Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 4784
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2019-06-10 23:10 [p.28875]
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about the changes brought forward in 2014 to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The act was created through the negotiation of the land claim agreements, which are constitutionally protected. The Conservative government of the day decided to move forward and make changes, which were challenged.
Why did the Conservatives make these changes and expect them to stick, when they knew that they were breaching the Constitution?
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2019-06-10 23:40 [p.28879]
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the impact the moratorium had in the north. I just wonder, when the Conservatives are talking about the fiscal and economic impacts to the north that the moratorium has caused, if they have really looked at the history of what was being invested in the north.
In 2011, the whole program was cancelled. In 2012, there was $7 million spent in the north, which benefited the north. In 2013, there was no program. In 2014, it was postponed. In 2015, it was postponed. I would suspect the member would agree that there was actually a natural moratorium happening because of the oil prices.
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2019-06-10 23:46 [p.28880]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88, which would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
For too long, indigenous people have been left out of the planning and decision-making that directly affects their lands and communities and the ways in which they express and nurture their culture and traditional ways. Historically, the model for managing resources in the Northwest Territories did not give meaningful consideration to indigenous participation; environmental safeguards were not sufficient and economic gains were not distributed fairly.
It is not uncommon to hear elders speak of past developments occurring against their will and, in some cases, allowing destruction of traditional land use areas or family dwellings. Decisions did not provide for input from community members and did not consider local or traditional knowledge. Most decisions were not made by people who resided in the north. A host of abandoned projects leave reminders that environmental safeguards were not in place to protect and respect the resources that indigenous peoples have relied on for centuries. Resource royalty schemes and impact benefit agreements were not in place to allow for shared economic opportunities.
The personal accounts shared by indigenous peoples at public meetings, workshops and other meetings evoke historic wounds. They provide insight as to why community members are apprehensive about government-led processes. That was the old way of doing business before the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, a piece of legislation established in 1998 that created the existing integrated co-management system where comprehensive land claim agreements are the underpinning of the system. It is a leading global example of a collaborative decision-making system that guarantees the participation of indigenous peoples.
Modern treaties clarify how resources will be co-operatively managed, how parties will work together to make decisions, and how economic measures are to be implemented. The regime involves land and resource ownership and access, land use planning, permitting and licensing, environmental assessment, and wildlife and renewable resource management. Co-management boards made up of members from federal, territorial and indigenous governments and organizations participate in the decision-making processes.
In some cases, these co-management boards are responsible for developing policies and guidelines that shape how resources are managed in the north. It is a participatory system that gives everybody the opportunity to offer their knowledge and expertise. Elders, harvesters and community members can offer their knowledge orally, in their language, in their communities, to board members they know and trust and create the opportunity for better decisions that are supported regionally.
Since enacted, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act regime grew, learned and has support from all sides, aboriginal communities and governments, territorial government and industry. The system was working as intended.
However, there are those that do not want a robust, inclusive and effective regulatory process and they set about on a so-called road to improvement. The amendments brought in by the previous Conservative government to move decisions away from regional community members and restructure the land and water boards was simply a backward move reminiscent of the bad old days. Under the guise of “streamlining” and “efficiency”, the Conservatives parachuted this amendment into the much wanted NWT Devolution Act. Amalgamating the boards without the consent of indigenous partners would destroy these opportunities and, as a result, would also jeopardize industry's desire to do business in the north.
The bill before the House today seeks to undo the board restructuring provisions. It seeks to maintain the existing regulatory board structure that was negotiated through land claim agreements.
Bill C-88 would acknowledge and support the rights of indigenous and northern peoples, would honour existing agreements, would support a system that local people believe in, and would continue to provide for communities to make meaningful decisions about their lands, about their lives and about their future. That would be a significant and desirable outcome of this bill.
Bill C-88 would repeal the provisions that sought to amalgamate the boards and would reintroduce the regulatory elements to function under the existing four-board structure. However, the bill would do more than that. In fact, there are many provisions that would modernize and improve the system that were also put on hold. The elimination of regional land and water boards would have violated the terms of these agreements.
