Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 11377
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2019-06-18 23:56 [p.29379]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my remarks may be getting under the skin of the Conservative opposition. That is the nature of this place. That is the moment when the Conservatives threw up their hands and said to capitulate, cave in, give in on culture, give in on supply management. Forget labour, throw out the dispute resolution mechanism, forget women and indigenous and LGBTQ2 people. They really do not count in trade. Just take any deal, even a bad deal. It is shocking and shameful. I am glad that they were not in the kitchen cooking the deal, because it would have been a colossal flop.
Instead of taking the advice of the Conservatives to capitulate, our Minister of Foreign Affairs held fast. Our government stayed strong. We let the Americans and the Mexicans iron out their differences and then we came back to the table. The new NAFTA was always going to be about three economies. We committed to that, as did our Mexican partners, and ultimately so did the United States.
Now we are debating the passing of a deal that is central to our economy and to our modern self-identity. I understand the sour grapes from the Conservatives over trade deals like the Canada-European trade agreement because they simply could not close the deal. They did not have the mettle of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who knew that the German Social Democratic Party would not be able to deal with a new modern trade deal with Canada. What did she do? She did not take advice from the Conservatives. She did not sit here and sulk. She did not yell at them from across the Atlantic. What did she do? The Minister of Foreign Affairs went to the convention of the German Social Democratic Party, spoke at it and convinced the Social Democrats. Germany signed on to a historic deal.
That is exactly the same kind of mettle that the leader of our NAFTA negotiations put toward this historic deal. That is leadership. That turned the tide. That is exactly what makes them so mad on the other side. The opposition cannot handle innovative trade deal-making because they think that they know how to run an economy when, in fact, what they know how to do is add $150 billion to our debt and have nothing to show for it.
What did we get? Since day one of the NAFTA negotiations, our objective was to get a good deal for Canada and for all Canadians. We wanted to safeguard more than $2 billion a day in cross-border trade, 70% of Canadian exports.
What is in the new NAFTA? Let us talk about energy, because that is important to my province and to the whole country. The new NAFTA deals with energy issues through the modernized agreement.
On this day when we approved TMX and when we are no longer going to rely on one U.S. market for 99% of our exports, when we are going to see shovels in the ground, and when we are going to see $15 billion of trade repatriated to this country because we will be able to have world prices, this is when we want to make sure that there is no more proportionality clause so that we do not have to sell the Americans more oil than we want to.
On autos, we have heard exactly from my colleague from Mississauga that the CUSMA deal and Canadians working in the auto sector are better off than ever before. That is the new NAFTA. That is what we promised. That is what we got.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2019-06-17 12:11 [p.29164]
Mr. Speaker, this morning proves that the Liberals will do anything and say anything to get elected. In the last election, they promised they were not going to use closure motions as often as we had in the last parliament. They are also saying that they are not going to raise taxes after the next election, even though their spending is way out of control.
There has only been four minutes of debate on this bill prior to this closure motion being moved. Does the minister think that is appropriate?
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately here we go again. We see time allocation being moved by the current government. The Liberals have been lax throughout this Parliament. They are coming down to the last few days of Parliament and we see this modus operandi of the government to start pushing debates and halting debate to get this legislation through regardless.
Again, it is not simply that the Liberals are invoking this measure; this is the measure they said they would not be invoking. This is the measure on which the current Prime Minister stood and said it is the kind of thing that Canadians lose confidence in a government on, and that the Liberals would not do this kind of thing. It is exactly what we have seen more and more, especially in the last few weeks.
The parliamentary secretary said that this prevents a filibuster by the government, and debate and debate and debate. We have had four minutes at this stage to even talk about this. Canadians expect that when issues like this come through, good healthy debate takes place here and it has not. Neither has consultation. I have a penitentiary in my riding. Not only is it the well-being and safety of offenders that Canadians question, but also of the guards and the correctional officers.
There are two points. We have legislation that needs to be debated and we have another promise broken by the current government as to time allocation.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2019-06-17 12:31 [p.29167]
Mr. Speaker, this is terminology that the hon. gentleman likes to use quite often in the House. I count eight substantive amendments that the government is accepting or has modified from the Senate. The minister said that the government has considered this and is satisfied with it, and therefore it is moving time allocation, which provides us with only five hours.
Several members who have penitentiaries in their ridings have risen on our side of the House. They would like to go back to their constituents and get their opinion on this, and I would like to go back to former prison guards who live in my riding. However, today we are being told there are five more hours and that is it.
The member for Peace River—Westlock mentioned this was four minutes at this stage of debate. How many members can speak in four minutes? Very few could provide substantive feedback. The time allocation being moved today by the government is shutting down debate. I have seen this time and again, both at standing committees of the House and on other legislation.
I spoke to Bill C-83 before and mentioned all my concerns and worries that constituents had explained to me over the distinct sections and technicalities of the bill. The issue now is that, with only five hours left, it gives us literally no time to return to our constituents to get their feedback on these eight substantive amendments.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2019-06-17 14:16 [p.29178]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals insist on making life more expensive for Canadians from coast to coast.
