44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 15, 2023
- Bill S-9 is a proposed law in Canada that aims to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. This amendment would remove a schedule from the Act and any references to that schedule in order to prevent any potential discrepancies between the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and the portions of that Convention that are reproduced in the schedule. This bill has been passed by the Senate and is now waiting for further action.
- Yea
- Nay
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to discuss a monumental step forward in our nation's journey toward reconciliation and justice for first nations communities. The proposed legislation, Bill C-38, seeks to amend the Indian Act in response to long-standing concerns voiced by first nations individuals and communities, as well as to address the residual discriminatory impacts highlighted by the Nicholas v. AGC litigation.
For too long, the Indian Act has been a source of division and inequality, its outdated provisions casting long shadows over the promise of equity and unity. Bill C-38 represents a pivotal moment in our collective history, a chance to right the wrongs of the past and lay the groundwork for a future where justice and equality are not just ideals but realities.
The proposed changes would be both comprehensive and transformative. First, the bill seeks to eliminate known sex-based membership inequalities from the act. This would be a critical step toward ensuring that all first nations individuals, regardless of gender, have equal rights and opportunities. By addressing these sex-based inequalities, we would not only uphold the principles of justice and fairness, but would also honour the resilience and dignity of those who have fought tirelessly for these changes.
Second, the legislation aims to address inequities caused by the practice of enfranchisement. This historical practice, which stripped first nations individuals of their status and rights, has left deep scars on communities. By rectifying these injustices, we would acknowledge the wrongs of the past and take a significant step toward healing and reconciliation.
Additionally, Bill C-38 would allow for deregistration from the Indian register. This change would recognize the autonomy and agency of first nations individuals, providing them with the freedom to define their own identities and affiliations. It would be a move toward self-determination, empowering individuals to make choices that reflect their personal beliefs and circumstances.
It is essential to emphasize the gravity of enfranchisement. The process unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status, severing their ties to their communities and heritage. Although the practice was abolished 35 years ago, the shadows it cast are long and dark, with its harmful legacy still felt today. The scars left by enfranchisement are not merely historical footnotes; they are also lived realities for many, manifesting in lost connections, identities and rights.
In alignment with our commitment to reconciliation, and guided by the wisdom of first nations partners, our government is dedicated to confronting and eliminating these registration inequalities at a systemic level. Bill C-38 is not just a legislative measure; it is a testament to our resolve to address these injustices head on. By targeting these inequities, we are taking a stand against the vestiges of policies designed to assimilate and erase first nations identities.
Moreover, the bill's commitment to eradicating sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act would address a critical aspect of inequality that has persisted for far too long. These discriminatory practices, embedded in the act, have undermined the principle of equality and fairness. By confronting these injustices, Bill C-38 would be setting a precedent for the kind of nation we aspire to be, one where equality is not just a principle but also a practice.
Let us recognize that Bill C-38 represents a step forward in our journey towards reconciliation. It is a journey that requires our collective effort, commitment and compassion. As we move forward, let us do so with the understanding that true reconciliation involves acknowledging the past, rectifying injustices and working towards a future where the rights and dignity of all first nations peoples are respected and upheld.
Bill C-38 would commit to removing outdated and offensive language found in the Indian Act. Language shapes our perceptions and attitudes, and by eliminating derogatory terms, we foster a more respectful and inclusive dialogue. This change is not just about updating terminology; it is about reshaping the narrative and affirming the dignity of all first nations people.
In our journey toward progress and inclusivity, we encounter a significant obstacle: our legal code, a labyrinth of statutes, some of which date back a long time to a previous era. Among these laws are provisions that no longer reflect our current values, ethics and understanding. Even more concerning, some contain language that is offensive, discriminatory and wholly out of step with today’s standards of respect and equality.
The task before us is not merely administrative; it is morally imperative. To rectify the situation, we must undertake a comprehensive review of our legal system. The review should not only identify outdated and offensive provisions but also evaluate the relevance and applicability of laws in the contemporary context. The goal is not to erase history but to ensure that our legal framework is just, equitable and reflective of the society we aspire to be.