By reversing the provisions that sought to restructure the board, Bill C-88 would honour the terms of the land claim agreements as well as the commitment of this government to move forward with reconciliation. Bill C-88 would authorize the Government of Canada's moratorium on oil and gas activity in the Arctic offshore to enable a science-based review. The review would incorporate traditional Inuit knowledge, which is known as IQ, or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Developed over millennia of Inuit expertise and interaction with the land, IQ emphasizes collaboration, stewardship, resourcefulness and the acquisition of skills. Including IQ in the review of development projects in the Arctic would clearly support reconciliation.
The United Nations declaration calls for meaningful consultation, respectful relationships and the consent of indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
The consultant who was hired to do the work on Bill C-15 openly admitted that he received direction from the previous minister. He said that he may have heard it or he may not have. I take it that it was clear to him what his job was. Before he even started the consultations, all of us in the Northwest Territories knew what his goal was. He came and met with the cabinet I sat in, and we all questioned why he wanted to change the board system to a superboard. This was before he even started consultations. Everyone in the north knew what his marching orders were.
It was very interesting to see the report and to hear him speak before the committee. He stated that the Conservative government did not follow his wishes and that he had, in fact, recommended that a land use plan for every indigenous government be put in place right across the north prior to moving forward with a superboard concept. However, the government of the day decided that it did not want that part. It just wanted to move forward with the superboard.
The consultant who was hired had no experience dealing with indigenous governments. He was an oil and gas specialist who operated in Alberta. When the consultant came north, his first meeting resulted in all governments at all levels stating very clearly that they did not want to see the changes. They did not want to see this concept of a superboard move forward. He did not show up for the second meeting. Everyone else showed up, but there was no consultant in sight. He did not come.
The report came forward saying that the government should change the system and that it did not work well. When I questioned the consultant at committee, he stated that indigenous governments said one thing in public but came to him afterward and whispered that they loved this whole change. I have not found that anywhere when I have called indigenous governments about that message. Nobody will take ownership of those words. I do not know how one can write a report when one never heard it publicly, and I do not know how a government can follow a recommendation when there was really no quality process.
In closing, I want to point out that there is a difference in the way our government does consultation versus how the Conservative members across the way do it. They brought forward a flawed system that did not take into account any of the indigenous governments' positions and they did not respect any of the words that were brought forward to them. We have now a process where all of the indigenous governments are in favour. We have the Tlicho, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Premier of the Northwest Territories appeared at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories said that he supports Bill C-88 and wants it to go forward. The grand chief of the Tlicho appeared—
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2019-06-10 23:57 [p.28881]
Mr. Speaker, this bill has the full support of the Government of the Northwest Territories. It has the full support of the people of the Tlicho nation. The grand chief appeared at committee and stated that. The Gwich'in people are in support of it, and the Sahtu are in support of it. Many members across the way mentioned that Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, appeared at committee, which he did. He spoke long and passionately about what is happening in his riding, but he also spoke about how he supports Bill C-88. I know, because I asked him the direct question and he responded saying, yes, he does support Bill C-88.
We have a lot of information and words being spoken here that do not quite adequately reflect what has taken place up to now historically. There are three versions of this bill. The first version was the creation of the superboard. Why did we need a superboard? There was no support for it. It was not an idea from the Government of the Northwest Territories, it was not brought forward by industry and it was not brought forward by the indigenous government. Who wanted it? It was not raised by anybody. It was brought forward by the Conservative government, and it was part of the marching orders provided to the consultant who was hired and had no experience dealing with indigenous people at all. He had no experience with land claims. He could not even reference any parts of the land claim. Why was he hired? It is pretty obvious. If all of us in the Government of the Northwest Territories of the day knew what he was doing and what the end result would be before he even started; it is pretty obvious.
