Debates of April 29th, 2022

Service Canada

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, we continue to hear about Canadians being in line for days at Service Canada outlets for simple issues such as passport renewals. As a former consul, I know first-hand just how essential it is for people to have these documents available to them in a timely fashion. I have seen the desperation of those wanting to say good bye to a loved one.

Canadians have already spent two years missing important life events such as births, anniversaries, weddings, and sadly, in far too many cases, funerals. It is unacceptable that the government, as a result of its continued lack of foresight, is still interfering in Canadians' ability to get on with their lives. We need a clear timeline as to when these delays and backlogs will be resolved, and we need it as soon as possible so Canadians can return to the lives and the living that they deserve.

We'koqma'q First Nation Chief

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer my sincerest congratulations to We'koqma'q First Nation Chief Annie Bernard-Daisley on being recognized with a place on the Riva Spatz Women’s Wall of Honour.

Chief Annie has been the chief since 2020. She was elected by her community as chief after serving as a councillor for three consecutive terms. Prior to her term as chief, she served as the first woman from We'koqma'q to lead the Nova Scotia Native Women's Association. Chief Annie has been outspoken on the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, stating that she has been driven by the need to generate goodness from the tragic events in her own life.

The wall of honour is located at Mount Saint Vincent University. It exists to honour extraordinary women from all walks of life who make a difference across families, communities and professions. I can think of no one more deserving than Chief Annie Bernard-Daisley to be recognized with such an honour.

On behalf of my constituents, colleagues here today and myself, I send congratulations to Chief Annie.

House of Commons

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

Madam Speaker, what a week it has been. It is a week that has seen a further decline in Canadian democracy.

Yesterday, with the support from their NDP partners, the Liberals introduced Motion No. 11, which gives the NDP-Liberal coalition complete control over Parliament until June 23. With the NDP's help, the Prime Minister now has exactly what he has always been looking for, which is an audience, not an opposition.

Do these Liberals not understand that these types of tactics contribute to declining public confidence in our institutions and to a further decline in our democracy, or do they simply not care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, despite what the member wants Canadians to believe, the reality is quite simple. Motion No. 11 would enable members of Parliament to have debates beyond 6:30 p.m. That means instead of adjourning at 6:30 p.m., we get to sit until midnight.

There are millions of Canadians who work night shifts. I am sure members of the Conservative Party should be able to show up and put a little bit of effort and work in after six o'clock.

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

Madam Speaker, this is what Motion No. 11 does. The NDP-Liberal coalition is scrapping the constitutional requirement of quorum in the House of Commons. That means that NDP and Liberal members do not even have to show up to work. They can sit at home in their PJs and their fuzzy slippers watching reruns of This Is Us or socialist documentaries. It also gives the power to the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament at any point if one of his many scandals gets too hot, like the RCMP investigation, for example.

Therefore, I ask this again: Do the Liberals and the NDP not understand that they are contributing to the decline of democracy in Canada, or do they simply not care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the waiving of quorum happens on many occasions, whether it is emergency debates or take-note debates, and the member opposite knows that.

The reality is that Motion No. 11 enables members of Parliament to have additional debate time. That is a good thing. That is what the Conservatives were asking for at one time. Whether they want to work or not, I can assure members that Liberals and New Democrats are committed to being able to have those additional hours so that members can have additional debate time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There was talking over the hon. parliamentary secretary while he had the floor. It is hard for people at home to hear what is going on, and I am sure for individuals who are in the seats here watching.

Order. I cannot even hear myself talk at this point. I think that parliamentarians should be setting an example for the people watching at home.

The hon. member Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Madam Speaker, we have never seen a government show such arrogance towards Canada's Parliament. Let us not forget that these people took office with fewer votes than the official opposition. They quickly bought themselves a majority by forming a coalition with the few members of the NPD. That is disgraceful for the NDP, but they did it anyway. Too bad for them. The result is that, yesterday, the government moved a motion to give itself overly broad powers to control Parliament.

Why is the government being so arrogant? What does it have to hide?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the Conservatives are afraid of extra debate time. Do they not realize that Canadians from coast to coast to coast often work beyond 6:30 p.m.?

What Motion No. 11 would do, in reality, is allow for additional debate time. That is something that is not new. Provincial and federal governments have used that for many years. We are doing the same thing in allowing for additional debate. It is as simple as that.

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

Madam Speaker, oh, how wonderful it is to hear that, but there is one tiny problem. The hon. parliamentary secretary has forgotten one minor detail. There will no longer be quorum in the House as a result of this motion. What will happen then? We, the Conservatives, will do all the work, while the Liberals stay home and watch TV or do something else, like hanging out with their buddies or going out for dinner. They will not be in the House doing their job.

I ask once again, why do they want to adopt such an arrogant motion that only erodes parliamentary democracy in Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what the Conservative members might be doing is watching Netflix and so forth, but I can assure Canadians that whether it is virtual Parliament or sitting in the house, we take this very seriously. We are engaged. We want to encourage additional debate. That is why we brought forward a motion that would allow members of Parliament to work till midnight at the closing of a session because there is a substantial legislative agenda.

