44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Nov/17/22 10:05:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 10:09:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a couple of things came to mind when the member made his presentation.
One is the fact that never before have we seen a national government play such a prominent role in terms of mental health. We have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars toward the issue of mental health. We have reinforced Veterans Affairs with financial support for those individuals who need to have support in that whole area.
When it comes to research, as a government, I would challenge the member to find another national government in the last 20 to 30 years that has invested more money in research in science. I suspect that there are going to be many universities and other post-secondary facilities out there.
Is it the position of the Conservative Party that the Government of Canada should continue to look at post-secondary facilities and financially support research projects, even if it means having to use tax dollars?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw, which the member started to highlight at the very end, and that is the fact that the member is a separatist. He does not want Canada. He wants to see Quebec separate from the rest of Canada. He does not recognize that the national government does play a role, even though a majority of the people in Quebec, Manitoba and Canada believe that the federal government has a role in infrastructure, health care and many other areas in which we work alongside the stakeholders.
That is the difference. We recognize that to build a healthy, strong, united Canada, one needs a national government that reflects the interests of the population as a whole. That is why we continue to work, day in and day out, with provinces, indigenous communities, municipalities or other stakeholders in the best interest of all.
Does the member opposite not recognize that even his own constituents, a very large percentage of them, want federal participation in many of the programs that the member just spoke out against?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to be concerned when Conservative after Conservative stands up to say that every dollar borrowed that was not directly attributed to the pandemic is harmful and unnecessary debt. That is what the member said.
Let us think about child care and the national child care program. Yes, there is a cost to it, but there is also a benefit to it that the Conservatives continue to not recognize. In fact, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to get rid of our national child care program. I have a tough time with that. Canadians have a tough time with that.
We had to borrow some money to support our national health care system. Given what the Conservatives are saying today, can we anticipate that the Conservative Party would also roll back the investments we are putting into health care? Is that part of the hidden agenda from the Conservative Party? Do the Conservatives intend to roll back health care transfers?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 12:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just so it is clear, I caught the gist of where the member might be going, but that does not necessarily guarantee that he would have gone in that direction. He would have been far better off making his reference earlier, prior to making the statement.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member was quite eloquent, covering the moon and back. He spoke on a wide spectrum of issues. The one I want to pick up on is the issue of employment insurance. The current Minister of Employment has been very clear. As we went through the pandemic, there were all kinds of modifications. She has recognized that there is a need to modernize the EI system and has put in place some actions to ensure we will see some changes.
The member somewhat gives the impression that the government is not looking at EI reforms, when we know quite factually that the Minister of Employment is very much dedicated to modernizing EI.
I wonder if he can provide his thoughts or other specific things he would like to see in that modernization.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:16:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is trying to be a little tricky. I was not the only person who said “no”. When unanimous consent is requested, it is not appropriate for members to stand in the chamber and start pinpointing who said “no”. I was not the only member—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Bloc will be voting in favour of the legislation, and for good reason. There are many initiatives within this legislation and the fall economic statement that would help literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians, going into the millions.
One of the things I take great pride in is that we are getting rid of the interest on student loans. Students would not have to pay interest, and I see that as a very strong, positive way in which the national government would ultimately be enabling more students to be fully engaged in post-secondary activities. It would give them more money in the long run. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we support our students, especially given the fact that we are going through inflation.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, noting that Canada has over one million people of Filipino heritage, I had an opportunity to recognize the very special relationship between Canada and the Philippines. Last week, I was able to travel to the Philippines with my local MLA, who happens to be my daughter, and it was a wonderful trip.
We had numerous planned meetings related to helping people come to Canada. We met with the local embassy officials on a wide variety of issues, which included aid, trade and, of course, immigration. I appreciated the discussions and the support from the Philippines embassy here in Canada, the department of foreign affairs at the embassy and, in particular, former ambassador Robles.
I would like to give a special thanks to Mayor Honey Lacuna. She was wonderful, as were her talks, and I appreciated her recognition of the nine Canadians who lost their lives in servicing the Pacific theatre during World War II. We had a special celebration on the grounds of Manila's city hall.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us go to some very basic economic theory. The leader talks about economics and productivity. One of the ways we can increase productivity for a nation is by increasing the size of the workforce. The national child care program is going to increase the size of Canada's workforce.
Why would the Conservative Party of Canada oppose a national child care program, when we know for a fact that it will contribute to increasing the productivity of our nation? Why would you want to get rid of it if you form government?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 6:36:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on many points I disagree with the former leader, and possibly the future leader, of the Green Party.
We may need to be a little more transparent on the issue. The Green Party, the member in particular, on many occasions in the House has given her opinions on pipelines. To her credit, she has been very articulate in believing that there really is no justification whatsoever for Canada to develop pipelines or put them in place. If we were to further explore her thinking on it, it is more about getting rid of the pipelines that are currently in place. At least that is what I recollect offhand.
When we think of the Trans Mountain pipeline, I would argue it was indeed in Canada's national interest that we did what we did when we acquired it, because there was a great deal of interest and a great deal at stake. At some point in time, it will be divested. That is when the member will be able to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability in terms of how it is divested and where we come out on the balance sheet on that divestiture.
The member referenced jobs, and there were well over 10,000 jobs, even during its construction. She might say there will be a relatively low number of jobs once it has been constructed, but the resource is there and it is important, as I said, in the national interest. She did not talk about that aspect of it. I can appreciate why, because she does not believe we should be tapping into resources of that nature.
Suffice it to say that when we talk about the Trans Mountain pipeline, one of the things we need to recognize is that there is a difference in political approaches or philosophy on the issue. We constantly get targeted by members from the Green Party and, to a certain degree, the New Democrats and the Bloc, saying we are doing too much to support our resource industries. Virtually every day we are criticized by the Conservative Party of Canada, which says we are not doing enough and we need to get more pipelines built.
One of the first things we did, members will recall, back in 2016, was to establish a process to ensure that stakeholders are brought into it, that our environment is of the most significant concern, that it is part of the process and it has to be clearly demonstrated that we will not damage our environment. It also takes into consideration the economic factor, or the national interest. The Trans Mountain pipeline is the reason we are moving forward, because those things have been safeguarded and we very much want to do this in the name of the national interest. At the end of the day, once it is divested, many of the potential answers the member would like with regard to the feasibility of it will also—
498 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 6:41:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to how I started off the comment, saying that the member would ultimately argue that it is never in the national interest to build an inch of pipeline. That is the essence of what she is saying. Some, but not all, New Democrats might agree with that assessment, but all one needs to do is look at the LNG project, where the provincial NDP, working with the federal Liberals, recognized the natural resource and saw the national interest.
I like to think that is where we will see a bit of a difference between the Greens and the New Democrats, that under no circumstances whatsoever will the Greens ultimately see and acknowledge that any pipeline whatsoever would be in the national interest, and that is where we would have to disagree.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