There is the second piece that was brought forward in this bill, and there are still some parts of it that were discussed and negotiated with the Conservative government of the day. There are eight regulatory items, and they are all in the devolution act. I should point out that the devolution act is being held up because of this legislation not moving forward. We need to see that happen. These would be carried into the Mackenzie Valley resource management act, and I will list them quickly: the regional studies—
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2019-06-07 10:07 [p.28737]
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, the House:
agrees with amendments 3 and 4 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate because the intent of the legislation is to ensure ministerial responsibility and accountability, and the legislation provides that the Intelligence Commissioner must review whether or not the conclusions of the Minister of National Defence, when issuing a foreign intelligence authorization, are reasonable; additionally, subsection 20(1) already requires the Commissioner to provide the Minister with reasons for authorizing or rejecting a foreign intelligence authorization request;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 made by the Senate because it would limit the scope of subsection 83.221(1) and would create inconsistencies with the general counselling provisions contained in section 22 and paragraphs 464(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.
He said: Madam Speaker, as many external experts have said, Bill C-59, which is before the House once again, is of extraordinary importance to Canada and the security and intelligence agencies that work every day to keep Canadians safe.
During the 2015 election, we promised to correct certain problematic elements in the previous government's national security legislation, Bill C-51. In making that promise, we pledged that a government must be able to protect individual rights while at the same time keeping Canadians safe. This is not about striking a balance whereby rights and safety are traded off one against the other; this is about achieving and protecting both simultaneously.
Work on this legislation began very shortly after our government was first sworn into office in late 2015. The time and effort it has taken to get Bill C-59 to the point it is at today have ensured that this is the right bill at the right time for Canada.
We began by examining landmark court rulings, such as those issued by Justices Iacobucci, O'Connor and Major, as well as past reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Senate and the House of Commons. We sought to implement their advice and their rulings.
We then looked at the legal authorities and powers our security and intelligence agencies have from a modern technological standpoint.
The Communications Security Establishment has been part of the Department of National Defence since the end of World War II, with its authorities embedded in the National Defence Act. In 2011, the CSE became a stand-alone agency. However, to this day, it still does not have its own enabling legislation with clear, delineated powers and authorities that reflect the necessary capabilities of signals intelligence in the modern era. Bill C-59 would fix that.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act was written in 1984, following the Macdonald Commission report. It has been largely left in its original form since that time. To put that in perspective, in 1984, the Mac computer was first introduced to the public. If one had a PC instead of a Mac, one ran it on DOS, because Bill Gates had not released the first version of Windows yet, back in 1984. If one wanted to be one of the first people to buy a cellphone, one had to pay, in today's dollars, about $10,000, back in 1984. If one wanted to go online, one used a dial-up modem to access a bulletin board system, or BBS, because the Internet, with browsers, was still a decade away.
As Federal Court Justice Noël wrote in 2016, “the CSIS Act is showing its age”. Suffice it to say, as we looked at the enabling legislation for our security and intelligence agencies, we realized that they needed a lot of updating just to catch up to technology.
In September 2016, having done our basic research and homework, we launched a national security green paper outlining the challenges and the opportunities, and we asked Canadians to share their views. As it turned out, we heard back from them in spades. Over 75,000 submissions were received, and all of them are now summarized in an open and transparent manner on the Public Safety Canada website. During that process, we held town halls and public consultations from coast to coast. The public safety committee of the House of Commons also undertook a study and submitted its recommendations to the government.
Then, on June 20, 2017, after analyzing and synthesizing all of that input, Bill C-59 was tabled in Parliament.
We put it in the public domain before the House rose for the summer so that MPs and the public could truly digest the bill's contents before debate began in Parliament later that fall.
Once the House resumed that fall, the bill was referred to the public safety committee before second reading, allowing it to have more scope for possible amendments. The committee made numerous changes, improving the legislation, including a new requirement for public ministerial directives on receiving or sharing information that may have been tainted by torture. The House passed Bill C-59 on June 19, 2018, and sent it to the Senate, where it received even greater scrutiny and several more amendments.
Among them, the Senate has amended the legislation to require parliamentary review of the legislation three years after royal assent rather than five years, as originally proposed. The original intent of the review after five years was to take into account that some of the provisions of Bill C-59 may come into force quite a bit down the road, and those parts may not have had the time to mature enough for a fulsome review after just three years. However, as I said at the outset, this is a vitally important piece of legislation, and the majority of it will be fully in force in the near term, so a review after three years, as proposed by the Senate, is just fine with me. Plus, a review this quickly would ensure that any changes that may be required as a result of the review could happen sooner.
