Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 12 of 12
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2018-11-26 12:36 [p.23897]
Mr. Speaker, we have been very fortunate at the finance committee to have the Minister of Finance come before it many times. He was just there a short while ago for an hour, as were officials after that. I believe it was on the estimates and Bill C-86. As well, as a country, Canadians would want the minister to be out there talking about the programs the government is implementing.
I want to come back to the first part of the member's question. Yes, we are certainly saddened about what happened in Oshawa with respect to General Motors. Things happen in an economy. Sometimes there is a shock to the economy. What this government is doing is investing in the economy so we can be assured, as a country, that we are not tied to one industry or one town. There is no doubt that the government will deal with that problem. We have always tried to be there for the workers in these kinds of situations and have made the necessary investments to ensure business can continue. The fall economic statement addresses that fact as well with respect to ensuring our industries are able to compete with those tax reforms south of the border.
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2016-05-17 16:59 [p.3496]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-14, significant legislation that would become Canada's first national medical assistance in dying regime, and would provide a thoughtful and well-considered response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter.
I would first like to acknowledge the remarkable work of the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights who studied Bill C-14 under some very tight time constraints and who nonetheless were able to significantly enrich our reflection and debate on this highly complex and personal issue. This is certainly a matter on which everyone's point of view deserves the utmost respect and consideration. All justice committee members have unquestionably demonstrated these qualities in the course of their work.
Allow me to highlight some areas where the work of the justice committee has been particularly helpful.
Many stakeholders who appeared before the committee, in particular organizations representing medical professionals, expressed a great deal of concern about conscience protections for medical providers. Bill C-14, as a criminal law measure, would create exemptions from conduct that would otherwise be criminal and therefore would not compel anyone to provide medical assistance in dying in any way. However, some stakeholders urged the committee to add a specific clause that would clearly reflect, for greater certainty, their conscience rights as protected under the charter.
On the other hand, other stakeholders such as the Barreau du Québec and Quebec health lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard affirmed the position previously expressed by the Minister of Justice that the conscience rights of health care providers were matters that fall under the purview of the provinces and territories as well as under the responsibility of medical regulatory bodies, which themselves are provincially regulated.
I am pleased to say that the justice committee carefully listened to submissions from all sides of the debate and that a motion was tabled to address this significant concern within the limits of our constitutional framework. Bill C-14 was amended in order to give a greater sense of comfort to medical professionals that nothing in Bill C-14 would compel individuals to act against their deeply held beliefs.
The justice committee should also be commended for working in a non-partisan way to make improvements to the proposed legislation. For instance, the committee amended the bill to clarify that where persons signed a written request on behalf of a patient who cannot write, they could only do so at the patient's express direction. The committee members also amended the bill to clarify that for the sake of professionals who provided counselling services, giving someone information about medical assistance in dying would not be criminally prohibited.
Although these amendments and several others do not fundamentally change the scope of Bill C-14, they should increase the level of comfort for Canadians, including health care providers and other professionals who may be involved. I applaud the committee for all of its efforts.
We have heard countless times how challenging the issue of medical assistance in dying is and how Canadians and organizations hold divergent views that are informed by strongly held beliefs. I think we can all agree that this tension was most apparent during the debate over who should be eligible for medical assistance in dying in our country.
Just as it was the case before the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, the justice committee also heard a wide range of views on eligibility and on what was required to respond to the Carter ruling.
At one end of the spectrum, some stakeholders continue to oppose legalization of any form of medical assistance in dying, as is still the case in most countries around the world, or they propose that it be significantly narrowed.
At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that Bill C-14 does not go far enough and urge Parliament to adopt one of the broadest regimes in the world, similar to ones that exist in only three European countries. They maintain that the eligibility criteria in Bill C-14 are too narrow and they should also include mature minors, people suffering solely from a mental illness, and those who have lost their capacity to consent to die, but who have made an advance request for medical assistance in dying.
Somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, though, lies a group of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for Bill C-14 and who recognize that the bill's cautious and balanced approach is imminently justifiable, including the commitment to explore broader eligibility issues in the near future.
Among that group is the Canadian Medical Association, which speaks on behalf of 83,000 physicians across Canada and which supports the adoption of Bill C-14 as it was drafted, and without amendments.
