Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 37
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-04 11:54 [p.28476]
Mr. Speaker, we currently have a very late night vote scheduled for this evening at 11:25 p.m. I know we are all planning on being back here for that vote, but I would like to propose a motion that I have circulated to the other parties, because I think we actually could move the voting to right after Oral Questions. It would probably better organize the business of the day. We sent it earlier.
I would like to propose that notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House in relation to the business of the House today, the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion standing in the name of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, currently scheduled for tonight at 11:25 p.m. be deferred anew to immediately following the time provided for Oral Questions later this day; and that at the conclusion of the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-97 an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, or statements by members not seeking—
Some hon. members: No.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-03 14:28 [p.28407]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' media funding plan needs to be sent back to the drawing board. By putting overtly anti-Conservative Unifor on the panel, the Prime Minister is not only threatening the media's independence, but he is threatening the credibility of the panel. Now, even the Canadian Association of Journalists has spoken out about the lack of transparency of the bailout.
Will the Prime Minister start respecting journalists and fix this mess that he has created?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-03 14:29 [p.28408]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are completely disrespecting journalists with this panel. The panel is being used by the Prime Minister for his own political gain. We have learned that members of the panel are going to be muzzled, and will not be allowed to discuss whom they may have rejected. Guess what? If the Prime Minister does not like the panel's decision, he is going to override it, so no worries. So much for accountability and transparency. There is no respect for journalists in this panel.
Why is the Prime Minister always trying to interfere in democratic processes for his own political gain?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-29 14:35 [p.28219]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to put his friend Jerry Dias and Unifor on the media funding panel is going to show how far the Liberals would go in trying to stack the deck in the next election.
Unifor is overtly anti-Conservative. Its members are planning to campaign against us in the next election. No one is denying that. I guess that is why he is the Prime Minister's friend, but they have no business being on this media panel decision-making process.
Will the Prime Minister reverse this decision and remove his friend and Unifor from this media—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-29 14:36 [p.28219]
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister actually respected journalists, he would know that they do not want his friend Jerry and Unifor involved in this half-billion-dollar funding.
Here is what they are saying about the impact it is going to have. They are saying that it is “disastrous for public trust”, that it erodes the independence and places journalists in “a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest”.
The Prime Minister is making a terrible decision and he is using journalists as his cover. Will the Prime Minister stop putting journalists in this conflict of interest, reverse this decision and remove his friend Jerry and Unifor from this panel?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-28 14:29 [p.28142]
Mr. Speaker, many, including those in the media, have expressed concerns about the Liberals' $600- million press bailout. Andrew Coyne wrote about the bailout that “it intrudes the government into areas it has no business being in”, and “It is a disaster...now unfolding”.
That is because the Liberals have put overtly anti-Conservative Unifor on the committee that will oversee which media get funding. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that this is all part of the Liberals' plan to rig the next election?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-28 14:31 [p.28142]
Mr. Speaker, we trust the media. It is the Prime Minister Canadians do not trust, because we have all seen how vindictive he gets when anyone dares to stand up to him.
Even the CBC said, “The government just made its toxic media bailout plan even worse”. We agree with the CBC.
In federal and provincial campaigns across the country, Unifor has been campaigning against Conservatives and pledges to do the same in the upcoming election. Therefore, will the Prime Minister admit he has made another terrible error in judgment and reverse the decision and get Unifor off this committee, for—
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2018-10-22 14:01 [p.22662]
Mr. Speaker, it was recently learned that the Liberal government approved federal funding through the Canada Summer Jobs initiative for an organization that is currently suspended by the Canada Revenue Agency for potentially funding terrorism. Federal charities regulators have flagged concerns that this organization had provided resources that may have been used for armed militancy.
Meanwhile, the discriminatory Liberal values test meant that hundreds of legitimate charities running soup kitchens or children's day camps across Canada had to sign a statement supporting Liberal Party values as a condition of receiving federal funding.
Support of terrorism or support of children's day camps? It is really not a difficult issue, or at least it should not be. If the Liberal government's moral compass were not so out of whack, it would not be.
It is time for the Liberals to put aside their ideology, rescind their Liberal values test, and drop the attestation.
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2018-09-27 12:28 [p.21912]
Madam Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction here between some of the comments of government members, and I want to follow up on the comments by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.
We just heard from the previous government speaker, as we have from a number of them, that they have a $40 billion housing program over 10 years. However, the previous speaker just said that they have spent $4.5 million over three years, which is $1.5 billion a year, and not the $4 billion a year we would have if it were a $40 billion program over 10 year.
