Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 554
View Matt Jeneroux Profile
View Matt Jeneroux Profile
2019-04-10 14:20 [p.26924]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to show how out of touch they are with the struggles of average Canadians. Earlier this week, they proudly gave $12 million to Loblaws. That is the same company that is owned by one of the richest families in Canada, the same company that earned $3 billion in revenue last year alone and the same company caught inflating the prices of bread in the ultimate act of corporate greed.
It was $12 million for new refrigeration units that are more environmentally sound, but I personally know of several not-for-profit groups and charities in my community and many other communities across Canada that would be better served by that $12 million.
Under the Liberal government, many small business owners are struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping by reducing the tax rate, the government is ignoring their concerns. When we have a Conservative government, we will work to make life more affordable for all Canadians instead of giving taxpayer dollars to millionaires.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-04-09 13:48 [p.26872]
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about the government's instincts. When it comes to many pieces of legislation, the Liberals' instincts are wrong. Their instinct is to manage to bureaucrats and to the wealthiest few in this country.
I want to walk people who are watching through Bill C-88 as an example of why this is the case and also compare it to something that just happened in the last 24 hours that proves that the government really does not care about the environment but does care about bettering the interests of the Liberals' corporate donors and the wealthy companies in this country.
Part 2 of bill C-88 would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities and freeze the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expanding during a moratorium. For those who are watching, what that means is that like Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act, the government is introducing yet another piece of legislation that would allow the cabinet or the Liberal Party of Canada to interfere politically in the review process, or essentially in the economy, in a way that is not positive.
What do I mean by that? Part of what we have seen in terms of the economic downturn in Canada, when it comes to the natural resources sector, and what we will hear from anyone who wants to look at Canada as a potential place to invest, is that the Liberal government, led by the Prime Minister, has made it uncertain and unstable for people to invest in Canada because of pieces of legislation like this.
If we were sitting around a board table or were a small business trying to decide whether to make an investment, one of the questions we would ask is what the government was going to do with regard to regulations or whether a project was going to go forward. What the government has done with bills like part 2 of Bill C-88, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69 is say that it would politically interfere in their decision and make a decision that would be in the Liberals' best interests politically, whatever they might be. That would not help investment in Canada. That would not help protect the environment.
Liberals might say that this would help protect the environment, but it would not. All it would do is create an environment of uncertainty so that people could not and would not invest in natural resources projects in Canada. It is a convenient way for them to kick the can down the road.
Rather than standing up and saying that as a government, as a political party, this is what the Liberals' vision is for natural resource development in Canada, they are saying, “Maybe we will do something at some point. Why don't you invest? However, we may pull that football away through legal provisions” such as the one they are introducing in the bill. That is why it is important for Canadians to pay attention to this.
With regard to protecting the environment and perhaps protecting average Canadians, we saw something remarkable happen yesterday. The environment minister not only signed off on $12 million worth of taxpayer money going to one of the wealthiest companies in Canada, Loblaws, to buy new fridges, she also staged a taxpayer-funded announcement at a Loblaws store. Twelve million dollars of taxpayer funds went to a company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to buy fridges, and then tax dollars were used for the minister to get a photo opportunity for doing that.
One could argue that Loblaws is a very successful company. If everyone is so committed to protecting the environment, why could Loblaws not just buy those fridges itself? Why was the government's policy instinct not to incent the company, either through regulations or tax credits or something that would be better for everyone in the country and would put everyone on a level playing field? Why was the Liberals' instinct to give money to this company, which can afford lobbyists to fill out very complicated grant applications? Why was it the Liberals' instinct to give money to a wealthy company that could have done this itself instead of something that would have evened the playing field for all Canadians and incentivized business?
I like to call it “reverse Robin Hood”. The Prime Minister has a really great track record of doing everything possible to take money away from Canadians. It includes this announcement and the SNC-Lavalin scandal and things like the carbon tax, which will never reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as giving opportunities to wealthy companies that have lobbyists.
I believe in the economy. I believe that we should create an opportunity for companies to thrive. What I do not believe is that the government should be using tax dollars to pay for fridges for a company that has done three things that I will describe.
First, it makes hundreds of millions of dollars of net profit every year. It made about $3 billion in net revenue and $800 million in net profit last year. It is doing okay. I think can afford a few fridges.
