Debates of June 12th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize, but the hon. member has already spoken for more than a minute. I also want to remind him that he must address the Chair.

There are only 43 seconds left. I will ask the hon. member to reply.

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

Madam Speaker, I knew Peter Stoffer. It is true that he was not in the House much. He was often in his riding. It was the whip's decision to permit those absences back then. I will not interfere in the whips' work in their own caucuses. That is a choice.

However, as a member of the opposition, I expect to get some consideration. The role of the opposition is to improve the government's work, the bills and regulations that are presented. At present, we do not have a government that is interested in having the opposition improve its bills or motions. Instead, I see a government that is closed off and anxious to stop the work of Parliament because it has had enough of being implicated in files that are a little too hot for it to handle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It has happened a few times tonight, so I want to remind members that questions and comments are questions and comments and should be within the one-minute timeline, or 30 seconds if I say that it is a quick question. It is not for making speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, “Let me put it this way: If you don't want to work in Ottawa during the Parliamentary sessions—don’t run to be an MP. A hybrid Parliament made sense during Covid but it should never be permanent. I strongly oppose govt's move to make it permanent.” Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Hon. Wayne Easter, the former Liberal minister and MP for Malpeque for almost 28 years in this House. I note that the statement Mr. Easter made earlier today was shared on social media by former Liberal minister Jane Philpott.

Before I forget, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I am going to talk a bit about some of the advantages of hybrid sittings, because they have been brought up, to be fair, in some of the speeches. We talk about the sacrifice members make in the service of Canada to be members of Parliament. I would say first and foremost it is a privilege to be here. It is an absolute privilege and an honour. However, to be frank, part of the reason I decided to run for office was to have a better work-life balance, because compared to my previous life in the military, this is way more flexible. It is way easier to manage my work-life balance than it was in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We have people serving our country who do not have the privileges and options we have, and I would argue there are lots of Canadians out there, because of the dire state of our economic situation, who are working two jobs. They do not have the privilege of virtually attending their work and trying to balance everything. I am not trying to take away from any of this. I am just saying that it is a privilege to be here and we need to treat it as such.

We have had these rules, and I have used them when I have had to. I am a single dad half the time, and as a single dad of a nine-year-old, it is very difficult to try to balance all of this. My daughter has been here up in the gallery or in the lobby. When I was the deputy whip for my party, she even got to call the MPs into the House a couple times as we came in for a vote.

I have utilized the voting app as well, and I fully acknowledge that there are dire circumstances or situations, whether they be medical, a death in the family or a baby being born, for which we should not take away the right of a member to vote. I can see some legitimate uses for the voting app, as an example, but I note that we have had existing tools kicking around Parliament for a long time. We can pair members of Parliament. That is a good way to start, because there are members who face challenges on a regular basis.

One of the arguments we hear, which the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader has used, is the fact that we have used this, as if it is some sort of reason for us not to vote against it. I would note, though, that we can use the analogy of a sports team. Let us use hockey, for example. If we go back to the start of the NHL, a hundred-and-some-odd years back, players could not pass the puck forward. It would be dumb for opposition parties not to utilize the rules that have been forced upon us under this hybrid Parliament. We use the rules we are forced to use and we play the game. I do not even like using that term. This is not a principled issue about fiscal mismanagement or some issue of conscience. This is about procedural rules. We would be dumb not to use them.

I want to give another quote. It is from an article that came out of The Globe and Mail by Campbell Clark:

...governments...have wanted to find a way to get under-fire cabinet ministers into the Commons without having them walk past the press. Now they don't even have to sneak out the back. There is real accountability lost if ministers don't have to walk past MPs in their caucus and stand up across from the opposition.

This point was brought up by a previous speaker. The press is another tool for holding the government to account; it is not just us in opposition. Specifically, when ministers of the Crown do not have to be in this House, it is a way for them to avoid tough questions, because, again, those in government have to make tough decisions.

I know you have been doing a good job, Madam Speaker, of recognizing the member for New Westminster—Burnaby virtually, but I know I have been on virtually plenty of times trying to get attention, I am sitting there waving my hands on the screen, and it is hard to get recognized. It is a lot easier here in the House.