Could my colleague elaborate on why such a small amount only has been spent in the $40 billion plan the Liberals keep talking about, because as my colleagues have said earlier, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2018-09-26 15:32 [p.21859]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada today. Almost every Canadian family has or knows someone with a disability. They were either born with it or became disabled some time in their life. I have long advocated for the rights of those with disabilities, as I know first hand the daily challenges and barriers they face. My own son, who fell in a work-related accident 14 years ago last week, has shown me how someone, through tremendous perseverance, can come through great adversity.
There are also great Canadian heroes, such as Rick Hansen, who have inspired millions around the globe. Through his Man in Motion World Tour, he raised awareness and helped raise millions of dollars for research. To date, Rick has continued his advocacy and is a beacon of hope to all those who are impacted by disability. In my own constituency, my annual charity golf tournament has donated thousands of dollars to the Rick Hansen Foundation and Special Olympics.
Our society has come a long way in recognizing that those with disabilities have a lot to offer. They are full members of society and must have the same access and rights as anyone else. I am proud to belong a party that has advocated and supported many of the measures that have improved the lives of Canadians who suffer from a disability.
Just next month, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney will be conducted into the Canadian Disability Hall of Fame for his steadfast support, and for being a strong national leader on this issue. He was the first prime minister to appoint a minister responsible for disabled persons. This ensured that there was an advocate for the disabled around the cabinet table. His government also created the disabled persons' participation program, which dramatically increased support for organizations involved with disabled people. It was also his government that expanded disability-related deductions for income tax purposes. Let us never forget that it was the Hon. Jim Flaherty who implemented the registered disabilities savings plan and heavily invested in the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities get the necessary training to obtain employment.
These are just some of the tangible actions that have dramatically improved people's lives. We know that the first step in breaking down barriers involves education and helping people better understand the everyday challenges those with disabilities face. Since being elected as the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I have been a staunch advocate of the enabling accessibility fund, which has supported projects that have made buildings and community infrastructure more accessible. Just this summer, I worked with a community-led organization in Ninette, Manitoba to make it easier for those in wheelchairs to access Pelican Lake. I have worked with communities to secure the necessary funding to renovate bathrooms in places like the Deloraine theatre, so they can be accessible to seniors. I worked with the Brandon Legion so that veterans can now access all parts of their building as well.
These are just a few of the projects that have happened in my neck of the woods, but they are a good reminder that one does not have to reinvent the wheel to make buildings or workplaces more accessible. I am encouraged that this legislation would establish proactive compliance measures. Making buildings and workplaces accessible should never be an afterthought; it should be at the forefront of any architect or engineer's plans. It is important that we have common accessibility standards across the board.
While I note that this legislation only impacts federally regulated workplaces, it is my sincere hope that it will lead to a much broader conversation within provinces and territories. I believe there is willingness across the country to get this done. There is such opportunity for businesses and organizations to encourage as many people as possible to either be employed, to volunteer, or to shop.
I have been inspired by my colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant, who passed a motion in the last Parliament that called on Canadian employers to take action on hiring persons with disabilities. He started a much-needed conversation about the benefits of hiring people with disabilities and improving their quality of life.
I also want to highlight my colleague, the member for Carleton, who led the charge earlier this year with his proposed opportunity for workers with disabilities act. I strongly support his efforts to reform government policies that financially punish people with disabilities when they get a job, earn a raise or work more hours, forcing them to remain jobless and impoverished. He had widespread support for his legislation and I know that he will continue to be a strong advocate for disabled Canadians.
To provide one more example, my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac championed his motion, Motion No. 157, which encouraged builders and contractors to adhere to visitability guidelines and to be proactive when constructing new buildings. I believe his motion helped inspire many of the elements contained in Bill C-81, and I applaud him for all he has done in this area.
As with any new regulation or law, we must always be mindful about the costs to be borne by those who will be impacted. The other element we have to look at is what it will cost taxpayers to implement, enforce and measure. It costs money to hire people and to perform the day-to-day operations of a new federal entity.
I think all members would agree that we should measure the success or deficiencies of a particular program or organization.
The question at the end of the day is this: Does the federal government need to set up completely new bodies, or can we find ways to harness existing resources? While the fine details will be worked out at a later date, I urge the government to focus squarely on tangible outcomes and projects that will improve accessibility. It would be disappointing if all of the dollars allocated to this legislation just created new full-time equivalents rather than going to bricks and mortar projects. These are the sorts of questions that must be asked up front, because once a government entity is created, it is normally quite difficult to make the necessary changes down the road.