Then this company was involved for years in a price-fixing scheme on bread that by all accounts impacted poor people in Canada the most.
Also, early last year, reports broke that this company was involved in a fight with the Canada Revenue Agency over $400 million in claims over a bogus offshore account. That was a CBC headline.
What was the minister thinking? I know what she was thinking. I would like to chalk it up to incompetence, but when we look at SNC-Lavalin and this announcement, it is not as if she signed this accidentally. It was not, “Oh, no; I accidentally signed this.” She scheduled a funding announcement for it. She took pictures with somebody.
When I talked about this issue yesterday, somebody named Amanda from Lundar, Manitoba, wrote to my office to say that the dairy cooler in the family grocery store she owns in her community had broken and that she cannot afford to replace it. She said she just cannot afford it. She asked why the government is so out of touch that it thinks the right thing to do is to give $12 million to a big company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars and then increase her taxes to pay for it. That shows how out of touch the government is.
The government has no desire to fix the environment. It is like the Prime Minister saying he is a feminist. Now he is saying he is fixing the environment, but he is finding ways to give money to Loblaws.
Loblaws should be concerned. Loblaws should know better. In terms of any brand credit that Loblaws gets from this, I know the company is managing profit and loss for their shareholders, but did the board members think this was a good idea? Come on. There is $12 million for new freezers when that company made $800 million in profit. Why should Amanda have to go without a dairy freezer—
View Michelle Rempel Profile
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-04-09 13:58 [p.26874]
Mr. Speaker, this is such a perfect example of the Liberals trying to shut down debate on the hypocrisy of their policy. Everyone watching will note that a Liberal member just tried to shut me down when I started talking about how out of touch these Liberals are by bringing up Amanda's fridge. They know how wrong this is.
They took a glossy photo opportunity after giving $12 million to a company. The Weston family is one of the wealthiest families in the country. I like seeing people create wealth; I do not like people taking tax dollars when we should be focusing on reducing taxes and creating economic opportunity for all Canadians. That is the difference between this side of the House and the government. I make no apologies for fighting for people like Amanda.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-04-09 15:01 [p.26885]
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the minister talked about her plan, a plan that taxes Canadians for committing the sin of heating their homes in the winter, which will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and then gives that money to Loblaws to buy freezers. I am really, really good with that not being our plan. I am proud to say we will not do that.
Why is the government so hell-bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Michelle Rempel Profile
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-04-09 15:03 [p.26885]
Mr. Speaker, they stick it to Canadians.
Amanda Stevenson, in Lundar, Manitoba, had her dairy fridge quit last week. She has watched these Liberals take money from her in the form of a carbon tax and increase taxes on her small business, and now she had to watch them give money to her competitor for the same thing she cannot afford. That is wrong. We are proud to stand for Amanda, not for SNC-Lavalin and for Loblaws.
Why is the government so hell-bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich?
View Georgina Jolibois Profile
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have presented bills on indigenous languages and indigenous child welfare but have not committed any base funding. Children and languages are too important for their promises to be empty.
Language keepers and child welfare advocates both say these bills do not meet the needs of indigenous people. First Nations, Métis and Inuit people will not accept promises that come without funding.
Why are the Liberals making empty promises to indigenous people?
View Linda Duncan Profile
View Linda Duncan Profile
2019-03-01 11:42 [p.26018]
Mr. Speaker, Edmonton's mayor, Don Iveson, is asking for $1.2 billion over five years for 5,000 new affordable housing units to begin to fill the need.
Our city's non-profit housing provider working group says over 48,000 households are in need. More than 22,000 of those spend more than half of their gross income on housing, putting them at risk of paying for their home or their essentials. Many of these projects are shovel ready, with land secured and buildings designed. All that is missing is for the government to release the federal dollars now. Will it?
View Linda Duncan Profile
View Linda Duncan Profile
2019-02-28 17:58 [p.25953]
Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute honour to rise today in support of Bill C-369.
It is also my honour to recognize that we are gathering today on the unceded territories of the Algonquin peoples.
This bill has been tabled by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I wish to share here that I witnessed how powerful it was for her to finally deliver her first speech on another bill in her Dene language, a language shared by many in her riding and across our northern communities. Having travelled with her in her northern Saskatchewan riding last summer, I can attest to how important it is that she can now finally speak in this place in one of the indigenous languages spoken by her constituents back home. What a joy it was to experience her in her community with her fellow community members, speaking their indigenous languages.