In contrast with those who argue that the Supreme Court's language of grievous and irremediable medical condition is clear and preferable, the Canadian Medical Association takes quite a different position. It says that the criteria in Bill C-14, including the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable, provides sufficient direction to physicians and is a great improvement from the court's language, which it considers to be vague and unworkable from a medical standpoint.
Similarly, the Canadian Nurses Association, a federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations and colleges, representing nearly 139,000 registered nurses across Canada, has said publicly that its priority is having the bill passed before the June 6 deadline expires. Further, its CEO, Anne Sutherland Boal, stated just yesterday that the successful passing of the bill would be both compassionate and protective to patients, families, and care providers, while emphasizing that the legislative safeguards in the bill would work to protect the most vulnerable Canadians.
Although lawyers and legal academics continue to argue with each other over whether or not the court's language, or the language in Bill C-14, provides sufficient clarity, how can we as parliamentarians discount the views of medical practitioners? The Supreme Court expressed confidence in Canada's physicians to respond to Canadians who wished to access medical assistance in dying, and that confidence is well-placed.
We as parliamentarians must also have confidence in medical practitioners. They will be the ones facing these difficult life and death decisions with their patients and assessing their eligibility. For them, it is not a philosophical or theoretical exercise. They will be applying the very measures in Bill C-14 in their daily practice. Their views must be given significant weight.
National disability rights organizations and others have also supported the approach to eligibility proposed by Bill C-14 as a meaningful safeguard to protect individuals who might be vulnerable in the framework of a medical assistance in dying regime, as a result of societal discrimination, loneliness, or lack of social supports, for example.
On the question of safeguards, the same dynamic has been at play. Some stakeholders expressed support for the measures proposed in Bill C-14, while at the same time seeking to put in place additional safeguards to protect the vulnerable, such as prior judicial authorization. Others, wanting to facilitate broader access, have sought to remove some safeguards, such as the reflection period.
While we respect those who feel that the proposed safeguards are either inadequate or overly burdensome, I believe the safeguards in Bill C-14, taken together, are consistent with many of those found in regimes around the world. Just as the court in Carter was persuaded that the risks to vulnerable Canadians could be adequately managed under a regime with robust safeguards, I am confident the safeguards in Bill C-14 would guard against abuse and error.
Last, I would like to remind all members that Bill C-14, or the provision of medically assisted dying, is not intended to be, or to become, the response to all forms of intolerable suffering. The bill is a thoughtful response to Carter, which recognized the autonomy of those suffering on a path toward death to die peacefully at the time of their choosing and therefore to avoid a prolonged, painful, and undignified death, or one that is inconsistent with their values. Bill C-14 acknowledges the autonomy of such persons to make important end-of-life health care decisions, while also balancing the equally important societal objectives of affirming the value of the lives of all Canadians, preventing suicide, and protecting the most vulnerable in our society.
I believe this legislation respects all interests at stake, and is one of which Canadians can be proud. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-14.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2013-10-17 17:30 [p.82]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was going to speak, but he is on a panel doing important opposition business, so I will take a few moments to talk about this omnibus bill, which would bring in previous legislation. Some is government legislation and some is private members' bills.
I think my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, who spoke earlier, really hit on a serious point that we hoped it would be different in this Parliament. That is especially how the chamber works and how committees work.
As I have said in some of my responses to the throne speech and in talking with people in my riding today, I have been a member of this place for somewhere close to 20 years. It will be 20 years next week. I have seen about a dozen speeches from the throne, and I have never seen one with less vision, more misrepresentation of the historical facts, and such a small-minded strategy moving forward as we have seen in this one. I would hope that this chamber has bigger ideas than we have seen in the throne speech. Some of them can come from other bills coming forward. Some can come forward from committees, if we are allowed to operate the way we should.
I would like to talk a little bit about committees in the last session. What we saw was opposition members putting forward amendments that were voted down. Opposition members would put forward a motion to do a study. I do not know about all committees, but I attended four different committees, and in all of them, government members sitting on the committee asked the committee to go in camera, and the motion, surprisingly, was voted down. I guess I cannot say in this place who voted which way, but I think the House can detect that. The government members put the meeting in camera and there was a vote, and the motion was lost. That issue was not discussed, even though it was an issue Canadians were concerned about.
