to respond.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want this pandemic to be over as soon as possible, just like every other member of this House. I continue to follow the science and my colleagues have continued to follow the science, and we will ensure that we get through this pandemic. However, the thing I cannot get over is the fact that over 5,000 Canadians are in the hospital right now with COVID-19, and our colleagues across do not seem to care.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Well, we are not done yet. We have about 10 questions left. Are we ready?

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Infrastructure

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Government of Quebec, the City of Montreal, and the Government of Canada announced the new version and reconfiguration of the Montreal metro blue line extension project. This project has been highly anticipated by the metropolitan community for several decades.

Can the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Quebec lieutenant explain to the House how the federal government is supporting Quebeckers in a meaningful way in this initiative?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. It was really pertinent.

We have invested $1.3 billion in the extension of the Montreal metro blue line. This project is important to the member because the line goes through Saint-Léonard. For me, it goes to Anjou. We have been waiting for this for a long time. More than 25,000 Quebeckers will now have access to reliable and efficient public transit. We have announced over $750 million for public transit networks across the country.

Public transit is a priority for our government and we will continue to support it.

Labour

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a signatory to the conventions of the International Labour Organization. They prohibit international commerce in prison-made goods unless the prisoners are paid market wages. This leaves me wondering how the Correctional Service of Canada justifies its plan to open a factory farm at Joyceville penitentiary, where prisoners would milk 2,200 goats to produce infant formula for export to China while being paid only a fraction of minimum wage.

Does this plan not violate our international commitments?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit the prison farm at Collins Bay. I know what a tremendous organization is there. I will check into that matter for the hon. member and I will respond to him.

Taxation

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farmers are paying record amounts to dry grain. Families are paying record amounts to fill their vehicles to get their kids to school and get groceries. The price of gas in my riding is over $1.78. On April 1, the coalition is once again raising the carbon price. People in my riding do not find this April Fool's prank funny. Policy should be there to help us, not punish us.

Saskatchewan families need help with the rising cost of living, not another tax hike. When will the NDP-Liberal government cancel this tax grab?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that a carbon price is one of the most effective measures to reduce emissions, and if the Conservatives will not believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if they will not believe the IMF, maybe they will believe the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who said that his province should go back to using the federal carbon pricing system because at least it comes with a rebate.

Natural Resources

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and industry stakeholders have waited a long time in anxious anticipation for a decision on the Bay du Nord energy project. Now, with the NDP-Liberal marriage, they are more uneasy than ever.

Has the Prime Minister promised concessions, such as cancelling energy projects like Bay du Nord, in return for the NDP's hand in marriage?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of a decision on Equinor's project, the Bay du Nord development. As the member opposite knows, a review of the extensive information is required prior to deciding whether the Bay du Nord project—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. There was a question, and I want to hear the answer. Let us see if the minister can provide us with that answer.

The hon. minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we need to look at extensive information prior to deciding whether the Bay du Nord project is likely to cause negative environmental effects. This is why we extended the legislated timeline for the project. It is to provide more time to review the considerable amount of complex information and make an informed decision.

Labour

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know how important rail service is to be able to move essential goods across the country, whether or not it is inputs for farmers and ranchers or being able to get the bountiful harvest of those ranchers and producers to export markets. We watched with concern the ongoing situation with CP Rail and the union in terms of what a disruption could mean to Canadians. I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Labour directly in the last few days. I know he was on the ground in Calgary. We were working with federal mediators to find a solution, and thankfully that came this morning.

Can the minister provide us an update on when services will resume and the work that was undertaken to get to this critical juncture?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we have always respected the collective bargaining process because the best, most durable deals are made at the table. It is the best path to achieve fairness and stability in the economy.

I want to congratulate and thank CP Rail and Teamsters Canada. They stayed at the table and put in the hard work to come to a resolution. Normal business operations will resume today and will continue during the arbitration period.

I especially want to thank the good people at the federal mediation and conciliation service who worked so closely with the parties and supported them throughout these negotiations.

Environment and Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Arctic poles are experiencing unprecedented heat waves, causing alarm among climate scientists. This is another dire warning that we are in a climate emergency, yet the Liberals keep fuelling the climate crisis, handing out billions to big oil and gas, the same companies that are making record profits as they gouge Canadians at the pump.

How many more dire warnings does the government need before it stops paying big oil to pollute? When will the Prime Minister stop putting corporate profits before people and the planet?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies two years earlier than our G20 country partners. We will do this, and I will be happy to work with her to make that happen as soon as possible.

Tourism Industry

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is failing to help the tourism businesses hardest hit by the pandemic. The tourism and hospitality recovery program was supposed to help, but due to an inflexible application process, many seasonal businesses cannot access it. The Liberals cut its funding last week and the program will end in May, just when it is needed most.