The intention of this bill is to create a statutory holiday on September 30 each year, starting this year. This delivers on call to action 80, issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The title of the report, “Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future”, conveys the depth of the tragedy and the need for action.
It may be noted that the Prime Minister, early in his mandate, publicly committed to deliver on all 94 calls to action. Therefore, we need to be grateful that my colleague has brought forward the opportunity to deliver on at least one of them.
I want to read call to action 80. It states:
We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.
It is my understanding and my hope that there is now multiple-party support by members in this place for this bill. I noted that my colleague, in speaking to her bill yesterday, reminded us that we are all responsible for becoming actively engaged in reconciliation.
The intent of the bill is therefore twofold: first, to recognize the continuing need for support for healing for survivors of the residential school system in recognition of the continued impacts down through generations, and to recognize it as a cultural genocide; and second, to directly inform and engage Canadians in knowledge of the residential school system and the harm it caused.
I wish to honour the dedication of the commissioners, Justice Murray Sinclair, Chief Wilton Littlechild and Dr. Marie Wilson, in undertaking the momentous process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is important to honour the many residential school survivors and their families who came forward to share their experiences.
The report conveys the principle that reconciliation is a relationship. I would like to share what the report says. It states:
For many Survivors and their families, this commitment is foremost about healing themselves, their communities, and nations, in ways that revitalize individuals as well as Indigenous cultures, languages, spirituality, laws, and governance systems. For governments, building a respectful relationship involves dismantling a centuries-old political and bureaucratic culture in which, all too often, policies and programs are still based on failed notions of assimilation.
My hon. colleague spoke to this when she spoke to this bill previously, and we were very close to the place where the residential school was unfortunately created.
It also states:
Schools must teach history in ways that foster mutual respect, empathy, and engagement. All Canadian children and youth deserve to know Canada’s honest history, including what happened in the residential schools, and to appreciate the rich history and knowledge of Indigenous nations who continue to make such a strong contribution to Canada, including our very name and collective identity as a country. For Canadians from all walks of life, reconciliation offers a new way of living together.
Canada already celebrates our first nations, Métis and Inuit cultures and languages every year on June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, which is during the summer solstice. My understanding is that initially, my colleague proposed that it be that day. However, she has very graciously agreed to change her bill, so we are going to have a day of celebration in June during the solstice, and then we would have a day of recognition and learning at the end of September each year.
I have had the delight of attending many of the events on June 21 in my riding, joining in the round dances and attempting a jig. Who can resist another bannock burger? It is wonderful to see all the schoolchildren joining in those activities.
The day proposed by Bill C-369 would be a more solemn day, however, to learn about the sufferings of those who were torn from their families, forced to travel far from their families and stripped of their language, beliefs and cultures. For far too many, this was for their entire childhood.
As was pointed out by my colleague, it will be necessary that the government commit well in advance of September 20 this year the necessary funds to ensure that the intents are achieved and that there are clear plans for the day. It is absolutely important that this be in direct consultation with the first nation, Métis and Inuit peoples, in particular in the communities where the activities would occur, which I hope will be every community across this country. The intention is to honour the suffering and provide opportunities for teaching.
My colleague has asked that this day also be recognized as a time for reconciliation for those children torn from their language and culture during the sixties scoop and those from the day schools and boarding schools not yet recognized.
I have been inspired by the initiative of many indigenous people to engage us in the process of reconciliation. My dear friends Hunter and Jacquelyn Cardinal, children of my friend Lewis Cardinal, have founded the Edmonton company Naheyawin, which is reaching out through theatre, through the arts and through round tables to teach people about the treaties. It is a very important action that has not been done across this country. It is so important to my province, where we are the land of the historic treaties and there have been constant calls by first nations leaders for recognition of those treaties.
As Jacquelyn has shared, she wants people to move past feelings of guilt from past wrongs and focus on a better future. She wants people to get past the guilt many feel for the past and look forward to making things better. She hopes the round tables will be based on the Cree word tatawaw, which means, “There is room for you. Welcome.”
I am also very grateful that the famous Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival last year featured and honoured indigenous culture and incorporated many ceremonies to honour first nations, Métis and Inuit throughout the festival.
I am very grateful to my colleague, and I wish to thank her.
