Gord Johns

“People need help with costs right now, but this bill costs over $5 billion. Oil and gas companies are making record profits. I want to know how much profit these companies have to make before the government puts an extra tax on them, instead of putting this cost on everyday people.”

“Madam Speaker, New Democrats support relief for people right now. They are struggling to make ends meet. This bill alone would cost over $5 billion. I will remind the House that oil and gas companies are posting record profits. We have never had more profits than right now in the oil and gas sector. Conservatives in Britain have even brought in an excess profit tax, but we cannot get Liberals here in Canada to even consider it. I would ask the Minister of Finance the following. Is there a number? Is there a threshold? Is there an amount of profits? Is it $200 billion? Is it $300 billion? What is the number before the Liberals bring in an excess profit tax? This amounts to corporate welfare. That is exactly what is happening here. This bill should not be on the backs of everyday people.”

• 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 →

“This bill only exists because Indigenous nations pushed for it after the government failed to follow through on treaties. The government drags its feet on promises to First Nations. I want to know if the member agrees that quickly signing and honoring treaties is good for the economy and should be a top priority.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member gave the government credit for actually bringing forward this legislation, well, not really credit, but he attributed it to them. I would not go that far. This legislation is a result of pressure from modern-day treaty nations that have called for this, because of the government’s failure to implement treaties and dragging its feet. That is what this is about, and it includes the Maa-nulth first nations in my riding. I also think about nations in my riding that have signed agreements with the government that are not modern-day treaties, like Tla-o-qui-aht. The government is dragging its feet on promises it has made. We hear the government constantly talking about nation-building. Does my colleague agree that nation-building is signing modern-day treaties, signing agreements with indigenous peoples, and that fast-tracking that should be a priority for the government? That is good for the economy. That is good for nation-building.”

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“The government is cutting rules on dangerous pesticides and cutting jobs in farm research. I want the government to pause these cuts and rules changes, and work with farmers instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government’s removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides. At the same time, the government is cutting public agricultural research capacity at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These cuts would close research facilities, eliminate scientists and technicians, and end programs like the organic and regenerative agriculture research program. I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government’s pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada’s public agricultural research system?”

“The federal government gives much more money to ferries on the east coast than in British Columbia. Ferries are essential transportation for people on Vancouver Island. They pay taxes too. I want the government to fund our ferries fairly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I asked a Liberal colleague earlier today about ferry funding. I was explaining that the federal government contributes 43% of operating costs for Atlantic ferries. In British Columbia, they contribute 3%. The government contributes $6 per capita to the average British Columbian for operating costs for ferries, but on the east coast, it is $125. The Liberals say it is because of constitutional agreements and because those ferries are travelling province to province. Does my colleague think that Vancouver Island and coastal B.C. need to become a province just to get funding when it comes to operational costs for ferries? Living in a coastal community, ferries are essential transportation. I stood in the House, and I heard a Liberal parliamentary secretary agree that it is essential transportation. This is about fairness. People on Vancouver Island pay the same amount in taxes as people in Atlantic Canada. We do not even have a senator on Vancouver Island. We have not had one in 55 years. They have 10 senators in New Brunswick. They have six in Nova Scotia. They have 10 between P.E.I. and Newfoundland. P.E.I. and Newfoundland do not even have the same population as Vancouver Island. Neither does New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia, it is the same. We are not asking to reopen the Constitution. We are just asking the government to do something that is fair.”

• 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 →

“June is Brain Injury Awareness Month. I want all parties to support my bill for a national brain injury strategy, and I want the government to fund it in the fall budget.”

“Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month, a time to recognize survivors, families, caregivers and first responders whose lives are forever changed by brain injury. In Courtenay—Alberni, Amelia Hayden, a retired RCMP officer, knows this impact deeply. She was on duty the day Constable Gerry Breeze was injured, and she remained a source of support to his family throughout his recovery and after his passing. Their story reminds us why Canada needs a national brain injury strategy. It is why I introduced Bill C-206. In the last Parliament, former MP Alistair MacGregor’s bill passed unanimously at every stage to report stage but died because of prorogation. The call to action is non-partisan, and on Wednesday, June 17, as Canadians take part in a national pause for brain injury, we hope all parties will support a call for a national brain injury strategy in this fall’s budget.”

