44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 8, 2023 02:00PM
- Nov/8/23 4:26:34 p.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 six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 4:38:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member was aware that, according to today's agenda, we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, which deals with the chemical weapons convention and updating that legislation. It was brought in through the Senate. My understanding was that there would be unanimous consent for getting this bill passed.
I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservatives chose to play games today, games that will ultimately prevent Bill S-9 from being introduced. This means that Canadians will have to wait once again because of the filibustering methods of the Conservative Party. How does the member justify filibustering important legislation?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Mr. Speaker, I guess this is nothing new. Here we are on another day of the legislative session when the government is attempting to get legislation through, legislation that really matters to Canadians, and once again we are witnessing the Conservative Party, in a determined way, wanting to prevent government legislation of all forms from being able to pass.
I am going to get into that shortly, but before I do, I want to recognize the significance of the legislation members are prepared to debate here. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs was chatting with me just prior, regarding Bill S-9, which is legislation that has come through the Senate. It was very well received, and it appeared that it would be passing through. From what I understand, everyone is supporting Bill S-9. It is not going to have a problem even getting through the Senate.
Bill S-9 is about amending the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. The convention has 190 parties that have signed onto it, and it updates the list of chemicals. It is relatively uncontroversial yet very important legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying to me that he was anticipating that the legislation would pass with all-party support.
There is a sense of disappointment. There is no reason we could not have debated it and allowed the debate to come forward. I do not know, and I guess we would have to ask the parliamentary library or someone to find out, the number of times now that the Conservative Party has brought in a concurrence report during government business in order to prevent government legislation from being debated. This is an ongoing destructive force that the Conservative Party wants to use. Today, the Conservatives brought up a report dealing with the environment. We have been talking a lot about the environment in the last few days. I have a lot of thoughts I would like to share with members about the environment. We had two opposition days, both of which were dealing with the environment.
Today was supposed to be a government day when we would be dealing with the chemical weapons convention, but the Conservatives want to talk about a report. When they started talking about the report, what were they emphasizing? It was not necessarily the report itself. There is a lot of latitude given, just like the Speaker gave me latitude to be able to express my thoughts, but what they were more concerned about was incorporating the word “corrupt” as much as they could and trying to portray something that is just not there. They try to create a false narrative on this issue, like a million other issues, because they have been engaging in character assassination since before the Prime Minister was even the Prime Minister. In this case, they are trying to make the Prime Minister look bad in the eyes of Canadians, and they are using this particular report to try to amplify that.
They are also talking about transparency and accountability. I was in the position of being in a third party on the opposition benches when the current Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party. One of the very first actions that he took was around the issue of proactive disclosure, indicating that we wanted to be able to share in a very transparent way that ensured accountability for how individual members of Parliament were spending money. When the government of Stephen Harper and the official opposition at the time opposed it, the leader of the Liberal Party, today's Prime Minister, imposed it on the Liberal caucus members.
Virtually from day one, since becoming the leader of the party, not to mention the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader has been a strong advocate for accountability and transparency. I can say to go back and read some of the S. O. 31s and look at some of the actions that were taken back then. We can fast-forward to virtually day one, when we took power back in 2015; what members will find is that the Conservative Party, in particular, was more focused on trying to make Canadians feel bad about the personalities within the government. That is my nice way of saying that the Conservatives' focus was on character assassination. Nothing has changed. For eight years, I have witnessed that first-hand.
Today, not only do the Conservatives want to filibuster legislation, but they also want to continue the line of anything and everything that they can point a finger at and say it is corrupt, bad and so forth. If they can factor in character assassination, they do.
In terms of the environment and what the government has been able to accomplish, I should probably go over the last couple of days. Maybe a couple of weeks back, the Conservative Party members brought up the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We will see the relevance of that here, because the Conservative Party of Canada opposes the Canada Infrastructure Bank. When the Conservatives talk about the environment and look at this report they say it is a slush fund. That is the way the Conservative Party looks at it. The Conservatives are saying that if they were in government, they would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
They can look at the results and the things that are coming out of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I think a progressive, and I underline the word “progressive”, Conservative government would have been very supportive of today's Canada Infrastructure Bank. However, that is not the case with the far-right, reckless and risky Conservative Party. Some people laughed when a question was posed today in question period referring to the Conservative Party and, in particular, the leader of the Conservative Party being a junior Donald Trump. The idea is that the Conservative Party today is so far to the right that the members of the party do not even recognize good public policy.
When I had talked about the Infrastructure Bank, I talked about bringing back the Homer Simpson award that I used to give out when I was an MLA, a number of years back, for dumb ideas. We can think about the Conservatives' position on the Infrastructure Bank and its impact on Canadians, the economy and our environment. Someone told me it was actually 48 projects, but I know it is at least 46 projects, with $9.7 billion being supported through the government. Through that, there is close to an additional $20 billion, because of other sources of funding.
There are transit projects, in the double-digits, out there. Gas buses are being converted into electric buses. I know that my colleague from Brampton North, a very strong advocate for the entire community of Brampton, is a big fan of the electrification of public transit. Through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we are now seeing that conversion taking place.