The real point I want to focus on about hybrid that really scares me is the partisanship. This place is already divisive enough. Partisanship ebbs and flows in a parliamentary session. However, I would argue to take the pandemic out of it. There is an inability to build relationships in this House, which is what actually gets things done. I can speak to numerous examples from my short time here since 2019.

Shortly after the pandemic broke out, the government introduced the Canada emergency business account. I asked a question in question period. I got talking points from the minister. That was in June 2020. I brought it up in the summer when we were doing those special COVID committee sessions. Again, I got talking points.

September rolled around and I asked again, but this time when I did not get the answer that I desired, I basically cornered the minister in the hallway. There were no cameras, there was no worrying about being misunderstood and getting it reported incorrectly in the media. I was able to actually explain why small businesses that do not have business bank accounts really needed to qualify for this. There are many farmers and small businesses in my riding that were failing to meet it.

I was not the only MP bringing up this issue to the minister, but I swear I saw the lightbulb go on. It kind of took that for her to understand the challenges and the issue. Shortly after that, to give the government credit, it actually made the changes and announced the changes to the program, and things got done. This happens almost every day with opposition MPs and the government ministers.

We walk across the way, we talk to them face to face. We do not have to worry about going through staff. I have had that relationship with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Immigration in dealing with security clearances, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

This is not new. I will quote the press gallery reporter, Dale Smith. I do not think he is real friendly to the Conservative Party. He has quoted an article from about a year ago, I believe. He warns that this hybrid Parliament could “further erode the relationship building that better helps Parliament function”.

He points to research from the Samara Institute that was pulled from exit interviews from former MPs. Smith indicated that “over time the House of Commons has become a less-friendly place to foster that dynamic. In the Chamber, it’s harder for backbenchers and opposition MPs to catch ministers—who can now leave to vote on their phones—for constituent files that require ministerial intervention.”

There are other people I can quote. John Milloy is a professor of political science and public ethics at Wilfrid Laurier University who served as the Liberal MPP in Ontario and in former prime minister Jean Chrétien's office. He said, “Just those hours of being able to talk to each other, and dare I say, talk to the opposition,” are so important. Mr. Milloy talks about, in his references, about the voting opportunities should we use them, but we have to justify them.

I think the people who should never use hybrid Parliament are the actual ministers themselves. I started my speech saying it is a privilege for all of us to be here as members of Parliament. However, it is an even a greater honour and privilege to be a minister of the Crown, and with that comes sacrifice. I think the ministers and parliamentary secretaries should have to participate in debate in this chamber.

Conservatives have put forward some reasonable amendments that would allow consensus to occur around this motion and keep hybrid in place for the remainder of this Parliament. However, I cannot emphasize enough the risk to partisanship if we keep hybrid going into the future.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I regret the fact that I did not get to listen to my colleague's French accent. He speaks very well in French, and I encourage him to continue to do so; that is very important.

I appreciated the fact that he listed a number of advantages, as well as underlining some of the disadvantages, of hybrid. I have to say that, when I replaced the previous member of Parliament, who was an NDP opposition member for 18 years, that former member was able to stay back and do events on a certain night or certain day, activities with veterans, that I was not able to do between 2015 and 2019. I could not stay back one day to go to an event with the member. I felt that I was not able to be as representative as I would have liked to be.

Now, I am here all the time. I have maybe missed five in the last year, for specific reasons, such as dental work last week. I am able to do my duties at home and represent my constituency.

Does the member think we could be even more effective by having hybrid, but using it only on an exceptional basis?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are elected to be here and to be the voice of the people in Ottawa, not the voice of Ottawa back in our constituencies.

I feel that our job is to listen. That is why we have constituency weeks. I actually think we should sit longer. We sit less than most Parliaments in western democracies in the world do. We should not be breaking next week. We should be going into July; we should be back at the start of September. We should start back in January.

I believe that our job is to work together to make the best legislation that works for all Canadians, not just the Canadians that the government is privileged to represent.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

He focused on one important point, which is that it is a great privilege to be here in the House. We should act accordingly and with dignity. We should always seek the common good and strive for balance and consensus as much as possible.

This evening, we are watching the Liberal government use its fake majority to make permanent something that was obtained through consensus. This profoundly debases that decision. That is what is so shocking.

