Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-20 10:20 [p.29466]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present four petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition calls upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs to remove any statutory limits on back-pay eligibility for the disability allowance and to work with individual veterans to achieve just and due compensation for a disability allowance in a timely manner.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-20 10:21 [p.29466]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the Government of Canada to cease the incarceration of those who suffer from drug abuse and to begin the rehabilitation of said victims back into society through treatment programs, as is done in Portugal.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-20 10:21 [p.29466]
Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the House of Commons to recognize that violence against women remains a critical problem in Canada and disproportionately impacts indigenous women, as reflected by the crisis of missing and murdered aboriginal women; that striving for pay equity and equal participation of women in leadership roles must be political priorities for all members of Parliament; and that a shifting cultural attitude toward women and gender minorities in our society requires structural changes in education and socialization.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-20 10:21 [p.29466]
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from my constituents and is about DND land. The petitioners call for the Department of National Defence to clarify the safe range of the DND rifle range for safe operation; to establish a schedule for public access to the land in the buffer zone of the range; to order a feasibility study to look at relocating the range to a more suitable, less populated site; and to engage in community consultation with recreational users in the regional district of Nanaimo, the city of Nanaimo and Snuneymuxw First Nation about future use of this land.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-06-20 12:20 [p.29469]
Mr. Speaker and dear friends, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove can now be addressed by his real name, because he has passed from us.
Mark Warawa was a dear friend of mine, and I want to identify some things about my experience of knowing Mark, in expressing my deep condolences to Diane.
One thing I noticed right away about Mark is that it was Mark and Diane. There is a plane that leaves Vancouver to bring B.C. MPs to Ottawa every week, and sometimes I call it the school bus. If there was a spouse who was almost always there, it was Diane. I think she travelled to Ottawa with Mark more often than most.
I know how hard this is right now. As we know, Mark is in the arms of our Lord, and it is Diane to whom we send our prayers and deepest condolences, so she may have strength in this difficult time.
This is how I knew Mark. I was elected to this place in 2011. From 2006 to 2011, before I was elected, Mark Warawa had the title of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment. I worked with him often. I talked to him often. Although we did not agree on policy, his personal commitments were clear. He and Diane had done many things in their own home: They had solar panels; they composted. He could go on and on. He really was committed to doing things in his own life to make this a better world.
He also created a local award in Langley for environmental heroes. It mattered to him. He did things in his own way. He never would have thwarted policies of his own party; I am not suggesting that at all. He was committed, and he took the time to talk to me and, as we have heard, always in respectful ways.
When I was elected, I got to know Mark in a whole new way. I hope Canadians will be happy to know such a thing exists, as we do not talk about it very much here, but the one truly non-partisan thing that happens in this place, every single Wednesday at 7 a.m., is that we gather in prayer. My brother from Battle River—Crowfoot looks at me and I am going to start crying. It keeps me going, goodness knows, to know that despite the fact that we may not agree on anything, we are able to love each other.
I loved Mark. He was so clear, focused and devoted to the Lord in his day-to-day life and, as we have heard from other members from other parties, in how he conducted himself in this place.
He had real courage. One thing we have talked about lately at the procedure and House affairs committee is how to reduce the role of the party whips in controlling what happens here. A lot of people talk about it, but in my eight years of experience, Mark Warawa was the bravest in standing up against a party whip. He told us that when he was going to give his Standing Order 31 statement, he was told by the whip he was not allowed to bring it forward. At the time, the Speaker ruled on that. Eleven other members of Parliament, including many members of Mark's party, stood up to agree with him.
I just want it remembered that Mark stood up for democracy in this place, when he could have been afraid, when he could have taken the easy route and not thwarted his party whip. He had confidence in the right of all members of Parliament in this place to speak to what was in their hearts and say what they wanted to say in their own 60-second opportunity every few months. He stood up on principle and asked for the Speaker to rule that his rights had been violated. That was brave.
Of many things about Mark Warawa's life, he will be remembered. As we heard from the member for Abbotsford, he was a community champion, working at the local level and municipal government before coming to this place. As the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley so rightly said, he was someone known for his kindness. I also want him remembered for his willingness to reach across party lines.
There was a moment, and this is my last story, when a student from Langley contacted me. He was on an adventure in citizenship program. He said that he was supposed to have lunch with his own MP, but since he was not a Conservative, he wanted to meet me. I said to him, “Your MP is a great guy. I think you should have lunch with both of us.” I asked Mark, and he said, “Absolutely, let's both take our student to lunch.”
We had this wonderful, wide-ranging conversation about environmental goals. I could see this young high school student's eyes light up because he realized he did not have to be a Conservative to love his MP. He just had to know him and know that he really was doing the best he could by his own lights every day. Then, in a truly generous gesture, Mark picked up the tab. That does not happen every day, around here or anywhere.
God bless you, Mark. God, greet one of your wonderful spirits, a soul who has served you well. Give him eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon him. Thank you, Lord, that we came to know him and call him friend.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 16:16 [p.29403]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and present two petitions from my constituents.
