Debates of Nov. 1st, 2024

Decorum

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was two weeks ago that the member was doing this to a woman, the member for Edmonton Strathcona. Now he is doing it to Liberal members across the way.

I just want to remind the member, as he heckles me in the House, that this is not the WWE. We are in the House of Commons; he should show a bit more respect and refrain from his violent behaviour.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, not only is that absolutely false, but also, number one, I have never threatened anyone with violence in this place, and number two, in this instance, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made a homophobic comment in the House mere minutes ago. I encouraged him, in raising my hands, to stand up and make the same comment again. Now, should NDP members be okay with that type of conduct in here, I will leave it to their own conscience and for them to explain it to their constituents. I can tell members that I find it reprehensible and unacceptable.

The member for Winnipeg Centre should withdraw her statement and apologize because the claim she has made is unsubstantiated. It has not been captured in Hansard, and it certainly has not been adjudicated on by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you invite that member to apologize for saying something that is demonstrably not true.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had said that Conservative members were hiding behind the curtain. I said that there is nothing wrong with coming from behind the curtain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the member for Winnipeg Centre has, today and on many occasions, made comments that are clearly unparliamentary in making accusations against members. Regardless of whether we couch them in whatever kind of framing around demographics, there are clear rules on parliamentary language, and this member from Winnipeg consistently uses unparliamentary language, as we have heard on multiple occasions today. She should be called to order by the Chair, consistent with how any other member would be treated, and she should be told she has to apologize.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is really entertaining coming from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who was heckling me during QP.

On the toxic masculinity, I will not take it back, as it is including the toxic masculinity that I have seen from the other member. I have seen it physically with my own eyes. We cannot capture physical actions made toward members, including toward female members. I have had it with their toxic masculinity, and I will not apologize. However, I do expect apologies in the House for demonstrations of toxic masculinity.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the accusations about what I allegedly said during question period, as I recall, I honestly was not even paying attention to the member's question during question period. However, the point is, holding one's arms out is not an act of violence.

This member is repeatedly using unparliamentary language in the House. One cannot say in the House the things that this member has said. This member thinks that she can get away with ignoring the rules. I think it is important that there be one standard of adherence to parliamentary rules. The name-calling and the insults are unparliamentary, and this member needs to be brought to order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish members a happy Friday. I would just ask that we could perhaps have peace and unity in this place and carry on with debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this point of order. Obviously, the Chair would like to remind everyone of the importance of decorum in the House. We need to have speeches and constructive debate.

The Chair will check the blues and get back to the House on all of the issues that were raised, if necessary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore. This is the second time I am rising in the House to speak to the privilege motion before us today. I have already given a speech, but since an amendment to the amendment was presented, I will give another.

This time I will speak a bit more in French because the last time, I did my entire speech in English. I will say a few words in French to start since I have 20 minutes for my speech.

The last time I spoke to this issue, I noted the fact that it is unfortunately not the first time that the government is refusing to submit documents to the House. If only this were the first time, but no, unfortunately, we have many examples where the government decided to hold on to documents rather than submit them.

The first example is when we asked the government to release the data that it provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer that proves that carbon pricing has a negative economic impact. We requested the documents, but unfortunately the government decided not to submit them.

The second example is when the government refused to hand over documents related to foreign interference. We found ourselves in a similar situation, because on this side of the House, we just wanted to get the names of those being targeted by foreign interference. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister decided not to give us or our leader the documents. Although we asked him several times in the House, he decided that he did not want to share the names. He only shares the information he wants to share. It is important to understand that as soon as our leader, the member for Carleton, receives this information, he can no longer talk about the matter. This is another example where we did not receive the documents.

Another example is ArriveCAN. We asked for documents about ArriveCAN, but we did not get anything. We heard from witnesses in committee, including Kristian Firth, who refused to co-operate with the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. For that reason, he was brought before the bar of the House of Commons. Of course, Kristian Firth was a problem, but so was the government because it refused to hand over the documents. Unfortunately, many people have suffered because of this government's actions, which include refusing to hand over the documents. Obviously, Kristian Firth acted improperly when he chose to omit information, but one could argue that he was also a victim of the current government.

The government also refused to give us the relevant documents about the Winnipeg laboratory. That is another example of a case involving external affairs where we have not received the documents. We have not received the documents related to the two scientists. In this situation, it was a deputy minister, I believe, who had to appear in the House, where he was admonished by the House.

In all these situations, there are people who bear some of the responsibility, but ultimately, the government is always responsible. It was the government that failed to hand over the relevant documents.

