44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber to address important issues. There is no doubt that the issue of crime and safety in our communities is of the greatest concern for all our constituents. It is one of the reasons why we saw the universal support of all political entities in the chamber to pass the bail reform legislation, Bill C-48. It passed relatively quickly because all sides of the House saw that the bill would do a good service for our judicial system. That is not necessarily the case with respect to the private member's bill before us.
I have found over the years that members of the Conservative Party talk a very tough line. In reality, it is quite different. I have had the experience of serving on committees such as the Keewatin youth justice committee. When I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, I had the opportunity to be a justice critic. I have recognized how important it is that when we propose changes to the Criminal Code, we work with the many different stakeholders out there.
The private member's bill, as proposed, is taking some aim at legislation we had previously passed, in particular Bill C-5. There has been misinformation coming from the Conservatives with respect to Bill C-5. This misinformation tries to imply that our communities are not as safe as a direct result of the passage of Bill C-5, which is not the case. Bill C-5 was, in fact, progressive legislation that was supported by a majority of members, not only the Liberals, in the House of Commons. At the end of the day, Bill C-5 did not take away authority from judges.
There is a big difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Liberals understand the importance of judicial independence. We understand the importance of the rule of law, and the actions we have taken clearly demonstrate that. I would challenge the Conservatives with regard to their respect for judicial independence. That is why I hope this legislation does not pass and go to the committee stage.
360 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:34:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That a take-note debate on the situation in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank be held later today, 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.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:59:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:59:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that we suspend until Government Orders.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too have listened to the debate and to many Conservatives standing up and speaking to it. I think we need to be really clear on this. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada has no intention whatsoever of seeing this bill pass. The reason we need to bring in time allocation, as before, is that the Conservative Party of Canada plays a role as a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Its idea of success is causing the frustration of legislation, preventing legislation from passing.
If we did not bring in time allocation, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party would be very happy; it would continue to talk and debate indefinitely.
This legislation is an economic tool that would make a very real difference for Atlantic Canada; by filibustering this legislation, the Conservative Party is doing a disservice to the Atlantic region of our country. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to that?
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 12:36:18 p.m.
- Watch
I request a recorded vote, please.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:17:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:50:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, with a further intervention on Friday, October 6, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and Question No. 1582.
The member alleges that the government's response to these questions represents a willful misrepresentation of the facts, based on a CBC story reported on October 5 that produced a different amount for the trip that was the subject of the two Order Paper questions.
I submit that there was no intention to mislead the House or its members in the government's response to these questions. In fact, it is the government's view that the responses addressed the questions that were asked. This matter amounts to a debate as to the facts and does not, in any way, represent a wilful misrepresentation of the facts to the House.
The crux of the questions posed is based on the notion of “total costs incurred by the government”. The government takes the view that “the government” includes all core departments of the public service and not independent arm's-length agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The fact is that neither of these questions specifically asked for that information. It is not for the government to make assumptions about what the member means to ask when submitting an Order Paper question. The government simply responds to the precise question that was asked.
The questions did not specifically ask for the costs incurred by the RCMP for the trip in question, and the government responded to the question that was actually asked. In no way can this constitute a willful intent to mislead the House.
Precedence has clearly established that the Speaker's role is not to judge the quality of the answers given to the questions posed, whether during Oral Questions, during question and comment period sessions in debate or through the process for responding to Order Paper questions. A long-standing adjacent principle that has been upheld by all speakers is the practice that members are taken at their word. The question of privilege being responded to seeks to contradict these two important practices of this House. I therefore submit that this matter amounts to debate as to the facts and does not represent a valid prima facie determination of a question of privilege.
The government takes seriously its responsibility to respond accurately to questions asked through the Order Paper process, but it can never put itself in a position to assume what the member meant to ask. That is the responsibility of the member when asking a question for which they desire a very specific response.