The Senate also improved part 1.1 of the legislation, the new avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act. While the bill lists five specific agencies involved in national security and intelligence operations that would have to comply with the provisions of the new act, the Senate added a schedule so that in future, new departments or agencies might be added by Governor in Council. This could include existing departments with a new national security component or future agencies that might be created.
I would also note that the Senate made eight observations about Bill C-59, which we will, of course, very carefully examine. I especially like the idea of the Senate undertaking a study it is proposing on converting intelligence to evidence in a court of law. This is a point that has bedevilled policy-makers for years, as well as Crown prosecutors and security and intelligence operators, and it is a topic that could benefit from detailed Senate examination.
The Senate also amended part 2 of the bill, which creates the new position and office of the intelligence commissioner. I thank the Senate for their consideration of this part, but will be asking my colleagues here in the House to respectfully decline this amendment.
The intelligence commissioner, under the new legislation, would have a vital role to play in determining whether the standard of reasonableness had been met in a foreign intelligence authorization. However, it would not be the role of the intelligence commissioner to determine how that standard should be met. There may be various methods to meet the standard, and the choice of which method is to be used would be at the discretion of the minister. There should be no confusion about ultimate accountability. It is important to ensure that the authority and accountability for a foreign intelligence operation would rest squarely with the Minister of National Defence.
My staff consulted very carefully on this point with the current Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, which will ultimately become the office of the new intelligence commissioner under Bill C-59, about this particular amendment. The office of the current commissioner indicated a very strong preference for the existing language in clause 20 of the future intelligence commissioner act.
The future clause 20 was amended by the House public safety committee to require the commissioner to provide reasons as to why he or she had approved any proposed authorization scheme or rejected it. That is the right step to take. The Minister of National Defence will consider those reasons when crafting any new authorization application. This approach allows the new commissioner to express his or her views very clearly, while the Minister of National Defence will retain the proper authority and accountability.
If, in the future, there were to be a situation where an authorization is ever challenged in court, it would be the Minister of National Defence, not the intelligence commissioner, who would be accountable to the court. The minister's argument in court should not be that the authorization scheme was explicitly what the intelligence commissioner told him to authorize in order for the CSE to undertake an important activity. In other words, the burden of responsibility should not be shifted to the intelligence commissioner; it must remain with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence needs to account for that.
With respect to the Criminal Code amendment that has been proposed by the Senate, I very much appreciate what the senators have attempted to do here. I understand very clearly the point they are trying to make, and we have heard the same point from a number of other stakeholders that have come forward with similar questions and concerns.
However, I make this point. The courts have set an extremely high bar for convicting individuals of counselling offences, which is why the language in the Criminal Code needs to be clear and consistent. It must be just as clear for section 83, terrorism offences, as it is for section 22 and section 464, which cover the counselling of other Criminal Code offences. This will help public prosecutors when they make a decision as to whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction in order to proceed to trial.
Unfortunately, the changes made by the previous government's Bill C-51, back in 2015, had made the terrorist counselling provisions so obscure that they were never actually used. When Bill C-59 was tabled, the intent was to model the section 83, terrorism counselling offences, on the other Criminal Code counselling offences, which have been well used, successfully and are very familiar to police, prosecutors and judges alike.
The courts have already ruled that the terrorism counselling provisions in the Criminal Code, which refer to counselling “another person”, do not require the accused to have counselled a specific individual or even someone he or she knows. In practice, this broad principle will apply in section 83 as well.
If Parliament were to make the wording changes on counselling being suggested by the Senate, that could have unintended consequences for the rest of the Criminal Code's counselling provisions, such as counselling to commit a hate crime. A loophole could inadvertently be created, which I am sure some very assiduous defence attorney would attempt to exploit for a client facing a charge under section 464, for example.
Further, the use of the term “terrorist activity” in the amendment, rather than saying “terrorist offence” actually narrows the scope of what will be illegal under the terrorism counselling provisions. Terrorist activity is defined in the interpretation section of part II.1 of the Criminal Code, and that definition does not include all terrorism offences.
