Gord Johns

“Canada has 65,000 homeless people, and very little social housing compared to other countries. I want the member to agree that building a strong country means ending homelessness.”

“Mr. Speaker, of course, there are things that my colleague and I may not agree on, but there are certainly things that we do. He talked about how the bill does not go far enough in terms of infrastructure. I think about the Prime Minister’s words about nation building, about building Canada strong. Right now, there are 65,000 Canadians who are homeless. They cite that this costs us about $3 billion a year and that it would save us $2 billion if they were to be housed. Right now, in Canada, 3.3% of our housing is non-market housing, compared to France and Britain, which are at about 16% to 17%, Denmark, 21%, the Netherlands, 34%. We do not have to look far to see what 3.3% looks like. Does my colleague agree that nation building, in a country as wealthy as Canada, should mean making sure that we do not have any homeless people in the country?”

“Unions want the government to stop forcing people back to work. But this bill's changes could make workers' bargaining power even weaker. Nobody knows who asked for these changes. I want to know if the Conservatives support them.”

“Madam Speaker, over the summer, the government consulted with labour, unions and different organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed after governments, especially the Liberal government, have used it to order workers back to work and undermine their collective bargaining rights. The government is proposing new language, as we know, around section 107, and calling these changes “guardrails”. However, unions are telling us these changes could actually weaken workers’ bargaining power. Organized labour still has no answer on who brought these ideas forward and who asked for these changes. The Conservatives are saying they are friends with labour. Do they support these changes or do they know who asked for these changes?”

“I want to know why the government is rushing consultations with Indigenous peoples to meet strict deadlines. Rushing consultations caused courts to stop past projects. Doing it again will only lead to more court battles and waste time and money.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to go back in time. The northern gateway pipeline was rejected by the courts in part because the Crown’s consultations with the affected first nations were found to be inadequate. The lesson of that should have been clear to the government, and that lesson is that rushing consultation can delay projects rather than get them built. My question is this: Why is the Liberal government repeating the same mistakes of the Harper Conservatives by prioritizing an arbitrary timeline over getting consultations with indigenous peoples right the first time? The government is repeating the same mistakes, and this will just end up in the courts again, wasting everybody’s time and money.”

“I want to know who decides when consultations with Indigenous nations are finished. Will these nations have a real say in whether their concerns were addressed, or will the government just decide for itself?”

“Madam Speaker, the government says it will coordinate consultation through a new Crown consultation hub, which is what they have called it. Ultimately, who gets to decide if and when that consultation is complete? My colleague talked a lot about first nations. Will indigenous nations have a meaningful say in determining whether their concerns have actually been addressed in that consultation process, or will the government be the one marking its own homework? Who will decide when that is complete and what that timeline looks like?”

“The Liberals want to privatize major airports, ports, and security jobs that employ veterans. They are hurting workers' rights. I want the member to tell me if the Conservatives support this plan or if they would privatize even more public services.”

“Madam Speaker, we have seen the Liberals are privatizing, or are talking about privatizing, four of Canada’s largest airports, which produce a half a billion dollars in revenue. They are talking about modernizing Canadian ports, which we know basically means they are going to privatize them. They are even privatizing and putting out to tender the contract that the Commissionaires, which hires veterans, gets. Now the Liberals are undermining workers’ rights. We hear a lot of people say that the Liberals have taken on the Conservative agenda, but I will ask my colleague, is this the Conservative agenda? Would the Conservatives have even gone this far, when it comes to privatizing Canadian public services?”

“Alberta is allowing more private health care, where people pay to jump the line. The federal government must enforce the Canada Health Act to stop this and protect our public system.”

