Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 8277
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-20 10:04 [p.29463]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have just received the sad news that our colleague Mark Warawa, the member for Langley—Aldergrove, has passed away.
I believe that if you seek it, you will receive unanimous consent to go through Routine Proceedings and then to suspend the House until 12 noon.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-20 10:07 [p.29464]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 34 petitions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-20 10:27 [p.29467]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-19 14:37 [p.29387]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, breaking ethics rules is par for the course for the Liberals. There have been so many ethics investigations of the Prime Minister and his caucus that there is probably a speed dial from the commissioner's office to the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister himself has been found guilty of breaking four laws with his illegal vacation.
Could the Prime Minister tell us, with all of these scandals, exactly how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner. Is he proud of his legacy of scandal, corruption and entitlement?
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-19 14:38 [p.29387]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes that there is one set of rules for him and his friends and one set for everyone else in this country. For example, there are his well-connected friends at SNC-Lavalin. They have given over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberals, and they got unprecedented access to the Prime Minister and his office.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he inappropriately pressured the former attorney general just to help his buddies at SNC-Lavalin?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 15:48 [p.29398]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:09 [p.29401]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, June 20, 2019, after the taking of any recorded division deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business for two hours to consider, during the first hour, the motion for second reading of Bill C-431, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act (investments), and, during the second hour, the motion for second reading of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (packaging), after which the House shall return to consideration of Government Orders until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:10 [p.29402]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, there have also been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in relation to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, after the opening of the 43rd Parliament, and once the necessary infrastructure has been installed, the House authorize:
(a) televising or webcasting of up to six simultaneous meetings, provided that no more than two of the meetings are televised;
(b) that the electronic media be permitted to video record meetings that are not televised, in accordance with the existing guidelines; and
(c) that Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v) be amended to read “the review of and report on the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees;”.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-19 16:21 [p.29404]
Expand
[Member spoke in Cree as follows:]
[Cree text translated as follows:]
Madam Speaker, to all my relations, I say hello. I am very proud to be here.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the work of students at the Met School and other schools in Winnipeg, who, as a school project, raised the issue of water for indigenous peoples. Their fashion project “Strut for Shoal” was a great success. The federal government has finally built Freedom Road, with its grand opening last week, connecting the community with better access.
The students also created a petition calling upon the federal government to ensure a water treatment plant is built and available in Shoal Lake 40. These are fine, young Canadians who are doing fine work for all indigenous peoples and all Canadians.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:40 [p.29408]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2478, 2479, 2481, 2482 and 2484.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:40 [p.29409]
Expand
Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2477, 2480 and 2485 to 2504 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:41 [p.29411]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 16:41 [p.29411]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 17:38 [p.29419]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue of victims. Over the last number of years, we have tried to come up with thoughts and ideas on how to prevent people becoming victims in the future.
I realize this may not necessarily be on topic, but could my friend provide some thoughts on tangible actions that could be taken to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place, actions to which individuals could relate?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 18:18 [p.29425]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that victims of crimes play a very important and crucial role in the whole process.
We had a very sad story not that long ago in Winnipeg North. When I say Winnipeg North, I am referring to the inner city, north end of Winnipeg. A very young man was at home with his grandmother. Someone broke into the home and the young man was stabbed and killed. This touched on a lot of emotions in the city of Winnipeg. It had a fairly profound impact with the amount of attention it gathered. People rallied around the family. The deceased young man was supposed to graduate this month from Technical Vocational High School.
A series of public meetings followed. The victim was of Filipino heritage. The community, particularly the Filipino community, really came out to support the mother and father, both of whom I have known for many years.
I have relayed this message to the House, because throughout the process, time after time, we meet with individuals who have followed the story. People really want answers to a series of different questions, everything from why it happened to what the circumstances were. They want to know about the perpetrator who caused the harm. It is really difficult for us to provide answers to everything they are looking for.
I think of the family members. It was difficult for me. I attended the meetings. I think of Imelda in particular, a dear family friend, and the emotions involved in that. It really heightens the importance. Sadly, a lot of crimes take place in our communities. It affects not only the victims of the crime, but family members and friends as well. They need to have some form of understanding of what has taken place and a sense of justice.
I sat on a justice committee for youth for many years. In fact, I was the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. We talked a great deal about the importance of ensuring there was a consequence for young people breaking the law or for inappropriate behaviour.
One of the things I felt pretty good about was the committee looked at ways to put in place restorative justice. Restorative justice is where victims meet with offenders with the goal of a disposition to provide some sense of justice to the victim. Obviously, there is a huge difference when someone steals something, or a relatively minor offence, compared to an incident where the victim dies.
Through the years, going back to the to the days of the Keewatin justice committee, to the days in which I was the critic for justice in the province of Manitoba, I have always believed there needs to be a consequence for individuals who break our laws. However, at the same time, the victims need to be taken into consideration.
We reformed our military laws through legislation in the last couple of years. When I spoke on that, I highlighted that the fact that we were incorporating rights for victims within it. I cannot remember all the details offhand, but the principle of recognizing and appreciating the need to have victims as a part of the process is something the government, particularly the minister, have taken very seriously.
There are a couple of points I want to highlight. First, the government launched a communication and outreach strategy to provide victims with greater awareness of the services available and how they could access them, which is of great importance. We are in consultation with victims and the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, recognizing we can and should do better.
I will cite another piece of legislation we have passed. Imagine a victim of sexual assault decides to listen to the perpetrator's parole hearing for possible release. We can only imagine the state of mind of that victim having to listen to the parole hearing. Therefore, under the legislation we passed in the last year, victims can receive an audio recording of proceedings, which they can listen to on their own time.
Whether it is the enshrinement of victims rights in legislation, as we did with the military reform, or the example I just cited, the government has moved on these issues. I think we all recognize that there is always room for improvement. We can always do better. I think we all appreciate the importance of ensuring victims are recognized through this process.
I have had the opportunity to address an issue such as this. I mentioned this the earlier in a question for the member putting forward the motion. The best way to continue to move forward is to also look at ways to prevent people from being victims in the first place. As a government, we have been very successful, through a multitude of grants, budgetary measures and legislative measures, on things that will make a difference.
For example, Winnipeg North has some of the more challenging areas along Selkirk Avenue. There is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week drop-in centre. As individuals become engaged and involved at that drop-in centre or they become involved with the Bear Clan, we have seen less crime.
I look forward to continuing the dialogue with respect to what the government can do to ensure victims are taken into consideration in all legislative and budgetary measures that the government presents to the House. It is important and it really does matter.
I always appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts on the important issues Canadians have to face.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-19 20:50 [p.29436]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that we have had a government in the last three and a half years that has recognized the true value of trade. The trade agreement between Canada and Mexico further supports the fact that Canada is a trading nation. Having these trade agreements helps facilitate and secure markets. That helps Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It helps drive our economy. We are looking for new trade with new nations and with our best friends to the south.
Would the Green Party be in a position at some point in time where it would support a trade agreement or would it be more inclined to take the same approach to trade as the New Democrats?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 10:05 [p.29263]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 123 petitions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 10:15 [p.29265]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Special or Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, the question shall be put on the opposition motion at 5:30 pm after which all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply shall be put forthwith and successively, without debate or amendment.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 10:16 [p.29265]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there have also been further discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Prime Minister be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-18 10:24 [p.29267]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present petitions from people who live in my riding of Portage—Lisgar. These petitioners are asking that medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, etc., would have protection of freedom of conscience when they are administering health services.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 10:31 [p.29268]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Collapse
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
View Robert Sopuck Profile
2019-06-18 12:02 [p.29281]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with my friend on biosphere reserve issues, but I disagree with pretty much everything he says. I find the NDP strangely hilarious. On one hand, it tries to defend the steel industry in Hamilton and talks about how important those jobs are, yet it works like crazy to stop pipelines that are made of steel.
I used to have a lot of time for the old NDP and members like Ed Schreyer, the party of the working person and so on. This new NDP is finished when it comes to dealing with the working person. The only party that cares about working people in this country is the Conservative Party.
