Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 786
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:07 [p.6998]
Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption to my friend from the Bloc.
There is no doubt that foreign direct investment does play an absolutely critical role to Canada as a developing nation, as we want to encourage ongoing economic activities, and in many ways it is because of foreign investment that we get to see them realized.
I want to provide a number of thoughts on the concurrence report. First, I would like to be able to pick up where I left off prior to the adjournment, which is kind of a fitting place, with the member from the Bloc who has just finished speaking prior to us going back into this report.
My friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands did a fabulous job of explaining the process and what we are being asked to concur in. It is very interesting. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, for example, on the issue of Bill C-19, what the debate was supposed to be about. There are a lot of similarities between what the member for Kingston and the Islands said and what I said on this report back on April 27.
Back on April 27, I expressed my disappointment. I talked about how the Conservative opposition party was playing that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. That was much like earlier today: When I got the chance to speak or when the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke, we talked about that destructive force in terms of process and what we are ultimately being asked to vote on.
The last speaker provided comments about how shameful it is that we are trying to limit debate on Bill C-19 and bringing in time allocation. In the back of our minds, I want members of the House to reflect on those comments, because that is in essence what took place back on April 27, when a concurrence report was brought in because the Conservative Party wanted to debate an issue, as opposed to debating what the government needed to see debated.
It is important to recognize this, because if we were to do a concurrence motion on all the different reports coming in, we would not have government days. We would not even have opposition days to the degree we have them today. There are many reports out there. It is easy to pick a report and move concurrence, and there go three hours of debate on the floor of the House.
We could argue that it is an important issue. Let us look at the issue of this particular concurrence debate. It is about those valuable resources that we have. We could talk about natural resources or our health sector, and I will get more into that. There is no doubt that is important.
However, what we were supposed to be debating on that particular day was the net zero legislation, important legislation that Canadians want and expect their government to act upon. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives moved a motion to ultimately say that we want to debate foreign direct investment as opposed to the net zero legislation. One could say that happened once or maybe twice, but it has happened more than that.
The Bloc member just criticized us in the Liberal Party, and to a certain degree even my friends the New Democrats, by asking how we can limit debate on Bill C-19. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that because of the concurrence motion, much like this concurrence motion, instead of debating Bill C-19, we were actually debating another issue, one we just finished having an emergency debate on last Thursday.
Members should look at April 27, when the Conservatives were playing political games in the chamber. Because of their dislike for allowing the government to pass legislation, they brought in another motion to prevent debate on yet another piece of legislation so that we can be criticized again for not allowing enough debate, just as the Bloc member criticized us for not allowing enough debate on Bill C-19.
What I did not reference was the fact that we had attempted to bring n Bill C-19 before today, and the Conservatives introduced another concurrence motion back then, just like today.
Is there any reason the Conservatives are behaving in such a pattern? They adjourn debates. They want to take time off. They bring in concurrence. They look for ways to attempt to frustrate the government when it is trying to do the things it needs to do as government. It is not as though it only happens two or three times; this destructive force has been playing its games for quite a while now. There is a substantial cost to it.
I would suggest this to my friends in the Bloc: Maybe they should look at some of the comments that came from my New Democratic friends and maybe not be as quick to take the side of the Conservative Party. Many would suggest to us that either the Conservatives are conning the Bloc into supporting their legislative abuse or that the Bloc does not know any better. Maybe it is that the Bloc wants to participate in this destructive force as much as the Conservative Party wants to play its political games.
Is it any wonder, when we see the things that are happening inside the chamber, that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are consistently saying some of the same things, such as that we will continue to remain focused on the priority of all Canadians, which is the pandemic? From the very beginning we have been saying that, led by the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Conservative official opposition, throughout this last number of months, with what I would suggest is its irresponsible behaviour, has been focused on the two things I referenced earlier today. It has moved another concurrence motion to try to kill the time allotted for government legislation. The first agenda for the Conservative Party is the character assassination of government members, and it will go out of its way to do that.
The second thing Conservative members do is cause as much detailed frustration as they can on the floor of the House of Commons so that, as we just heard before we got into this report, the opposition members can say something to the effect that the Liberal government is not being respectful of democracy because of time allocation.