The first comes from people who go to the Body Shop at Woodgrove mall. They draw the attention of the House to animal testing for cosmetic products. They want the House to know that the European Union has banned cosmetic testing since 2013 along with a number of other countries and yet their cosmetic industries continue to grow.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to support Bill S-214, and ban the sale and/or manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada moving forward.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 16:17 [p.29403]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to the DND rifle range in the Nanaimo area. This range was established in the 1920s and the city has grown substantially since then. This is an area that is surrounded on three sides by parks and it has residential areas nearby. The petition contains thousands of signatures.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to clarify the safe operation of the DND rifle range, which has recently been closed for recreational purposes. They would like the government to establish a schedule for public access to the lands in the buffer zone of the range and order a feasibility study to look at relocating the range to a more suitable, less populated area. They would also like the government to engage in a community consultation with recreational users, the Regional District of Nanaimo, the City of Nanaimo and the Snuneymuxw First Nation about the future use of this land.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2019-06-19 16:33 [p.29406]
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition originated by a grade six student at the Royal Oak Middle School, Matthias Spalteholz, who has thought a lot about what we need to do to fight the climate crisis.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to put in an electrical vehicle fast charging network on all major highways to support the transition away from the internal combustion engine and to fight climate change.
The second petition is from residents throughout Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The petitioners call on the government to take the required action to avoid runaway global warming, to set ambitious targets to avoid going above 1.5°C global average temperature increase and a number of other measures that would achieve climate stability, including through arresting growth in oil sands expansion.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 17:07 [p.29415]
Madam Speaker, I have a question about how the member feels about investor state dispute settlements being removed from the agreement, and also about article 22, which limits state-owned corporations.
In light of that, how does he feel about the Canada-China FIPA? It was an investment treaty, not a trade agreement, that was pushed through by the Harper government without any debate in this House, whereby Chinese state-owned corporations can use investor state dispute settlements to seek compensation for the loss of potential profit when our laws and policies get in the way of their profitability.
I am just curious about how the member feels about investor state agreements in trade agreements, about state-owned corporations, and about the Canada-China FIPA in light of those things.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 17:25 [p.29417]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and engage in the debate on NAFTA.
Many of my constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith will know that I am very passionate about trade issues and concerned about international trade and investment agreements.
First of all, I want to say that the Green Party of Canada supports trade. We think it is a vital part of our economy. However, what we want to see in trade agreements is respect for environmental regulations, labour standards, health and safety standards, and consumer protections. These things should be increased in trade agreements, the way that the European Union does. Countries that enter the European Union must increase their standards and regulations to meet the highest standards in the union. We think that those kinds of approaches to international trade are important.
About 15 years ago, I was focused on a lot of local issues and worked on films about local water. Somebody had asked me if I knew anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the SPP, and I did not. Therefore, I went off to Ottawa to go to the people summit and learn about the SPP.
I went to Montebello to document the protests that were happening there, and I happened to videotape three police officers who were dressed as radicals with masks on who were attacking their own riot squad. They were unmasked in the process, and all of their boots matched with those of the riot squad. This raised questions for me about why the police would be involved in this kind of incitement, and I have footage of them banging rocks into shields, etc. I wondered why they would be involved in this kind of incitement at a peaceful protest, and they were later proven to be police officers.
I became interested in the Security and Prosperity Partnership and started to dig in. What I found was that in this process there was a deep integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico as part of a fortress North America after 9/11. It also included integration of our regulatory standards. I looked into who was negotiating on behalf of Canada for these regulatory standards. There were 20 corporations for each of three countries, Mexico, the United States and Canada. There were some great Canadian corporations representing Canada in this negotiation process, such as Home Depot Canada, Walmart Canada, Chevron Canada and Ford Canada.
I started to study trade agreements a little more and found that there really was no involvement of civil society in these agreements. These were corporate agreements. Therefore, I really appreciate in this new version of NAFTA that the government has involved labour organizations and environmental organizations as part of the negotiating process, and I see that as progress. This is what we need to be doing in our negotiations on international trade and investment. They cannot just be secretive processes where only the corporations and the bureaucrats are involved. We need people who represent consumers, workers and environmentalists so that we have a fair process that can look at all aspects of trade and make sure that our regulations and standards are protected.
One of the others things I learned working on this film was about investor-state dispute settlements. Chapter 11 in NAFTA was the first time that a developed country had signed on to this process. It was something that the Europeans had used with their former colonial states to kind of keep corporate control over mineral extraction, etc. However, when I looked into Chapter 11, there were cases such as Ethyl Corporation, which got $5 million when Canada blocked the use of MMT, an additive that was a neurotoxin in gasoline. Ethyl Corporation said that it was an unfair trade practice to ban it. There are also things in these investment chapters such as indirect expropriation, and we all know what expropriation is; national treatment; as well as most favoured nation status. These are all things that are used by corporations to challenge our laws and policies. Therefore, I was really happy to see that the investor-state dispute settlement was taken out of the new NAFTA.
Let us look at cases like Bilcon, where a foreign corporation is challenging our environmental assessment process and getting $7 million for doing nothing. It is not a process that makes sense. We see this used as a big stick by mining companies to get developed countries to accept mining and extraction projects.