Today's poll showed what working people have to say. They do not want to pay a carbon tax. The Conservative environmental plan to be released tomorrow will be a groundbreaking plan.
The member talked about electrifying this country. This country will be electrified when that man in that chair is the Prime Minister of this country.
I have two questions for my friend. One, how high does he want the carbon tax to go? I notice that he did not give a number. Two, given that the NDP rails away against the oil and gas industry all the time, will he put his money where his mouth is and recommend every union pension fund and the Canada pension plan divest themselves completely of every single oil and gas investment?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 12:31 [p.29286]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting that the Conservative Party opposes a price on pollution. I too, like millions of other Canadians, am waiting for Doug Ford's announcement tomorrow with respect to the national Conservative plan on the environment.
Provinces of different political stripes have adopted a price on pollution. The national plan fills in for those provinces that do not have a plan, or for individuals like Doug Ford, who withdrew from a plan, to ensure that there is a national standard across the country.
Would the member not agree that it is a good thing to have a national plan when it comes to environmental issues? This is the essence of what is taking place: a price on pollution across the country.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 12:54 [p.29289]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, when I think of our environment, virtually from day one, this government has had a developing climate action plan that is healthy for the environment and the economy at the same time. We often talk about Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and helping them through different measures. We recognize that we can do both at the same time. We can continue to develop the economy and ensure we have a healthier planet for future generations.
I want to highlight a few thoughts and then provide a little more detail on some of the politics.
When we look at the budgets and legislative measures, it is fairly impressive. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars through budgetary measures over the last few years, such as over $2.3 billion in funding to support clean technology in one form or another; $21.9 billion in green infrastructure funding, which will support things like electricity infrastructure, renewable energy and so forth; and $2 billion for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding.
Along with these budgetary measures, we have legislative measures, such Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban; Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation; our fisheries in Bill C-68.
From day one, this government has been on track to bring forward positive legislation and budgetary measures. This demonstrates very clearly that we understand how important the environment is not only to Canadians but to the world. These types of actions put Canada in a good place with respect to strong international leadership on this very important file. I believe Canadians want us to do this as a government.
We can look at some of the initiatives that government can take, and we hear a great deal about the price on pollution. For years now, the Conservative Party has been a lone voice in the House of Commons. The New Democrats, the Greens and, to the best of my knowledge, the Bloc understand that a price on pollution is the best way to go. It is not only the parties in the chamber, but it is very well received in many provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In fact, the majority of them already had some form of a price on pollution in place.
When we are talking about the national price on pollution, we are talking about areas where there is no plan in place, where there is no price on pollution and the federal government is imposing one. The good new is that 80%-plus of constituents I represent as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North will be better off financially as a direct result of the price on pollution. However, the Conservatives in their spin and misinformation that they funnel out of their Conservative war room virtually on a daily basis are telling Canadians something that is vastly different from reality and truth. This is not a cash grab.
The Conservatives ask about the GST on fuel at the pumps. I remind them that they put the cascading tax on the pump price. I remind the Conservatives that their Party ignored the environment to the degree that it now demands the type of attention it has been given over the last few years. We just voted last night on the emergency facing our environment. Once again, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc and the CCF all voted yes that we did need to take the environment far more seriously. They recognized that it as an emergency. Only the Conservative Party voted against that motion.
The Conservatives say they have a plan. They have been saying that for a long time now. For the last 400-plus days, all they have been doing is criticizing the price on pollution, even though it is widely respected and acknowledged as the best way to deal the reduction of emissions.
However, now Doug Ford has apparently met with the federal Conservative leader and hammered out a plan. Tomorrow, Mr. Ford will share his plan with the rest of Canada. He took Ontario out of the old plan,. Now he will present a national plan, worked on with the federal Conservative Party. I look forward to seeing that plan. A little more transparency on the environment is long overdue when it comes to the Conservative Party of Canada.
It would be nice to compare our plan with the Conservative plan. Our plan talks about hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in clean energy and working with the different stakeholders. I will provide some tangible examples. In the last budget, there was an incentive for individuals to buy electric vehicles. Other provinces, like the beautiful province of Quebec, had a complementary program that would give the residents of Quebec a more substantial discount. Tesla reduced the price on a vehicle in order to get under the threshold. The biggest winner in this is the consumer, followed by the environment.
Governments can make a difference. To get a better appreciation of that, look at what happened in the taxi industry in the province of Manitoba with the Prius car. It was through government action. Government actions can make a difference. We came in with a plan after working with indigenous communities, provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and the private sector in developing ways to reduce emissions in every region of our country.
Through this debate, I have learned that the Conservative Party opposes supporting private sector initiatives with public dollars. That became very clear in the last number of weeks. I am anxious to see how the Conservatives might spin on that dime as they try to convince Canadians they care about the environment. In reality, there has been no indication that is the case.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 13:05 [p.29290]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is very good at misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, the residents in Edmonton and the residents in Calgary, a vast majority of them, will actually be financially better off with a price on pollution, with the way the Liberal government is administering it.
Canadians would never think that if they listened to a Conservative. Canadians would think it is cash grab from Ottawa, which is absolutely crap. That is not the case. The members across the way know that, but do members think that would change the propaganda that they send out? Absolutely not.
The Conservative Party is not being honest with the people of Alberta; it is trying to give a false impression. A majority of the residents in Alberta will be financially better off with the price on pollution that would be put in by the federal government come January 1.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 13:07 [p.29290]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, we would have to agree to disagree. I believe an economy can in fact be managed while respecting the environment. We have seen that over the last three and a half years.
We have seen very progressive policies developed and implemented on the environment, while at the same time we have been able to generate, by working with Canadians, over one million jobs here in Canada. The economy does matter.
When we look at LNG, which is the largest single government-private working investment in Canadian history, we see it is going to provide cleaner energy. Parties will fall where they may. I know the NDP is having a very difficult time with that issue. The current leader at one time supported it, but now we do not know exactly where the NDP will fall on that particular issue.
If we look at it and just listen, the Conservatives will say that we are not building the pipelines fast enough. If we listen to the Green Party, it would be that we should not build any pipelines. If we listen to the NDP, it would depend on the day and how threatened it is by the Greens. That would determine their policy. In terms of the Liberals, I can say that we appreciate the fact that we can do it in such a fashion that it is still good for Canada's environment and good for Canada's economy.
That is why we would argue that at times it is important for us to recognize that the economy and the environment can in fact go hand in hand, if they are administered properly. That is something we have done in the last three and a half years. Hopefully, we will get a renewed mandate a little later this year.
Collapse
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2019-06-18 13:09 [p.29291]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thought all along that the member for Winnipeg North just liked to debate so he could hear himself. However, I digress.
I am pleased to speak today to the Conservative Party of Canada's opposition motion on the topic of climate change and the environment. I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.
I want to say that only the Liberal government could talk about the environment for four years, break its promise to meet the Paris accord on climate change and end up taxing Canadians to cover up its incompetence, overspending and environmental management.
As I get into my presentation, for those who know me and my background, I have always strived to put forward ideas and solutions to the many issues facing my constituency and our nation. While I am not as good as giving one-liners or the pithy comments of social media that seem to attract the most attention, in my own way I have tried to reach out and build consensus to get things done.
Today, I want to apply that attitude to the larger issue of the environment, conservation and climate change. Like many members in the chamber, I represent a constituency that is geographically large. All across Westman, farms and communities dot the prairie landscape, as they have for many generations. Almost half of the people I represent live outside the city of Brandon in the 20-plus municipalities located in the riding.
These are some of the most hard-working, down to earth and determined people we will meet anywhere in this great country of ours. Living in rural Canada has its unique challenges. With those challenges also comes a way of life like none other. Our connection to the land, air and water is strong, because our livelihoods quite literally depend on it.
As someone who farmed for most of my life, I firmly believe that if we take care of the land, it will take care of us. My father raised my brother and me on those words, and I have lived by them. I want to immediately dispel any notion that farmers or rural folks who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the environment. They do care. They care about it immensely. They just have a serious issue about being forced to pay a new tax imposed on provinces that will disproportionately impact rural people.
