44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2022 02:00PM
- Oct/19/22 3:22:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer condolences on behalf of the Liberal caucus. Bill Blaikie was an individual who accomplished a great deal in many different ways. He has, in fact, been an inspiration.
When I think of politicians in Manitoba, he was second to no other in being able to transcend partisan politics. Yes, he could be partisan at times. I was at the unfortunate end of that, I must say, on one occasion in particular early in my political career, but that is for another day. There are individuals in Manitoba, whether Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal or of any other political affiliation, who look to Bill Blaikie as an inspiration, as someone who understood the principles of what it meant to be a parliamentarian.
Our first responsibility is to our constituents, and Bill Blaikie demonstrated just how important that was. In the 1993 federal election when the NDP was reduced to nine seats, he was a survivor. In fact, I believe he was the only New Democrat elected east of the province of Saskatchewan. I would argue the reason for that was that he had established himself as a constituency person, someone who understood the needs of those who worked at CN Rail and in the many different businesses and occupations of the people he served. That is why he survived back in 1993.
We often think that, if parliamentarians are in government, they can potentially become a minister, but, in opposition, the best a member can be is a critic. I would suggest that it does not matter where members sit in the House of Commons, whether on the government side or the opposition side, and Bill Blaikie demonstrated that. He demonstrated that in the roles he held in the House, whether it was as deputy leader when he came in second to Jack Layton back in the 2003 leadership convention or when he was the health care critic.
We all talk about the Canada Health Act of 1984 and how important that was to our nation, and still is today. Bill Blaikie played a critical role in the development of the Canada Health Act. It is what we make of the positions we are assigned as parliamentarians that determines how much we will enjoy this and how successful we are going to be at implementing it. That is something Bill Blaikie demonstrated so well.
I look to Bill Blaikie as someone who inspired many. The Speaker referred to his attitude when he was Deputy Speaker under Speaker Milliken. Many members may not know, though the member for Elmwood—Transcona would know, but after leaving Ottawa, he was recruited as the candidate for the NDP in the Elmwood riding. He won and later became the minister of conservation. In one year, four or five provincial parks were established. He loved nature. I believe he was an avid canoeist.
He was able to accomplish a great deal even when he left the House of Commons. He was a parliamentarian, first and foremost. That is when I got to know Bill Blaikie, primarily because he was also the government House leader. It is no surprise that I was part of the House leadership team back then. We had lots of discussions and negotiations and his years in opposition gave him a better appreciation even of individuals in the Liberal Party back then when it did not have party status, and I respected that of the late Mr. Blaikie.
There is so much more that I could say, but suffice it to say that William Alexander Blaikie was appointed to the Order of Canada in November 2020 for his lifelong contributions to parliamentary service and for his steadfast commitment to progressive change and social activism.
On behalf of the Liberal caucus, we extend our condolences to his wife of almost 50 years Brenda, his four children, his grandchildren and the many friends and family members who were touched by his life.
663 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 4:50:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That a take-note debate on mental health be held on Thursday, October 20, 2022, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 4:57:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 4:57:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 5:07:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I think there are many aspects of the legislation that really would improve our environment going forward. One of the things I think is quite interesting is the whole issue of labelling of toxic products. That is something that, from what I understand, is being expanded upon, and I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of labelling. From a personal perspective, I believe it is something that is really quite encouraging, and I hope to hear more feedback on that.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 5:37:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some thoughts on the importance of reconciliation.
In the legislation, from what I understand, there is consideration being given to the UNDRIP, which is an important aspect of the legislation. The member might want to provide some thoughts on that or just speak generally to reconciliation and how the government needs to continue its efforts in dealing with the environment on the issue of reconciliation.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:03:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I have a quick question and also a comment.
The question is with respect to whether the Conservative Party will in fact be supporting Bill S-5. The member seemed to be implying that the Conservatives would likely be supporting it, at least in terms of referring it to committee. I would like some clarification on that, because the other day they brought in a concurrence motion in order to prevent debate on the bill.
My comment is regarding the member's reference to plastic bags. Many years ago, when I was an MLA, I was in favour of banning plastic bags. The member could google right now, as I just did, plastic bags in trees, and there are a lot more than what the member is putting on the record when we talk about a healthy environment. I see the banning of plastic bags as a good thing. Does the member support the banning of plastic bags?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I asked the member two questions, and he answered the second part.
My first question was whether the Conservative Party supports Bill S-5. Would it like to see it go to committee?
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation. It is probably one of the more substantive pieces, as it would update and possibly modernize legislation that, in my opinion, is going to have a real impact on Canadians.
Having a right to a healthy environment is something that we should never take too lightly, and I believe this legislation would establish a framework that would provide a much higher level of confidence for Canadians. For the first time, we have a government in Canada that sees that each and every one of us has a right to a healthy environment.