Now we are debating the possibility of being with our family, but we know full well that in a non-hybrid Parliament, it is possible to ask for permission. We know that every member of the House is open to compromise. The problem is that there is no discussion.

The difference between a decision by consensus and a decision by vote is that, with a consensus, no one is dissatisfied. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, a number of members and our House leader, as well as the member for Perth—Wellington, highlighted that this is really the purpose of our amendment to the motion. I think that is technically what we are supposed to be debating right now.

It is about saying that we should keep this in place. There are parts that we do not like, but we can accept that. However, let us not make it permanent. Let us force the government to come back and work with all parties. I think the consensus is that, if we just put the sunset clause on this bill, it would be acceptable to all members here in the House. That is key.

Traditionally, for the last 100-plus years, changing Standing Orders has always been done through consensus, not unilaterally by the majority of MPs.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have worked very well with my colleague, both in and out of the House. We have had meetings together on Zoom. We have been very effective that way, too.

Even today, we were able to talk in the lobby together about some of the work that we are doing to push the government to bring Afghan MPs to safety in Canada. What I want to say to the hon. member is that it is hybrid Parliament right now, and we did that. We were in the lobby working together. That was happening.

There are people in this House debating right now, but there are also people who were able to stay in their communities because they have other things that they are doing. We have an NDP member of Parliament who is going to be having a baby in the next few days. A member of the Conservative caucus just had a baby.

There are reasons why hybrid is very important, and we can still do the work that we do. We did it today.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I talked about that in my speech. I said that I am actually personally open to exceptions, such as babies being born, illness, death, etc. However, my point is the accountability aspect. That is what bothers me. It is about ministers of the Crown and parliamentary secretaries being here, being present and being able to be held to account, because they are the ones who have that privilege of being in government. The job for all the rest of us as members of Parliament, even the backbenchers in the Liberal caucus, is to make sure all aspects for Canadians are being represented.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand up and represent the people of Battle River—Crowfoot in this place.

I want to emphasize something very significant that my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, talked about earlier. It was a statement that bears repeating because of its significance. It is the fact that MPs should be representing their constituents in Ottawa, not Ottawa to their constituents. It is that attitude that I endeavour to bring each and every day that I come to this chamber.

Let me talk for a moment about this chamber, because it bears emphasis in light of what we are debating here this evening, which are changes to the Standing Orders, and specifically the very reasonable amendment that was brought forward by the opposition House leader to see a sunset on the changes that the government is, I would dare to say, ramming through this place with little consultation. Certainly a great concern has been brought up by many as to what the implications of these things might be.

To speak specifically about this place, for more than eight centuries there has been a parliamentary process that has evolved and has been developing to get us to the point where we are today, from the fields of Runnymede through some pivotal moments in the foundations of responsible government. Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine, I believe in Montreal, brought about the foundation of what was called “responsible government” to the point when we had our first parliamentary elections and the appointment of Sir John A. Macdonald as our first prime minister, the times when Canada became a nation and when we saw a burning down of our parliamentary building. We saw less disruption when our Parliament Buildings literally burned to the ground in the beginning of the 20th century than we did when the COVID-19 pandemic took place.

Democracy matters. Democracy is worth fighting for, and democracy is something that each and every one of us needs to be diligent and focused on protecting when we see the sort of antics and behaviours that we see from the current Liberal government. It seems to have very little respect for our democratic process, very little respect for democracy and very little respect for anybody who does not agree with them and their ideas of how the country should be run.

Although Conservatives did actually receive more votes in the last election than the Liberals, that is something that they like to conveniently forget. The Liberals specifically said that they would not join a coalition with the NDP, which we found out was categorically untrue only months after the last election. It places upon all of us the responsibility to defend democracy and to make sure that the long-standing traditions of this place are preserved.

We saw a host of challenges that came about because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although I did not think I would have to spend a number of my first months as a member of Parliament fighting to even be able to do my job to make sure that I was able to represent my constituents in this place, we eventually got to a place where we could ensure that those voices from coast to coast and from sea to sea to sea in this country were heard. It took time and it took effort, and we did get to a point where a hybrid system was able to ensure those voices could be heard in the midst of some of those challenging circumstances. We proved that it was possible, but that does not mean that it should be continued in that manner, especially when there are those who would abuse it.