I would actually plead with the backbench members on the government side to change that in this Parliament. Allow Parliament to work the way it is supposed to, where we have pros and cons to ideas, where we debate the ideas, and where we take things that one does not agree with but that we allow to come forward for debate. That is how this place is supposed to work. I think a lot of the members opposite on the government side would like to see that happen.
The parliamentary secretary on the trade committee I was on last session challenged me, just like the member for Burlington did earlier. He challenged me and said that was the way the Liberals used to do it. No, it is not. The parliamentary secretary of trade in the last session was an opposition member when I happened to chair the fisheries committee. I went back and looked at the record. There were 32 motions put to committee. None of them were debated in camera, not one. Of those, 21 motions were from opposition members. They were critical of government policy, and the government of the day allowed the debate to occur. In fact, many of them passed. That is what this place is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a place of debate, ideas, and big vision.
The government opposite just wants to manage it a little bit. Look at the throne speech again. As my colleague said, it is going to unbundle some of the TV channels. Whether they are Vision TV or whatever they might be, the government is going to unbundle them.
I have to say something that one of my constituents said to me today. My constituent has an unemployed youth, 23 years old, who should be out in the workforce.
The government is not doing anything about the highest rate of unemployment among youth we have ever seen in this country, but by golly, as my constituent said, it would give us a little cheaper TV and a little cheaper cellphone so that he can stay home and sit on the couch, and we lose the potential of that youth out there working. The government should be working on the big issues, not trying to sell a new little consumer product for some cellphone company. That is not a vision.
I bring those points up because I am worried. I am worried that what we are going to get in the second session of this Parliament is more of the same, where the government limits debate. It votes down motions coming from citizens, motions that would build a better Canada. They at least should be discussed. If today's performance in question period is how we are going to continue, it was a continuation of the same. I quite honestly sat here pretty disgusted. I can see why Canadians are disgusted. We never had an answer to one question put to the government.
We know that the Prime Minister kind of chickened out and left the country. Obviously, he does not want to be here to answer questions on the Senate scandal, so he used the excuse of going over to sign the CETA deal. He could have signed that tomorrow or Friday. He could have stayed here and answered questions in the first session of this Parliament. He could have done that. He is going to talk about 80,000 jobs created by CETA, but Conservatives cannot prove it. Let them talk. Their record on trade is that they are the first government in 30 years that has had a deficit in trade on an annual basis. Let us look at the numbers. Since December 2011, the government that fails to answer questions every day in the House of Commons has had a deficit every month since December 2011.
In the throne speech, the Conservatives talked about bringing in prosperity through trade. They have been an absolute and utter failure every step of the way on trade thus far. My colleague, the trade critic, said earlier in question period that we know that they are going to sell out the dairy industry. We do not know what they are going to do in terms of adding extra costs for all Canadians on pharmaceutical products. We know that the Europeans are going to have two years of extra patent time for drugs. Is the deal good for Canadians? We do not know. As everything else the government does, it has done it in secret.
Conservatives now lock committees down in secret. They are negotiating the CETA agreement in secret, and we have a whole cabinet that fails to answer questions. They operate like the opposition is supposed to. They fail to answer questions, and in the process, they undermine democracy. This omnibus bill is certainly not going to do anything to--
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2013-04-16 13:13 [p.15480]
Mr. Speaker, I can only shake my head at the contradictions in those remarks. If anyone should understand some of the mistakes that have been made in recent times, through leaving everything up to the bureaucrats at HRSDC, that member should. He has to be experienced in terms of the problems that we are having with the EI changes that were not thought out and without having hearings by anybody. As a result, we have a disaster now for the seasonal industries and seasonal workers in his region and in my particular region.
In terms of some of the recommendations coming forward he said that there would be longer periods of time taken. How is that going to affect the agricultural workers? The agricultural businesses that depend upon these temporary workers are already complaining to me that the time frame has been tightened up too much, that they cannot regain the workers who have been on their farms for quite a number of years.
