44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
- Feb/8/23 2:39:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years as Prime Minister, the member for Papineau is more out of touch with Canadians than ever, to say the least. Let us not forget that in December, the Prime Minister solemnly told 2,000 Liberal pals that “Canada is not broken”.
On Saturday morning, he heard the truth from Canadians, loud and clear: Two out of three Canadians say that Canada is broken. That is what happens when the government is out of touch with Canadians.
When will the Prime Minister take full responsibility for the fact that Canada is broken because of him?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 2:41:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, after eight years of Liberal governance, not only is the Prime Minister out of touch with Canadians, he is also out of touch with his officers of Parliament.
Yesterday, before the Senate committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, said, and I quote, “I think if you ask anybody who has asked recently for a passport, employment insurance, old age security and the list goes on, they are probably very well aware that the level of service Canadians are getting is not what one would expect from a world-class public service”.
In short, Canada is broken. The Conservatives are not the ones saying it. Two out of three Canadians are saying it, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
When is the Prime Minister going to take full responsibility—
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be taking part in the debate on this bill, which calls for some legislative work. The bill seeks national recognition for an important place that is historically significant for our country. I will say more about that later.
First, I want to acknowledge the member for Windsor West's passion and determination. I have been in the House of Commons for eight years now, and I have had the pleasure of knowing my colleague that whole time. I have a lot of respect for him because he is so dedicated. More often than not, we do not share the same vision for Canada's future and how to achieve it, but I do admire his dedication and his passion for the causes he believes in, such as this one.
As the shadow minister for environment and climate change, I am privileged to be a member of the committee that studied this bill, but I know the study started quite a while ago. The member has been working on this for over 10 years and has been working on the bill for four years.
He and I both witnessed something of an about-face on the ministers' part. I will keep it civil because we are in Parliament. Initially, there seemed to be a willingness to go ahead, and departmental officials supported the initiative and were working hand in hand with the government.
Suddenly we have noticed in our committee that there has been a big switch coming from the ministerial bench. People have said one thing before and then switched their point of view to one that is more cautious. I want to raise the fact that it is not the first time we have seen this. Recently, while studying a bill in the official languages committee, we saw that there had been a big shift in the current government when it started to talk about certain issues.
I would like to see a little more discipline from the government side. We understand that the work we are doing is exceedingly serious. Since the Liberals have been in office for eight years now, we expect more consistency and coordination between the public service, which objectively analyzes the situation, and the government's political and partisan point of view. It is only natural for the government to have a political perspective, but the public service and the government need to work together.
If, three-quarters of the way into a job, it becomes clear that things are not working, then changes need to be made. Most importantly, the stakeholders need to be informed. We saw this happen with this bill. Unfortunately, we also saw this happen with the bill to overhaul the Official Languages Act. We witnessed a kind of mutiny within the government, which was sending members to committee who were basically saying the opposite of the government. I therefore urge the government to be a little more disciplined.
Let us come back to the crux of the debate on this bill. I very much appreciated the historical aspect mentioned by my colleague from Windsor West. This is part of our heritage. Obviously, when we talk about national parks, we are reflecting on our roots and the history of our country. We are reflecting on the presence of first nations and the colonial era, either in New France or under British rule. It is part of a whole.
As my colleague said, in 1749, the French established a farming system, traces of which can still be seen in geographic features. There are streets and neighbourhoods in Windsor with very French-sounding names. That makes us very happy. This concerns that area.
As the member also mentioned, it is not so far from the Gordie Howe International Bridge either. I want to remind the House that this bridge, which connects Canada and the United States, is one of the biggest projects in Canada. This area sees the most trade in the country. I remember that the member mentioned the percentage.
I do not remember exactly how much money, but billions of dollars go from us to the U.S., and from the U.S. to us, via this bridge and the communities around it. That is very important to us.
I respect that this member praises his area, like I am quite sure all members do. I can assure members that I am very proud to be from Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I recognize when members are also proud of their ridings.
Yes, the Gordie Howe bridge is very important. I want to honourably confess that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. I am bringing it up because I want to acknowledge the extraordinary achievement of the Hon. Denis Lebel. He was the infrastructure minister at the time and the man behind this bridge.
We know that there were difficulties. Our partner, our neighbour, had some reservations. There were also reservations on the Canadian side, which is quite normal in infrastructure projects. That said, under the co-operative leadership of the Hon. Denis Lebel, we succeeded in building this bridge, and we look forward to seeing it open soon.
I just wanted to salute this extraordinary contribution. It is one of the Conservative government's great achievements, and it came about under the leadership of the Hon. Denis Lebel. I wanted to mention that.
I think there is currently some disagreement with departmental authorities about how to proceed. It is worth noting that the purpose of national parks is, first and foremost, to determine the cultural importance of this kind of proposal. It has to respect biodiversity. The landscape also needs to be considered. Would establishing a national park in the proposed area enhance the landscape? New parks also have to complement our other national parks.
Quebec has three national parks, including one in the Mauricie region. I am not big into the recreational and tourism activities there, but everyone tells me Mauricie is absolutely amazing. I would like to take a moment to salute one of Mauricie's great native sons, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who was the instigator for that national park. Yes, he is a Liberal—nobody is perfect—but I recognize the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien's contribution, and I say that with tremendous respect, of course.
Yes, it has to be connected to the landscape. It has to complement the existing national park system, and essentially, it has to have the support of the first nations, the surrounding communities, the people who live in the area, and, of course, the municipal, provincial and ultimately federal governments.
There are five steps to establishing a national park: identify the general area; select the specific area; assess the feasibility; negotiate the necessary agreements, and finally, establish the park by amending the Canada National Parks Act. That is where we are right now, and we need to get it right. Obviously, the concerns expressed by the government will have to be evaluated.
Once again, I cannot help but notice that the government has waited until the last minute. The hon. member has been working on this for over 10 years and has spent over four years going through all the parliamentary steps needed to move forward. Now, just as we are about to pass the bill, the government is pulling back and asking if everything has been done correctly, because there are plenty of areas in Winnipeg where there could be beautiful parks.
With all due respect, my friends should perhaps have thought of this before, because this matter did not come out of nowhere. They have been talking about it for years. The act has been around forever, or almost, and it is very clear. Maybe they should have checked for problems before we got to this stage.
In closing, I also want to remind members that national historic sites can be evaluated without necessarily becoming national parks. I want to give a nod to my part of the country, Quebec City, where there is a historic site that includes three buildings at 57 and 63 Rue Saint‑Louis in Quebec City. It is probably the most modest historic site around. As an aviation enthusiast and history buff, I also want to salute the Alexander Graham Bell National Historic Site in Nova Scotia. It commemorates the first heavier-than-air controlled airplane flight, which took place in Baddeck on February 23, 1909. We salute the fact that it has become a historic site.
There is a difference between national parks and historic sites. We should be proud of our heritage. Let us designate new national parks properly and ensure that it is all done according to the rules.
1469 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