Because this legislation will only impact federally regulated workplaces, most small businesses and community-led organizations will not be directly impacted. That said, the federal government must work hand in hand with federally regulated workplaces and the disabled community. For this legislation to have the impact that we all want it to have, it cannot be drafted in a silo or entirely by the civil service. The regulations and standards must be written in easy-to-comprehend language. There must be crystal clear expectations, coupled with appropriate enforcement measures. I also encourage everyone involved to look for best practices not only in the various provinces, but also around the world, and we must make sure that we do not just create another bureaucratic institution.
Building a new institution that would just create mounds of paperwork and have limited buy-in from workplaces would not be in anyone's best interest. I know that when this legislation goes to committee, there will be great interest in it. It would be prudent for the government to provide the committee with as much information as possible so there is meaningful dialogue. It is imperative that the minister spend the necessary time to get this right. I will definitely be voting in favour of this legislation so that it gets the proper study and engagement it so rightfully deserves.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2018-06-18 13:19 [p.21132]
Madam Speaker, with regard to where the money is going to come from to train all of the law enforcement officials to deal with this new epidemic we are creating, which is the excessive use of marijuana, there is no money.
We have heard at committee that it is going to cost an average of $20,000 per law enforcement individual to be trained to detect impairment by cannabis. There has been no money set aside for the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies to train their officers to properly detect and determine it.
The other thing is that there has been no legislation yet adopted, nor will it soon be adopted, that would establish limits for impairment and medically approved devices that need to be purchased by all of these police forces. That is another cost that I do not think the government has at all anticipated nor provided for.
It is reckless on the government's part to push its political agenda in trying to get the bill approved quickly. I think it needs more time. We need to make sure that the regulations are in place.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-06-13 15:02 [p.20830]
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, in downtown Toronto in what can only be described as a rally intended to incite hatred toward Jews and others, Sheik Shafiq Hudda of the Islamic Humanitarian Service called for the eradication of Israelis, and genocide. Some of his anti-Semitic hate speech aimed at the Jewish community included telling them, “You will leave in body bags.”
Will the Prime Minister condemn these hate-filled anti-Semitic comments?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-06-13 15:03 [p.20830]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's actions speak otherwise. On one hand, he is giving these anti-Semitic religious extremists taxpayers' dollars to actively promote hatred using funds from the Canada summer jobs program. On the other, he has denied funding to faith groups that want to help those in need.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing certain religious organizations to be funded to promote hatred toward Jews, but saying no to churches that want to help the homeless?
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary for his comments; that is definitely a high bar. I had the honour of being on the fisheries committee back in 2012, when the changes were made by our government, and they were necessary and important. I was also on the fisheries committee in 2016, when the revisions were being debated.
Let us talk about the old Fisheries Act, prior to 2012. There were many problems with the act. There was a great level of uncertainty. It introduced uncertainty into the development process. It had a wide scope. All of Canada became fish habitat, entire watersheds, extending the federal jurisdiction everywhere in the country. There was lack of discretion. The old Fisheries Act removed any regulatory discretion, since all fish habitat was considered important, no matter how small a puddle it was. There was a lack of knowledge. Knowledge of Canada's fisheries is rather poor, and that is no one's fault. It is just such an enormous task that we still have a long way to go. There were high compliance costs. The cost of compliance for rural communities and industries was extremely high, for very little return in terms of fisheries conservation. This added to the regulatory burden on top of things like the Species at Risk Act and various environmental legislation, most of which, quite frankly, introduced very little environmental improvement.
It is interesting. In 2009, the Auditor General evaluated the old Fisheries Act. She asked how it worked, what it did, and what results came from it. The program's lack of success, without sufficient support from science, was likewise documented in the Auditor General's 2009 report on the fish habitat management program. A report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development called “Protecting Fish Habitat” indicated that, over 23 years, the fish habitat management program could not be demonstrated to have adequately protected fish habitat, and by extension fisheries. All kinds of money was spent and staff time was used up with no effect on fisheries.
I have said it a few times in the House, but for those who do not know, I am a fisheries biologist by training. My entire career has been in fisheries, and I have been involved in conservation my entire life. In fact, I do not mind being called an environmentalist, but I am very much a right-wing environmentalist.
The changes we made to the Fisheries Act were very much in line with the 1986 fish habitat management plan, which actually was in place when the old Fisheries Act was in place. In the changes we made to the act, we went from equal consideration for all fish species and habitat to focusing on sustainability and the productivity of fisheries: commercial, recreational, and aboriginal. This was the most important part. How strange it is to have a Fisheries Act actually dealing with fisheries. Fisheries means the act of human beings harvesting fish in a sustainable manner. That is what our act was all about.