The recommendations can be put forward, but what is wrong with a committee actually going out to find out the facts and the Government of Canada allowing members of Parliament to do their job?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2013-04-16 13:33 [p.15483]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak on this motion by my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso. It is important, after this long a debate, to remind the House what the motion really is. It states, “That the House recognize that the use of temporary foreign workers to replace Canadian workers in jobs Canadians are qualified and able to do is an abuse of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program...” It goes on to state that a special committee “have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada...”
This is a serious issue. The need to consult Canadians on the temporary foreign worker program is critical and one that the government should support if it has been honest about how the program has been working. There have been a lot of answers from the government claiming it is concerned, we heard the word “concerned” used about 20 times by Conservatives, that there will be an internal review, it is going to fix any problems, and so on. Why not show some openness and transparency? Why not allow Parliament to do its function? Why not allow MPs to do their jobs without the strings of the PMO attached to the shoulders of the backbench members on the government side?
If the government has been truthful in its remarks thus far that it has not allowed deliberate abuse of the program, then it should be the first to support this motion. We now know, though, sadly, that the government, by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, will not support the motion. The parliamentary secretary speaks for the government. Conservative MPs stand time after time and talk about “our government”. They still do not seem to realize that they are not members of the government but members of the governing party. They are members of the House of Commons. They can speak in their own right. They could support this motion.
I hear the member for Brant squeaking a bit over there. He can stand in his own right. That would be wonderful to see. I have listened to quite a number of backbenchers and I suspect this summer there will be a cabinet shuffle. Maybe the backbenchers are vying to get into cabinet and they do not want to cross any lines. However, for the backbenchers on the Conservative side who have been speaking out there is a real opportunity here.
There is a real opportunity for us to show Canadians that this place can work and that members of Parliament from all parties can do their jobs, hold hearings and, yes, have differences of opinion, but come back with recommendations for the government. If backbenchers in the Conservative Party support a recommendation in a committee, that does not mean they are undermining the government. They are making a recommendation as part a committee based on what they heard across the country for the government to do something better and the executive branch of government can reject or accept that recommendation. That is how this place is supposed to work.
What backbenchers in the Conservative Party seem to fall back on, and it obviously comes from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, is the following:
[The] Minister...has launched a review of the temporary foreign worker program in the wake of allegations that the Royal Bank of Canada is laying off Canadian citizens for immigrant labour.
That is what they are falling back on: an internal review.
Mr. Brad Butt: Good. Great.
Hon. Wayne Easter: The member for Mississauga—Streetsville says yes.
Well is that not wonderful? Not only is the PMO pulling his puppet strings, but now the bureaucrats at HRSDC are telling him what to do. That is who he is going to listen to, not the people of Canada. Come on, folks in this House. We are MPs. We have a responsibility. There is a problem with a program out there. We need a special committee to go out and hold hearings and to meet business people across the country and do our job. For heaven's sake, through you, Mr. Speaker, allow the PMO to allow members of Parliament to do their job. That would be a wonderful change in this place because we have not seen it happen in all of the six years since the current Prime Minister took his seat as Prime Minister. So I am saying that this so-called review by the minister is not enough.
A lot will be said in this discussion today, for and against temporary foreign workers and why the situation is as it is. However, I want to spell out that, at least from my perspective, it is a very important program. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and he knows full well how important the program is to many in the agriculture sector. Many in my province use it. It is necessary, but it needs to be balanced with the rules so that Canadians' jobs are not taken away.
I will come to another point that is important to me, and that is what has been happening in this place as I have sat here and listened to this discussion today. What is wrong with holding a committee hearing? What is wrong with us doing our job? There was a time in this place when the government members would go out and do a green paper. They would consult and get basically an initial discovery view, and there would be white papers and special committees that would go out and hear all the views from business people and so on. That is really what we need to do here. We need to hear from the people in big business and small business, some of the companies that are using temporary foreign workers, some that are rightly doing so and perhaps some that are not. We need to hear from members of the various industries, be it agriculture, fish plants, or whatever it may be, and see what they think needs to be done.
I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, a moment ago and I raised it this morning, two separate points of order on the same issue related to what I have seen in this discussion today. Quite honestly, I find it very disgusting, what three members on the government side have said.