View Georgina Jolibois Profile
Mr. Speaker, there are elder teachings, and many elders teach throughout Canada. I am going to make a comment to reflect this very moment.
To not love is to be fearful, to not be humble is to be self-centred, to not be honest is to be dishonest, to not be courageous is to be cowardly. In my line of work, historically and until now, when I am in the circles with indigenous people in communities, elders are very significant. The use of a circle, the teachings and learning to be humble are very significant.
I want to thank all hon. colleagues in the House of Commons for their time and for sharing their thoughts on Bill C-369. How we will fulfill the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action requires an active, all-party effort from everyone, and I appreciate that we saw that effort for call to action no. 80.
We still have a little time before all members gather here to vote on my bill, and I want to take a moment to respond to some of the points of debate that came up.
First, as I said a few nights ago, I welcome the amendments to my bill that came from a multipartisan effort to make sure this holiday was done in consultation with survivors of residential schools, with elders, with regional chiefs and with the major national indigenous organizations. The committee was thorough and well-meaning and ultimately came to the correct decision.
June 21 will remain National Indigenous Peoples Day and be celebrated by all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit people from coast to coast to coast. September 30 will be known as the national day for truth and reconciliation and will serve as an opportunity for Canadians to reflect on the history of residential schools and how the impact of our national shame continues to live on in Canada.
I have expressed my concerns about how the government will be honouring this holiday. Yes, a holiday will be created, but it is only meaningful if the resources are provided for Canadians to truly understand what that holiday means. That means a comprehensive engagement process with federal government employees to understand how their offices can meaningfully work with first nations, Métis and Inuit people. That means providing funding for cross-country memorial ceremonies done in partnership with survivors and first nations, Métis and Inuit organizations. That means creating culturally appropriate learning materials for education systems across the country, so that generations of Canadians will never forget what happened to indigenous people in this country. We are still waiting for answers to all of these questions.
Second, there has been some conversation about replacing other holidays that already exist. That is a fair question, but a debate that should happen at a different time. Generations of indigenous people have been told time and time again that they are in the way, that their concerns are secondary to everything else going on in Canada. For generations, indigenous people have been left out of political processes, left out of decisions that affect their ways of life, left out of decisions that say what languages they can speak and what gods they can pray to. If members of this House want to discuss the number of holidays in Canada, that debate should not be associated with the importance of this bill. The loss of a colonial holiday should not come at the expense of survivors and indigenous people gaining a holiday. I refuse to believe that this holiday will bear the weight of inconvenience to a colonial system.
As a final thought, I want to return to the positives of this bill, because far too many of our conversations rely on reliving trauma and discussing the problems in our first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.
This bill will not solve the housing crisis indigenous people live through and it will not fix the overrepresentation of indigenous children in foster care and it will not close the education gap that leaves indigenous children behind.
However, it will give Canadians the opportunity to fully understand why those problems exist. It would give space and time for the government to reflect on its failures and remind itself why it so important to work for and with indigenous people every other day of the year.
Progress will take time, but through my bill, we are taking the time to make progress and are moving forward.
View Georgina Jolibois Profile
Mr. Speaker, I first want to reiterate how significant this step is for all indigenous people, all first nations, Métis and Inuit people, from coast to coast to coast.
However, I do have concerns. Both the first nations and Métis people in my constituency are asking a valid question about funding, which is very significant. They want to make sure that not only first nations but municipalities and Métis communities have access to sufficient funding where there are Métis students, non-status students and first nations students.
Is the government willing to give us some idea as to how much funding it is looking at?
View Sheri Benson Profile
View Sheri Benson Profile
2019-01-28 14:41 [p.24879]
Mr. Speaker, across Canada people are struggling with extreme cold temperatures. For the 30,000 Canadians who are homeless, finding warm shelter can be a matter of life or death. Shelters are near capacity and people seeking refuge in tent cities are being served with eviction notices. Where are people to go? They cannot wait 10 years for a national housing strategy to ramp up.
Will the Liberal government step up and legislate, as promised, the right to housing for all Canadians—yes or no?
View Sheri Benson Profile
View Sheri Benson Profile
2018-12-03 19:24 [p.24358]
Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport directly about the withdrawal of Greyhound from western Canada. The minister made time to appear before the transport committee, and I was grateful to have had the chance to tell him in person about how serious the lack of safe, affordable transportation is in Saskatchewan.