Let us put ourselves in their boots for a moment. Many families must drive long distances to get to work. Many seniors have to drive into Brandon to go to either the doctor or the optician. Parents have to drive their kids to various towns for sports or choir practice.
Let us never forget students at Brandon University and Assiniboine Community College who still live on the farm or in their rural community and make the daily commute to the city to attend classes. These are not optional things that people can just decide not to do or do less. There are no subways or bus routes for their purposes. Trust me; if people did not have to drive in our blustery winters, they would not.
From the very beginning, I believe the government has mishandled the rollout of the carbon tax.
First and foremost, many Canadians, particularly many of the people I represent, have trepidations about the federal government's priorities at the best of times. Saying the federal government is about to impose a new tax but not to worry because people will not feel the pinch, while at the same time it will combat climate change, is not the best way to get buy-in from those who have skepticism.
Second, when we tried in vain to get the financial data out of the Minister of Finance, it was so heavily blacked out that it was meaningless.
Third, when the Province of Manitoba put forward a plan that would have reduced carbon emissions, the federal government rejected it. Officials were told that no matter how many tonnes of CO2 their plan would reduce, it had to include a $50 a tonne carbon tax.
My province tried to work in good faith with the federal government and was told to go pound sand. No wonder it has decided to launch its own court case. If that is the way federalism now works in this country, it is not hard to understand why premiers are concerned about the Liberal government's other initiatives, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.
It also troubles me that, in Canadian politics, the litmus test on one's commitment to the environment is now centred on supporting a $50 a tonne carbon tax. While that may be the case in some circles, I can assure MPs that everyday Canadians do not use this lens when talking with their family and friends. It is not that my Conservative colleagues or people who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the changing climate; it is that we do not believe the carbon tax is the best way of addressing it.
Tomorrow, our leader will outline the vision and present an alternative to what is being imposed by the current federal government. Due to the already challenging political discourse on this issue, I can only imagine the over-the-top language being drafted now in response. I want to urge the Liberals to hold off on issuing their canned response before the speech has even been given. The Liberals have been waiting ever so patiently, so I fully expect that they will be paying close attention. I want the government to recognize that there are more ways to deal with climate change than applying a tax on the fuel that families put in their minivans.
I want the Liberals to recognize that applying a carbon tax on the energy used to drive farmers' grain only adds further cost to the industry that is already facing challenging commodity prices and markets that slam shut. I want them to start listening to farmers who have ideas that can reduce and sequester carbon without applying a new tax. The agricultural industry has made great strides in environmental management that benefit society, virtually by its own innovation at its own cost. There are proven models out there that have had tangible and meaningful results.
I have always been a proponent, as examples, of implementing an alternative land use services program and the expansion of wetland restoration programs. For those who have not listened to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, I can assure them his message about eating more beef and how it is good for the environment is grounded in empirical science.
Over the years as a farm leader, an MLA and now an MP, I have dealt with many issues that impact our environment. Back home, people do not apply a litmus test to determine our commitment to an issue. We focus on bringing people together to work on solutions. Perhaps one day those values will rub off on all of us in this chamber when we must wade through our differences.
I want to give just one example from which we can learn. Manitoba has been prone to floods for as long as history has been recorded. Being at the bottom of the basin, we have had to deal with spring runoff and localized flooding that has impacted communities for generations. It was a Progressive Conservative premier, Duff Roblin, who implemented a series of public works projects that protected communities in the Assiniboine and Red River basins, and particularly impacted the flooding that would have occurred in the city of Winnipeg in 1997. Since then, there have been significant enhancements to flood protection up and down the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers. I want to say that this issue in Manitoba is non-partisan.
Our previous federal Conservative and provincial NDP governments both invested in projects that protected the city of Brandon and the towns of Melita, Reston, Souris, Deloraine, Elkhorn and Wawanesa. We also expanded the Red River Floodway, which was completed under budget.
It was after the most recent flood that many people in the Assiniboine River basin decided that we needed to work together. Under the leadership of Allan Preston and Wanda McFadyen, they spearheaded an initiative that brought the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota under one organization, alongside municipalities, farmers and conservation districts. We all live within the same watershed, and we had to stop working in silos.
We know a one-size-fits-all approach to water management does not work, and that is why a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with a carbon tax. That is why it was so frustrating to see how the federal government tossed aside the climate change plan put forward by Manitoba. Without a change in attitude, more and more Canadians will look at the rigid position taken by some in the government and tune out. We also know that climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. The current approach does not reflect that reality.
I firmly believe that Canada is well positioned to provide these solutions. Tomorrow we will start outlining our alternative to the carbon tax and begin the conversation on what will replace it. I encourage my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who represent rural areas, to join me in supporting this motion. I ask them to please stand up for their constituents, repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environmental plan.
Collapse
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2019-06-18 13:20 [p.29292]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very pertinent question. However, coming from a government that has missed its Paris target by 79 megatonnes, it is not sound management.
We also know the tax package the Liberal government has come up with has fallen very short. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear about the decrease that would be required in greenhouse gas emissions in order for Canada to meet the Paris climate target. He also said we would need a tax of about $102 a tonne to meet that target, versus the $50 a tonne the government is talking about today.
Therefore, the current government does not have a real plan for environmental management; rather, it has a tax plan, and that tax plan has failed, which I thank my colleague for pointing out. It has failed in all the provinces in which the government said people would be better off with the tax than without it. The best thing to do is leave the money in people's pockets, so they can make environmental management changes in their own operations, as the agricultural industry has done over the past 50 or 100 years.
Collapse
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2019-06-18 13:22 [p.29293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the fact that we have the ability to be a leader in the world with respect to the management of our climate. As a Conservative member who is sitting on the Arctic climate change committee, I am very aware of the changes that are taking place in that part of the world, and in all areas. The member mentioned Sweden and Norway. From my experience in those two countries, I know that because the Gulf Stream goes right up the coast of Norway, its average temperatures in the winter are 0°C to -6°C. This winter, we hit -50°C six times in Manitoba. There is a difference in the temperatures and in the climates we have to deal with in these areas.
The whole process of the Paris accord is something the government has adopted. We voted in favour of it. The levels the present government is targeting are those the Conservative government brought forward. Certainly, at the time we brought them in, they were obtainable targets. However, the government has missed the mark by a mile, and is still adding a tax on people that is not going to benefit them.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 14:12 [p.29301]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, every day, Canada's middle class has been priority number one. Whether it is the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister or the entire Liberal caucus, we recognize the value of having a middle-class tax break that gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadians in every region of our country.
We recognize the value of decreasing the small business tax. We recognize the value of increasing taxes for Canada's 1% wealthiest. We realize the value in terms of increasing the Canada child benefit for Canadians, with $9 million a month going into Winnipeg North alone. We recognize the value of supporting our seniors, lifting hundreds of seniors out of poverty in Winnipeg North alone and seniors across our country. We realize the value of investing in Canada's infrastructure.
We know, understand and appreciate that the way to make our economy work is to invest in Canada.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-18 14:48 [p.29308]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I wear this beaded jacket that has the image of indigenous women so we may never forget that we all have a role in giving a voice to those who have been ignored for far too long.
In 2017, Bill S-3 was finally passed with a delay concerning the 1951 cut-off criteria. The government said it needed time to consult on an implementation plan. The minister's special representative has completed her consultations and report, which was just tabled in Parliament. Indigenous women and their descendants want to know. When will they finally have their human rights restored?
Collapse
View Doug Eyolfson Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, both as a member of Parliament and a physician, I have heard from constituents, patients and many others about the high cost of prescription drugs. Canadians are proud of their universal public health care system, but we know that nearly one million Canadians have to give up essentials like food to pay for their medication. That is why I am heartened to see our government taking action on this critical issue.
