44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
- Feb/8/23 4:57:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for months now I have had residents of Winnipeg North sign a petition asking for the federal government to work with the provinces with respect to the issue of health care. Health care being the important issue that it is, and given the fact that the Prime Minister and the premiers had discussions yesterday and billions of dollars have followed, I thought it was most timely to present this petition, which calls on the federal government to provide the extra care necessary for mental health and long-term care, as well as additional financial commitments and support for health care workers. I am glad to see that many of the questions posed in the petition have actually been answered.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 4:59:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 4:59:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to the announcement with respect to the battery plant in the Kingston area.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, what I see is a modernization that would in essence enable the ministers to continue what I believe is a healthy history. Canada has been perceived as, and has been in real terms, an attraction or magnet for foreign investment. What we are talking about here is ensuring there is more transparency and accountability and the ability to protect and provide security in a better way going forward.
The principles of the legislation are worthy of supporting, no matter what side of the House one comes from. I wonder if the member from the Bloc would concur that, at the very least, this legislation should be going to committee. Hopefully it happens relatively soon.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am encouraged that, toward the tail end, the member referred to the idea that there could be room for improving the legislation. This is a reason that I am hopeful the member would share those thoughts with the minister. Let us ultimately see the legislation go to committee.
At the beginning of his speech, the member referred to this whole one per cent factor. We also need to recognize that some industries need more attention than others. Information technology is an example of this, and I think that is another area that the committee could be looking at.
Could the member provide some additional thoughts in regard to those industries he would think offhand, and I do not expect a list, that there should be more attention given to?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Parks Canada does have a process. Can the member provide assurances to the House today that Caldwell First Nation, in particular, does not want to follow the Parks Canada process, but, rather, to support the member's legislation? Is it fully supportive of the legislation or does it want to follow process that has been established by Parks Canada? Can the member specifically tell us what Walpole Island First Nation is saying about the legislation?
The member has talked about the importance of reconciliation and doing the consultation with indigenous people. I am wondering if he could provide his comments on both of those points.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as one can tell, when we talk about how our communities benefit and thrive because of national parks, it can be a very emotional issue. Many members of Parliament take a great sense of pride in how we might achieve having more national parks.
For example, there is The Forks National Historic Site. It is not necessarily a park, but for that site, I can recall the way in which people came together from many different sectors and ultimately developed this beautiful treasure in the city of Winnipeg. Today, it attracts more tourists than any other site in Winnipeg and arguably the province of Manitoba.
There is also Riding Mountain National Park, which has had an impact not only on the people who live in and around it but also those who use it.
I would absolutely agree that these are important issues for the House of Commons. The government is definitely interested in and wants to see continuing progress with the Ojibway National Urban Park or Windsor National Urban Park.
My understanding of the legislation, and I look to the member, is that it is more about coordinates. It is about where the park is going to be. To what degree did the member actually have a formal process that incorporated a wide spectrum of opinions and did the work Parks Canada is obligated to do by law?
I am eager about national parks too. I want to see more. I would like to see a national park in the city of Winnipeg, but I do not think it is just up to me to be able to say what the boundaries are, to say what it is I want and then just go out and solicit support for it. There needs to be a process that considers a wide spectrum of things.
The Province of Ontario might look at the bill and say that it is nice legislation, but my understanding is it wants to continue with the process Parks Canada has in place. If that is true, I would suggest members should be advised before they vote on the legislation to confirm that.
I raised the question about Caldwell First Nation. I applaud the chief and council and those individuals who have provided the remarks to the member.
Mr. Brian Masse: You are trying to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: He says that he is speaking on their behalf.
Mr. Brian Masse: No, I said you are trying to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, for me, it is important to have consultation and work in progress with Parks Canada, the City of Windsor, indigenous communities and the Province of Ontario.
The member has told us about all the people who support it, but where was the process to ensure there was an actual consultation equivalent to what Parks Canada would have provided? I have not seen that. I was here during second reading also.
There might have been a lot of talk about the park. I can assure members that I have had many talks. I have talked, for example, about how I would love to see some sort of a management system for Winnipeg's waterways that would involve the different levels of government and the indigenous community.
There are four or five rivers in Manitoba: the Red River or the “Mighty Red”, the Assiniboine River, the Seine River and a couple of others. We believe there is great potential for a national park. I could list some people and organizations I have talked to that have shown substantial support, and I suspect my list is relatively small. I suspect we would find many members of the chamber on both sides of the House who have ideas on national parks and projects they would like to see.
We know for a fact that the government has been working with stakeholders, and they incorporate the ones I have mentioned. We know that back in 2021 there were formal agreements being put into place. There are ongoing consultations. There is indeed a process that ensures there has been appropriate consultation with the many groups out there that have a vested interest, whether they are the leadership of indigenous communities, the provincial or national governments, or community members who live in Windsor, the surrounding areas, or anywhere along where the park is being proposed. There are also other stakeholders, including environmentalists, who have concerns about wildlife and endangered species in general.
They all have a role to play. That is why we established the process. It is not to say that this particular member from Windsor is the one who has to acquire credit by bringing forward the legislation and saying it was their idea. No one owns the idea. This has been talked about for a great length of time. There are many individuals who have dedicated resources, whether financial or personal time and effort. It all needs to be taken into consideration.
That is not to say that this particular member is not passionate about it. I listened to him speak, not only this time but I believe also during second reading on this legislation. I will give him that. He is passionate. I will say that he has talked to a good number of people. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the standing committee. I do know that at the standing committee there was an attempt to make some changes. The member kind of mocked the government, in its moving amendments and this and that.
It is because it does not matter what side of the House one is on, we recognize true value. If there are things that could be done to further this along in the process, which could provide the assurances that Parks Canada has put into place, I suspect there would be greater support.
My concern is that it is not government versus opposition members. It is about whether or not, if members genuinely believe in issues like reconciliation, if they genuinely believe in the importance of having adequate and proper processes, then I would question why it is they might be voting in favour of this legislation.
If members vote for this, that would tell me that anyone who comes before the House and says they have consulted with 25, 30 or whatever stakeholders, and have built up some good letters of support and so forth, but they have not followed the formal process that has been established through legislation or regulation, we should trust them. Even if goes to committee, and it is not to devalue the opinions, advice and recommendations of so many who have already contributed to the debate, it is a vote of confidence in the people who work at Parks Canada, the people who are obligated to do what we have asked them to do, and establish that process to ensure that there is free and open a consultation that ensures that those vested parties are in fact being consulted in the most appropriate way.
This legislation does not deal with the issue of process. I think members need to be aware of that. If they want to believe in the institution of Parks Canada, and the process process, I would suggest they should vote against the legislation.
1223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