While the minister was gracious in giving his time to the members at the transport committee, unfortunately, many questions still remain, including my question in the House of last September directed to the lone Saskatchewan minister.
Since the shutdown of the STC, many women fleeing domestic violence have had to hitchhike or turn to Kijiji to get a ride to a shelter. It is unconscionable for a feminist government to know this and do nothing.
Last January, the Minister of Innovation told the House that his government would work with me to look for meaningful solutions to this crisis. To this day, I have heard absolutely nothing.
I suggested I ask the lone Saskatchewan minister this time what he would do to ensure people in Saskatchewan have safe, reliable public transportation. The answer I received that day was from the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, who said that his government would always be there for the people of Saskatchewan, and that there would be good news coming. He also said that I could come and see him or the Minister of Public Safety and his colleagues.
I have reached out to that minister, as well as the lone minister from Saskatchewan, to no avail, To date, I have not heard anything back from either minister, which leads me to believe that the government is very good at talking a good line, but when it comes to delivering on solutions, not so much. Take, for example, the recent announcement in response to Greyhound's withdrawal. For a full year after the cancellation of the STC, the government did nothing. It took the withdrawal of a private company for it to actually take notice of the growing transportation crisis in western Canada.
Fortunately for British Columbia and Alberta, those provinces have progressive NDP governments, which have already stepped up to mitigate the serious gaps in public transportation in their respective provinces.
Unfortunately for my province, Saskatchewan's provincial government decided to shut down the STC. The silence from the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs on this issue is deafening. It is unfortunate that when it comes to standing up for safe, affordable transportation, it appears politics trumps the needs of communities and constituents.
Have we actually heard anything from the Minister of Public Safety, who is from Saskatchewan? Sadly, no. The safety of women and children fleeing domestic violence must be made a priority by the Minister of Public Safety.
People in my province relied on STC to get them to medical appointments, to work and to school, to run their businesses and to connect them to friends and family in other parts of the province and Canada. People in northern, rural and remote areas especially need this safe, affordable mode of transportation. Surely, there is a role for the federal government's leadership and real investment when such a serious gap exists.
View Sheri Benson Profile
View Sheri Benson Profile
2018-12-03 19:30 [p.24359]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for outlining all the ways in which the federal government has partnered on public transportation in cities and larger communities in Saskatchewan.
My question was about the fact that there is no inter-city bus service in Saskatchewan anymore and that Greyhound's pulling out reduced that even more. The federal government stated that it does have a role in investing in that. Otherwise, if the provincial government says a city or municipality does not need a provincial bus service and the federal government says it is not its responsibility, we are leaving many people in Saskatchewan high and dry, especially the many who are vulnerable in rural and remote communities.
I am asking for the government to step up and provide that leadership and to give us the details that we did not get from the Minister of Transport at committee last week. I am asking this of the federal government, which can play a role in this area. It is not just a provincial government responsibility.
View David Yurdiga Profile
View David Yurdiga Profile
2018-11-27 14:04 [p.24027]
Mr. Speaker, during the 2016 fires in Fort McMurray, over 80,000 people were forced to evacuate. Sadly, thousands lost their homes.
I regret to report that many of these people are still without their homes. Many homeowners have been scammed by home builders who have taken deposits, never to be seen again. Members of the Hillview community are particularly struggling, with condo fees having escalated from $300 to over $800 per month, in addition to special assessments that have added over $50,000 per unit. The condos are still under construction.
These families pay for their home mortgages and temporary housing, and these are all unforeseen costs. Some have lost their homes, and many are at risk of losing their homes. Many have received assistance, but many, through no fault of their own, have not. These families simply fell through the cracks in the system.
I request that the government investigate this travesty and work with the Red Cross to ensure that everyone who needs assistance gets assistance.
View Rachael Harder Profile
View Rachael Harder Profile
2018-11-23 11:34 [p.23779]
Mr. Speaker, this spring the Liberals tabled a so-called gender-based budget, but in the fall economic update we see very little follow through.
The Prime Minister actually spent 20 times more on swanky new vehicles, which he drove for two days at the G7 summit, than he did on improving access to employment skills for women who are vulnerable, coming out of violence and needing a restart in life.
Why did the Prime Minister spend $23 million on his swanky new vehicles that lasted for two days and not even a drop in the bucket for women who need a restart?
Results: 61 - 75 of 554 | Page: 5 of 37

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data