460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot quite figure how the member can say what he said in his concluding remarks. I understand the Conservatives do not want this legislation to pass, but let us be very clear. Provincial premiers and many different stakeholders have seen the value of this legislation. It is a very competitive area and we want to ensure that the Atlantic provinces have the opportunity to take advantage. That is what this legislation would do. There has been work in consultations and it even has the support of a Progressive Conservative premier.
Why does the Conservative Party feel this is a bill that it can filibuster on and deny Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to see economic growth?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member made.
I just want to highlight the fact that this is legislation that has received a consensus of support from the premiers, I believe, of both Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, along with many different stakeholders.
Given the very competitive nature of what is happening around the world and the importance of getting this legislation through the House, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important to get it to the committee stage as soon as possible.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the member is very keen on the process of what takes place inside the House on the floor. The NDP and we as government have been criticized for bringing in time allocation on the legislation. I believe it was essential in order for us to pass this legislation. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it was important.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, it talks about the future, going forward and developing other alternative energies in a very competitive world. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party seems to be so narrowly focused in wanting to not see this legislation, at the very least, get to committee when we see the type of consensus and support it is currently getting.
It even addresses some of the points the member has raised, for example, the type of support it has from provincial premiers. The member made reference to constitutional jurisdictional control and so forth. A lot of that is in here.
Let us allow the bill to go to committee. We had to bring in time allocation. Why does the Conservative Party not want to focus on green energy?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to get more into detail shortly, but I just wanted to get the member's thoughts in terms of a specific quote.
This comes from an individual, and I will give the name right away. It is in regard to this particular bill. It says that “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with the federal's government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act” and looks forward to seeing them pass.
This comes from Premier Andrew Furey. There are so many other quotes that I will hold back right now but that I hope to get onto the record shortly.
I am wondering if the member has any thoughts in regard to the consensus that has been built on this legislation to see it passed into the committee stage. Does he support any of those stakeholders?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate about this particular issue. It is somewhat surprising that the Conservative Party would stand in the way of what is good, sound, solid legislation, and not, at the very least, allow it to go to committee. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of the legislation. Instead, they have chosen to filibuster. We just witnessed a member bringing forward an amendment. Thank goodness we have at least one political party that recognizes that the Conservative Party is, by filibustering this legislation, denying Atlantic provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to work with the government through this legislation to take advantage of the whole idea of renewable energy.
I do not understand why the Conservative Party would deny Atlantic Canada the opportunities within this legislation. If, in fact, the Conservatives have some legitimate rationale, they have the opportunity to allow the legislation to go to committee, which is all we are looking for right now. That is why we had to bring in time allocation. Even when this legislation passes through, we would have to see mirror legislation brought in from the provinces in question. Therefore, we have provincial jurisdictions waiting for this legislation to be able to pass.
The Conservatives try to give a false impression that we are trying to ram something through, when, in fact, a great deal of consultation has taken place. We have seen many Atlantic Liberal caucus members stand up and speak to this legislation because they have seen the value of the potential in Atlantic Canada when it comes to renewable energy. They have recognized that one does not have to be partisan to see that value.
I would like to quote a few individuals. “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with] the [federal government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and looks forward to seeing them pass.” That comes from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey.
Another quote from the same person states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”
Let us go to a different province and a different political party: the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. What does Nova Scotia have to say in a couple of very selective quotes? Referring to Nova Scotia and Canada, this government states, “Both levels of government have the same goal: our aim is to balance progressive, clean energy exploration and responsible environmental stewardship.” That comes from Tim Halman, who is the minister of the environment for the Province of Nova Scotia.
Here is the minister of energy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons. He says, “This is a big deal for us. Working with the feds in terms of offshore oil has worked well, but knowing that we will have a part of our waterways available for wind development within our jurisdiction was huge.” It continues; he says, “When it comes to the resources, we are the envy of many jurisdictions. We know that there is a huge amount of interest in offshore wind opportunities, so we knew we needed to move forward.”