I remember listening to newscasts years ago that talked about the chemicals being put into products that were ultimately sold to children. I am thinking particularly of those small products that infants and young children would put in their mouths, which were primarily imported into Canada. We did not know the chemical makeup of the paints used, for example, but the product was being put directly into the mouths of children and being digested.
There was a time when asbestos was recognized as a wonderful product, and homes in all regions of our country were using the product as a form of insulation. In fact, if we go far enough back in time, we will see that governments were possibly subsidizing and encouraging the consumption of that particular product.
How things have changed, and I see that as a very strong positive. Fast-forward to today. We are now debating a piece of legislation that would deal with many chemicals, carcinogens and toxins, and how we can make a difference in what the public as a whole is seeing in our communities. Whether it is walking down the street or purchasing a product, we would have a better sense of what it means to have a healthy environment in which to live.
Earlier, a member from the Conservative Party asked about this whole idea that any Canadian would be able to request a substance to be assessed, and he tried to portray it in a negative light to my colleague in the form of a question. I, too, will wait as we see the framework flushed out to see how that issue will be appropriately addressed. However, what I take away from this legislation is that, for the first time, we would be empowering the people of Canada to be able to say, “Here is a substance that causes concern from a health perspective that I would like to see the Government of Canada address.”
I see that as a strong, positive measure. The details of that will come out in time, but my colleague answered the question by saying that it would possibly require some sort of triaging to determine priority in terms of possible investigations. I do not know the details of it, but I think the vast majority of people would recognize that this is a significant step forward. When we talk about having a right to a healthy environment, that is the type of example that I will give to the constituents I represent. I think people can relate to that.
Today at second reading we are talking about the principles of the legislation. I am really encouraged that there is a commitment for ongoing reconciliation in the legislation. I made reference earlier to UNDRIP and how that is being brought in, in terms of the calls to action on the issue of reconciliation.
We have a Prime Minister and a government as a whole that recognize the importance of indigenous communities in dealing with legislation such as what we are talking about today. It was a commitment that was given virtually from day one when today's Prime Minister of Canada was first elected not as the Prime Minister but as the leader of the Liberal Party, in third party status here in the House. The Prime Minister made the commitment on the calls to action.
Even within this legislation it might not necessarily be the biggest highlight for all people, but the principle of what is being talked about, and incorporating it into the legislation, is another clear indication of the sincerity of this government wanting to move forward on the issue of reconciliation. It is so vitally important not only for the Prime Minister, but also for all members. Particularly within the Liberal caucus, it is something that is constantly being talked about in a wide variety of different departments.
In talking about existing substances, I do not know much in terms of science, but I do know there are carcinogens and toxins that, as everyone understands and appreciates, cause serious issues for our environment and Canadians in general. There is an established list, at least in part. It is important that we continue to assess and manage those substances. It is important that we keep an open mind, as no doubt there will be a need to add to that list. Something that is talked about within this legislation is the development of a watch-list. I would suggest we could take that back to some of my first comments in regard to Canadians being able to contribute to that.
We often hear from our constituents about the issue of animal testing, how animals are being used as test subjects for different consumer products and more. In a very real way this legislation is moving us forward on that issue in looking at ways in which we could minimize animals being used for testing.
The bill talks about labelling, an issue I made reference to earlier, and how we ensure there is consistency in labelling so there is a better understanding of what is in the contents.
My colleague made reference to the importance of provincial and federal jurisdiction. As a government, we are committed to working with indigenous communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders. Caring for our environment and protecting the health of Canadians is all of our responsibilities. We, as a national government, have a leadership role to play, and I believe Bill S-5 is demonstrating that leadership role.
1032 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:40:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, there are many things I could say.
One of the biggest differences between the Stephen Harper government and this government is that science is a factor. Science matters. We have seen that throughout the pandemic and with many other policy initiatives that have been taken, including in Bill S-5. It is not like someone from anywhere in Canada said that something was a bad substance and needs to be added to the list and then all of a sudden it appeared on the list. No one is saying that at all.
Obviously, science is a factor. At least when the Liberal Party is in government, science matters.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:42:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, our national caucus was at the Bay of Fundy. The tides were out and I was near the ocean bed at the Bay of Fundy. Protecting our bodies of water like the Pacific Ocean, the Bay of Fundy and Lake Winnipeg is of critical importance. That is one of the reasons that we came up with a list of banned single-use plastics.
We will continue to look at ways in which we can improve our environment, in particular our bodies of water.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:44:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the member for Fredericton is a very strong environmental advocate. I really do appreciate the many contributions she makes to the government caucus.
