Debates of May 8th, 2024

Motions in Amendment

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to bring it back to the original question. The motion is that the bill, Bill C-59, be amended by deleting the short title.

I am not sure that the hon. member actually got to the motion and why the title should be deleted or not, but I want to remind members to speak to the motion as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess the member could be excused, since he was the one who brought in the motion.

It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party really knows no shame. Think about it; the member who moved the motion is criticizing the government because we are not getting this legislation passed because it is the fall economic statement. Well, duh. Who does one think is preventing it from passing? It is the Conservative Party of Canada. They are doing it by bringing in silly motions that the member just introduced, even though he did not even talk about it.

Can the member explain to Canadians how it is that they can justify filibustering legislation and then blaming the government because we are not stopping them from filibustering fast enough?

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

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to respond to that question from the member whose word count certainly is the only thing that he can point to as being successful, in terms of his service in Parliament.

Let me simply suggest this. When it comes to the very root of what we are talking about, it is the government that controls the legislative agenda. The government is quick to blame everybody else for its failures when it is that member himself who, on a number of occasions, has moved amendments similar to this, with the defence that there were important things that needed to be discussed. Therefore, when they do it, it is legitimate; when we do it, in order to make sure that the voices of Canadians are heard, it is somehow filibustering.

Let me be crystal clear. Never, in this place, is it wrong to bring up the pain and the suffering that Canadians are facing because we have to offer hope at a time when people feel hopeless. Certainly, the solution is a change in government because it is tired, corrupt and certainly out of ideas, and this fall economic statement and the budget we debated earlier today are clear proof of that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up the Conservative record. He said that it is something that could be pointed to so that Canadians could get an idea of what they could expect from a future Conservative government.

I had the benefit of actually being in the House from 2008 to 2015. My hon. colleague said that the Conservative government stewarded this country through tough economic times. What he did not tell people was that the Harper government ran seven consecutive deficits in a row, only claiming to balance the budget in the eighth year, which happened to be an election year, and that turned out to be a deficit budget as well. Conservatives did not balance the budget in a single year of their eight years in the House.

Is it the case that Canadians can expect similar behaviour from a future government, of consecutive deficits, although they promise to be fiscally prudent?

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

Madam Speaker, that is ironic from a member of the NDP. Seemingly, there is no promise that the Liberals can break that would force the NDP to renege on the pension and supply agreement that they seem so bent on keeping with the corrupt Liberals.

I am proud of the Conservative record. I am proud to stand and represent my constituents in this place. The member asked what Conservatives would do, and I will be crystal clear on that as well. Conservatives would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, because that is what Canadians are asking for. It is time that everybody in this place pays attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Excuse me, it is the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I thought that was one of the member's colleagues back there too, but it is not.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

There is a lot of talk about unparliamentary language. My colleague has every reason to be offended by your mistake.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is not the way I meant it. It was misunderstood. I was looking at who was getting up. I was looking this way instead. That is simply how it came out. I apologize.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are going to make history, but maybe not for the right reasons.

We are witnessing a miracle: The Conservative Party has become the party that cares about vulnerable people, the middle class and families. They call it common sense. I would like to discuss common sense with my colleague.

Currently, we are discussing the bill that implements the economic update. In the economic update, according to the last budget, there is a tax credit for the energy sector to the tune of $20 billion. The Conservative Party has not said a word about it.

I would like my colleague to tell me if he is proud that his party supports a tax credit of $20 billion that could help the middle class, families, access to housing. That is the question my colleague is avoiding. That is the money that will enable oil and gas companies to rake in even greater profits.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the heart of the Canadian energy sector, about 2.5% of Canada's economy, which contributes to the equalization that benefits the member's province specifically.

Let me suggest this: A prosperous Canada benefits everybody. For a member of a party that claims to stand up for jurisdictional rights and responsibilities within this country, I would suggest his party adopt an attitude that encourages prosperity and economic advancement, as opposed to trying to bankrupt part of the country, which would have not only a devastating effect on the people I represent but the entire country.

Instead of punishing people, let us build a country that actually builds a prosperous future for all Canadians. That is how we make a rich middle class in this country. It is regrettable that we have a coalition among three left-wing parties that refuse to do so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to again apologize.

I thought it was a Conservative member who had risen in the corner. I wanted to make sure I had respected party parity. I am sorry.

I just want to reiterate to members to stay within the motion. I know it is large, but please mention the motion every once in a while. That way we can avoid points of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure you I will remain very relevant. In fact, the person who moved the motion—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you look deep into the recesses of Bosc and Gagnon, it says that if a member gets over 10 million interventions, they are cut off.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know that is not a point of order. I think the hon. member should mention a standing order next time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, your time starts now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We have the Conservative Party of Canada, which many would call the Reform Party, because it is, for all intents and purposes, more the Reform Party than it is the Conservative Party, and I will try to explain to those who might be attempting to follow the debate.