Could the Minister of Health update the House on our work to make prescription drugs affordable for more Canadians?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 16:51 [p.29327]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Order for consideration of Ways and Means motion No. 34 be deemed read, the motion deemed moved and seconded, and the question put immediately before the deferred recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights) on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, and, if a recorded division is requested on the Ways and Means motion, that the vote shall be taken up immediately.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-18 17:19 [p.29331]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the member to make those sorts of statements to the steelworkers, the trades, the general individual contractors and to the indigenous groups that are behind the project.
The NDP needs to be a whole lot more transparent and honest with Canadians with respect to what its true intentions are. LNG is one of the largest, if not the largest, investment by both the private sector and the government jointly. Even the NDP government in B.C. is behind it 100%. The leader of the New Democratic Party used to be in favour and now he is waffling.
First, can the member give clear indication as to what the NDP position is on LNG? Second, the NDP consistently says that it does not support any form of subsidy for fossil fuel. That has a very significant impact on many rural communities and indigenous communities in the north. Is the NDP policy tough luck to those indigenous communities in regard to subsidy for fuel?
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-18 18:52 [p.29343]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I was just reading about the new agreement or what the government just approved. It was allowing the extra earnings from the TMX to fund clean energy transition. This is about striking a balance, and this bill here is about ensuring that there is a balance. I know that there are people there who have—
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-18 18:52 [p.29343]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I wish the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be a bit more polite as I try to offer my thoughts.
Balance is truly something that we need to have. We had this opportunity to hear the minister speak a bit about that balance and how we have to ensure that indigenous peoples also have the opportunity to get jobs and provide for their families and to be part owners of this, having equity and then using those funds to transition to a cleaner and better economy. Striking that balance for each and every Canadian is important.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 12:13 [p.29165]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a great deal of concern in regard to the process of things. We have seen member after member stand up on a wide variety of pieces of legislation. Even when I was in opposition, at times we need to use this tool in order to advance legislation. We could see opposition members debating things indefinitely, unless either the tool of time allocation is used or the opposition is prepared to allow the debate to come to an end.
I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the matter that time allocation is a tool that is necessary at times, that we have seen New Democrats and Conservatives support time allocation, and that this is not outside the norm.
Collapse
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-06-17 12:21 [p.29166]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is over 100 times now that the government has used closure or has limited the amount of debate we can have any time on these bills.
This stands in stark contrast to what the minister used to say when he was in the third party. The member for Winnipeg North used to stand and holler every time there was a closure motion or anything to limit the debate we were having on any motions before the House.
We only had four minutes on Friday to start the debate on the amendments that were proposed by the Senate. I still have to go back and talk to my UCCO members who work at Stony Mountain Institution in my riding to ensure that the health and safety provisions that are in the bill are going to be properly enforced and how that is going to occur. They still have those questions.
However, because the Liberals are stifling debate here in the House, I will not have the time to go and consult, and discuss this with UCCO members and with penitentiary staff on how this will impact our riding and how it is going to impact the care and incarceration of those who are currently serving sentences.
There are still so many questions out there. The hypocrisy that we are seeing from the Liberals continues to amaze all of us, because when they were in the third party, they used to scream and holler at the top of their lungs every time the previous government tried to do this.
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-17 14:04 [p.29176]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, people in our north held out hope when it came to the Liberal government's commitments with words like “reconciliation”, “nation-to-nation relationships”, “support for the middle class” and “champion on climate change”. However, fast forward four years, and the shine is off.
The housing crisis on first nations is worse than it was. Health care continues to be underfunded and inadequate, and when it comes to middle-class jobs, our north has lost hundreds of them, and the federal government has not lifted a finger.
As for climate change, not only has Canada failed, but first nations and northern communities are paying the price. The disappearing ice roads point to the urgent need for all-weather roads, and as wildlife is impacted, so are people. There must be immediate action.
Enough of the talk. First nations, Métis and northern people deserve a federal government on their side, one that works with them to take on climate change and crushing inequality. The Liberals are not the answer, and we cannot go back to the Conservatives. Only the NDP will fight for our north and our Canada.
Collapse
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
View Robert Sopuck Profile
2019-06-17 14:06 [p.29176]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a bittersweet moment as I rise to give the last member's statement of my political career as a member of Parliament for the great constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. For three elections, the voters of this wonderful constituency have returned me to Ottawa to work on their behalf. The trust they have placed in me is truly humbling, and I hope that I have lived up to their expectations. My passion to do what I can to protect and defend our rural way of life remains undiminished.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my political idol, the great Duff Roblin, former premier of Manitoba. His achievements on behalf of all Manitobans have stood the test of time, and he inspired me with his vision and accomplishments. He proved to me that government can be a force for good.
To my beloved wife, Caroline, and my beautiful family, I thank them for the love, support and guidance over these years. All I can say is that I love them all. To my beautiful grandchildren, Eden, Esmee and Senon, who love nature, our farm and the outdoors as much as I do, all I can say is Papa's coming home.
Collapse
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
Lib. (MB)
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
2019-06-17 14:12 [p.29177]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the Winnipeg General Strike was the largest labour action ever seen, lasting six weeks as thousands walked off the job demanding better working conditions. Thirty thousand civilians left their jobs on May 15, including veterans who six months earlier had fought in World War I. First out were the 500 telephone operators known as the “Hello Girls”.
A courageous young woman named Helen Armstrong played a big role in the movement. She held soup kitchens for strikers and their families, free for women. For her involvement, she was imprisoned three times and called a female Bolshevik. In commemoration, we held a soup kitchen in the Ukrainian Labour Temple to honour the strong women and men who took part in fighting for workers' rights.
It is because of these courageous strikers that the next prime minister, a Liberal, brought in major labour reforms. One hundred years later, I am proud to stand here today to celebrate what they achieved for women and Canadian workers across the nation.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-17 14:18 [p.29178]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to pipelines, four years have proven that no matter what side of the issue people are on, nobody can trust the Liberals.
We fully expect them to approve Trans Mountain later this week, just so they can say they did. Then we fully expect them to do absolutely nothing to get it built, because they do not want to upset voters in Burnaby.
Why will the Liberals not just admit that they do not want pipelines and that Trans Mountain will never actually get built under their watch?
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-17 14:20 [p.29179]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Prime Minister promised that construction would start on TMX, and a year later not an ounce of dirt has been moved. The Prime Minister says one thing in one part of the country, and he says something completely different in another part, because, just like on everything else, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
The Prime Minister does not support pipelines and the jobs that come with them. Now he could try to prove us wrong, so will he tell us right now when construction on TMX will start in Burnaby?
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-17 14:21 [p.29179]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, four major pipelines were built under the Conservatives' watch, with not one dollar of taxpayers' money used.
Over the last four years, though, the Prime Minister has done everything in his power to destroy jobs in Canada's energy sectors. He is forcing through devastating bills, like Bill C-48 and the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69. Right now, he is playing political games with the TMX pipeline.
Will the Prime Minister finally be honest with our energy workers and admit he has no intention for construction to start in Burnaby?
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 14:39 [p.29182]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to the question. It was over 20 years ago that the Liberals first promised pharmacare. They have had three majority governments since then, and their common criticism of the NDP is that we are in too big of a hurry. We are in a hurry. We think it should not have taken 20 years for Canadians to get affordable access to drugs. We are not prepared to apologize for that in the least. We also know, because the science tells us, that preventative access to things like dental care and eye care are less expensive in the long term and improve quality of life. Will they commit today to moving forward on that?
Collapse
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2019-06-17 14:51 [p.29185]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is under threat. The United States refuses to recognize our sovereignty over our Arctic waters.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, called our claim to the Northwest Passage “illegitimate”. The Arctic has never been a priority to the Liberals, and the Prime Minister has never stood up for our Arctic sovereignty.
The Prime Minister is meeting with President Trump on Thursday. Does the Prime Minister plan to continue his policy of giving away our sovereignty to Trump or will he finally fight for Arctic?
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-17 15:02 [p.29187]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, a Vale tailings dam by my community of Thompson has been flagged by outside investigators for stability concerns. Vale told its shareholders of this, but not people living on the ground. In fact, it took an investigative report from The Wall Street Journal for this to come to light. No one wants another Mount Polley disaster, but this is a company that has shown repeatedly that it does not take these kinds of safety concerns seriously.