The process requires a collaborative effort involving legal experts, historians, ethicists and, importantly, the community at large. Public consultation would ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to the diverse needs and values of our society. Technology can aid in this endeavour, enabling more efficient review and broader engagement. Moreover, this effort presents an opportunity for educational outreach, helping the public understand the evolution of our legal system and the importance of laws that are just, inclusive and respectful. By engaging in this critical work, we affirm our commitment to democracy, justice and the dignity of all individuals.
The bill includes further required consequential amendments to ensure that the act would reflect the values of equality, respect and justice. These changes are not merely administrative; they are a testament to our commitment to addressing historical injustices and building a more equitable society.
Bill C-38 is more than simply legislation; it is a beacon of hope. It signifies a profound shift in our relationship with first nations communities, one rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. As we move forward, let us do so with open hearts and minds, committed to the principles of reconciliation and equity.
Together we can build a future that honours the rich heritage and contributions of first nations peoples, ensuring that our nation's legacy is one of unity, justice, and mutual respect. The path to modernizing our legal system is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our democracy and to build a more inclusive society. Together let us embark on this journey with determination and hope.
1088 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the motion. We spoke out against rising auto theft at the port of Montreal before the Conservatives.
We think they are taking liberties with the logic underpinning today's motion. They are taking shortcuts that distort reality. For example, claiming that Bill C‑5 is responsible for the increase in auto theft since 2015 is clearly false, because the bill came into force at the end of 2022, and 2022 was a record year for auto theft.
They say they do not agree with the six-month minimum sentence for a third offence, but they are the ones who brought it in with section 333.1, which was added to Bill S‑9 in 2010 under the Conservative government.
We do agree that the Port of Montreal and the Canada Border Services Agency do not have the resources to really check containers and do their job.
I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that auto theft is a scourge and needs to be addressed.
I would like my colleague to comment on the rhetoric, the reasoning behind today's Conservative motion. They claim that the explosion in auto theft is because of the Liberal government. They say it is because of Bill C‑5, even though that bill did not receive royal assent until late 2022. They also say it is because sentences are too lenient, but these sentences, which were added to the Criminal Code in 2010, were the result of Bill S‑9. That bill was introduced by the Conservative Party, the government at the time. If the penalties are too lenient, the Conservative Party only has itself to blame.
I wonder what exactly my colleague is proposing. We know there will be a national summit this Thursday. There was talk of giving more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and giving existing police forces the means they need to take action. In his opinion, what more should the government be doing to counter this scourge?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I was just saying that this man, Jacques Lamontagne, is a seasoned professional and he said the following:
There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. Both crimes pay big dividends [to criminal groups and] the criminal underworld. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street....There's not much of a deterrent if people know that they'll probably be let off for a first [offence] or, at worst, serve four to six months for car theft compared to a sentence lasting years for selling illicit substances.
I will return to Mr. Lamontagne's use of the term “young thugs”. The phenomenon is fairly widespread. Crime gangs often use young people who often have no criminal record and are sometimes minors. They are asked to steal cars or transport illegal guns because the punishment for first offences is rarely harsh. It is a kind of strategy that these people use. I am not saying that the thieves should not go to prison, but I think that we need to focus primarily on going after these criminal gangs and their leaders.
Where the Conservative Party goes wrong is in assuming that this entire crisis was created by the Prime Minister himself and by lax policies, like Bill C-5, as the Conservatives are claiming.
The motion specifically calls on the government to "immediately reverse changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail.” Reading the motion, it is clear that the Conservatives are trying to link the increase in auto theft since 2015 to Bill C-5. As my colleague mentioned earlier, Bill C-5 received royal assent at the very end of 2022. I have no idea how the Conservatives came to the conclusion that Bill C-5 is to blame, since auto theft has been increasing since 2015. I do not think there is one simple explanation. The Conservatives are trying to find simple solutions to complicated problems. They say that this Prime Minister has been in office since 2015, so he is responsible for all of society's problems. Again, I am not defending the Prime Minister, but at some point, members have to put forward serious arguments.