We need to do something about softwood lumber. That is an important issue in my community.
I am also concerned about the extension of patents for pharmaceuticals from eight years to 10 years for biologics and how that will affect the cost of drugs. We see many people, seniors in particular, who are having to make decisions about what they spend their money on: rent, food or pharmaceuticals.
Article 22, the state-owned chapter, has a carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. That is a concern for me as well.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 20:45 [p.29435]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again to speak to the new NAFTA. I appreciate the Liberal Party giving me some time to speak about this.
When I left off, I was talking about investor-state dispute settlement and my appreciation that this part of NAFTA was removed. I know it will take three years for it to be completely removed and that some corporations will still be able to use that provision against Canadian laws and policies that get in the way of their profits.
I think it is time to get rid of investor-state provisions in all our trade agreements. It is undemocratic, and it undermines our sovereignty. As we have seen in many cases, such as in Bilcon v. Canada, three arbitration lawyers, whose only interest is keeping the system going, sit in a room and make decisions on our environmental assessment process.
In Bilcon v. Canada, there was a proposed quarry at Digby Neck. The community came out and experts came out and talked about the problems with the quarry. It was an area where the endangered North Atlantic right whales had their calving grounds. There was tourism for whale watching. There was lobster fishing. The community did not want the quarry. When the environmental assessment review panel ruled against Bilcon, after years of environmental assessments, Bilcon was able to take the dispute to a NAFTA panel. Bilcon wanted $470 million. It walked away with $7 million. That is outrageous. Using these kinds of processes to challenge our laws and policies is antithetical to democracy.
Investor-state provisions are being used in developing countries to force through extraction projects or to make developing countries pay through the nose.
A good example of this is Crystallex, a Canadian mining development company. It challenged Venezuela using investor-state provisions after Venezuela decided, on behalf of its indigenous population, that the Crystallex mine would not be in the interest of the indigenous population. It was a threat to the environment. Tenor Capital paid for the arbitration lawyers and invested $30 million. Crystallex ended up getting $1.2 billion in a settlement in this investor-state dispute, and Tenor Capital walked away with a 1,000% return, or $300 million. It is obscene.
I could give members example after example of these kinds of situations. I am glad this is out of NAFTA.
I am also glad to see that the proportionality clause is gone. Under this clause, we had to continue to export the same amount of energy to the United States, on average, as we had in the previous three years.
However, as I was saying earlier, there are a few things that disappoint me about the new NAFTA.
First is the extension of biological patents for pharmaceutical drugs. This is important for products like insulin and for people who have Crohn's disease. People are already struggling with the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. We need drug costs to come down. We must have a national pharmacare program rather than more money for big pharma.
Second is article 22, the carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion. It looks to me as though it will continue to be a state-owned corporation, which is concerning.
Third is having bovine growth hormone in the American milk and dairy products we will import.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 20:51 [p.29436]
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the top of the speech, we support trade. What we look for in trade agreements is fair trade. We want to ensure labour rights are respected and that standards are improved for labour, health and safety and for consumer standards and environmental standards.
We like the European Union model. When a country joins the European Union, its standards need to be raised to the level of the highest standards of countries in the European Union. We should be looking to that model.
I appreciate that in this round of NAFTA there have been labour organizations and other civil society organizations involved in the actual negotiations, and that is important.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 20:52 [p.29436]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will support the bill. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands thinks that this might be as good as it gets.
I understand the New Democrats think the Democrats in the United States might be able to improve the deal. I know there is some progressive movement within that party, but it has been very neo-liberal in the past and I am not sure the leadership in the Democratic Party in the United States has changed enough that we will see progress from them on this issue.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has less trust of the Democrats. I am not sure she thinks we will get a better deal than what we have. I think we could be getting a better deal. I am not whipped in my vote. We will see how it all comes down when we vote.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 20:54 [p.29437]
Mr. Speaker, the problem with CETA is that there is some change in the way investor-state dispute settlement is done, with the tribunal process, but it is still not good enough. I have listened to trade experts, like Gus Van Harten from Osgoode Hall. He says that it is basically the same kind of thing, the same sort of investor-state dispute settlement. It has just done it with a more permanent court.
We need to improve the judicial system. We need to deal with these issues within domestic boundaries. When we talk about domestic law, let us deal with disputes within domestic boundaries. If we are dealing with countries that do not have good judicial systems, let us make that part of the trade conditions.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 21:19 [p.29440]
Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is about article 22 and annex IV, which gives a carve-out to the Trans Mountain expansion project.
When we are dealing with climate change, do we not think that perhaps it would be a good idea for other state-owned enterprises to be available to us in dealing with a climate emergency?
Also, I would like to know about this carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. What is the plan? We have seen that it is not really economically feasible. I have read reports by Robyn Allan and others who say that this pipeline is not economically feasible.
What is the plan if the government cannot sell it to the private sector within the 10-year period, as outlined in article 22?
Results: 1 - 15 of 1681 | Page: 1 of 113

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|