“Madam Speaker, here we are just three days into the fall sitting of the House, and I am once again having to drag the government back into the House for an adjournment debate to protect our universal public health care system. Back in April, I asked a question during question period referencing the fact that the Minister of Health stood here and called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”. After months of delay, she has failed to act while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith expands American-style pay-for-access diagnostics and two-tiered health care. Canadians cannot afford more stalling while our universal health care system is being undermined. Since that time, on September 1, Alberta’s Bill 11 has landed on our doorstep. The Canadian Health Coalition, which I want to thank for its tremendous work advocating for our public health care system, commissioned a legal opinion stating that Bill 11 is the most serious threat against public universal health care we have seen since the Canada Health Act was passed in 1984. The first parts of Premier Smith’s draconian Bill 11 in Alberta just recently came into force at the beginning of this month, with the rest being enacted in the coming months. Bill 11 opens the door to the privatization of public health care in Canada. As Friends of Medicare has so succinctly said, we must slam it shut. Shockingly, despite my repeated attempts at ringing the alarm bells around Alberta’s Bill 11 here in the House, through the media and in many meetings with the Minister of Health asking that she enforce the Canada Health Act to protect our public health care system from a threat that no one voted for, it was not until the eve of the recent coming into force of the bill that the minister finally said that she would be considering the ramifications of the bill. If the minister is truly the guardian, why is she taking so long to enforce the law and stop the erosion of our public health care system? This is an issue of national unity. What can happen in Alberta does not necessarily stay in Alberta. Canadians are united in their opposition to the insults and damage flowing from the American President towards Canada. The Prime Minister has been travelling abroad and hosting summits with billionaires here at home, so what happened to “elbows up” and “Canada strong”? Protecting our health care is Canada strong. That is nation building, but eroding our public health care system through inaction and failure to enforce the Canada Health Act is not Canada strong. It weakens Canada. It is not Canadian. It erodes the security of the very thing Canadians most closely identify with as part of being Canadian. Canadians do not want American-style health care, the queue-jumping for people with money or the so-called dual practice, which is now under way in Alberta. I will ask the government this again. Why has it not enforced the Canada Health Act to prevent the erosion of our public health care system, something that Canadians identify with in our shared values as a healthy and inclusive society? People should use their health care card, not their credit card, to get the help and services they need when it comes to their health.”

“The government spent over $23 billion hiring outside companies, while people struggle to get their pensions, EI, and tax help. Now the government is cutting jobs, which will lead to even more costly outside hiring. I want the member to explain how these cuts and outside contracts are hurting people who are already struggling with high costs.”

“Madam Speaker, I enjoyed sitting on the government operations committee with the member for a long time. He does great work there. We got to work together. We got to examine the government’s outsourcing. When we looked at the outsourcing for professional services, the Liberal government’s spending skyrocketed to over $23 billion for professional services alone. Meanwhile, people are struggling to get their pensions, to get their EI or to get support from CRA. Our offices are being inundated at a time when people are struggling with a cost of living crisis. Now the government is cutting more jobs and this austerity is going to lead to more outsourcing, because the work still has to get done. However, it is going to get done by for-profit companies. Could my colleague speak about what he has seen at his office? Could he connect the dots between the impact of austerity and how that impacts people on the cost of living crisis? Maybe the member could speak about the outsourcing that is out of control, which the government promised to rein in.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Seniors are cutting pills in half because medicine costs too much. A year ago, the Prime Minister promised to sign pharmacare deals with the provinces, but he has not signed one. Will the member push him to get those deals done?”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the challenges people are facing. One thing I will give her credit for is that she has been an incredible champion for calling for universal pharmacare. We know that in her home province, seniors are cutting pills in half because they cannot get the medicine they need when they need it. It was just last September that the Prime Minister assured the Canadian public that he was going to sign pharmacare agreements with all of the provinces and territories that had not gotten on board. Here we are, a year later, and not a single agreement has been signed in the last 12 months, including in her home province. Is my colleague going to be the champion to get those deals done? Is she still committed to universal pharmacare to ensure that people are not cutting pills in the country and are using their health card, not their credit card, to access the medicines they need?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Wildfires and climate change are making life more expensive, including for insurance. People need help with these costs. Oil and gas companies are making record profits. Does my colleague agree that these companies should chip in to help Canadians and invest in clean energy?”