The member for Brampton West, got up and accused the NDP of writing somewhere around a dozen letters asking for temporary foreign workers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister got up and accused the MP for Winnipeg North of writing a letter for a temporary worker. Just a moment ago, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville got up and said that at least eight New Democrats and at least four Liberals have written letters asking for temporary foreign workers. He says it is all true. How do we know that? Is it the Conservative spy and attack machine that is providing that information? Does every member over there on the Conservative side of the House know to whom I have written a letter in terms of the ministry? Do the Conservatives know the people who have asked me to make those requests? We know the tactics on the other side. They are divide and attack. That is what their tactics are, and the whole purpose of their even saying that the New Democrats or Liberals wrote letters is because they are trying to undermine the argument on this side. They are talking in half-truths and half-information.
This is a serious matter. It undermines the right of my constituents to have me write a letter to a minister requesting anything, and if I follow through on that letter I can expect to be attacked by the Conservative attack machine, by a backbench member who should not have the information from HRSDC or any other ministry in this country. What is happening to this Parliament?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2013-04-16 13:44 [p.15484]
Mr. Speaker, we know the kind of games; we know what access to information is there for. We know the directions come from the centre to find any means to undermine, to attack and to discredit. That is not what Parliament is supposed to be about.
Why I am so strongly in favour of this motion of a special committee is to try to show Canadians that this place can work. We can work together as MPs. We do not have to take direction from the Prime Minister's Office. The backbench members over there do not have to take direction from the Prime Minister's Office. We could do our job, hold the proper hearings and come back with recommendations, and the cabinet could accept or reject those recommendations. That would be doing our job.
Let us understand what we are really speaking about. I may have got a little off track, but the fact of the matter is that I believe in my country. I believe in democracy and I want to see this democracy work. It is being severely undermined in this very place.
The program was initially proposed, designed and established by a previous Liberal government, but it worked then. It was not undermined. The program was established by a previous Liberal government and was initially designed to achieve a careful balance of three equally important objectives. The first was to protect the jobs and wages of Canadian workers and Canadian access to employment opportunities. The second was to assist small businesses and corporations that have legitimate—and I underline that fact—difficulties finding workers. The third objective was to protect the dignity of temporary foreign workers by ensuring they are paid a fair wage and are treated as fairly as Canadians workers doing the same work. That is what the program was really about in the beginning.
A recent article on the issue of temporary foreign workers provides a summary of why the House should support the motion here today. It was by Erin Weir, in the online Globe and Mail. It said:
Reports of RBC outsourcing jobs to temporary foreign workers to replace existing Canadian employees should prompt a broader debate about the massive expansion of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in recent years. Is this program addressing genuine “labour shortages” or undermining job opportunities and wages in Canada?
A number of speakers have spoken along those lines. The article went on:
The number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has more than doubled since the Harper government took office. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration reports the presence of 338,000 temporary foreign workers at the end of 2012.
Since 2006, that is a 140% increase in temporary foreign workers in the country, from 140,000 to 338,000. It is a serious matter. Certainly, some of them are needed in some sectors, but some of it is certainly an abuse of the program, and that is the reason we should be holding hearings.
The scale of the issue should be placed in a context that is both understandable and shocking at the same time, given the current reality of unemployment and underemployment in Canada. Since 2008, the number of temporary foreign workers has increased by 24,000, or 60%, in Toronto; 18,000, or 70%, in Quebec; and 5,000, or 80%, in the Atlantic provinces. Together, these regions of high unemployment account for most of the post-recession increase in Canada's temporary foreign workforce. With the exception of Toronto, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, wages in these regions are below the national average.
To put it into perspective, the temporary workforce is now almost as large as New Brunswick's entire employed labour force and far exceeds that of Newfoundland and Labrador, not to mention Prince Edward Island. With remarkably little evidence or public consultation, the temporary foreign worker program has added the equivalent of a small province to Canada's labour market. That is how serious this issue is. It needs to be balanced in where to find and use temporary foreign workers, which is fine. However, what are the rules around those particular temporary foreign workers?
I do not want to talk about my own province because we do utilize temporary foreign workers.