What is the government doing to ensure the protection of the people and the environment around Thompson and in our north?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 15:35 [p.29192]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to nine petitions.
Collapse
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
Lib. (MB)
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
2019-06-17 15:45 [p.29194]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Summary of Evidence of Capacity Building on Reserves”.
I take this opportunity to recognize my colleague, Kevin Waugh, a former school trustee, who understands education and carried the passion of that to this study.
However, it is a study that we did not have an opportunity to complete. All members of our committee would encourage the next government and the next INAN committee to consider continuing this important work, which deals with the training and employment of indigenous people on reserve.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 16:02 [p.29197]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2458, 2469 and 2470.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 16:02 [p.29198]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2454 to 2457, 2459 to 2468 and 2471 to 2476 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 16:03 [p.29200]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-17 17:44 [p.29211]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we all love Pope Francis because he is such a defender of social justice. I would like to quote from the National Post:
Pope Francis said on Friday that carbon pricing is “essential” to stem global warming—his clearest statement yet in support of penalizing polluters—and appealed to climate change deniers to listen to science.
This is extremely important, because we actually have a credible plan, which is before Parliament and before the Canadian public, and we need to do something. I call on good Catholics and on all Canadians to get behind the Pope and get behind this plan to make sure that we actually do something so we have a good environment for future generations.
Is this plan really the only plan that we have before Canadians? It is a very good plan, but we need to get started and not wait and wait and wait and listen to those deniers who would deny us the opportunity, like Doug Ford, or those in Alberta, or those across the country who deny continually, those Conservatives—
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 17:57 [p.29213]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, if we were to take a look at what has taken place over the last couple of years, we would see a very clear indication of a government that understands that we need to have the environment working hand in hand with the economy. That is the expectation a vast majority of Canadians have of government. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives saying that we are not doing enough on the economy side, and on the other, we have the New Democrats saying that we are not doing enough on the environment side.
I think this is a healthy debate. We want to move forward. We recognize the emergency nature of our environment. In particular, it has been encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary and the minister responsible for Canada's environment file enunciate some of the policies we have.
With respect to much of NDP policy, and I will use the TMX pipeline as an example, it seems that the NDP is in opposition to any sort of pipeline expansion whatsoever. I wonder if my colleague across the way can make that very clear statement on behalf of the New Democrats regarding their position today. Does the NDP support any form of pipeline expansion?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 18:41 [p.29220]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the comments of the leader of the Green Party on a variety of different issues, particularly those that deal with the environment.
We have seen some significant budgetary and legislative measures on how we can improve the conditions in Canada, whether it is the price on pollution, which is a fairly significant program that originated out of the Paris agreement, to some of the incentives that are provided through the budget to try to get individuals to purchase more electric vehicles, to many of the different departments, like the Department of National Defence, about which the previous speaker talked, a small but important one, going from a C-130 for search and rescue to a C-295, which is healthy on the environment.
I wonder if the leader of the Green Party would provide some thoughts on it not only being important for us to look at the bigger picture, but for all ministers to look at ways in which they can also make a difference from within their departments.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 18:51 [p.29221]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is a busy man, connecting with Canadians and doing all sorts of wonderful things. However, the member opposite should know that he is not to make reference to the presence of a member inside the House.
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 21:03 [p.29236]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight and speak to the government's motion concerning the Senate amendments to the access to information proposal by the current government which, as my colleague previously stated, was a pretty major disappointment for a lot of people in the access to information community who watch this closely, including journalists. There has been some debate in the House recently about the importance of journalism and government attempts to try to buttress the industry. Whether the Liberals are doing that the right way or the wrong way, that is another debate for another day and one that we have had already.
I do not think there is any dispute that the access to information laws of a country are one of the most important tools in journalists' tool kit who cover government. It is under the access to information laws, often in the absence of an informant or someone who is willing to leak information who is on the inside, that journalists are able to get information that is the beginning of a story about something that is going on that the government does not want Canadians to know about. That is why it is important that we have a good access to information regime.
I heard members on the other side tonight mention quite rightly that Canada has not had any kind of amendment to its access to information regime since it was brought into force in 1983. That is why there was a fair bit of excitement around the idea that Canada would get an update to its access to information regime. It is why people were disappointed when, in the view of the Information Commissioner, when this legislation was first presented, she said the status quo from 1983 is actually better than what the government has proposed.
In fact, we heard at committee not only in light of the event referred to in this quote, but the Duffy scandal of the next government and the SNC-Lavalin scandal that we bore witness to here in the House this spring, the former Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, said:
When I was preparing for this committee, I went back to the request that was made by Daniel LeBlanc, the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. That request would not have met the new requirement under Bill C-58. That's a perfect example of how new section 6, as it is currently worded in Bill C-58, would amount to a massive regression.
What is interesting about that is the extent to which it shows that the rhetoric by the government around the Liberals' intentions to reform the access to information regime in a way that actually improves it did not match up with their effort in the bill. When we look at the efforts that were made at committee by my colleagues in the NDP to amend this legislation and to have those amendments summarily rejected by the government was another sign, frankly, of bad faith when it came to amending the access regime.
I was on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics at the beginning of Parliament. We heard often from Minister Brison at the time who was the lead on the file for the government, about how great this would be, that we were now going to get reform for the bill after waiting decades and decades. This was going to be the government to do it. It was going to be wonderful, great and Canadians were going to have unprecedented access to government and information about government.
When the bill was finally tabled after a long wait and a lot of pressing in the House and at committee, about when the government was finally going to get around to it, it looked nothing like the promises in the Liberal platform. It looked nothing like the Prime Minister's own ideas for access to information reform that he presented in a private member's bill in the previous Parliament. One does wonder what happened in the interim to get a bill that was such a hodgepodge.
A lot of the selling of the bill is traded on a couple of distinctions that have been abused in order to obfuscate what is truly wrong with this legislation. Example number one would be the distinction between proactive disclosure of information on the part of government and access to information by Canadians who want to access information that the government may not want them to access because it may not be in the political interests of the government of the day to have Canadians access that information. I referred earlier to the sponsorship scandal, the Duffy scandal and the SNC-Lavalin scandal, all cases where government had an interest in having Canadians not be able to access certain information.
What we heard from Minister Brison at the time and his successors is that Canadians should be happy that the government is going to voluntarily publish more information on its own terms, information that it selects and in a format that it selects. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not that Canadians should not be happy that the government is interested in making some more information available in particular ways, but that is not the point of the access to information laws.
The access to information regime is not about patting the government on the back for making certain things accessible because it wants to and is presenting it in a certain format. We do not need legislation for proactive disclosure at all. A legislative framework is for Canadians who want access to certain information that the government does not want them to have. That is the purpose of an access to information regime and it is exactly there that the criticisms of the Information Commissioner and other stakeholders, like journalists, really hit the nail on the head. It is not that there will not be more information under some other definition available, it is that journalists and others who demand certain information of the government will be in a worse position to do so, including certain amendments that have to do with the way requests for information are filed in the first place.
The fact of the matter is that the government's idea was that people should already know a lot, not about the subject they are asking about but about the specific document they are asking about, despite never having seen that document or necessarily knowing which documents exist and which ones do not. Therefore, limiting the requirements of government departments to publish information about what documents exist and expecting that the person asking is going to have to know that, would know that or could know that is an unreasonable threshold for Canadians wanting to understand more about how their government works.
Another important distinction that has been equivocated upon in order to defend this legislation that is not very helpful is the difference between exclusions and exemptions. The committee heard the importance from the Information Commissioner's point of view, but also that of many stakeholders, of moving away from an exclusion regime. When things are excluded, that means the government says information falls under an exclusion, like cabinet confidence. There is no oversight of that. There is no independent person to look at that document and say it is not something that should be protected under cabinet confidence because it is not advice to government, it was a background document or something else.