Contrary to Conservative claims, Bill C‑5 did not do away with minimum sentences for auto theft. Subsection 333.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum sentence of six months in the case of a third offence. The Conservatives may well say that is not enough, but there is one major problem with their assertion. Are they aware that subsection 333.1(1) was added to the Criminal Code by the Conservatives themselves in 2010 via Bill S‑9? If they now find that that is not enough, they have only themselves to blame.
In this motion, the Conservatives also say that Bill C‑5 allowed for conditional sentences for auto theft. These are also known as house arrest, or what the Conservative leader likes to call Netflix sentences. It is true that the Liberals repealed subparagraph 742.1(f)(vii), which prevented conditional sentencing for auto theft. However, the other paragraphs in section 742.1 set out conditions for conditional sentencing: The court must be convinced that there is no risk to society, and the term of imprisonment must be less than two years. The judge may also impose any conditions they deem necessary. In other words, there is nothing preventing a judge from saying no to a conditional sentence. A judge should be able to exercise judgment. The Conservatives are assuming judges are not capable of doing that.
A conditional sentence cannot be imposed for a sentence of two years or more, so it is not an option in the most serious cases, because the maximum sentence is actually 10 years.
The Conservatives are also forgetting that there is always a bail hearing to determine whether an offender can be released while awaiting trial. Unless there are aggravating factors, it is rare for a person to remain in jail while awaiting trial for auto theft. In other words, the Conservatives' claim that criminals are being caught and and then immediately released because of Bill C‑5 is unfounded, because that was happening long before Bill C‑5 came into force.
Once again, it is up to the judge to decide whether an offender should be kept in jail while awaiting trial and what conditions the offender must meet, especially since, as I mentioned earlier, criminals often use minors because they are handed lesser sentences.
I agree with the Conservatives about one thing in every case. Part of the problem is that Ottawa has done absolutely nothing to control auto theft. Under the current conditions, even life in prison will not act as a deterrent, because the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to monitor the port of Montreal, where criminals can easily ship stolen vehicles overseas. I will come back to that later.
However, I want to close by talking about the second part of the Conservative motion, which seeks to “strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car stealing criminals remain in jail”.
Once again, it was the Conservatives who created a specific offence for auto theft, with their Bill S‑9 and section 333.1 in 2010. If they believe that sentences are not long enough, they have only themselves to blame.
The Conservative leader proposed that a third offence be punishable by three years in prison instead of the six months set out in the Criminal Code. The current six-month sentence in the Criminal Code was a Conservative initiative. What the Conservative Party is proposing today are changes to measures it put in place when it was in power.
The Conservative leader is also talking about eliminating house arrest, or conditional sentences, for thieves. As I said, a sentence of two years or more already cannot be served at home. That said, Bill C-5 did allow judges to impose house arrest if they deemed it appropriate, but not automatically, as the Conservatives like to claim. However, the bill did not make any changes to release pending trial.
Let us make one thing clear: The Bloc Québécois is entirely open to revising the Criminal Code to deal with auto theft. That is what the Montreal police department wants as well. This time, they believe that new sections should be added concerning the export of stolen vehicles and that there should be stricter penalties for ring leaders. I think that might be a good solution. I imagine that will come out in the discussions at the national summit on Thursday.
The last proposal in the Conservative motion concerns the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the export of stolen vehicles. It asks that the CBSA be provided with the resources it needs to prevent auto theft in Canada. I could not agree more with this proposal.
I spoke about this a few months ago. I think that the CBSA, which is under federal jurisdiction, needs to do more. Some people say that it does not have the resources it needs to do more right now, that it is short on labour and funds. They need to figure out what the problem is. Clearly, the CBSA is not doing enough right now.