The next example is the WE Charity scandal. We had requested the documents related to WE Charity. That is something I find really interesting. Most of the other scandals I have mentioned happened during this Parliament, with the exception of the Winnipeg lab scandal, which I believe happened in the last Parliament. As for the WE Charity scandal, I think that happened three Parliaments earlier.

The last example that I am going to give relates to the Governor General. We did not receive the documents in that regard. Unfortunately, there are a lot of examples of situations where the House did not receive the documents it requested. Even when all of the parties in the House adopt a motion to demand documents, unfortunately, we do not always get them, since we have a government that wants to stay in power, with the NDP, who wants the same thing.

What I find the most difficult is not just the fact that we have not received the documents related to several different issues and situations. It is also the fact that the NDP continues to support this government when many Canadians are suffering and many Canadians want a carbon tax election to be called.

This is a really difficult time for the House, but also for Canada. Obviously, Canadians do not want to continue on the road that we are on. That includes Quebeckers. Everyone in Canada wants an election now, given the situation that they find themselves in. Canadians are no longer able to buy food since it is a lot more expensive than it was nine years ago. Unfortunately, we have heard many sad stories in the House about people who cannot put food on the table because of the interest rates under this government.

Think about young people who want to buy their first home. Right now, they are unable to buy a house because house prices are really high and they cannot afford the mortgage. Mortgages are unbelievable, both because of house prices and because of the rise in interest rates caused by the current government. Clearly, there are a lot of sad reasons and a lot of good reasons why Canadians want a chance to vote in a carbon-tax election.

There is also the issue of how much it costs to fill up one's car or truck. That is more expensive now, because of this NDP-Liberal government's carbon tax. These are truly expensive times for Canadians. The government says it is an expensive time for Canadians, but in fact, the government has created this particular period in time in Canadian history. Right now, a lot of things, almost all things, in fact, have become very expensive.

It seems that the government is incapable of handing over the documents or creating a good environment for Canadians, one they can live in. As I said before, everything—food, gas, home heating and house prices—is more expensive, too expensive, under the Liberal government.

Unfortunately, the economy is not the only thing that the government is incapable of managing. I have lots of other examples of things that the government is incapable of managing, including passports. We were once in a situation where the government House leader was incapable of managing passport production. It was a really tough time, right after the pandemic. A lot of Canadians wanted to travel but were grounded because they had not received their passports. This is another example of the government's lack of competence.

The same thing happened with forest fire management. The Jasper fires were a tragedy, especially because the government chose to ignore advice from scientists about the forest fire threat looming over Jasper. Unfortunately, this led to horrific, terrible forest fires. Once again, the government was at fault.

I remember another situation when the former minister of transport said that Canadians were to blame for their inability to travel. He refused to take any responsibility for an air transportation system that he decimated during the pandemic. Instead of taking—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The interpreters are saying that the microphones are picking up quite a bit of noise from the member's notes. Could that be minimized? The hon. member has five minutes remaining for her speech.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will do my best to stop moving my notes. Unfortunately, I have many files with lots examples of how this government has failed.

The next example I want to share of how the government has failed to assume its responsibilities involves the Governor General. As I mentioned, we had not received certain documents related to nearly $300,000 in expenses. I now have more information on that, but nothing specific about those costs. We therefore asked for a list of costs related to the Governor General, but we did not get anything. I also now have more information about WE Charity. These briefing documents were prepared by public servants. Actually, the government is responsible for public servants, and it could ask them not to prepare the documents we are supposed to receive in committee and in the House.

The Liberals have also failed to give us the invoices related to the cost of contractors at the CBSA. It is important that we have the correct information to determine whether problems stem from processes or something else. It is really important that we get the documents. Another example that I gave earlier had to do with foreign interference. According to one article, the Liberals have decided not to give us over 1,000 documents, which is really a lot. Finally, there is the carbon tax. The Liberal government has decided not to give us its analysis of the economic impact of the carbon tax and it will not tell us why it decided to keep those documents from us.

In closing, we have seen how, on many occasions, the government has been unwilling to share information with the House, the Conservatives and the Conservative Party. I think that it is really important for the House to get the documents that it has already requested and for Canadians to have access to those documents so that we can review them and identify any problems in order to improve systems and processes. Unfortunately, I think that there is more to the story and that the governing party does not have good intentions.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up housing and I have a couple of questions with respect to the proposal by the Conservatives to take the GST off the price of new houses. First, would that cut apply to the first $1 million of a home that is, say, bought for $1.5 million? Second, would that tax break apply to people who are buying a property as an investment?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition has decided to take action and make this important policy announcement, which has been called “the most significant housing policy...in the last two decades.” The fact that he alone has taken the step to do that is more than the government has done.