“This bill is important, but the Senate made good changes to it that the government rejected. The government should not cut off debate. We need to debate these changes so we can get the bill right.”

“First, Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing the importance of this bill. However, there are Senate amendments that are very good and that we support. The government rejected them. Now it is proposing closure instead of having proper debate on the bill. We want to get it right. I think that is important. I think we all want to work together in the House to make sure we have the best legislation and in moving it forward quickly. At the same time, this is not the right tool for us to have the proper debate, which has not been held in the House. Closure is not the right tool.”

“Canada has no plan to safely take apart and recycle old ships. More than 900 abandoned ships are harming the environment off the coast of British Columbia, and our old navy and Coast Guard ships need to be retired soon. I want the Prime Minister to invest in ship recycling facilities and rules so we can safely break down these ships in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada’s national shipbuilding strategy focuses on building and maintaining vessels, but there is no plan for responsibly retiring them. More than 900 derelict and end-of-life vessels sit off B.C.’s coast, threatening the marine environment. While aging navy and Coast Guard vessels approach retirement, Canada lacks the capacity to safely recycle them here at home. Will the Prime Minister finally commit to investing in dry dock infrastructure, in world-class ship recycling facilities and in regulations, and make ship recycling a core component of the national shipbuilding strategy?”

In response to a question from Caroline Desrochers

“The federal government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to ferries on the east coast, but far less to BC Ferries. BC Ferries carries 22 million passengers, while the east coast ferries carry only 350,000. I want the government to give British Columbia its fair share of ferry funding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for staying up late tonight to show up for this important debate. I am going to correct a couple of things. First of all, the pandemic relief that the federal government provided to BC Ferries was also provided to the east coast. It was equal in terms of per capita. Second, the loans that the member cited are repayable loans. Even with the loan interest at $26 million a year and the $38 million, when we look at loan savings per year over 25 years, that does not even come close to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government subsidizes on the east coast. There are approximately 350,000 passengers on the east coast and 22 million at BC Ferries, yet the federal government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to Atlantic Canada, which we support, but they shortchange British Columbians. It has been far too long since the government has reviewed the essential ferry funding for British Columbians. It is time for the government to fix it. The population of Vancouver Island is more than the population of New Brunswick, more than that of Newfoundland and Labrador and P.E.I. together, and almost the same as that of Nova Scotia. This is long overdue. I am here at 12.22 a.m. not because I think this is fair. It is unfair.”

“The government is cutting programs that prevent violence against women and intimate partners. Experts say these programs need more money, not less. I want to know how the government plans to stop this violence while cutting that funding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague. The main concern that we have been having as New Democrats is that we see the Liberals right now, and they are cutting critical programs that are essential for prevention. They are also letting programs expire. Maybe my colleague can explain how the government expects to reduce violence against women and victims of intimate partner violence when they are cutting the very programs that are critical for prevention. We have heard from the experts time and time again that not only do they need to be maintained, but the investment needs to be increased significantly. It is essential to this conversation.”

“A housing project in my riding for people with intellectual disabilities is being held up. The government housing agency says the project does not meet the rules, and the minister refuses to help. These vulnerable people need a place to live now.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some good points. The number one project in my riding for Build Canada Homes is a project to serve some individuals with intellectual disabilities. We know that many people with intellectual disabilities are served by L’Arche Canada, L’Arche Comox Valley in my riding. I am sure it is L’Arche in Regina—Lewvan. Right now, Build Canada Homes is holding the project up. It is saying that it does not meet the criteria for supportive and transitional needs. How can people with intellectual disabilities not meet the criteria for transitional needs? This is a project that is supported by L’Arche Canada. Build Canada Homes is saying that it cannot do anything right now. The minister’s office says it cannot talk to Build Canada Homes and cannot get involved. These people have nowhere to go right now. They are the most vulnerable people in our society. They count on us. Maybe my colleague can speak about how this is such a disaster right now.”