The member is quite right. The elimination of support for the experimental lakes program is another good example. It is something we have reinforced and continue to try to improve wherever we can. I am sure that she will ensure there is a high level of accountability in Fredericton and every other region of the country and that they are being well served by government programs.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member has presented the legislation and his willingness to be open.
No doubt, we as a society have to come to grips with the issues of our money supply, the laundering that does take place, and to a fairly wide spectrum of issues in between. We also need to recognize that it is very much a global issue. The member made reference to that in the last few words of his speech. It is important that, as a nation, we work together with other like-minded nations to deal with the issue of money laundering. I wonder if the member could provide more insight on that specific issue.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the member in my question, I appreciate the manner in which the member has presented his private member's bill and his openness to hearing what other members have to say on what is a very important issue.
Money laundering and the false information that is out there have very significant impacts and ramifications, not only here in Canada but around the world. When we think of some of those ramifications, we can talk about the speculation on the costs of housing, which I think a lot of people can appreciate. We can talk about issues such as the financing and funding of terrorist acts that take place around the world. The amount of harm that is caused as a direct result of money laundering is virtually unlimited.
One of the things we need to take into consideration is actions that have already been taken, because there have been some substantial actions that have been taken. The member, for example, just made reference to the ownership registry, and I think having an ownership registry that is publicly searchable is something that is absolutely critical. Within the budget we have made movement toward that, but I would recognize that the Canada Business Corporations Act is something that is going to have to ultimately be changed. In making those modifications, one of the things we need to do as a government is to work with provincial entities to gain some support in taking some of the necessary actions to ensure the ownership registry the member talked about materializes in a way that is as effective as possible.
I recognize the member makes reference to that, and that is a very important aspect. It is something that we have referenced in budget 2022, and we did not stop there. In terms of the importance of our financial markets, and here I talk about money supply and so forth, we have to take into consideration institutions such as FINTRAC. FINTRAC is there to protect the interests of Canadians. It is very close to, if it has not already, establishing a financial intelligence unit, and there was a commitment from the federal budget of just under $90 million to support and advance that.
FINTRAC has an incredible record, and there are ways we can use FINTRAC's record to assist in dealing with and broadening the ways it can possibly help out on money laundering issues and the issues related to false information, which are actually quite rampant. It is something that is not just unique to Canada. It is becoming a larger issue from a global perspective. That is why I posed the question to the member in regard to Canada's role in advocating for global leadership, because in many ways the best way to tackle it, at least in good part, is to get like-minded countries working together.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is very much concerned about that issue and does make efforts to try to ensure there is more of a global approach to dealing with money laundering. We have actually taken steps to establish a new Canada financial crimes agency within the budget, and again it is a move to try to address the issue right up front in a very direct way, which I think people can really appreciate.
When we talk about legislative reviews that are necessary, we have made a commitment to look at how money has been digitized. That is such a critical issue. We heard the leader of the Conservative Party talk about cryptocurrency. Members will recall his commitment to cryptocurrency. I wonder to what degree the leader of the Conservative Party actually took into consideration the possibility of laundering taking place in that digital atmosphere.
Digital money and the markets it is getting into continue to expand, so as a government we have made a commitment to move forward on that issue. The coming of the Internet and the things that take place digitally have expanded more than a hundredfold over the years. The manner in which large sums of money travel the world is quite significant and is having an impact in many different ways on our currency and on issues such as money laundering. It is one of the reasons that legislative review is in fact being taken into consideration.
There is a combination of actions the government has put in place, just from the 2022 budget, and I would encourage the member opposite to maybe meet with representatives, different possible ministers, who all contributed to the budget in dealing with an issue he obviously is very much concerned with.
I would suggest this is not the first budget in which the Government of Canada has expressed an interest in ensuring we are doing whatever we can on the issue of money laundering or people trying to avoid paying their fair share. We have had at least two budgets I can think of offhand in which there was a commitment of literally hundreds of millions of dollars. A commitment was made to have CRA look at ways in which people or corporations are using loopholes and other mechanisms to avoid paying taxes. That is something the government takes very seriously.
When we talk about the issue of laundering, it is important that it is more than one department and more than just one level of government that is ultimately responsible. It even goes beyond Canadian borders. What we have seen over the last number of years is a government that is taking a strong leadership role. It has, in fact, worked with the provinces and looked at what is happening.
In particular, let us look at British Columbia or what is taking place in Toronto and other communities, and the role casinos, for example, might be playing. We understand the depth, at least in good part, of the problem, and our budgetary actions have reflected that understanding.
I suspect that as we continue to move forward in the weeks, months and years ahead, we will see more action from the government in addressing this problem. We can understand and appreciate that it is an issue that is there that affects us all, and we will continue to move forward on it.
1052 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