One of the examples given at committee was putting all of the relatively less sensitive information that may be inconvenient for government to have Canadians know about on a cart, roll it through the cabinet room during a cabinet meeting and then say it was in the cabinet room so it is protected under an exclusion for cabinet confidence. That would be quite disingenuous. That would be a terrible thing to do, but some of us believe that kind of disingenuity would not be unprecedented in politics. If some members on the other side are not willing to believe it of their own government, they might believe it of other governments.
An access to information regime ought to create circumstances where that is not possible and Canadians can have confidence that unscrupulous governments are not doing that. The problem with exclusion-based regimes is that they do not give Canadians that confidence. The belief of New Democrats and many Canadians concerned with these issues is that it would be reasonable to have, instead of an exclusion, an exemption where the government could say something is a cabinet confidence, it was advice to government and it ought not be released. The Information Commissioner would then have the ability to look at those documents, as someone who deals with sensitive information all the time. There are civil servants and officers of Parliament who deal with confidential documents. We are not asking for something unprecedented. In that role, the Information Commissioner would be able to review those documents and determine whether in fact it is something that ought not be released because it is a genuine cabinet confidence or something that could be released because the government of the day was abusing that exemption. That was not addressed.
In fact, New Democrats wanted the Information Commissioner to have order-making power. The Information Commissioner has a kind of order-making power under this legislation, but what the Senate foresaw, as we did in our recommendations, was that order-making power should have the force of Federal Court. One of the virtues of giving the Information Commissioner order-making power was predicated upon the idea that those orders would have the force of Federal Court. It was meant to remove one of the things that causes massive delay, which is judicial appeal of denials of access to information requests.
If the Information Commissioner is going to be able to make an order, but it does not have the same force in court, that means people are going to have to go to the Federal Court to get it to back up that order and give it the force it should have had in the first place. That is certainly a missed opportunity there. The government motion today takes out the Senate amendment that would give that authority to the Information Commissioner's order, thereby undercutting one of the important benefits of giving the Information Commissioner order-making power in the first place.
Of course, one of the features of the PMO's private member's bill in the last Parliament and a commitment in the Liberal platform was to apply the act to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. I know that was something that Minister Brison was quite verbose about in the early days of the Parliament, and then it kind of fell out. It is funny that he should come up. It is funny that he should be the person in charge of access to information reform, because Mr. Brison, in another life in this place, was the minister responsible for defending the previous Liberal government for the sponsorship scandal. In fact, I am preceded by another member for Elmwood—Transcona, who called him the “clown prince of spin”, I believe, in relation to his performance on that file. He was, in the same form, defending the current government's reforms of the access to information laws, which really do not cut the mustard, but were being spun a good yarn by Mr. Brison. That was an obvious omission with respect to a clear promise in the Liberal platform that the access to information laws would apply to the PMO and ministers' offices. We had a very good example this spring as to why Canadians would want that to be the case.
We did see an instance around the SNC-Lavalin scandal of the importance of good note-taking when it comes to conversations between ministers and senior political staff in some cases or between ministers or between political senior staff. That is why the access to information all-party committee recommended that there also be a duty to document. Not only did we see instances where notes were decisive in testimony this spring here in Ottawa, but we know that in other jurisdictions there have been serious scandals about governments that deliberately set out to communicate among their senior political staff and ministers in such a way as to create a vacuum of documentation.
That is a problem for journalists and interested Canadians who want to use an access to information regime in order to keep their finger on the pulse of what is happening in government today. However, I would say, as somebody who has made a study of history, that it is also a real loss for people in the future who are trying to understand why governments of the past made certain decisions. Therefore, it is a problem if we do not have an enforceable expectation that people in government who are responsible for making decisions about serious government resources, whether they are financial or other resources, and bringing the power of government to bear through regulation and legislation, are not required to ever document the reasons for their decision-making. How then do people understand the decision-making of that government, whether it is the government of the day or a government of the past? That is why there have been clear and consistent recommendations for a duty to document. It is a disappointment that we do not have that in this legislation.
Those are some of my thoughts that I want to put on the record. For me, the conclusion is obvious, which is that, for as much as people have waited a long time for these changes and there was a lot of hype around what these changes would mean, they do not meet the bar.
I was reading in my notes that, currently, Canada is ranked somewhere around 49th in the world for its access to information regime and if we were to pass this legislation in its current form we would ascend all the way to 46th. I submit that a once-in-a-generation reform to the access to information regime ought to move the needle a heck of a lot more than that. That is why I think it is fair for people to view this legislation as a serious disappointment.
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 21:19 [p.29238]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we are talking about a piece of legislation that has not been changed since 1983. I was born in 1984, so in my lifetime, this legislation has not been amended. It has not been changed. We can easily communicate the extent to which this act just does not pass muster by talking about the period of time during which it has not had reform. It would be unfortunate if these changes were passed and we could no longer communicate the absolute deficiency of Canada's access to information regime in a point as succinct and powerful as the fact that it has not been amended in such a long time.
There are certain benefits, perhaps, and certain improvements, but they just do not do it. There is no reason Canada should not be an example in the world of a good access to information regime. We want to pride ourselves on democracy. Of course, we still have a completely unelected and unaccountable Senate, so one wonders how one can with any real sense of consistency. That is harder to change.
One thing we can change a lot more easily is our access to information regime. I am inclined to say that there is a proper signal in the fact that changes have not been made for so long, and when we do finally make them, they ought to be the right ones, and they ought to make Canada a leader. We should not pass second best.
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 21:22 [p.29239]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am going by memory here, but when the access to information, privacy and ethics committee undertook a review of the legislation at the beginning of this Parliament, there was some fanfare about the fact that we were, after somewhere between seven and 12 years, getting to the mandatory five-year statutory review. There have been mandatory statutory reviews of the access to information regime in the past. My understanding is that this is not new, but if there are no sanctions for not conducting those reviews, we get into a situation where committees have other priorities, particularly if they are led by a government that may not have a serious interest in substantially changing the access to information law.
My understanding, when we undertook our review at the beginning of this Parliament, was that we were actually, finally, conducting a mandatory five-year review and that it had been much longer than five years. It is not that I do not think it serves a purpose, but it made me a lot more skeptical about the force of a mandatory review. I do not think it is a bad thing, but there is the question of how we actually make sure that a mandatory review takes place and whether there is any consequence if it does not.
As we talk about other mandatory reviews, my understanding is that we are not talking about any kind of enforcement regime that would ensure that those reviews were undertaken. The member knows well that committees are masters of their own domain, short of an order from the House requiring them to do this, which apparently the legislation did not do, or we would have been doing a lot more mandatory statutory reviews around here than we have.
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 21:25 [p.29239]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, one of the things that might be done was in Senate amendment 3, which was a recommendation from the former information commissioner. I do not know if it was a recommendation of the current Information Commissioner. If I have it right, this was an amendment that spoke to the Information Commissioner reviewing extensions. Right now, departments can effectively grant themselves extensions for requests. If requests ought to be answered in 30 or 60 days, a department can write back and say that it is going to be 200 days or three years or whatever the department figures is adequate, and they are not under any requirement to justify that to anyone.
Part of the idea was that if they were asking for an extension that exceeded 30 days, they would have to go to the Information Commissioner and make a case as to why they were not able to satisfy that request within the normal period. There might even have been some negotiation with the Information Commissioner about what was an adequate extension. Therefore, we would not just take the department's word for it. However, that amendment did not survive, in my understanding, in the government motion.
It is quite right that one of the big frustrations with the current regime, not the only one but a big one, is the massive extensions that are self-granted by government, essentially without any third-party review. I think a pretty clear way of solving that problem would be to kick the extraordinary extensions over to the Information Commissioner to ensure that they really were required. However, my understanding is that we are not going to see that here. This is another example of where we are setting the bar too low for a once-in-generation reform of our access to information laws.
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 21:27 [p.29239]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I think that is one of the fundamental debates about access to information. I would tend to agree with those who argue that if we allow more access to information and provide more information publicly about what considerations are informing public policy decisions by government, we will end up with better public policy. We will have less of the private interests of political actors playing a role in government decision-making if people know that this is going to become public and that they may then suffer political consequences for it.