It is better for the environment. Ultimately, there would be cost savings on that. That is one of the biggest investments we are seeing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That is not to mention school buses in different regions of the country that are also being converted into electric school buses.
We talk a lot about rural Internet. In fact, earlier today we had a vote on spectrum. The Conservative Party was talking about rural Internet connectivity. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in Manitoba fibre Internet. That is going to benefit rural Manitoba, and that is not the only fibre it is actually investing in.
It is supporting our communities, yet the Conservative Party would say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a boondoggle or a slush fund. These are the actual words that Conservatives use to describe it. One member across the aisle is heckling that it is a waste of money.
The Conservative Party of today does not appreciate, nor does it value, the role that government can play in ensuring that we have a cleaner, healthier, stronger environment.
An hon. member: No vision.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is no vision, as my colleague says.
We see that in another policy related to the environment, something that we have been talking a great deal about, the price on pollution, or as Conservatives love to call it, the carbon tax.
It is interesting that every political party inside this Chamber actually supports the price on pollution except for the Conservative Party. In fairness, in the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada supported the price on pollution. However, this new leader has decided that the Conservatives no longer want to acknowledge climate change. Progressive measures, such as the price on pollution or the carbon tax, are a big no-no for Conservatives.
What they do not realize is that the carbon tax that is actually paid goes back to the provinces and to the people. It is the most cost-efficient way for the public as a whole to get engaged in having a cleaner and healthier environment. In fact, a majority of the residents in Winnipeg North actually benefit from the price on pollution, or the carbon tax. That is not me saying it: The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer makes it very clear. Eighty per cent of my constituents would get more than they actually pay in.
When the leader of the Conservative Party goes around the country saying that he is going to axe the tax, referring to the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, he is really saying that 80% of the constituents I represent would have a net loss of actual dollars in pocket. However, the Conservatives do not talk about that.
That is the reality. That is the truth.
I will tell colleagues that, when they look at the report that was provided, the government and minister have provided a detailed response to the six or seven recommendations. We can look at the actions we have taken as a government to demonstrate strong, national leadership on the environment; most recently, we can look at the oil debate and the price on home heating oil.
As I said yesterday, there was a day when a lot of people were heating their homes using coal. A lot of those wartime houses had little steel plates where they shovelled the coal in. This was not done any more as people modernized. Nowadays it is more of the natural gas, electricity, oil and propane. Those are the things heating homes. Despite the Conservatives' attempts to mislead Canadians, the government came up with a national program that would encourage people to convert from using oil for heating to heat pumps across Canada. They will say, no, it is happening in one region. There are federal dollars actually being spent.
When they talk about how the federal government is spending money on the environment and how we are looking for net zero, this is a policy platform that is going to help us get there. The Conservatives say that only a few hundred have actually been converted over the last number of years. That is false information again. We are talking about tens of thousands of homes today that have taken advantage of government programs to convert to using home heating pumps.
There is no problem in terms of talking about the issue that the members have brought forward on this particular concurrence report. The real tragedy we are talking about today is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not believe that it has to behave in a responsible fashion on the floor of this chamber. Conservatives continuously bring in concurrence report after concurrence report, with some sort of a lame excuse that cannot be justified. I would challenge any of them to go to a university in Winnipeg or Ottawa with me, go to an intro poli sci class or something of that nature, and defend their irresponsible behaviour in trying to filibuster all types of legislation.
They do not want to have a vote on the Ukraine trade deal. What do they do? They bring in concurrence reports. They do not allow it to come to debate. They talk about foreign interference. We bring in legislation that deals with international investment, and they bring in concurrence reports. They do not want to debate. Then they will go crying to the media that the Liberals are bringing in time allocation. Well, duh. We cannot pass anything with the Conservative Party unless we bring in time allocation. Conservatives made a point of making that a reality today. They did not want the legislation to pass the House of Commons.
In a minority government, there is a responsibility that the official opposition has too. I see it as part of my job to hold the Conservatives accountable for their behaviour, which is absolutely irresponsible. They prevent legislation that supports Canadians, whether through pandemic situations, supporting a Ukraine trade agreement or the legislation today, which was supposed to be on the chemical weapons convention. The Conservative Party wants to take this reckless, risky way of dealing with all those issues to the floor of the House.
I say shame on the Conservatives. They have an obligation to Canadians, and they are not living up to it.
2234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:21:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem sleeping at night. The greatest frustration I have is entering the House of Commons each day trying to figure out what game the Conservative Party is going to play in order to prevent legislation from passing. I am never disappointed because this is how they behave. It could be a motion for concurrence on a report. I have seen members of the Conservative Party move that someone else be heard and then cause the bells to ring so they do not have to debate legislation. I have seen Conservatives move to adjourn the House. I have seen the Conservatives deny the House sitting past six o'clock because they do not want to sit until midnight as they do not think Canadians want their MPs to do that. These are all behaviours we see from the Conservatives because they do not really want legislation to pass.