In its report, the Cooper Institute stated this about how temporary foreign workers are treated:
In 2012 the federal government announced changes to the TFWP that will come into effect in 2013. One of these changes allows the TFWs to be paid up to 15% less than their Canadian co-workers, but not less than the minimum wage. Before this TFWs had to be paid the same wage as Canadians. TFWs are vulnerable in ways that most Canadian workers are not. If they issue a complaint, even to the authorities, they can be fired and sent back to their home countries.
Then there is the whole issue of housing. There is the whole issue of maybe having to pay money to a recruitment agent. As well, there is the whole issue of insecurity. These people are certainly under some pressure.
Specifically in my own province, are temporary foreign workers taking jobs from islanders? The Cooper Institute claims:
No. Before hiring TFWs, employers need to go through a process that shows they have advertised for Canadian workers, and that they didn't receive enough applications. Also, most employers of TFWs report that they still have job vacancies for any Canadians who may want to apply for work.
I have had experience with that myself, where I have had to work strenuously with the labour market opinion to allow a film crew that was working on a fairly major film to come to Prince Edward Island. They did not have the skills on the island to do it. We were able to do that.
However, it is important that there is the right balance in terms of temporary foreign workers coming in.
We all know that there are serious problems with the temporary foreign worker program. This recommendation is requesting not an absolute solution right now but rather making a recommendation that a committee go out there, do its job, meet with the business community, whether big or small, the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and the farming industry to hear what people have to say, find the problems, look at the solutions and meet with HRSDC. It would give us the opportunity to show Canadians that there is a role for MPs and that the backbench Conservatives do not have to take their direction from the PMO. Rather, they could actually work as a team of parliamentarians and go out there and work together, do the hearings, find the solutions and make recommendations.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2012-04-30 17:23 [p.7359]
Mr. Speaker, my question is similar to the last question, but it is on the process.
What we have with the budget and the budget implementation act is a 425-page document, 150 pages of which basically cover areas of the environment where oversight agencies are being gutted. We are seeing the fisheries habitat being undermined, the ability to monitor fisheries habitat and to protect it. Yet the bill, with 150 pages related to a whole series of complicated areas in the fisheries and the environment will not go to an environmental committee to be studied in-depth or to the fisheries committee to be studied in-depth. It is going to a finance committee. I really think that is unacceptable.
Could my hon. friend comment on what he thinks of this process and how it really affects the ability of this place to debate serious issues in an all-comprehensive way?
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2011-10-26 14:59 [p.2523]
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the veterans affairs committee. Tomorrow he has scheduled a secret meeting, but we are supposed to be hearing from witnesses in public. Liberals submitted a list of witnesses concerned about the cuts, people and organizations like the ombudsman, the Royal Canadian Legion and many others.
Why is the Conservative chair holding secret meetings? Are the Conservatives plotting to cancel public hearings?
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2011-10-26 15:28 [p.2527]
On the same point, Mr. Speaker, the committee will meet again tomorrow. Then, presumably, I will get my answer, live and in colour.
If the same question is posed tomorrow, will it be the chair of the committee or the minister who will answer that question?
View Gail Shea Profile
CPC (PE)
View Gail Shea Profile
2009-10-08 14:51 [p.5757]
Mr. Speaker, our government fought hard for Canadians' interests at NAFO. If opposition members were serious about discussing the amended convention, they could have used some of their opposition time.
Nevertheless, those committee members who actually care about the impacts on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are not killing the stronger treaty for pure political opportunism, have requested more time. That is no problem.
The Liberals should stop playing games and stand up for the fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
View Gail Shea Profile
CPC (PE)
View Gail Shea Profile
2009-10-08 14:52 [p.5757]
Mr. Speaker, some reasonable members with no political agenda have expressed a desire to call additional witnesses before the fisheries committee. This is a reasonable request and we are reasonable people. Therefore, we will delay ratification for another few weeks so that the fisheries committee can hear from more stakeholders. That is reasonable.
The Liberal Party should start standing up for fishers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec even if it is unpopular in Toronto.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2008-06-17 15:07 [p.7070]
Mr. Speaker, a member opposite, in statements by members prior to question period, made a statement that a number of us had voted with the government as if we were against the carbon tax.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister's Office put out misinformation in a media release on the motion that was passed by committee. The motion passed by committee is for a study on the carbon issue.
Results: 1 - 12 of 12

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data