I spoke about auto theft and how thieves steal vehicles; that is the first step. The second step is exporting the vehicles. Like auto theft, shipping the vehicles out of the country is practically risk free. Clearly, for criminal gangs, it means higher costs and more organization, but it seems to be going well when you look at what is happening at the port of Montreal. That is because it is a sieve.
Around 700,000 containers leave the port of Montreal every year. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers are searched. According to the Montreal Port Authority, or MPA, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless a person's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, when the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. The containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for a specific reason. They need a warrant to open them, so they need reasonable grounds.
Police forces have access to the port and can intervene. However, they do not patrol there because the MPA already has its own security guards. The MPA does not intervene because the police can do it and the police do not intervene because the MPA has its own security guards, so that is just great.
As for customs, the CBSA is responsible for controlling goods for export. CBSA agents can open containers. However, in October, we learned from the Journal de Montréal that there are only five border agents to inspect the containers in Montreal, which makes the task practically impossible. Yes, the CBSA is responsible for overseeing exports, but its mandate is more focused on imports. It also needs to look at what is coming into the country. That is understandable. Do changes need to be made to the CBSA's mandate to ensure that exports are better monitored? I think that is something we need to think about.
Another reason why it is easy to export stolen cars is that anyone can rent a container by filling out a simple online declaration form for the shipping company. We could do it without any problem, just as a small business could. Anyone can change their form up to 48 hours after shipping, so that obviously makes it possible for thieves to cover their tracks once the goods are already on their way to Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
Finally, criminals use numbered companies to fill out those forms. They often use the same or similar serial numbers to defraud the CBSA on their export declaration form.
It should be easy for the Canada Border Services Agency to spot, easy to see that a vehicle serial number comes up repeatedly. At least, Le Journal de Montréal was able to do just that and identify the issue using a simple Excel document. However, for some unknown reason, it seems too difficult for the CBSA.
As early as the fall of 2015, an Auditor General's report stated that export control at the border is ineffective and that only one in five high-risk containers was inspected. Now, we are being told that there are almost no inspections and that, even when there is a concern that there may be high-risk contents, only one container in five is searched and checked. It is easy to understand why there are a huge number of stolen vehicles passing through the port of Montreal without anyone noticing.
I asked the customs union to come testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C‑21. The union told us that a lot of illegal or stolen material is shipped in containers that travel in and out of Canada not only by water, but also by train, and that the agency performs almost no inspections. At the time, the government dismissed the criticism out of hand, saying that it did not consider this information important.
What Le Journal de Montréal's investigative bureau reported, in a nutshell, is that only five officers at the Port of Montreal conduct searches. They rely on a temperamental cargo scanner that is constantly breaking down. The agency refuses to second an investigator to a special stolen vehicle export squad. The same serial numbers come up again and again. Critical information is not being forwarded to port services or police in a timely manner, and the agency apparently omits to report high-risk containers to its partners.
We see that many organizations are involved, but, despite that, nothing is getting done.
I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions and I hope the summit being held next week will contribute to finding solutions to address this scourge.
2088 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. colleague wants to discuss Ukraine, because Conservatives have blocked and filibustered on several occasions when it comes to Bill C-57. They have moved concurrence motions several times.
I would also remind the member that I actually think it is really important that the Conservatives reflect over the holidays and perhaps consider changing their position, because it would be really nice to be able to show Ukraine that solidarity and unanimity that the House has always shown Ukraine. I am going to give them the time and space to reflect, to speak to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to speak to Canadians of Ukrainian origin and to hear from them why this matters and why this is important, so that we can show the solidarity and unanimity that Canada has long been known for, which unfortunately the Conservatives, for reasons that I cannot understand but perhaps because of the right-wing American influence that we are seeing and the MAGA intentions of their leader, have decided not to support, based on falsehoods. Let us let them take the Christmas holidays to do that reflection.
This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers. Tomorrow, we will proceed with second reading debate of Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, again, another bill that we have not actually been able to debate because the Conservatives continue to move concurrence motions.