“Madam Speaker, this summer we had another catastrophic wildfire season right across the country. Last year, it was in my riding. Three years ago, it was in my riding as well. We know the climate crisis is real. It is costing Canadians every day, not just when their communities get hit, but through their home insurance and business insurance. We are seeing costs skyrocketing. We know people need help. They need relief. Where do we go for that relief? Big oil and gas is posting record profits. It is an opportunity for them to chip in and help give relief to Canadians. That could be at the pump right now through a bill like this, but it could also be through helping to take pressure off people when they are trying to access home and business insurance. Does my colleague not agree that big oil and gas should be chipping in while it is winning, while it is posting record profits, so it can support Canadians, invest in clean energy and invest in supporting people?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 27 of 100

  Only 8% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“Canadians need lower fuel costs, but this bill adds over $5 billion to our debt for future generations to pay. Oil and gas companies are making record profits right now. They should pay an extra profits tax to help cover these costs instead.”

“Madam Speaker, again, we all agree in this House that we need to take pressure off everyday Canadians. People are struggling to make ends meet. This bill, in its intention, is a good idea, which is to remove taxes so people pay less at a time when they need help. Where I have a problem, and I am surprised the Conservatives do not join me, is that all we are doing is taking this debt of over $5 billion and punting it down the road for future generations to pick up the tab. They are the ones who are going to end up paying this, because this is going on our debt. Meanwhile, big oil and gas are posting obscene profits. We have never seen profits like this. This war is creating extreme wealth for big oil and gas and investors. I would like to know if my colleague has talked to his constituents. He should ask them if they believe that big oil and gas companies should chip in a bit more while they have these winning profits. I know from my experience in talking to my constituents that every single one of them I talk to, every one of them, thinks that the big oil and gas companies should pay an excess profit tax.”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “People are struggling to make ends meet.”

  Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“Norway saved money from oil and gas to help its people and now has a huge fund. In Canada, oil and gas companies are making record profits, but the government lets them off the hook. We should put those profits into a public fund to help Canadians and pay for clean energy.”

“Madam Speaker, we know that Norway, where they created a sovereign wealth fund, has $2 trillion U.S. In fact, in royalties alone, the Norwegians generated over $300 billion last year because they took resources from a finite resource, from oil and gas, and they invested them. They have taken those royalties to do exactly the kinds of things that the government is talking about today, taking pressure off citizens when times are difficult. Instead, what did the current government do? It created a sovereign wealth fund that took the big oil and gas companies and let them off the hook. Right now, we have record profits with big oil and gas. Does my colleague not agree that when big oil and gas are profiting with record profits because of a war, the generational wealth should be invested in a sovereign wealth fund that can be invested in programs that can help take the pressure off Canadians and pivot to investing in renewable energy? This is a generational opportunity that is being lost right now.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We want to lower gas prices for people, but this bill adds 5.3 billion dollars to our debt. Big oil and gas companies are making record profits. I want to know if the member agrees that those companies should pay for this relief instead of everyday Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for talking about our children. This bill would create a debt of $5.3 billion. As New Democrats, we support the relief to consumers from the gas tax savings. What we do not support is putting this on the backs of future generations. We believe that big oil and gas, which is making record profits, should be shouldering and sharing some of this. We are seeing excess profits like we have never seen, obscene profits in the tens of billions of dollars. Does my colleague not agree and believe that the big oil and gas companies that are profiting from a war and showing record profits should cover the costs of what Liberals are putting in this bill, taking the pressure off everyday Canadians?”

“People need help, but big oil companies should pay for it instead of adding to our public debt. We also need to talk about tariffs, which are hurting small businesses that get no government support. How are these tariffs affecting small businesses in the member's community?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is rare when New Democrats and Conservatives agree on something, and we certainly agree that it is critical that we provide relief to people who are struggling right now. However, we believe that big corporations and big oil and gas should be paying for it, not creating more debt to taxpayers. One more thing we agree on is, as my colleague talked about, the lack of debate on the greatest threat to the Canadian economy with the tariffs and the countertariffs that are happening right now. I think about small businesses in my riding that have sales less than $1 million. There is no relief for them right now from the government. There is no debate happening to talk about those issues taking place right now, and it did not happen this summer, like my colleague talked about. Could the member talk about how this is impacting small businesses in her community, which are not getting any help during the greatest threat to our Canadian economy right now in our history?”