The other side of the argument, which seems to be the side of the argument ultimately backed by the government, is that somehow, by keeping the reasons for government decisions private, we will end up with better decisions in the public interest. I think that is demonstrably false.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 21:45 [p.29242]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the NDP House leader provided comments about the New Democrats being like busy bees. That is not what I think of in terms of the analogy, because bees are kind of sweet and they provide some good things. I see it more as a mosquito sucking the life out of things. At the end of the day—
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-17 21:46 [p.29242]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the member was very critical of the Access to Information Act. She was very critical of Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, all of these wonderful pieces of historical legislation that have moved the bar significantly forward.
The other day, we talked about national pharmacare, and the New Democrats asked, what about hearing and all of these other things? We talk about a national housing strategy, and they say we need to have more houses. We could never, ever please the New Democratic Party here. There is no legislation before the House that they would say they agree with it in its entirety and that we have done a good job on.
Does the member opposite not recognize that within this legislation, where there are significant reforms that have been long overdue, over 30 years overdue, along with other pieces of legislation, there are a lot of good things happening? They can say some positive things. Even when I was in opposition, I said positive things at times to the government. It is okay to agree that the legislation is good at times. Would the member not agree?
Collapse
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-06-17 23:31 [p.29256]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for bringing us back to the original intention of the bill, which was to address the consequences of the Jordan decision and, particularly, the very serious problem of people committing serious crimes getting off scot-free because they are not getting to trial in a timely manner. My colleague did a good job of elucidating how the mandatory minimum sentence regime contributed to those delays, the problems they represent and the fact that it is not represented in the bill.
Near the end of his remarks, my colleague also made mention of how it is the case that the hybridization of certain offences may well end up meaning that we download the delays that currently are in Federal Court to provincial courts. It seems to me that is an important aspect to consider. Some people will recall a different kind of problem in the 1990s, when the federal government balanced its budget by offloading the financial issues on the provision of health services to provinces. I am concerned about the possibility of a similar problem, where the federal government is seeking to claim a victory on an important issue by passing the problem down to provinces, seeing those same problems recur, but in a different place, and the federal government saying it is not its responsibility and it did its job, even though it was really just a downloading.
The member did not have time in his remarks to elaborate on that and I am wondering if he could do that now.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2019-06-14 11:02 [p.29117]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again rise in the House to talk about a resident association in my riding of Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital.
Niakwa Park is a small but vibrant community that was built some 65 years ago. It is well represented by an active residents association. Chaired by Chris Chipman, the volunteer-led Niakwa Park Residents Association organizes many family-friendly activities throughout the year: a winter sleigh ride, an outdoor ice rink, pizza in the park, movie night in the park and an annual picnic.
It is always a pleasure to attend events organized by the residents of Niakwa Park and to meet people from that neighbourhood.
The Niakwa Park Residents Association is another great example of how dedicated volunteers help build inclusive and dynamic communities.
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-14 11:25 [p.29122]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want bold action on climate change, and they know that there is no time to waste.
The NDP has called on the government to invest in green jobs and green energy, but what did the Prime Minister do? He bought fridges and pipelines for his billionaire pals. Four years in power, and all we have seen from the Liberal government are more subsidies for big oil and its pipelines. This is not how we save the environment.
When will the Liberals stop siding with the big polluters so we can win the fight against climate change?
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-14 11:26 [p.29122]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, people in our north and across the country are forced to make impossible choices because of the high cost of medication.
It is inconceivable that in 2019, in Canada, people have to choose between buying food and medication. Liberals have been putting pharmaceutical and insurance companies in the driver's seat, but the Hoskins advisory board is clear: Canadians need a universal, public, single-payer pharmacare.
This is what the NDP has been pushing for. Enough of the half-measures and the favours to the Liberals' corporate friends. Will the Liberal government implement universal, comprehensive, public pharmacare, yes or no?
Collapse
View Terry Duguid Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Terry Duguid Profile
2019-06-14 12:03 [p.29129]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for her question and for her tireless advocacy.
Our government is focused on gender equality and economic security by creating the Canada child benefit, by creating 40,000 child care spaces, by supporting women in STEM and in the skilled trades and by ensuring equal pay for work of equal value.
With one million jobs and historically low unemployment, Canadians see real progress towards gender equality and economic security for the women of Canada.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-14 12:15 [p.29131]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to seven petitions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-14 12:33 [p.29134]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2442, 2445, 2446 and 2452.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-14 12:34 [p.29135]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2439 to 2441, 2443, 2444, 2447 to 2451 and 2453 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-14 12:34 [p.29137]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-14 13:00 [p.29140]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the member, but I appreciate his thoughts on the legislation. In terms of his closing comments, in reflecting on the legislation, the member has had ample opportunity in different ways to have a significant contribution both inside the House and outside the House in committees and in the Senate. He will find not only that the legislation is supported by many different stakeholders, but even within the chamber it is supported by New Democrats, from what I understand, by Green Party members, from what I understand, and by others who are supporting the legislation and wanting to see it go forward.
Can the member opposite, in a very clear way, indicate why, if it were up to the Conservative Party, the legislation would never pass? If we provided the member what he wanted, unlimited debates on time where any grouping of a number of MPs would be able to prevent the government from being able to pass the legislation, does he believe that would be a good thing? If so, why did Stephen Harper never believe that to be the case?
Collapse
View Terry Duguid Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Terry Duguid Profile
2019-06-14 13:03 [p.29140]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know there is a fellow zoologist in the House with me. I call myself an environmental biologist by trade.
I wonder if the hon. member would reflect back on some of the dark days that my colleague from Winnipeg North and others have mentioned. We had a fisheries department and a Fisheries Act that were very much guided by science and evidence. Two hundred DFO scientists were fired. Let us remember the Experimental Lakes Area. You remember, Mr. Speaker; you come from lake country. The Experimental Lakes Area, the finest outdoor laboratory in the world, was shuttered by the Conservatives. The Freshwater Institute was depopulated of scientists.
I wonder if the hon. member would just offer us a few comments on his party's view of the importance of science as it has guided this legislation through our chamber.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 10:06 [p.29035]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
Collapse
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
View Robert Sopuck Profile
2019-06-13 10:49 [p.29037]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very disingenuous here. I sat in on the hearings of Bill C-68. Not a single opponent of what we did in 2012 could prove, in any way, shape or form, that those changes had any effect on fish populations or fish communities. Colleagues can look at the record.
Under our former Conservative government, in 2010, for example, the Pacific salmon run in the Fraser River was a record. In 2014, that run was even higher. Under the Liberal government's watch, Pacific salmon stocks are collapsing and the Chinook salmon stock is the poster boy for that.
Our committee produced a unanimous report on Atlantic salmon, with a number of recommendations. We saw the minister's response. Not a single part of that letter dealt with the 17 unanimous recommendations, such as smallmouth bass in Miramichi Lake, overfishing by Greenland and excessive predation by seals and striped bass. The response did not deal with any of that.
Why is this department so inept and uncaring for fisheries communities and fish stocks?
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-13 10:51 [p.29037]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.
I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.
Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?
Collapse
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
View Robert Sopuck Profile
2019-06-13 11:08 [p.29040]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, again, the minister cannot provide a single example of any harm to a fish population from the Fisheries Act of 2012. However, his government caused harm to fisheries.
I remember early in the Liberals' mandate when Denis Coderre, who is a former Liberal member and was then the mayor of Montreal, begged and pleaded when we were in government to allow the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage. Our Conservative government said no. As soon as the Liberal government came in, it allowed the dumping into the St. Lawrence of millions of litres of raw sewage. Was there a Fisheries Act charge? Absolutely not.
Recently, the Liberals introduced the new marine mammal regulations, which will throttle the economy of Churchill, Manitoba, where whale watching is an integral part of that struggling economy. I have contacted the minister on a number of occasions about this and he simply does not care about communities. He only cares about his cronies in the Liberal Party, who do their best to destroy fish habitat, without him even caring. Why is that?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 12:30 [p.29048]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the government House leader and member for Waterloo is consistently a strong advocate for her constituents in ensuring hard work is done every day the House sits. I am wondering if she can reflect on how important it is that we continue to work hard for Canadians.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-13 13:40 [p.29053]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member knows that in the Conservative-run province of Manitoba, two agreements had been signed with the Métis people for hydro development. Under that government in Manitoba, the Conservatives started cancelling those treaties, I mean agreements. Agreements do sound a lot like treaties. Where is the respect in Manitoba for indigenous rights under a Conservative government?