Maybe we could have an indication of co-operation, at least to a certain degree. I am not saying that the Conservative Party has to agree with everything we are saying, but there is some onus, especially in a minority government, to be a little more responsible in terms of the legislative agenda.
Unlike opposition members, the government does not have timing processed on government bills. For example, the Conservatives had a choice and could have concurred in this report, and no doubt many others. They could say that foreign direct investment is so vitally important to our nation that they were going to bring the topic in on an opposition day, when they can highlight what they believe.
After all, if we take a look at the report, I believe we would see that there was a dissenting report that came from the Liberals. However, the Conservatives, as opposed to bringing in a motion to concur in a report, could have highlighted some of their concerns in the form of an opposition day motion and then asked for support from the Bloc and NDP. They could have just as easily have done that, just as they could have done for the report on Line 5 earlier today.
Unlike government legislation, at the end of the day—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:22 [p.6999]
Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, the official opposition members had an option and they chose not to use it.
For example, with respect to foreign investment, certain areas are of great national interest. I could talk about food and medical supply lines. There are some very good examples that I could cite today. We can think about PPE and how much was being manufactured in Canada prior to the pandemic and contrast that to what is happening today.
Let us take a look at the importance of our natural resources and recognize the issue of ownership and how important it is that we ensure the national interest is served. We could talk about media and culture. There are many other areas where there is a national interest. Therefore, foreign investment matters.
I would have welcomed a debate on that issue, but, as I indicated prior, the Conservatives' focus does not facilitate that sort of a debate per se. Rather, they would enter into a debate of that nature by a concurrence motion, which then prevents the government from ensuring more hours of debate on important legislation or they will often use their days to look at ministers or staff of ministers through what I have always referred to as character assassination. We see that played out in the House a lot more than we need to.
There is no doubt about the fact that there are important issues in these concurrence motions. However, I do not see members in the Conservative Party saying that maybe we should have concurrence in report on an opposition day. As I indicated, on the opposition days, those matters before the House are actually voted on. The net-zero bill was supposed to be debated longer than it was, but because of this report, it was not. It was the same with Bill C-19 earlier today. The Conservatives do that because they are more interested in the partisan politics than they are in seeing a chamber that can be productive and supportive of Canadians through some very challenging times.
Yes, we are in a minority government and the government is very much aware of that. I would remind some within the opposition that in a minority government, opposition parties also have a responsibility to live up to, and I am afraid not all are doing that.
View Earl Dreeshen Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting listening to the member opposite. He speaks of character assassination of government members. I would like to remind him of the $16 orange juice incident and the main lead on that, which was his leader.
When we talk about behaviour, adjourning debate and his concern about the concurrence motion, the member perhaps forgets about prorogation. He perhaps forgets about the filibusters that we see in so many different committees to protect various ministers or staff. I guess those are other things that seem to go past him today.
The question was on supply days. Why do we not deal with that? I would like to point out for the member that of the recommendations that we had, and there were nine of them, six of those were rejected by the Liberals in their dissenting report. If the Liberals did not listen to the experts on the subject in committee, what would make us think that if we were speaking to that here, as an opposition day, there would be any more attention given?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:27 [p.7000]
Mr. Speaker, I would think the member would have better luck if it were an opposition day, where the Conservatives could be more specific and then ultimately there would be a specific vote. In regard to prorogation, ultimately two or three days were lost. Could the member indicate when the last time the House actually sat, albeit in a committee format, but on the floor of the House of Commons? It was over the summer time, when literally thousands of questions were being answered. That is accountability and transparency, and it more than compensates the prorogation where we lost a couple of days.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am completely flabbergasted by the argument that we only lost two or three days.
In reality, because Parliament was prorogued, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology had to stop its work and postpone its studies. It took two and a half months to catch up. The committees began meeting again in mid-October, but by the time they held elections, established their priorities and recovered the work that had already been done, they really only got back to work in November.
