Alistair MacGregor

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition to the Government of Canada. The petitioners recognize that, although it has been many years since the first use of nuclear weapons demonstrated their awesome powers, we remain under the constant threat of warfare today. This could result in devastation from which the world would never recover.

The petitioners also recognize that the Government of Canada has published statements saying it is committed to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. They recognize that Canada, as a member of the UN Conference on Disarmament and the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament, has an obligation to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons internationally. They recognize that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been signed by 86 countries and ratified by 66, but not by Canada. Finally, the petitioners recognize that, as a non-nuclear state, Canada is in the best position to comply with the articles of the TPNW and to guide its allies and other nations towards a world free from nuclear weapons.

Therefore, these petitioners call on the Government of Canada to sign and commit to ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to urge allies and other nations to follow suit.

[Families, Children and Social Development, March 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as Canadians observe Ramadan and Easter this month, many are scrambling to put food on the table. Organizations such as Feed Ottawa are working hard to make sure no one is left behind, but it should not be up to them alone. The Conservatives refused to help, voting against a school food program to feed kids, and the Liberals are way too busy protecting the profits of grocery CEOs.

The NDP has been pushing for a national school food program to ensure no child goes hungry. Will the Liberals include it in the upcoming budget?

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago I substituted at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We had a briefing from the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Middle East branch of that department. Now, this is in the context of the Leader of the Opposition calling UNRWA a terrorist organization. The assistant deputy minister confirmed that the agency employs 33,000 people and that the interim investigation found 12 people out of 33,000 were to be held responsible. The department also confirmed that none of our major allies regard UNRWA as a terrorist organization, and it is not the department of Global Affairs Canada.

Can my hon. colleague comment on those irresponsible comments by the Leader of the Opposition, and will the Liberals commit to funding UNRWA, which is the only legitimate organization that can deliver aid to the Palestinians, who so desperately need it at this moment?

[Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings, February 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to lower the temperature.

I really want to put today's motion in the context of Bill C-50 because I think that bill in particular illustrates the reasoning behind the motion. When Bill C-50 was at committee, the Conservatives, I highly suspect, used ChatGPT's AI technology to generate 20,000 amendments. Their plan failed, and those amendments were actually cleared in about an hour's time because they did not do their homework. The Conservatives are now trying the same thing at the report stage with 200 amendments.

I think some people watching this debate may get the incorrect idea that we are doing away with votes. I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be clear that we are still going to have those votes, but the motion would allow members to have those health breaks and would allow the important staff who support this place to have those health breaks as well, so we are not putting anyone's health at risk while still conducting the democratic needs of the nation in the House.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it has been reported in the media that some senators have been openly musing about blocking Bill C-62. Given that we are dealing with such a short timeline, I am just wondering whether my colleague has any thoughts about the unelected Senate's openly voicing blocking the democratic will of the House of Commons on such an important issue. What does he think the government should be doing to try to prevent that from happening when the bill makes its way to the red chamber?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats actually also voted against what I thought was an ill-advised Senate amendment to Bill C-7. There is plenty of blame to be thrown around. I understand that. I have done more than my fair share this week against the Liberals, but the fact of the matter is that we are at a moment right now when time is critical. We have about a week and a half left, in terms of sitting weeks, until the March 17 deadline. It is imperative that this bill gets passed through the House this week, so that it can go to the Senate.

I am glad to hear the member's support for that measure, but I am curious as to why, when we had a vote on time management of this motion, which is programming the bill, the Conservatives voted against it, knowing that it could have actually jeopardized the time we had available to us this week to get Bill C-62 passed.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is mixing up the timelines here. He keeps referring to eight years; in fact, the essence of the bill we are talking about happened three years ago.

Now, if the member wants to talk about someone suffering from stage 4 cancer and just taking some painkillers, I will let him defend himself. However, on what Bill C-62 is doing, we are dealing with a March 17 deadline. This morning, the Conservatives voted against time management of the bill. However, he must understand that we only have two sitting weeks to get the bill to the Governor General's desk.

Why did Conservatives vote against that when we are dealing with a hard deadline, understanding that the law will change if we do not get the bill passed?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have gotten ourselves into trouble with the use of arbitrary timelines. The Senate amendment to Bill C-7 kicked the can down the road two years. Last year's Bill C-39 added a year, and now Bill C-62 would add three years.

I just want the member to put that into the context of the fact that the health ministers of seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories have asked for an indefinite pause. The special joint committee, likewise, was very careful not to put a timeline in its recommendation for a pause.

How does the member reconcile this three-year pause with the fact that those institutions, those provincial governments, would rather put more of a qualitative benchmark than a timeline on it?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on the situation we find ourselves in this week, and last year with Bill C-39, we can draw a direct line back to the Senate amendment that was placed on Bill C-7. The government did a complete 180. It came out with a charter statement explaining why it was excluding mental disorders, and it then went and accepted the Senate amendment.

Bill C-39 last year had to punt the ball down the road by a year. Now we have Bill C-62 trying to do that by another three years. It feels like everything we have been doing has been trying to play catch-up to that change in the law. The law was changed before we had done the work.

Does my hon. colleague regret voting for that Senate amendment, given all he knows now and all of the catch-up we have been trying to do on this very important and sensitive issue?

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary well knows, we really only have two sitting weeks left for this bill to reach the Governor General's desk. We are already pretty much halfway through one of those two. I think that the House of Commons is going to do its duty and pass the bill this week, but there are reports in the media of senators openly defying the intent of this bill and threatening to block it.

What steps is the government taking to ensure that the Senate does not thwart the will of the democratically elected House and that it makes sure the bill reaches the Governor General's desk in time?