As an example, leaving Canada to join a terrorist group is an offence under the Criminal Code, but it is not contained within the definition of terrorist activity. As a result of the proposed amendment, it would be legal to counsel someone to travel to Syria to join Daesh. I am sure that is not what is intended by the proposed amendment, but that would be the actual consequence, and it is a consequence we need to avoid.
As I mentioned, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment and I have heard other representations to the same effect. However, what prosecutors have clearly told me is that if our goal is to have the terrorism counselling provisions used as frequently and effectively as possible, the best way to achieve that is to mirror the language used in the other counselling provisions in the Criminal Code where the notion of counselling “another person” already includes the counselling of an unknown individual.
I would like to remind all my colleagues of what Parliament is being asked to approve under Bill C-59 generally. We are looking to establish a single national security review body with a government-wide mandate to follow leads from one agency to another, such as from CSIS to the RCMP or elsewhere. This has long been recommended by experts, academics and parliamentary committees. Sometimes it is referred to as the super SIRC, and Bill C-59 does it.
We are creating a new act to govern the Communication Security Establishment, which includes a new regime for authorizing its activities for the first time ever. We are creating a closed list of threat reduction activities that CSIS may undertake so the service has clear direction from Parliament and knows what it can do, what it cannot do, and where the fences are. We are creating a justification regime for CSIS that will provide the lawful authorities it needs to perform the activities required to investigate threats and to keep Canadians safe. The same concept with respect to police officers has existed in the Criminal Code for many years.
We are also creating a dataset regime for the service that will allow it to collect, retain and query datasets subject to stringent safeguards. We are fixing the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, ensuring that it does not diminish lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. It will also have greatly improved safeguards to ensure federal departments share national security information only when it is necessary to do so, following appropriate procedures and keeping proper records.
Then there is the no-fly list, and I know we have all been lobbied on this one. Bill C-59 would enable the creation of a recourse mechanism for people whose names coincidentally match or closely resemble names that are listed in Canada's passenger protect program. This is the infamous problem of false positives, sometimes affecting small children.
I want to thank the members of the group known as the “no-fly kids”, whose tenacious efforts have kept this issue in the forefront for many parliamentarians, and Bill C-59 is part of the solution.
I can assure my colleagues that officials at Public Safety have compressed the timelines as much as humanly and physically possible. The required Treasury Board submissions and other orders in council required after royal assent of Bill C-59 will be moving as quickly as possible to get that recourse system up and running to deal with that issue for the no-fly kids.
That summary does not quite encapsulate everything that is in Bill C-59. However, as my colleagues can see, it is very comprehensive legislation that would strengthen and modernize our national security apparatus and architecture.
I want to thank all of the public servants across multiple departments who have worked on this and have appeared before many committees to provide technical answers to parliamentarians. I want to thank the tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in our green paper consultation process and the many individuals who continue to provide advice as Bill C-59 moves through the parliamentary process.
Most of all, I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues who have given this bill the thorough scrutiny that it most certainly deserves, including Senator Gold and his colleagues in the other place who have sent us the report we are dealing with at this moment and to which we are responding.
With this comprehensive legislation, we are in fact achieving our original goal and obligation to keep Canadians safe and secure, while simultaneously safeguarding their rights and freedoms and the precious democratic qualities and values that make Canada, Canada.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2019-06-07 10:28 [p.28740]
Madam Speaker, the purposes of Bill C-59 are threefold.
First, it would address the deficiencies that existed in previous legislation, including not only Bill C-51 but other pieces of legislation as well. There were errors or omissions that needed to be fixed, and Bill C-59 would do that.
Second, Bill C-59 introduces a broad range of new accountability mechanisms through the new national security and intelligence review agency, the creation of the new intelligence commissioner and a number of other procedures in Bill C-59 to improve transparency and accountability throughout our national security architecture.
Third, the legislation seeks to clarify and confirm legal and constitutional authorities so our security and intelligence agencies, whether that is CSIS, or the CSE, or the RCMP, or the CBSA or any others in the Government of Canada that deal with national security and intelligence issues, know explicitly where they stand, what their authorities are, where the fences are and what they can and cannot do.