The 1986 fish habitat management program was in place when we changed the Fisheries Act. It said:
The policy applies to those habitats directly or indirectly supporting those fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities [that was the vernacular of the day] of benefit to Canadians.... In accordance with this philosophy, the policy will not necessarily be applied to all places where fish are found in Canada, but it will be applied as required in support of fisheries resource conservation.
As fisheries biologists, that is what we are supposed to do, protect fisheries. This was in line with the actual fish habitat policy.
It has been said by a couple of speakers already. I sat on the committee, along with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, whom I admire greatly for his perseverance and perspicacity. We asked witness after witness if they could prove that there was any harm done to any fish population in Canada because of the changes we made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. Not one person could provide quantitative evidence. They just regurgitated Liberal and NDP talking points. As far as I am concerned, what goes on on the ground in terms of fish population, fish conservation, and fisheries sustainability is what really counts.
I would just make the point that the 2010 sockeye salmon run in the Fraser and the 2014 sockeye salmon run in the Fraser were the largest in Canadian history. Wonder of wonders, which government was that under? It was the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Now the sockeye salmon runs in the Fraser are in jeopardy.
What did we hear in our committee in terms of the Fisheries Act? From the mining association, the representatives said to our committee, when the government wanted to change the Fisheries Act of 2012:
...the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act have in practice broadened the circumstances in which section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.
While noting the increased burden on mining project proponents imposed by the amendments....
They then went on to talk about that. The point is that the mining association said that our act was tougher and protected fish habitat even better. Of course, the current government, by changing our act, would actually weaken fish habitat protections.
In a letter to the committee, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities talked about what it was like prior to 2012. It stated:
Prior to 2012, the Act applied to all waterways in Canada, regardless of whether they actually supported fish habitats. This caused a significant administrative burden, increased construction costs and delays for many municipalities in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as impact assessments and modified design and construction processes were often required for municipal bridges and culverts to accommodate fish habitats that, in many cases, did not exist.
That is the kind of act we dealt with.
The Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties said this about our act, the Fisheries Act of 2012:
For this reason, the AAMDC is supportive of the Fisheries Act as currently written, as it effectively balances local autonomy with federal oversight of fish habitats, while also focusing attention on the protection of important commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. This structure allows for municipalities to leverage knowledge of their local environments to determine whether federal oversight of a project across or into a water body is necessary....
Fancy that, local people knowing more about their environment that some remote bureaucrat.
The crowning glory, in a negative sense, in terms of testimony, came from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The CFA represents all farmers across the country. Mr. Ron Bonnett, the president, said:
...these farmers are all too familiar with the Fisheries Act in its previous form [previous to 2012]. The experience that many farmers had with the [old] Fisheries Act, unfortunately, was not a positive one. It was characterized by lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, and a focus on enforcement and compliance measures taken by officials coupled with a lack of guidance and outreach....
He goes on to say:
There are also many accounts of inconsistency in enforcement, monitoring, and compliance across Canada with different empowered organizations, which led to a confusion and indiscriminate approaches to enforcement and implementation. Even at the individual level, there were different interpretations of the act based on one's familiarity with agriculture.
What Mr. Bonnett was saying was that there were fisheries officers who knew nothing about agriculture, so they came and tried to implement this act, most of them while carrying firearms on their hips, which was very strange in peaceful rural communities, and that simply did not work. Mr. Bonnett went on to say:
It is CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement in outcome for the protection and improvement of fish habitat.
In terms of our act, Mr. Bonnett stated, “The current streamlined approach is working far better for all and efforts should continue”.
One last point I want to make is that it is really a disgrace that the current government cancelled the recreational conservation fisheries partnerships program, and I am quoting from testimony to the fisheries committee by assistant deputy minister, Kevin Stringer. He said, “Under the recreational fisheries partnerships program, $3.1 million was spent.” This was the first year. There were 74 different organizations that undertook 94 habitat restoration projects. There were 380 partners involved in those projects, 1,700 volunteers donated their time, 2.4 million square metres of habitat restored, and 2,000 linear kilometres of recreational fisheries habitat enhanced.
That is real, on-the-ground conservation, and the government cancelled that program.
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2018-06-12 19:27 [p.20774]
Madam Speaker, I want to express my sincere respect for this gentleman's ability to understand the fishing industry and the biology that goes with it. He has made a lifetime out of it. He has a master's degree in this from years back. He has had government experience with it. I know that he knows how little money it can actually take sometimes to have a big impact on improving lakes, the quality of water, and the recreational abilities of those facilities, not just for fishing but also for recreational swimming and other things as well. A prime example is some of the small projects that we were able to—
Results: 1 - 15 of 37 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data