This is from politicians of different political stripes, and the Conservatives do not even want the bill to go to committee. They would rather filibuster it indefinitely.
It is not just the politicians. I found another interesting quote I would like to share with members. This comes from Elisa Obermann, who is the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. It is from her press release. She says, “This is an exciting day for Canada and our marine renewable energy sector. The tabling of the amendments is an important milestone towards establishing an offshore wind industry that will play a significant role in our clean energy future”.
There are many other quotes I could actually provide to the House, and that is because I truly believe that, when we take a look at Bill C-49 and what it would do, the essence of it is to ensure ongoing economic development in the whole area of renewable energy resources while at the same time saying there is a responsibility to protect our environment.
The government brought in this legislation quite a while ago now. I know I have had the opportunity to speak to it, and I had initially thought there would be support from the Conservative Party. We would have to pull my speeches from the records to get confirmation of that, but I honestly thought the Conservatives would support this legislation, because we often hear the Conservative Party saying it will support the energy sector, which we do in a very real and tangible way. Clean energy is a part of the energy sector, so by supporting Bill C-49, we would be supporting the energy sector.
It is amazing that the Conservative party tries to say we are trying to push this thing along and no one is supporting it, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We know there is substantial support for renewable energy. I reflect on my home province of Manitoba and the important role Manitoba Hydro plays, or I look at my Quebec colleagues, whether they are members from the Bloc or the Liberal caucus, or even the member from the New Democratic Party. We have within those two provinces great potential in terms of hydro development, and at the end of the day I suspect we will see a growing industry and spinoff benefits.
We can talk about how this energy is brought to life and is ultimately healthier for our environment, but it creates both direct and indirect jobs. Coming from a province that has such a wonderful hydro development and great potential, I am very sympathetic to my Atlantic colleagues who are so passionate on this issue and are wanting to see the legislation pass. That is the reason we had to bring in the time allocation, because we know that the Conservative Party is not prepared to see this legislation and that its members would rather filibuster and put up roadblocks. What we just witnessed with the moving of an amendment reinforces that fact, but the people of Atlantic Canada can know that a majority of people in the chamber see the value of it, and that is why we are going to ensure that it passes.
1123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage.
It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill.
My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the recognition. As I said previously, I am a very proud father. Knowing her sense of commitment to not only her riding but the province; MLAs often take on that sort of role.
The passage of the legislation is a high priority of the government. We are very fortunate in the sense that we have at least one other political entity, the NDP, that has also recognized the value of the legislation. As a result, we are going to be able to ensure that this legislation gets passed. We have been working very co-operatively with the provincial jurisdictions in question so that we have a mechanism and a process that will enable the provinces and Ottawa to meet the economic opportunities going forward.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the primary reason is that once it gets to the committee stage, the committee is able to break it down into the different parts and see if there are any ways we can improve upon the legislation. If there are, great; if it is good as is, then it can pass through the system so that the provinces can mirror the legislation and, ultimately, Atlantic Canada and Canadians would benefit.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to the protection of lands and water, if not directly then indirectly. It is important to note that, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, his government had, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% on the protection of lands and water. Today, we are at 14%, which is a significant increase, and we are forecasted to hit 30% by 2030.
We have recognized as a government that it is good for us all to provide and encourage good middle-class jobs and boost the economy, but it is also good to protect the environment. Can the member provide her thoughts on the different attitude of this government compared with the previous government, where the protection of land and waters is now at 14%, with a goal of somewhere around 30%, which is significantly higher than Harper's 1%?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to the House why she chooses not to believe that a Progressive Conservative premier and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada fully support this bill and want to see it go to committee. The bill is all about greener energy. When she says that we have failed Canadians, she is not talking about the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party of Canada; it goes far deeper than that. How does she justify this in such a solid way, while not respecting what it is that Atlantic Canada premiers would like to see?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, is the member saying that this government, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are all pushing forward unconstitutional legislation? Does she really believe that?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