We are talking about the fall economic statement, which is something that was introduced late last year. The Conservative member who moved this motion is criticizing the government for taking so long to get this legislation passed, which is truly amazing, because it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the legislation from passing by filibustering the legislation, and today is an excellent example.

What is the member actually moving? He is moving a motion to delete the short title of the legislation. What is the short title of the legislation? It is the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. This is a relatively large piece of legislation, and this member, who I hope did not require AI assistance this time around, comes up with an amendment to delete that short title. Then he says that not doing this, not passing this legislation, has a consequence. Well, the member is somewhat right, even though he does not admit that the Conservative Party, or the Reformers in the Conservative Party, are the problem in terms of why it is not passing, and many of them are rural members of Parliament.

Within this legislation is action that would double the rural top-up for the carbon rebate. This means that the Reformers across the way, the Conservative Party, are in fact keeping money away from rural communities in Canada, because they made the decision that they do not want this legislation to pass. To amplify that, they bring in a silly motion meant for one purpose, which is purely obstruction.

Then the member asks who the Liberals are talking to, and he is critical of some of my caucus colleagues. Let me frame it in a different way. After all, the member himself said, “The buck stops with the one who is in charge”, implying the Prime Minister. Let me reverse this on the member opposite. He is trying to ask who we are talking to versus who the Conservatives are talking to, so let us talk about the leaders.

The Prime Minister of Canada came to Winnipeg one day, and we were talking about child care. He came to Stanley Knowles School in my riding, and we talked about the importance of $10-a-day child care. What is wrong with talking to child care workers?

The next time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we went to the Grace Hospital. It was the premier, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. They talked about the $200-billion transfer for a generation of providing services in health care on issues such as mental health, family doctors and so forth. We were surrounded by the real VIPs, which were the health care workers who were there. These are the people we are listening to.

In fact, the last time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we met again with the premier and the provincial minister of housing. We also had the mayor of Winnipeg, and along with the Prime Minister was the Minister of Housing. We talked about the issue of housing and, again, we had stakeholders there.

When we think of the budget or the fall economic statement, what we will see is that they are a reflection of what Canadians are telling us.

Whether it is the member for Avalon, me or the member from Surrey, we take the ideas and the thoughts that constituents and Canadians tell us and bring them here to Ottawa. The budget and the fall economic statement are a reflection of Canadian values and what they are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, while I am concerned that no other Liberal seems to be allowed to speak, I would ask for a quorum call. On an issue as important as this, I would hope we could find quorum in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member already knows we cannot do quorum calls during these debates. This is something that has been stated before.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby also has a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating six words, “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023,” the short title. The Conservatives moved, at a cost now of $70,000 to Canadian taxpayers, to delete those six words. That is what the Conservatives have put on the table. It is unbelievable.

I would ask my colleague from Winnipeg North, through you, Madam Speaker, to stick to those six words the Conservatives want to spend $70,000 to delete.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member did mention the short title.

I will also note that a previous Speaker, on March 21, 2023, indicated that there is some latitude. However, members should be making their comments relevant to the motion that is before the House and should also avoid the repetition of points that have already been made. I just want to say there is some latitude, but I hope the members will reference the title from time to time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, before the interruption, I was talking about how Liberal members are out connecting with Canadians and reporting back.

When we think of the amendment being proposed today, it is absolutely ridiculous. I believe there are very few outside of the Reformers who would actually support such a silly amendment, because they would understand it is nothing more than a filibuster or an obstruction tactic from the Conservatives.

I was reflecting on how the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus do their consulting. Who do the Conservative Party members consult with? Who gave them the idea to continue the filibustering we are seeing? I have a fairly good sense. It is the MAGA right, the far right element in the Conservative Party today, the individual who wants to demonstrate, even though it is not true, that the institutions we participate in are dysfunctional. The Conservatives bring in amendments of this nature and then say the government cannot pass legislation, when they are the ones who are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing.

This is a Donald Trump type of tactic from the MAGA right and that has seeped into the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is that far right element trying to take away the validity of what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons.

I pointed out who the Prime Minister is meeting with, but who is giving advice to the Conservative leader? Do we remember Diagolon? It is a pretty far right group of people, and we have the leader of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Can he maybe state the standing order he is rising on first?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the quorum call, certainly the pretense under which the bill appears to debated, the unconstitutionality—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that we are not doing quorum calls, and I will not entertain any further points of order if the hon. member continues with regard to that.

If the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has other questions on that, I would say that he can try to raise them during questions and comments, but, again, there are no quorum calls during this debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.