As always, the particulars of new legislation have yet to be determined, but clearly, as always, the leader is one step ahead of the Prime Minister in having announced this important policy piece.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech in support of transparency and information sharing. I think it is important and commendable and something we should see from every government. That got me thinking. If the Conservative Party comes to power, can we assume that it will be committed to greater transparency and better government accountability? We know that during the Harper years, things were tough in that regard.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that a government always strives to be more transparent. I think that the next Conservative government and our leader will strive to do so. Of course, with any party, government and leader there is always room for improvement. I think that transparency is truly a priority for the member for Carleton. We could have a more transparent Quebec and Canada with a Conservative government and our leader, the member for Carleton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to circle back to an issue that was brought up earlier, which involves the Prime Minister's key economic adviser, carbon tax Carney. We found out this morning that in fact he is moving the headquarters of Brookfield Asset Management, of which he is the chair of the board, from Toronto to New York. This is the key economic adviser to the Prime Minister, who has, seemingly, zero confidence in the Canadian economy and the Canadian tax system as well. There obviously have to be some advantages for him in doing that or else he would not.

I am wondering if the hon. member can comment on carbon tax Carney's decision to take his company out of Canada and move it to the United States.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoy French exchanges with my colleagues, but I will respond in English this time.

This is an example of a disturbing trend we are seeing beyond carbon tax Carney, or conflict of interest Carney. It is not only the lack of foreign investment in Canada but also the fleeing of dollars out of Canada. Another example I would cite is the brain drain. I believe Canadians and Quebeckers want to stay in Canada and in their home province of Quebec and work, but it is getting more difficult because of a government that does not support business or good jobs and that, in fact, works with individuals who are defying conflict of interest laws to help them leave the country.

This, unfortunately, is a trend we are seeing. In this case, it is an individual who has broken conflict of interest laws, but outside of that, investment is leaving Canada and young people are leaving Canada. We need to keep business and jobs here in Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are all talking about the cost of living and the impact it is having on people across our country. However, we have yet to hear the Conservatives talk about corporate greed and excess profits, despite the fact that oil and gas, big grocery, the big banks and web giants are all having record profits. We saw grocery store margins go from 1.5% on average, pre-COVID, to 3.2% today.

Why has a single Conservative not gotten up and raised the concern about corporate greed and its impact on everyday Canadians?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will always support business. I will always support small business, coming from a small business family. That is something, of course, that the government does not do, as we saw with its attempt to implement those tax changes, as far back as 2017.

Before we even talk about business, let us talk about the waste of money in government procurement. My goodness, if there is a place to start saving for Canadians so they have to pay less in taxes and have a more affordable life and a better cost of living, that would be with procurement on the government side. I am very proud to be on the government operations committee and to do that good work. The individual who asked the question is a previous member of this committee, which looks into that waste. Certainly, while I hear his concerns, I will always stand for business, small business in particular.

Let us continue our good work on the operations committee. If we want to continue that good work further, let us bring down the government so we can have a carbon tax election, but let us look for the waste in government first.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last comment by the member opposite. She was talking about procurement and making sure Canadian taxpayers' money is being used efficiently, yet we brought forward legislation for pharmacare that would reduce the cost of medications, especially with respect to reproductive medications and medications for diabetes. The Conservatives voted against that. This is a program that would allow Canadians to have access to medication but also for the Government of Canada to be able to bulk buy.

Would she not agree this is something that, normally, Conservatives would have supported?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe two things. Programs are excellent if we can figure out how to fund them. The government is just incapable of even funding the programs it puts forward to Canadians, with a $42-billion deficit this year alone. We really must think about how we are going to fund something before we present it and implement it. This has been a fault of the current government, unfortunately. With the NDP propping up the government, it continues to be a problem. It is very important that we sincerely consider how to fund these things.

The greatest thing we can give Canadians is a lower cost of living through less government expenditure, which will lead to tax breaks. That is what a government would do under our leader, the hon. member for Carleton. We cannot wait to do that for Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni mentioned corporations not operating with Canadians in mind. I raised, in my intervention previously, how the Liberals, through their process, gave funds, through SDTC, to companies that were not eligible to receive it. My constituents who were found to be ineligible for CERB had to pay it back.

Does this member believe that they should pay it back?

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I have to ask the hon. member to provide a very brief response.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of serving with the member on the human resources committee during the pandemic and I think that was a very special time, as we worked together to find solutions for Canadians. Perhaps we can expand upon that answer in the future.