Will the government commit to continued full funding for the program, change the application requirements so seasonal operators are not excluded and extend the program until September?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. critic knows, we invested $15 billion in the tourism and hardest-hit sector. In December, we passed Bill C-2, which put $12 billion of additional money into the tourism and hardest-hit sector. That includes half a billion dollars for the tourism relief fund. Announcements are happening from coast to coast to coast in all kinds of ridings.

My number one message to all of the tourism operators and all of the businesses is thanks. They are there. With the borders open, brighter days are ahead. We supported them during COVID. We will support them now as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is all the time we have for question period.

Before I get to the point of order, I want to say that, sitting in the chair today, it was difficult to hear a lot of the answers. If I stand and try to get folks to calm down a bit, I just need to get the noise to a point where the table, the interpreters and I can hear what is going on in the chamber. The bell ringing is unacceptable, so please stay away from that.

Status of Opposition Party

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the status of the New Democratic Party as an opposition party, following the announcement of a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal government. To paraphrase Shakespeare, this NDP-Liberal government is a coalition by any other name.

While many of our parliamentary procedures refer to recognized parties, others specifically refer to government and opposition parties. This reflects a key feature of constitutional parliamentary government in Canada as explained at page 4 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition.

Our rules referring to opposition parties must be carefully interpreted in light of this backroom deal, which was not been put before voters in last year's election. What does it mean, though, to be in opposition? The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines opposition as:

1. resistance, antagonism.

2. the state of being hostile or in conflict or disagreement.

3. contrast or antithesis.

Respectfully, I would have said those definitions did not really describe the NDP yesterday, but they sure do not describe them today.

Bosc and Gagnon, at page 35, describes how the House is generally organized. It reads, “Functionally, the House is divided into three groups: the Ministry and its Parliamentary Secretaries, Members who support the government, and Members who oppose the government.”

The NDP members are in neither the first group nor in the last group. They are instead members who support the government, just like the Liberal backbenchers. Our well-respected, former clerks of the table go on, at page 35, to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said:

“...it is indeed essential for the country that the shades of opinion which are represented on both sides of this House should be placed as far as possible on a footing of equality and that we should have a strong opposition to voice the views of those who do not think with the majority.”

The NDP is now part of a parliamentary majority. I would therefore submit that, by agreeing to participate in the Prime Minister's power grab, the New Democrats have forfeited their rights as an opposition party in this Parliament. There are many procedural implications that arise as a result. Most immediately, it means that we cannot vote this afternoon on the motion moved by the member for Burnaby South that the House debated yesterday.

Standing Order 81(13) is relevant here. It begins, “Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the government”.

Put plainly, the member for Burnaby South is no longer a member of the opposition to the government. Therefore, we cannot vote on this so-called opposition motion. Several other rules referring to opposition parties will also require the Chair's interpretation.

Paragraph 50(2)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act provides seats on the Board of Internal Economy for each party with 12 MPs “in opposition to the government”. Therefore, it would seem that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would no longer be a member of the board. It also seems that neither the member for Gatineau nor the member for Brampton North, who hold the balancing government seats on the board, would continue to be members.

Standing Order 33, concerning ministerial statements, states, “A member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon.”

Standing Order 106(2), concerning committee chairs and vice-chairs, provides that each committee's second vice-chair “shall be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition”. By definition, that would now only be the members of the Bloc Québécois.

Standing Order 81(4), concerning main estimates referred to committees of the whole, requires that the leader of the official opposition consult “with the leaders of the other opposition parties” on which departments are so referred. Does the government's coalition partner get a say?

The list goes on.

It also follows that we must revisit the uncodified practices of the House in light of these new arrangements. In particular, the allocation of oral questions heavily favours opposition parties. Are the NDP questions now to be treated as lobs, just like those three that Liberals get daily already? Also, should the NDP members be vacating the opposition lobby in the room behind me and joining their coalition partners over in the government lobby?

There are also committee matters to consider, such as the modified quorum rules some committees adopt, sequences for committee witnesses, questioning, and even the seating arrangements at committee tables. These are very important interpretations that are required to allow our parliamentary system to function how it is intended to.

There is very little precedent for the Speaker to rely on, because that is how unprecedented this situation is in federal politics. The closest parallel I could offer the Chair is the situation following the 1921 general election when the upstart Progressive Party captured the second-largest number of seats in the House. Many Progressives wanted to form a coalition government with Mackenzie King's Liberals, who fell short of a majority. Though in the end the Progressives did not join the cabinet, they were largely supportive of the government and, accordingly, declined the opportunity to form the official opposition since they frankly were not in opposition at all.

Just as the 1921 election produced a comfortable arrangement for the Liberal minority government, so too did the election of 2021. We must be guided by the practical and pragmatic conclusion it offered that a party openly supportive of the government is simply not an opposition party.

Therefore, I would ask that the Speaker interpret the rules of the House in a way that recognizes that the New Democratic Party has ceased to be an opposition party and that the House cannot vote today on the motion that was debated yesterday.