I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for the season to everybody who works here on Parliament Hill and to all of my colleagues. I want to express a special gratitude to the employees here in the House of Commons who have done an absolutely tremendous job, even when they were forced to stay here for 30 hours during a marathon vote, which was difficult not just for members of Parliament but particularly for the staff who were forced to work overtime and stay up all night.
With that, I wish everybody in this chamber, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.
364 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:33:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Madam Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary is troubled that we are not talking about the Senate's bill, Bill S-9, on weapons of mass destruction, even though that was not a Liberal campaign promise.
Would he not agree that, with two million people using a food bank every day and one in five families eating less food because they cannot afford it, it is more important for this House to be looking at solutions on how to address food insecurity, such as with this motion?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:04:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on farms. Members might not be necessarily surprised. After all, I come from the Prairies, and I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived on Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. While in Alberta, I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I have grown a great appreciation for farms. How could one live on the Prairies for 60 years and not appreciate the value of our farms? I am going to get into some details on that, relatively shortly.
I really want to focus on why this is. I put it in the form of a question to the member who brought forward the motion.
Liberals in general are open to talking about the farming community. We understand the appreciation of agriculture and the importance it has not only to Canada but also to the world. Canada, in many ways, does help to feed the entire world. The types of products we produce on the Prairies and throughout Canada are second to none. No other country in the world has the diversity of product, not to mention the quality of product. Therefore, I understand and appreciate, as my colleagues do, the importance of our agricultural communities, our rural communities and the farmer.
I say that because I wanted to focus some attention on the behaviour of the Conservative Party today and the disturbing pattern we are witnessing day after day. I suspect that most members who came into the chamber today did not want or expect the Conservatives to move yet another motion for concurrence in a committee report. That is what this is: a motion for concurrence. The motion is that we, in essence, talk about farmers, agriculture, and the industry as a whole that feeds off of it.
Let us not forget that there was another very important issue we were supposed to be debating today. It was, in fact, Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is all about weapons of mass destruction. Canada plays a very important leadership role around the world, and one of the areas in which we play that role is the area of weapons of mass destruction.
I remember the day Lloyd Axworthy brought the land mine issue to Ottawa. We had a worldwide ban and a convention came out of it. Bill S-9 deals with the chemical weapons convention, the listing of chemicals, and it would reinforce that particular aspect of Canada's role. Fortunately, it was brought in through the Senate because of the legislative agenda we are trying to get through.
Even in some of the comments I heard from across the way in the previous two speeches, the members talked about the importance of affordability. Tomorrow and the following day, we will be talking about the fall economic statement because we understand the issues that are so critically important to Canadians.
I want to tell my friends across the way that using motions for concurrence in committee reports takes away from the government's ability to get its legislation through. It is interesting. When I posed the question to the mover of the motion, his response was that it is up to the government to get things through. The government is trying to get things through. We were planning on bringing forward Bill S-9 today in the hope that we would be able to get that legislation passed because I do not think anyone will be opposing it.
Now, we are losing a day to pass that legislation, so if we want to deal with Bill S-9, we will have to call it to the chamber again. Opposition members will say, “Who cares? It's not our problem. It's the government's problem.” If we cannot bring in items such time allocation, how can the government possibly pass legislation when we have an opposition party that is preventing the government from doing just that?
We are talking about food for the world. I have heard members on the other side talk about trade many times. Members can think about Ukraine, the trade agreement Canada has with Ukraine, and the impact that has on food supply, processing foods and so forth.
The Conservative Party, all its members, voted against that important piece of legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The people of Canada understand and value the legislation, and they are not the only ones who want to see it pass. There is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada, the politicians in Ukraine and members from every other political party, except the Conservative Party.
The president of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war and signed an agreement. The legislation was brought forward, and the Conservatives filibustered. They used the same tactic they are using right now with a concurrence report. Bringing in concurrence report after concurrence report, is limiting the number of debate days the government will have. Is this an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent the Canada-Ukraine free trade debate from taking place at third reading?