I would like to make a specific point to emphasize that very thing. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw that instead of ensuring that they brought the country together, one of the Liberals' first proposals was quite something. What the Liberals proposed was not pandemic supports. It was not helping Canadians at a time when it was absolutely necessary. No, they wanted to grant themselves unlimited taxation and spending authority. That was the Liberals' response to a crisis. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, they said. They were going to give themselves unlimited taxation and spending authority without parliamentary approval; spitting in the face of eight centuries of responsible government.

It is not without extreme caution that I enter into this debate to say we should be very careful in how we approach the seriousness of ensuring we preserve our democratic institutions. I speak specifically to the amendment that has been brought forward. Let us make sure we study it. Let us make sure we have a sunset on it. Let us make sure we can carefully evaluate how these dramatic changes to the way Parliament works can be studied in a fulsome manner to ensure we can do what is best ultimately for our constituents and for Canadians. There is only one place, one room in this country that ensures that every square inch and every person has a voice, and it is this place.

There is no question there is a wide variety of perspectives, personalities, professions and political parties, but it is in this place where we are able to accomplish dialogue and debate, which are so fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. When it comes to standing up for that, it should be not only be the first and primary responsibility of a first minister, prime minister, a government represented through the cabinet, members of every political party and every MP here, but also very much the focus of all of those who have the honour of being able to be a temporary tenant of these green seats in Canada's House of Commons.

The unfortunate trend is that the government prefers obedience as opposed to opposition. Let me use another example. I think that a very significant example has to do with the coalition partners over there at the far end of the House, the fourth party. The NDP are not much of an opposition party. The debate we are having here is is a great example of that.

I do not think there is a lot of support from the members of the NDP for this sort of thing because it is contrary to the ideals they purport to have, which go beyond their parliamentary functions in the context of the so-called confidence and supply arrangement. I think that this is more about either incompetence or laziness, and sometimes it is difficult to tell between the two which it is because, when a fourth party gives a blank cheque to a government that was elected as a minority, it is unacceptable that they would do so with so little recognition for the impact that has on how our country operates.

I do not know if the leader of the NDP is more focused on video games than he is worrying about the interests of his party, but I know I have spoken to a number of members. It may surprise some members of the NDP, but there are a few of them in my constituency. I have heard from a surprising number of them over the last number of months and the last year or so, where there are these—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am so sorry. The hon. member's time is up.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Taxation

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today because of a question I asked some time ago in the House of Commons, which went unanswered in many respects. We talked about, at that point in time, the inflation and the toll it was taking on Canada's businesses, both in their ability to borrow and with respect to the bankruptcies that were happening across Canada. That is on the rise as well.

When I asked that question, it was just before the budget came out on March 28. I asked the Prime Minister and I asked the government to ensure there were no new taxes coming forward in the budget so there would not be more burden felt by Canadians, and by Canadian businesses in particular, from the rising cost of CPI, the Consumer Price Index in Canada. This is something that continues to haunt Canadians, and it has haunted us more again, as we have seen in the last little while.

There was a point when it looked like the Bank of Canada was actually getting inflation under control. When I say “under control”, I mean back down to about the 4% level, or about double where it needs to be in order for the economy to manage to the point where it is deemed to be stable, which is between 1% and 3%. Usually, we say about 2%. That is not happening anymore.

On June 7, the Bank of Canada raised the bank rate again because the CPI was continuing to increase. Why did the CPI increase after April? What happened after the budget? The government imposed an increase in the carbon tax, a new tax, 30% of which was felt directly by consumers. The government will tell consumers that they get all their money back, yet it has been proven time and time again by objective officers of Parliament that it is in fact an in-and-out scheme, where Canadians are being fooled about how much they are getting back.

On top of that, the government is designing a new tax from July 1, which is going to double the effect of the clean fuel regulations, which is going to take a total now of 61¢ on average per litre of gasoline out of the pockets of Canadians. One cannot sit there and impose more taxes and more costs on Canadians without it having an effect on everything they buy, and that in itself creates inflation. These things all flow all the way through the value chain. When one increases the cost of things, one increases inflation. When one increases inflation, one increases the cost of debt and devalues the work people do, because everything costs more. Therefore, what they used to take home does not buy as much. It is not worth as much to them as it was before the inflation was created.