To come back to the parliamentary secretary's speech, I want to thank him for his opinions on Bill C-19. However, I would have liked to hear him talk about one thing, namely, the focus of the Investment Canada Act. Is it important for him to adequately protect our businesses in Quebec and Canada?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:29 [p.7000]
Mr. Speaker, I did speak at length in regard to foreign investment. If the House would have given me more time to speak, I probably would have been able to address more of those issues.
However, standing committees play a very important role. For example, the other day I stopped by to listen to the agriculture committee. I was quite impressed with the number of things being discussed. I contrast that to the other standing committees, where thousands and thousands of pages are being requested, especially during a pandemic. The purpose is questionable, but sometimes there is a need—
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-05-10 19:30 [p.7000]
Mr. Speaker, I will ask a quick question. First, prorogation took more than a couple of days. It is disingenuous to suggest that is all it was.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary what he feels about recommendation 2 and whether he supports it.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:30 [p.7000]
Mr. Speaker, first, I fully support the minority report that was published, and I would encourage the member to read that minority report.
When I said “two or three days” for prorogation, that is exactly what it was. I was in opposition for over 20 years, and if he asked me for a trade-off between sitting for days in the summer when opposition members were provided literally thousands of questions versus giving up two or three days for the government to reset, given the pandemic, I would have done exactly what we did.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the question preceding this one. If the parliamentary secretary would like to continue talking, I would be happy to move a unanimous consent motion to let him, but I do not think I will get co-operation from the other side.
He started off his speech by talking about the concurrence motion, which is helpful Canadians who are watching this understand how we are here right now. The reality is that the Conservatives have put on notice something like 35 or 40 motions that they can move during this concurrence period. It is like they have built up this buffer and are ready to go. As soon as they need to throw one on to block something, they do it during Routine Proceedings.
Could the parliamentary secretary add to that?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:32 [p.7001]
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the word hypocrisy in my comments, but the Conservative Party is definitely not very consistent. It talks about the election more than any other entity in the House of Commons. When it comes time to vote, if the Conservatives have a chance to vote non-confidence in this government, they take that chance. They like to play partisan politics extensively. At times, I can be somewhat partisan myself, but in the last number of days we have seen a lot of party politics as the chamber seems to be—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-05-10 19:33 [p.7001]
Mr. Speaker, during the parliamentary secretary's speech, whenever he said the Conservatives were playing politics, I was reminded of Claude Rains in Casablanca with the great line, “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” As he complains about his lack of speaking opportunity, I reflect sadly on the day I have had, waiting to speak on Bill C-19 at second reading, before the Liberals imposed time allocation, only to be deprived the opportunity to speak because the Conservatives decided to pull the concurrence motion.
It is more of a comment than a question. As somebody in this place who respects the place, loves our traditions and loves real democracy, today did not feel like any of that.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:34 [p.7001]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I respect about the former leader of the Green Party is that she does her homework and often will provide comment on a wide variety of bills. As much as possible, we have tried to accommodate her words of wisdom on numerous pieces of legislation. I would have looked forward to hearing what she had to say about Bill C-19, given my role with respect to the bill. I guess we will have to wait until committee stage. It is unfortunate because we could have had at least another three hours of debate earlier today.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2021-05-10 19:35 [p.7001]
Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for Winnipeg North wants to talk about Bill C-19 more than the concurrence motion we are talking about right now. I find it so ironic on a day that he wants to talk about new election laws that he was found breaking old election laws. I am not going to use the word hypocritical. I will use the word inconsistent that he stands there as a martyr asking for help to pass government legislation and then he breaks election laws in the 2019 election.
Is that not a bit too much for us to bear today by listening to the member preach about the respect he has for democracy when he was found to break election laws?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-10 19:35 [p.7001]
Mr. Speaker, I have been a candidate for over 10 elections, both provincially and federally, and I made a mistake on election day. I boosted an ad. I did live car waving and I boosted it. I also boosted something the previous day and I did not cancel it at midnight. When I was told that it was wrong, I went to Elections Canada. I did everything I could possibly do. I think that is why it was reduced. I made a mistake. That goes to show that no matter how much experience one has as a candidate, mistakes can still be made. I am sorry for it.
Results: 106 - 120 of 786 | Page: 8 of 53

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data