Does the Conservative Party not understand that there is legislation, such as the fall economic statement, that needs to be debated in the chamber? If they continue to bring in concurrence reports, they will continue to take time away from debating the legislative agenda. Many, including myself, want to see a number of pieces of legislation debated.
This is not to take away from the issues the member is raising today concerning farmers and our agricultural community. As I said at the beginning, I am a very strong advocate for those two communities. I have given many speeches in the House, as I know my colleagues appreciate. Every week, when we are in session and in caucus, the rural agenda is there and being talked about. We understand and appreciate the needs of our rural communities, our farmers and our smaller municipalities, as well as how vital they are to Canadian society.
Why did the Conservative Party do this? We will have another opposition day next week. We have maybe 12 more sitting days before the break. How many of those days will we be dealing with the fall economic statement? We have an opposition day next week. The number of days is shrinking, and if the intent of the Conservative Party is to prevent the Canada-Ukraine deal from getting to third reading and passing, I say shame on them.
That is not the only legislation, but there is a lot of focus on it. The Conservatives wonder why we bring it up time and time again, and it is because we do not trust the Conservative Party. It has gone so far to the right. We see that attitude in the leader of the official opposition taking his party to a place where it votes in ways that are very hard to understand for one reason.
We already heard two members stand up to speak to this issue, and they strictly talked about the carbon tax, as they referred to it, or the price on pollution. The Conservatives are using that as an excuse for everything they are doing in the chamber. It is reckless. That is what we are witnessing. We have a leader of the official opposition who is not in tune with what Canadians are asking legislators to do here in Ottawa.
It is only a question of time before Canadians actually realize the destructive behaviour of the Conservative Party today. That is why I think it is important, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to amplify it and to ensure that Canadians know and understand what is in fact taking place, and that there are important things that need to be passed here.
The report talks about infrastructure. Recommendation 1 is to associate infrastructure with trade. It highlights infrastructure and trade. No government has spent more and committed more on infrastructure in the last 50 or 60 years than the current Liberal government has, because we understand and appreciate the importance of having a healthy infrastructure so we can get our product to market, whether a local market or an international market. It is one thing to talk about it, but it is another thing to see the action. With the Liberal government, we have seen action supporting investment in Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.
The Conservatives say “access” and “making sure”. Over the summer, a number of months ago, the former minister of transport was in CentrePort in Winnipeg, just outside my riding. It is a huge park, thousands of acres, strategically located near rail lines and a first-class long-haul trucking industry, the biggest in the province, possibly the biggest in the Prairies. There is an airport literally a couple of miles away. There is a great deal of focus on infrastructure and how we can get products to market. We see the agricultural community coming into CentrePort in a very real and tangible way.
It is not that we do not want to have those types of discussions. That is why we have standing committees. The New Democratic member stood up and said that it was nice we were having a debate on agriculture in the chamber today. I would like to think that we have debates and discussions on agriculture on an ongoing basis, whether they are budget debates, throne speech debates or the numerous private members' bill debates that take place.
One of the reasons we have standing committees is so we can actually look at and take a deeper dive into an issue. That enables, I believe, reports like the one we have today. With those reports, Canadians can get a better understanding of where the House of Commons or the collective parliamentarians would like to see the government of the day take some form of direction. That is what I like about the system.
What I do not like is when reports are consistently used as a mechanism, through concurrence, to prevent debates from taking place on government legislation. That is very problematic. The Conservatives will say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward the legislation. We are bringing forward the legislation; it is the opposition that is preventing the legislation from being debated. It is the opposition that is choosing the tools it has in order to filibuster legislation.