We have more inflation and we are on a spiral. The government continues to create more inflation. We must think about everything it is doing here. It is over-budget on everything it is doing. A $41-billion deficit plan for this year is already out of date. Three months into when that budget was planned, we are already well past that. We have all kinds of industrial commitments for which the government never foresaw, for some strange reason, that it would have to pay the bill at the end of the day. In addition, interest rates go up, and interest rates are going up again. They go up not just for Canadians; they go up also for the Canadian government. The Canadian government is going to pay more in interest this year because the bank rate just went up, and that causes more interest to be paid by the government, which causes more interest to be paid by Canadians. This is a vicious cycle. The government needs to get over it. Will it please commit to looking at inflation and stop the increase in costs upon Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, a number of thoughts come to mind. First and foremost, we can understand and appreciate the degree to which inflation is hurting Canadians. I would ask the Conservative Party to collectively understand what I just finished saying and support some of the initiatives that the government is doing to assist Canadians, whether it is the dental program or the grocery rebate program. These are helping Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

The member talked about the price on pollution. Even though 338 Conservative candidates made a campaign promise to have a price on pollution, I respect that they did flip-flop on the issue, even though they did promise Canadians.

What is misleading is when Conservatives stand up and try to give the impression that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was wrong when he made the statement saying that 80% of Canadians would receive more money, real dollars, compared to money that is put in.

That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are going to be receiving more of a rebate, which, again, helps with inflation.

There is a consistency problem. The Conservatives talk about inflation rates. As I said, we are concerned, and we are taking action, even though the Conservatives do not support it. We need to recognize that around the world, inflation is hitting. It is not unique to Canada. What is unique to Canada is that Canada's inflation rate is substantially less than the inflation rate of many of the European countries. It has been less than the rate of the U.S., England, Germany and other European countries.

Relatively speaking, Canada's inflation rate is high. We recognize the hardship that it costs and, as a result, we have put into place a number of budgetary measures to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Imagine the frustration that we do not hear ideas coming from the Conservative Party, outside of the issue of cryptocurrency, and we are still waiting for the apology. Remember that the leader of the Conservative Party said, look, do we want to fight inflation? Go to cryptocurrency.

Those people who would have followed that advice would have lost 60%-plus of their investment. Other economic recommendations coming from the leader of the Conservative Party included things like getting rid of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

It is very well respected not only here in Canada but across other jurisdictions in the world, recognizing the important role that the Bank of Canada plays in our society, a society that is doing exceptionally well, whether it is the deficit, the GDP or our ability to be able to have better controls on the issue of inflation.

How does the Conservative Party respond, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party? Fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. How silly an idea?

I do not think we need to take advice from the Conservative Party, because it has clearly demonstrated that it does not understand.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know it is late and I know my colleague across the way probably did not even listen to what I had to say. The answer was obviously disconnected from any question I actually had. We talked about inflation. I did not talk about much else that he referred to in there.

Nevertheless, I will go on here about inflation and what his government is causing. He did say one thing that I wanted to address here. He did say that the more things go up and the more Canadians get harmed by the inflation the government has caused, the more they will give them cheques and find ways to put a little bit of money back in their pockets, much like with the carbon tax they talk about.

They take a bunch of money out of one's pocket but do not worry, they will give one a cheque for a little bit back and one will be happy with it. They will give a bunch of misinformation in the House of Commons that 80% of us are better off.

I think that a lot of people have disputed that rather substantially.

In any event, continuing to abet inflation is not the way to address inflation. Would he please commit to doing something to actually address the inflation that he is causing?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's initial comments, he should read the speech that he gave in his four minutes. He will find that I addressed it directly, with one exception and that was when I talked about Conservative ideas related to dealing with the issue of inflation. All I was doing was regurgitating ideas that were generated from the leader of the Conservative Party. I suspect that likely makes him a little bit nervous, as I am sure it makes a lot of Canadians nervous.

The bottom line is, and I have said this consistently, this government is very much aware of the issue of inflation. We have a budget that is reflective of what Canadians have been telling us. It is a budget that deals with the issue of inflation in a very tangible way.

We will continue to work with stakeholders, to minimize the negative impact of inflation on Canadians while, at the same time, building a country and an economy that is there for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.)