This legislation works very hard to accomplish all three of those objectives.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2019-06-07 10:31 [p.28741]
Madam Speaker, on the first point, about the review period, it is critically important that the principle is being embedded in the legislation. The entire national security and intelligence architecture of the Government of Canada, from end to end, needs to be revisited again at some period after the passage of this legislation. This is groundbreaking legislation that accomplishes more change within the security and intelligence system than perhaps ever before in our history, and it is important that the set of decisions we are making in Bill C-59 be revisited periodically in the future to make sure that we continue to get it right.
The original proposal the government had made was to do this after five years. There was a discussion in the committee about maybe moving it up to three years, which is a compressed but doable time frame. However, the government maintained the view that five years would be a good frame within which to accomplish that review. The Senate came back to the same point that had been raised by the hon. gentleman, saying that three is a better figure. I am prepared to—
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2019-06-07 10:34 [p.28741]
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will find that the whole pattern of our amendments to national security law over the last three and a half years has in fact been to become more aligned, rather than less aligned, with our allies.
For example, our allies have had, for years, the concept of a parliamentary mechanism for reviewing security and intelligence activities. Canada had never had that, until this House passed Bill C-22 and created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. All of our allies had that; we did not. We changed the law, and now that provision exists.
The point I was about to finish on the previous question was to give my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, some credit for actually having raised the three-year number in the first place. Now that it is going to be in the law, I think he can assume both some credit and some responsibility for that.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2019-06-07 10:36 [p.28741]
Madam Speaker, the reason is that the subject matter is different. Any security or intelligence activities of CBSA will in fact be reviewable under the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and under the provisions of Bill C-59. What remains to be done, and this is the subject of Bill C-98, is a review mechanism for the activities of CBSA that do not relate to national security and intelligence. That is what Bill C-98 covers. The intelligence and security part of CBSA is covered by Bill C-59 and by the previous bill, Bill C-22.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2019-06-07 11:54 [p.28755]
Madam Speaker, with the Prime Minister's counter tariffs, steel and aluminum manufacturers in my riding of Yorkton—Melville were crippled. Small and medium entrepreneurs invested everything they could to keep their employees working. The Liberal government promised to have their backs but never came through. It is clear that assistance from the $2-billion tariff windfall was never intended for them.
When will the Prime Minister admit that his help for the steel industry is not as advertised?
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
2019-06-06 10:16 [p.28661]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three sets of petitions.
The first set of petitions are signed by Canadians across the country who are gravely concerned with the shortage of quality palliative and end-of-life care available in Canada. These petitioners assert that it is impossible for a person to give informed consent to a physician-assisted suicide if appropriate palliative care has not been made available to them.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to create a national strategy to ensure that all Canadians have access to quality palliative care when they need it.
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
2019-06-06 10:17 [p.28661]
Mr. Speaker, the next set of petitions are signed by constituents of mine who are concerned with the efforts to restrict the rights of farmers to save and plant seeds from their crops. They are calling on the Government of Canada to affirm, through legislation, their right to freely save, reuse, select, exchange, condition, store and sell their seeds.
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
View Rosemarie Falk Profile
2019-06-06 10:17 [p.28661]
Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today is signed by constituents in my riding who are concerned about the accessibility of sexually explicit material to children. These petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to ensure that meaningful age verification is used on pornographic websites to better protect underage children from violent and explicit content.
View Erin Weir Profile
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-06 13:15 [p.28687]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving on the all-party steel caucus with the member for Hamilton Mountain. I would just invite him to speak to the role of the all-party steel caucus in advocating for appropriate safeguards for our steel industry.
View Erin Weir Profile
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-06 13:26 [p.28688]
Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of serving with the member for Sault Ste. Marie on the all-party steel caucus.
As I think we all understand in this House, the legislation we are debating today would remove the moratorium, which would allow the government to bring in safeguard measures. I am wondering if he could provide some reassurance that the government's intention is to actually bring in those safeguards to protect Canada's steel industry and steelworkers from unfair competition from offshore steel, often produced in violation of internationally recognized labour and environmental standards.
Results: 136 - 150 of 4784 | Page: 10 of 319

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data