The PBO just confirmed that the carbon tax will need to be $102 per tonne in order to reach the Paris accord targets. Now, that is five times what the current carbon tax costs. This will increase the cost of groceries and the cost of home heating, and it will increase the cost of gasoline by 23¢ per litre. Canadians cannot afford this.
The Prime Minister makes the false claim that this is an environmental plan, but it has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with lining his pockets. If it truly were an environmental plan, then he would go after the biggest emitters, but they get let off the hook. Meanwhile, soccer moms are left paying the bill.
British Columbia has the longest-standing carbon tax, and we see the amount of emission actually going up rather than coming down. The carbon tax will not reduce pollution, but it will certainly cost Canadians a whole lot of money.
It is time for a real environmental plan, and that environmental plan is on this side of the House. It will be announced on June 19. We look forward to bringing that—
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:19 [p.29179]
Mr. Speaker, we have more confidence in Canada's energy sector than what is being portrayed by the members of the official opposition.
We gave approval to Enbridge Line 3, which is almost completed on the Canadian side. We are working with the U.S. on the Keystone XL pipeline. We are moving forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in the right way, with meaningful consultation that has been concluded with indigenous communities.
We have full confidence in our energy sector.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:20 [p.29179]
Mr. Speaker, it is quite known to Canadians that when Stephen Harper got into office in 2006, 99% of the oil from Alberta was sold to only a single customer, which was the United States. When he left office in 2015, that was still the case 10 years later: 99% of oil was still being sold to the United States.
The Conservatives' plan failed to build a single pipeline to diversify our market to non-U.S. markets. We are changing that.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:21 [p.29179]
Mr. Speaker, if the members of the official opposition were really serious about moving forward with the process on TMX in the right way, they would not have voted to shut down and kill that process. That shows their lack of sincerity about getting our resources to non-U.S. markets.
We are doing the hard work to ensure that meaningful consultation is taking place with indigenous communities and that we are taking action on the environment with protection of the environment.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:23 [p.29179]
Mr. Speaker, once again, Conservatives are demonstrating that they have no confidence in Canada's energy sector.
We have been moving forward on this project from day one. When the Federal Court of Appeal made its decision cancelling the TMX project, one of the reasons that project was stalled was that, when the review process was started in 2013, under Stephen Harper's government, Conservatives failed to include the impact of marine shipping on the marine environment.
We are changing that. We are engaging with indigenous communities in the right way to move forward on the project, which will make—
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:24 [p.29179]
Mr. Speaker, Conservative actions do not demonstrate their commitment to this project.
If they were really committed to getting this project right, then they would not have voted down the process we put in place for a meaningful consultation with indigenous communities to ensure that the impact of marine shipping on the marine environment was properly assessed, something that was excluded under Stephen Harper when their review took place.
We are changing the broken system.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:25 [p.29180]
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we have Conservatives who do not get the environment. On the other hand, we have the New Democrats who do not get the economy.
We are moving forward, building a strong economy, creating jobs for the middle class, and at the same time taking action on climate, ensuring that we are putting a price on pollution, ensuring that we are taking action by phasing out coal and making sure that we meaningfully engage with indigenous communities.
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Amarjeet Sohi Profile
2019-06-17 14:26 [p.29180]
Mr. Speaker, we understand the diversity of opinions among indigenous communities on this project. We know that some do support this project and some do not support this project. It is our responsibility to engage with all of them, to listen to their concerns and then offer accommodations where accommodation is possible.
Also, we are taking unprecedented action to protect our coastal communities through the ambitious oceans protection plan we have put in place.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2019-06-17 14:44 [p.29183]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must approve the Trans Mountain expansion tomorrow, which they already did before, in 2016, except this time it actually has to get built. The Liberals are blocking all new pipelines with their anti-energy, anti-business Bill C-69, which nine out of 10 provinces and all three territories oppose this.
The Nisga'a, Lax Kw'alaams and hundreds of other indigenous communities are against the Liberals shipping ban, Bill C-48, and they have been against it from day one. Instead of cancelling it, the Liberals are steamrolling opposition and indigenous communities to force it through before summer.
Will the Liberals kill these anti-energy bills before it is too late?
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2019-06-17 14:45 [p.29183]
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that member would answer the question. He is the one from Burnaby who opposes the Trans Mountain expansion.
However, other changes to the Liberals' no-more-pipelines Bill C-69 would actually have increased the voices of locally impacted indigenous communities in resource reviews, but the Liberals rejected them.
Manufacturers, chambers, economists, provinces and municipalities are outraged too. Quebec warns that Bill C-69 “ gives the federal government the equivalent of a veto over Quebec's economic development”. Ontario says that it is the worst possible news at the worst possible time which “hinders natural resource related economic development” in Canada.
Again, will the Liberals kill Bill C-69 before it is too late?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-06-17 14:58 [p.29186]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cannot stand up and say that they do not support terrorism and then give funding to an organization that was proven to have given money to terrorists. It is ridiculous.
The Liberals rejected funding to organizations that do things like support women who are single moms and support poverty reductions in our community, because these organizations would not sign their others' values test.
When are the Liberals going to do the right thing and revoke the funding to this organization? This is a no-brainer.
Results: 76 - 90 of 11377 | Page: 6 of 759

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data