House of Commons Hansard #381 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced a GST break that will put money directly into the pockets of Canadians, especially the families who need it most. Unfortunately, we know that the Conservatives voted against this measure and continue to vote against the affordability measures we are putting forward.
Can the minister explain how all of us in the House can support Canadians in these difficult times?
Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for her excellent question.
Indeed, the Conservative leader is very inconsistent. He says he wants to cut taxes, yet he voted against the tax break last week. He says he is against the Canadian dental care plan, which helps three million Canadians. The dental plan clearly exists, yet he says it does not. He is against social housing because he says it encourages Soviet-style living. He is against investing in building affordable housing in Quebec because he wants to stop construction, and he says that these units and projects also do not exist.
How much more inconsistent can the Conservative leader get?
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister, Canadians cannot afford their rent or mortgages. The NDP leader has called the Liberals too weak, selfish and beholden to corporate interests to fight for Canadians, but it is the NDP leader who is keeping the Prime Minister in power. Conservatives have tabled a motion of confidence using the NDP leader's own words.
Will the NDP leader stand behind his words, or has the government made another spineless, backroom deal at the expense of Canadians?
Karina Gould LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are really getting to be pretty ridiculous around here. They have an opportunity to ask real questions of the government, but instead they choose to play petty politics. Yesterday I introduced a motion that would give them the opportunity to do that. Remember, the Leader of the Opposition tweeted about that over the weekend?
However, when given the opportunity they said no. Why? They are too afraid and too weak to actually do what they say. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for Canadians and provide real affordability measures, even if they try to stand in our way.
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is Canadians are struggling to feed, heat and house themselves while the NDP leader waits to get his pension. In a by-election stunt, he claimed to rip up his agreement with the Liberals, yet the NDP's actions prove the carbon tax coalition is driven by his pension and the Prime Minister's lust for power. Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition.
Will the NDP vote non-confidence or has the Prime Minister crafted yet another spineless backroom deal?
Karina Gould LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it kind of boggles the mind that the Conservatives are talking about pensions for their members when the leader of the opposition has a $2-million pension from the House of Commons. It is unbelievable what they say. They say one thing, they do another. We cannot trust these Conservative members of Parliament with anything they say because pretty much what they are accusing others of is exactly what they do.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, Tara Desousa sexually assaulted a three-month-old baby. That baby needed reconstructive surgery. Tara Desousa is in a women's jail in B.C. This women's jail also has the mother-child program, which allows mothers to raise their children. I visited that jail and I saw exactly where Desousa was standing. There was a straight line that took me less than a minute from where Desousa was standing to the mother-child house, no large fences, a straight pathway.
What is this government doing allowing sex offenders near children in jail?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of children who participate in the mother-child program is obviously a top priority for the Correctional Service of Canada. It is important to understand that this program has existed for decades, including during the time that Mr. Harper was prime minister of Canada. There are eligibility criteria and protocols to participate in this program. It includes child welfare screening done by competent provincial authorities. The member opposite should be careful before he tries to politicize such tragic circumstances and these most heinous crimes.
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, our plan for a national school food program is moving forward quickly. We know that access to healthy food can make all the difference in a child's day. Children deserve to be properly fed at school and the benefits to families are obvious. On Friday, we saw more great news.
To the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, what is happening on school food?
Jenna Sudds LiberalMinister of Families
Mr. Speaker, last week, in P.E.I., we announced that 1,500 more children will receive lunch this school year, and 800 more kids will get breakfast or snacks at school. Because of this program, 184,000 more kids this school year will receive food at school, almost 1.5 million meals. Now, the leader of the Conservatives said even today that this does not exist. I challenge him to ask the 184,000 kids, and they will school him.
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are letting seniors down. They do not even track the impact of the programs meant to support them. Seniors are falling through the cracks and the government has no plan to fix it. They excluded them from the recent $250 rebate. The Conservatives want to cut support for seniors altogether. Seniors have been saying for years that the OAS does not cut it. Cruel and callous GIS clawbacks are putting them even farther behind.
Why do the Liberals care so little about seniors?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Labour and Seniors
Mr. Speaker, happily, the member and her party have supported the Liberal record of success in supporting seniors, on things like dental care, expanding old age security and topping up the guaranteed income supplement. We have managed to accomplish this in this Parliament and it is a great tribute to those members who have voted for those things.