Yes, if they can be shamed in certain situations, we are able to get some bills through, but it is, in good part, because of shaming them and time allocation.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:23:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I very much value the Minister of Environment and his general attitude in making sure that Canada is on the right track. We have seen over the last few years that we are going in the right direction. As a government, we continue to be committed to reaching net zero. That is why we brought in the net-zero legislation not that long ago, perhaps 18 months or two years ago, though I am not exactly sure when it was, which also incorporated reporting mechanisms so there would be updates and reports every five years.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:25:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, always believe that there is room for improvement; there is no doubt about that. However, as I said, I have every confidence in the Minister of Environment and his leadership on the file, and we are moving in the right direction.
I believe that net zero is in fact achievable. I look forward to continuing to bring in and see policies through the government that will actually help lead us in that direction, whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the investments it is making in co-operation with other stakeholders to direct government involvement or with things such as heat pumps.
I do recognize that the Green Party actually voted with the Liberals the other day in relation to the heat pumps and the incentives in supporting the price on pollution. I do appreciate that.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:27:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, allow me to report the conclusion. It does not say “all recommendations”, but six or seven of them were responded to, and there is a conclusion:
As the Government continues to strengthen its approach to greening government operations and to performance measurement and reporting under the GGS, we will take the Committee’s recommendations into account. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and the Committee members for your important work in reviewing the report of the CESD on the Strategy.
Suffice it to say that I do believe that, at times, we see fantastic work coming out of the standing committee. I know that the respective ministers take it seriously and I believe will ensure that we continue to go in the right direction.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:29:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Mr. Speaker, the member brings up two really good points.
First and foremost, the member recognized that the report we are talking about today has been extensively debated, talked about and analyzed thoroughly at the standing committee. So, members of Parliament would have had all sorts of opportunities to be able to contribute to that whole discussion that had taken place.
The second issue the member raised is the impact of not having a debate on Bill S-9, which is very important. Not only is it important, but I believe that all political parties in this House actually support the bill. It is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Had the Conservatives not played this game, we would have probably even seen the bill pass today, from my understanding.
It is a real shame that the Conservative Party is putting party politics over the best interests of good, sound public policy. Sadly, it is not the first time, because one of the greatest frustrations of the filibuster I have seen with the Conservative Party of Canada was on dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement, and maybe I will get some more time to expand on that point soon.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 5:56:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the fact that today we are having this particular concurrence motion being discussed and the Conservative Party now and on many occasions has brought in concurrence reports, which has really prevented government legislation from being passed. Today, for example, we were supposed to be dealing with Bill S-9. I believe the Bloc is actually supporting it, as are all political parties in the House.
I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts. Much as they would not want opposition days constantly interrupted by concurrence reports, it does have a negative impact on legislation being ultimately passed. Would the member not agree?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 7:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 7:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the environment, we have a government that has clearly demonstrated, since coming to office in 2015, a genuine and sincere commitment to Canada's environment. In fact, the total greenhouse emissions that have been taken away are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 53 million tonnes since 2015. That is the equivalent of 11 million gas vehicles. Looking at it from a world perspective, of all the G20 countries, Canada is the only one that has actually eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. We even did that in advance of the dates by which we said we would do it. We have a government that has made the commitment to put a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
If we contrast the messaging that I hear tonight from the member across the aisle to the way in which she actually voted the other day on the Conservative opposition motion, there are a number of progressive people who are who are looking at the NDP and are getting a confused message. Part of what we talk about is how people can actually convert from oil heating to heat pumps, and I think the NDP might have been manipulated into supporting the Conservative motion in regard to the policy that the government put into place. That policy is to get people throughout Canada to take advantage of conversion from oil heating to heat pumps, which are much better for the environment and more affordable for Canadians.
Games were played. In the House, the majority of the political entities, including the Greens, the Bloc members and obviously the Liberals, saw what the Conservatives were doing. The NDP, on the other hand, voted with the Conservatives. It sends a very mixed message when the member stands up and talks about emissions and then votes for a motion that goes against a price on pollution, remembering that with the price on pollution there are also the rebates that complement it. It also goes against the idea of sound policy that would ensure that more people convert to heat pumps from oil heating.
I would suggest that is a good thing, and the government has a good track record already on that. The greener homes program, again, is about tens of thousands of homes, in all regions of the country combined, that have actually made a conversion and are now using heat pumps, recognizing that heat pumps are far better for our environment. This is a program, as an example, which the government has brought forward.
Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have been found to be a very progressive government in dealing with the environment and emissions.
451 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 7:21:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to a vote that took place today on, again, a bad NDP policy. Let us think about it. What the New Democrats want to do is to completely get rid of the GST on fossil fuels, whether that is natural gas or oil. The GST provides a very significant rebate. That is what makes it progressive.
The people who would benefit the most by the policy that the NDP was advocating are Canada's 1% wealthiest people. Those are the ones who actually would benefit the most because there is a rebate section to the GST. That is not to mention the many other inequities in that particular policy. That is why I suggest that the New Democrats need to think through their policies in regard to what is coming to the floor related to the price on pollution or to the GST, because the New Democrats' actions do not support a healthier environment.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