As we approach the 150th anniversary of the Province of Manitoba, when we say those words at the beginning of every speech, “We are here on the traditional lands of the Métis nation”, we must recognize that this province was founded by the Métis people under their leader Louis Riel.
I would like to quote David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation, who said, “Do you want to get revenge on the Métis people?”
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, should we be respecting indigenous rights right across this country, not only by Liberal or NDP governments but also by Conservative governments?
Collapse
View Robert Sopuck Profile
CPC (MB)
View Robert Sopuck Profile
2019-06-13 13:42 [p.29053]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that this was a great concern of John Diefenbaker, who gave indigenous people the vote. Most of the ugly residential school experiences were under the Liberal government of Mackenzie King. Let us not point fingers when it is not required.
I should also make a point for my colleague from Manitoba. The agreement he referred to was by Manitoba Hydro, not by the Manitoba government.
The crocodile tears of all the members opposite crying for indigenous people are truly sickening. All they talk about is process, process, process. There has not been a single major development in this country that has helped aboriginal people, ever.
I am going to make a prediction right now. If all the socio-economic indicators of indigenous communities were measured when the Liberal government took office and when it is going to leave office on October 21, I absolutely guarantee that not a single socio-economic indicator will have improved.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 14:30 [p.29061]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, just like everything else the Prime Minister touches, his “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, has turned into a dumpster fire, ticking off and alienating the majority of provinces. National unity is at stake, but instead of taking the premiers' concerns seriously, the Prime Minister keeps insulting them with his “I am the boss and I know best” attitude.
Does the Prime Minister realize the harm he is doing and what is at stake? He is putting his ego and his own political interests ahead of national unity.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 14:31 [p.29061]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the environment minister are doing everything they can to destroy Canada's energy sector. Their “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, would be devastating to hard-working families in the oil and gas sector, and they know it.
Sadly, the Liberals will be shutting down debate on this bill later today, forcing this destructive legislation on Canadians. Nine premiers have raised concerns, but the Prime Minister is ignoring them.
Will the Prime Minister finally stop attacking our natural resources sector, listen to the premiers and withdraw this horrible bill?
Collapse
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2019-06-13 14:41 [p.29063]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission project would bring clean, green Manitoba energy to coal-burning Minnesota. After five years of consultations, and approval from both Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission and the National Energy Board, the Prime Minister still refuses to approve this project. He is too proud to approve a project from a Conservative provincial government that is better for the environment than anything he can come up with.
When will the Prime Minister put aside his ego, get out of the way of clean, green Manitoba energy and approve this project?
Collapse
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Jim Carr Profile
2019-06-13 14:50 [p.29065]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Guelph for his mother-in-law.
Last week, I led a canola trade mission to Japan and South Korea with my counterparts from Alberta and Saskatchewan and the member for Niagara West. The mission was a great way for government and industry to come together to promote the sale of Canadian canola and other agricultural products.
Today, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I announced that Export Development Canada would provide $150 million in insurance support for Canadian canola producers as they explore new markets. We will always support canola farmers.
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-13 14:56 [p.29066]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government betrayed the Dene in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. For years, they have been negotiating to pursue their right to land and resources north of 60.
They were so close to reaching an agreement. A few weeks ago, they were told one thing about consultations and initialling and then at the last minute, the minister reversed her position.
This is an egregious act of bad faith. It sets the Dene communities back years. It is the opposite of reconciliation.
What will the minister do to fix this major problem?
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 15:16 [p.29070]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if she could inform us of the business for the rest of this week and next week. Next week is our last scheduled week, so we would like to know what the House leader has scheduled.
I am particularly interested in the climate emergency motion that the government brought forward, Motion No. 29. It seems odd to us that the Liberals do not want to talk about it, although maybe it is because they do not have a plan to combat climate change. We on this side of the House want to continue to debate and discuss this important motion.
We are all wondering if at some point this week or next week we will be discussing Motion No. 29.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 15:51 [p.29074]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary. I had the opportunity at a much earlier date to provide some thoughts on the legislation.
What we have before us is actually some very substantial changes overall, a modernization in fact, many would argue, within the legislation itself, something that was long overdue. We have witnessed a great deal of work over the last couple of years. Even prior to the legislation coming before the House, there was a great deal of consultation done.
Could my colleague provide his thoughts on how we got to where we are today?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 16:54 [p.29082]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that my colleague across the way an award recipient for his role in the media. We all know the media is an important part of our democracy. He was also the recipient of the Parliamentarian of the Year award last year, and I congratulate him for that.
Having said that, I would ask the member to reflect on the 10 years of Stephen Harper. There was a commitment from the former Conservative government to attempt to do something with access to information. We made a commitment in the last federal election that we would bring forward legislation, and this is the most detailed, thorough piece of legislation in the last 30-plus years dealing with access to information. As a government, we believe in accountability and transparency.
Would the member have anything to say in regard to the era of Stephen Harper, who also made the commitment but failed to live up to that commitment?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 19:03 [p.29100]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I sat patiently and listened to the member opposite pose a very interesting question, to say the least. It was very quiet and we could hear the question, even though we did not like the question. The minister stood up to answer the question and it was a constant heckle, much like the opposition members are doing right now. It is difficult at times to even hear the minister answer. I would ask that there be decorum on the other side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 19:04 [p.29100]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, here is what is happening. This is the most destructive bill to this country that has been proposed by any government and the debate has been shut down. Members of Parliament are not allowed to speak their constituents' concerns, so there has been a lot of heckling going on. I agree because Bill C-69 is the worst piece of legislation—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 19:50 [p.29102]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that members please show some respect and stop talking on that side of the House.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-13 19:51 [p.29102]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, day in and day out we have members who are wearing different buttons of various kinds for different causes. I look across the aisle, and I see dinosaurs on people's desks, and I see shirts of sports teams they support. I proudly wear this button, and my colleagues proudly wear this button, and I would say that it is my right to do so.
We have less than 10 minutes left to debate this important motion before the government rams this destructive legislation across this aisle and to Canadians, so—
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-13 21:02 [p.29107]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 12 midnight.
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-12 14:37 [p.28989]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister does. If people raise concerns or disagree with him and what he is doing, he dismisses them, tries to discredit them and calls them names. Members can just ask the former attorney general about what happened to her.
Now the Prime Minister is insulting and dismissing provinces that disagree with his “no more pipelines” Bill C-69. Does the Prime Minister realize that he, and no one else, is the biggest threat to Canada's unity?
Collapse
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-12 14:38 [p.28989]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is picking a fight with Manitobans by blocking the Manitoba-Minnesota hydro project. He is picking a fight with nine out of 10 provinces that have serious concerns with his “no more pipelines” bill. He is picking a fight with almost 60% of Canadians in provinces that reject his carbon tax.
The Prime Minister's dismissal of provincial concerns is provoking a possible constitutional crisis. Does the Prime Minister not see that his divisive and hostile treatment of these premiers is what is causing the real threat to national unity?
Collapse
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-06-12 15:03 [p.28994]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this past week Manitoba decided to privatize Lifeflight, our air ambulance service. This goes against the wishes of first nations, Métis and northern communities, and countless doctors and nurses. This move could force crews to take risks for profit rather than be solely concerned with the health of patients.
First nations have asked for the federal government to step in, given that they are very concerned. Let us be clear: Lives are at stake. Will the federal government step in to ensure the health and safety of northern Canadians?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-12 15:21 [p.28997]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-12 15:41 [p.29001]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2429, 2431 and 2432.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2019-06-12 15:41 [p.29002]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2426 to 2428, 2430, and 2433 to 2438 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 100 of 8277 | Page: 1 of 83

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data