Let us get to work for Canadians. That is what it is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, “let us get to work”, he says. Of course, let us get to work.

The problem, however, is yet another minor detail that the member has forgotten. What about prorogation? The government is granting itself the privilege of proroguing the House, as if it were no big deal. This brings back bad memories.

Need I remind members what happened two years ago when we were in the middle of the WE Charity scandal? When the Prime Minister was in hot water because of the evidence we had, what did he do? He prorogued the House.

Why adopt another arrogant Liberal motion that could undermine the work of our parliamentary committees?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, talk about gross exaggeration. There is a clause in there that says we will come back in September, which we could potentially bring in at the end of June, but what the member does not tell us is that the motion would be voted on. We are a minority government. The only way in which a motion of that nature can pass is if a majority of the members of the House support it.

Unlike the Conservatives, we believe in working in co-operation, even with members of the opposition party, which includes the member who just asked the question.

Committees of the House

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the House demanded that a committee study the dismissal of the scientists in Winnipeg.

Instead of providing the documents to the committee, the Liberals and their NDP accomplices decide to create their own committee, which will operate according to their own rules, without a single care for the other parties. Of course, since it signed a pact with the Liberals, the NDP is no longer a real opposition party. It is contractually tied to the government. So far, not a single actual opposition party has been consulted.

What is happening to democracy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what is clear is that we have established a mechanism that is not truly unique, because former prime minister Stephen Harper used the same mechanism, which ensured there is a sense of national security. That should be a concern of all members of the House.

The government House leader has indicated both to the Conservatives and to the Bloc that we would like to see them participate in this mechanism, which ensures that there is a high sense of accountability and that national interests are served. It is the same mechanism that Stephen Harper used.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, two sides can only end up agreeing insofar as they start by not agreeing.

If committees are created exclusively between parties that agree on every detail from the get-go, then what is the point?

By sealing their fate with a contract, these two parties have basically merged and no longer have the authority to unilaterally set the rules of democracy for other House bodies. They need to sit back down at the table with the real opposition parties and put an end to this monkey business.

When will democracy be restored?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the only merger I see is the double blue of the Conservatives and the Bloc on this particular issue, like other issues. At the end of the day, the mechanism that has been put into place will ensure the interests of national security, while at the same time ensuring a high sense of accountability for those documents.

I hope the Conservatives and the Bloc will recognize the true value, as Stephen Harper did, in recognizing the importance of this particular mechanism.

COVID-19 Protests

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we watch another convoy roll into Ottawa, the city of Windsor is still recovering from the blockades two months ago. We learned this week that the government will reimburse the City of Ottawa for the policing costs of the mismanaged convoy crisis. Meanwhile, Windsor has heard nothing about the $6 million the city had to spend to clear the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

All week, we have heard the Liberals take credit for the work done in Windsor, but it is my residents who still pay the price. We did all the right things and we took it on the chin for this country.

Why are the Liberals making it so hard for the city of Windsor's residents, who have to pay for the blockade?

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

Madam Speaker, we are committed to protecting the safety and well-being of Canadians. I just spoke with the minister this week about that very issue. I know he is alert to the problem.

I invite the hon. member to have a conversation. I would be happy to chat with him as well.

Passport Canada

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are finally able to travel and to see loved ones again, but there are huge delays. The passport system is broken. Canadians are waiting hours in line at passport offices, making multiple visits, only to be turned away. This week many constituents have reached out to my office desperate for help. The passport system is failing them. This is causing immense amounts of stress and anxiety.

My question is simple. Does the minister think that these delays are acceptable, and when will they be fixed?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are eager to travel again, and there has been a significant and overwhelming increase in demand for passports at all Service Canada centres across the country from those wanting in-person service. I have spoken to the minister about this and she is well aware that it is very stressful and difficult for Canadians. She has been visiting Service Canada centres throughout the country speaking to local staff. In addition, already in December, we hired 500 more passport officers to process applications.

We are using every tool that we have in our tool box at this time to improve service to Canadians for what they deserve.

Housing

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the average price of a home in Canada is $874,000 and quickly rising. For millennials looking to buy a home, the thought of buying a home is like getting that pet unicorn they dreamed of when they were children.

Will the government stop adopting policies that drive up inflation, find a common-sense solution and help millennials and young families hoping to buy a home?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, we agree with everyone that Canadians are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to buy a house right now.

For that reason, the budget we just presented includes major investments, including $200 million to develop and scale up rent-to-own projects, because we must give Canadians an opportunity to buy their first home. The tax-free first home savings account will also help.

On this side of the House, we take this issue seriously and we are working on several programs to address it.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, how can the member opposite say that? The government is not being helpful. In fact, Ipsos says that 63% of Canadians hoping to own have given up on that hope. One couple even told me that every single broker they have spoken to has told them the first-time homebuyer program is a scam and they should not participate in it. Instead of offering common-sense solutions, the government is more concerned about prosecuting crimes on the moon.

Will the minister admit his failure, go back to the drawing board and come up with a real plan?