Some members across the way are laughing. Our Ukrainian heritage community is not laughing; it is upset because it sees the games the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. That needs to change. I cited just one piece of legislation, but there are numerous ones. Even during the pandemic, with regard to financial supports to Canadians, we saw the Conservatives using concurrence as a way to prevent government legislation from moving forward. They used an excessive number of concurrence reports. They have the standard line: “This is an important issue; why would we not want to be able to debate the issue?" They make it sound as if the government were not being sensitive to the issue.
I ask my Conservative friends across the way, if the issues were as important, from a Conservative perspective, as they try to imply to Canadians, why are they not using them as opposition day motions? They have plenty of opposition days when they get the entire day to be able to debate the issues they want to debate, just like yesterday, when they chose to debate the Senate and the behaviour of the Senate.
It is rooted in the price on pollution, I must say, because the Conservative Party of today is very much infiltrated by individuals who are truly climate deniers. Maybe not all members of the Conservative caucus are; I suspect not. However, I do believe there is a preoccupation within the leader of the Conservative's party, which is, in fact, climate denial. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of getting rid of the price on pollution. Think about it in terms of this particular report. In the report, members are saying that the price on pollution is scaring farmers away and that they are going to shut down and go elsewhere with their produce.
During the last break week, I had the opportunity to go just north of Portage la Prairie to Roquette, a world-class pea processing facility. Did members know that the largest pea processing plant in the world is in the province of Manitoba? I can say that I am quite proud of that particular fact. The facility creates all sorts of opportunities for the farmers in the area. I am told it even has to bring in some yellow peas from other jurisdictions because it cannot keep up with the demand. The demand is going to continue to grow. The facility is actually diversifying, which is great news. It reinforces that the world is looking at Canada as a place to be able to invest in, and that includes our agricultural community. The role of the farmer is just as real today as it was in any day in the past. The innovators in our environment are often farmers. We do not give our farmers enough credit. Quite frankly, what I do not like is when they are used as a political tool. I was in opposition when the Conservatives got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Suffice to say, I really and truly believe that the Conservative Party needs to get its ship in order, whether with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or stopping the filibustering and the preventing of legislation from being able to pass. There is a minority government; that means there is an expectation that opposition members would also behave. There is nothing wrong with criticizing. I was in opposition for 20-plus years, so I understand that role. There is also a role in terms of being a little bit more creative in one's opposition.
2351 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 2:18:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Mr. Speaker, Canada has seen the highest use of food banks ever in history. In Ontario alone, food banks had six million visits in one year. Why? Because people cannot afford the cost of food. Why is food so expensive? Because the Prime Minister is taxing farmers into bankruptcy. The Liberals are planning to quadruple the carbon tax.
One farmer in Alberta pays $180,000 a year in carbon tax and that does not include the GST on top of that. This is not sustainable. Food is not a luxury.
This can be fixed. Conservative Bill C-234 is a carbon tax exemption for farmers. It passed in the House, but the Liberal-controlled Senate is blocking the passing of this bill. Why? Because the radical environment minister has threatened to resign if any more carbon tax carve-outs are permitted.
Let us end this nonsense and implement common sense. Pass Bill C-234 and support the people who feed us, farmers.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As the Chair said, it is the most anticipated question of the week.
We are of course expecting unanimity on Bill C-56 tonight. Perhaps we can count on Conservative votes to help Canadians at this time. That is our hope.
This afternoon, we will continue with debate on the government business motion relating to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-58, relating to replacement workers. We will return to Bill C-58 debate on Monday. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday, we will call second reading of Bill S-9, concerning chemical weapons.
I would also like to note that it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement that was tabled earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
164 words
- 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 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 5:28:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Mr. Speaker, we have seen day after day, actually it has been a few weeks now, the Conservatives continue their filibuster through concurrence reports in the House when these studies have taken place in committee.
Today we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Canada has been a leader in this area and I think the clarity that this proposed act would be providing when it comes to the list of chemical weapons is greatly needed. I was wondering what the member thinks about that.
96 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 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
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question.
Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act.
Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act.
Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 10:11:47 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
moved for leave to introduce Bill S‑9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts, COVID-19 response and other measures, and Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