“I am honouring the member for Beaches—East York as he leaves Parliament. He fought hard for animal rights, backed the NDP on pharmacare and the toxic drug crisis, and helped secure major federal funding for a pool in my riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to say a couple of kind words about my good friend from Beaches—East York. I will start by saying that it is disappointing. In the last few weeks, this is the third progressive member of Parliament from the government caucus who is leaving this place, especially at a time when we need progressive politics. I cannot think of another member of Parliament in the history of this country who has fought and worked more to end animal cruelty and stand up for animal rights. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and we all know we have to carry that work forward. We will take his crusade with us. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about courage, and I really want to emphasize that. He stood with the NDP well before the supply and confidence agreement on pharmacare. I am disappointed that he does not get to see it exercised in his home province. I hope the government will take that to heart. He stood with my bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to tackle the toxic drug crisis. He was an outlier in his caucus and he stood with us to make sure that we had a plan to respond to the toxic drug crisis. I want to thank him for his support. I want to highlight one thing, which is his job as a minister. He took it to heart when we asked for support for a pool upgrade in my riding. He understood the need for seniors to have a safe place to exercise and how it was community medicine. He constantly texted me, emailed me, phoned me and checked on the project. He worked so diligently. I was so taken aback by his persistence to try to get something done. It resulted in the single largest federal government investment in mid-Vancouver Island for a recreation facility. My community is grateful. I hope he will visit my community so that we can celebrate the incredible work he put into our project. I want to thank him for his work and courage, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.”

“Alberta wants to build an oil pipeline through northern British Columbia, but the government has not talked to the Nisga'a Nation about it. I want the government to promise it will get consent from First Nations first and keep the oil tanker ban on the north coast.”

“Mr. Speaker, Alberta is considering several routes for a new diluted bitumen pipeline and export terminals through northern British Columbia, yet the Nisga’a Nation says that neither Alberta nor the federal Liberal government has discussed any oil pipeline proposal with the Nisga’a government. Reconciliation cannot mean making decisions first and talking to first nations later. Will the government commit today to meaningful consultation, accommodation and free, prior and informed consent of affected first nations, and to upholding the north coast oil tanker ban?”

“The Liberals promised five years ago to ban flavoured vapes that attract kids. The rules are written, and evidence shows these bans work. I want to know who is stopping the rules and when the government will finally ban these flavours.”

“Madam Speaker, five years ago, the Liberals promised to ban flavoured vaping products that appeal to youth. Health Canada drafted the regulations years ago, and evidence from Canada, Quebec and the Netherlands shows that flavour bans can reduce youth vaping without increasing smoking rates, yet shelves remain stocked with bubble gum-flavoured, cotton candy-flavoured, berry-flavoured, mango-flavoured and watermelon-flavoured products designed to attract young people and increase the risk of nicotine addiction. The evidence is clear and the regulations are ready. Who is blocking these regulations, and when will the Liberal government finally ban these youth-targeted flavoured vaping products?”

“The government needs to spend money to prevent discrimination and violence, especially for vulnerable youth. I want the government to support my bill that makes mental health care covered by insurance just like physical health care.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to work with my colleague on many climate-related issues. Earlier, I raised some concerns to the justice minister on responding to those who have been victims of discrimination and violence. Certainly, we understand the important work around dealing with complaints and the criminal sanctions piece, but there is still nothing when it comes to funding and when it comes to prevention around discrimination and violence, especially for vulnerable youth. I tabled a bill yesterday calling for parity for mental and physical health so that people get services when they need them. Does my colleague agree that the government should be supporting legislation to have parity for mental and physical health? This would be so that mental health is an insured benefit and people, especially youth, could get the supports they need when they need them.”

“The government should not rush debate on this bill. We need to focus on stopping violence before it happens. I want the minister to explain when the government will fund prevention, like anti-bullying in schools, mental health care, housing, and workplace training.”

“Madam Speaker, we all want to prevent discrimination and violence in this country, but fast-tracking and shutting down debate is not going to help improve this legislation. We have a lot of important questions. We do not want to wait until there are complaints, tribunals or criminal sanctions after the fact. We want to talk about what we are going to do to prevent it. We have not heard from the minister or the government on how they are going to invest in anti-bullying in schools; in mental health supports for vulnerable youth; in housing and homelessness, which is something that we have heard is clearly important on this; in community-based violence protection; in support for victims of hate incidents and discrimination; and in training in federally regulated workplaces, which is under the purview of the federal government and the minister, before complaints happen. We have a lot of questions that have not been addressed by the government. Can the minister explain when the funding is going to come in on prevention, instead of it happening after the fact?”