Unfortunately, we have had to do so walking into the headwind across the aisle from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, who, systematically, every time, vote against seniors.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, veterans with mental health conditions do not need more red tape to get help, like support with home care services, cleaning and mowing the lawn. They must prove their condition every year. This policy is discriminatory, sexist and completely unnecessary. The Liberals are letting veterans down just like the Conservatives did when they cut veterans' services.
Does the minister recognize the extra burden she is placing on MST survivors, veterans and their families?
Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have always been there to help support veterans. Since 2016, we have invested more than $11.5 billion in additional money to help support veterans and their families. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada that closed nine Veterans Affairs offices, on this side of the House, we opened them. We also hired additional staff to make sure that the appropriate assessments and adjudications were done in a timely fashion. When it comes to mental health benefits, we have made improvements to ensure that when veterans apply for benefits, they have access to them immediately.
On this side of the House, we will always be there to help support our veterans and their families, as they deserve it.
Karina Gould LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in light of what happened in question period today in the question from the member for Davenport, as well as the question that was posed last Wednesday by the member for Kingston, in terms of taking away a government's response.
The precedent that had been set in this place is that even if a member asks a question that is not related to government business, if the minister gets up then the Speaker had recognized that minister to speak. I am just asking for some consistency and fairness in the practice so we all know, as members of Parliament, the frame of how these questions should be asked and whether an answer is respected or is given or not, as well as the consequences when a member from the opposition asks a question that is out of order.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. While the government did ask its questions, you challenged them on their relevance to the administration of government, which is articulated very clearly throughout the course of our Standing Orders. When it comes to asking questions directly related to the confidence of the government, the coalition agreement and the fact that the fourth party continues to back the government in this place, this has direct relevance to the administration of governments. If a government cannot command the confidence of the House, it cannot administer the government.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. To add to the intervention of the House leader, I would like to submit the following to you. There seems to be a precedent developing that if a member is of the side of the government, they belong to the political party of the government, and their question will not be answered if you deem it not to be in line with government business. The problem with that is that the member for Davenport and I are not members of the government. We are not parliamentary secretaries and we are not in cabinet. Therefore, we are entitled to the exact same rights you afford to every other member of the House.
If you are deciding that a precedent will be set and that they will be able to have their questions answered, you must afford the exact same respect to our questions. Otherwise, I would argue that you are breaching our privilege.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order, but it is related to the same question about when a member stands and poses a question that you find not to be within the proper frame of government business. If someone had stood and asked a question that used an inappropriate word, that member would be given an opportunity to rephrase the question and ask it again. In this instance, the hon. member for Davenport has lost that opportunity to ask a question forever. I wonder if you could see the latitude to see if a member can quickly reframe a question and make it within the proper framework of government business.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if you look at the jurisprudence and the traditions of the House, you just have to point to references from decisions made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker of the House, when he determined that you were absolutely correct in cutting off a Liberal question that was not dealing with government business. You would be equally right in cutting every single one of those frivolous and vexatious questions coming from the Conservative Party. It is not as if its members do not know the rules; they just refuse to respect them. I would ask you to have them respect the rules; that if the question is not dealing with government business, you cut it off immediately and not let them finish, because that is what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle put in place in the House.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I have to admit I could not hear the last sentence he said, but I will read Hansard to inform myself as to what he said.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order. I am asking for an apology and retraction from the Minister of Labour in his use of unparliamentary language and ad hominem attack against the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He referred to him as a slimeball. I clearly heard it. Colleagues beside me heard it. I asked him about it. He doubled down. It was unparliamentary and unprofessional.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Labour and Seniors
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in the House when the honour of the members was to be presumed. The question that came from across was strongly intimating that the Minister of Public Safety willingly put children in danger. We do not do that in the House. We should not do that in the House. That is not cool and that is not correct.
That member should apologize to the Minister of Public Safety for impugning his character and raising such an absurd question in the House of Commons.
I withdraw that insult if those snowflakes cannot take it.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
Order. It is perfectly clear to this Chair that members are certainly in need of returning to their homes for the holidays.
I am going to ask the hon. minister to withdraw that last comment as well, and I then will come back to the House on the rest.
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season where white stuff is indeed on the ground, if members take offence to being called a snowflake, then I certainly withdraw the snowflake comment that I said about the snowflake thing.