- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/22/24 6:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Conservative doctor across the way. After listening to what the Conservatives say, I want to ask them about expressing concern about Canadians and their well-being. When I think about what is being talked about today, why would they oppose a government having the authority to protect the health of Canadians?
It was misleading information when the member said that we would see businesses close down and the industry would be devastated if this legislation does not pass. What garbage. That is what it is. We just heard a lot of garbage and misinformation. Industry representatives see the value of what is happening and what is being provided.
An interesting statistic came to my mind when reading about this. In 2021, Health Canada found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products companies made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. After listening to members opposite, one would think that there are no issues at all. If anyone wants to put together some sort of recipe, compress it into a pill format and sell it, Canadians do not have to worry because all those entrepreneurs are not interested solely in money, but in the health and well-being of average Canadians.
I say it does not work that way. The government does have a role to play. I do not quite understand why opposition parties would look at this legislation and say that they are not concerned about the government not being able to get something recalled. I think there are legitimate concerns. It is a wonderful industry, and I do not question that. There are many natural health products out there, and we should look at ways to incorporate them into our health care system. Many of my constituents use the products, as I know many Canadians do in all regions of the country.
We are not saying that there is no role or no place for the products in society. In fact, I would suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, but, equally, there is nothing wrong with ensuring there is a mechanism in place that protects the health and well-being of Canadians, whether it is through a product that might proclaim that it does x, when in fact there is no science to substantiate it or when it is completely misleading. We know that does take place. Even in terms of medications, government has the ability to enforce some form of recall. Why would we not allow for something of that nature with regard to natural health products? I would think it just stands to reason.
The biggest concern I have is the misinformation that is being provided across the way, giving the impression that entrepreneurs and business people in communities throughout the country would shut down the industry if this legislation does not pass. I believe we would find that a vast majority of people see the merit in making sure that there is a safe supply and that there are opportunities for this industry to do well. Having some form of regulation is not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the government trying to raise additional money.
537 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:21:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and it is important. Again, the minister himself indicated earlier today, during question period, that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We need to be very clear on that point. The government has security agencies that do outstanding work, and we look forward to whatever ultimately comes of that work.
My concern, more to the member's question, is the anxiety that is in our communities. There is a considerable amount of anxiety there from a number of different communities, let alone among most Canadians who have been following the news in any significant way. I do not appreciate that when we have that kind of anxiety in our communities, we get an opposition party choosing to make a game of it. It actually adds to the anxiety, and that does a disservice to Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:05:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the only concern I would express is that we actually now have a motion on the floor, and I think the motion has to be dealt with before anything else. That would be my interpretation.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to be very clear, with regard to the issue of non-consensual pornography and child pornography, I like to believe that every member in the House would be deeply offended by any activity that would ultimately lead to, encourage or promote, in any fashion whatsoever, those two issues. It angers a great number of us, to the degree that it causes all forms of emotions. We all want to do what we can to play an important role in making our online world experience a safer place.
I must say that I was a little surprised when the member for Peace River—Westlock responded to the issue of Bill C-63. I did have some concerns.
When one thinks of non-consensual pornography and child pornography, they are already illegal today in Canada. We know that. I appreciate what is being suggested in the private member's legislation, but he was asked a question in regard to Bill C-63, the government legislation dealing with the online harms act. It is something that is very specific and will actually have a very tangible impact. I do not know 100%, because this is the first time that I heard that members of the Conservative Party might be voting against that legislation. That would go against everything, I would suggest, in principle, that the member opposite talked about in his speech.
The greatest threat today is once that information gets uploaded. How can we possibly contain it? That is, in part, what we should be attempting to deal with as quickly as possible. There was a great deal of consultation and work with stakeholders in all forms to try to deal with that. That is why we have the online harms act before us today.
I wanted to ask the member a question. The question I was going to ask the member is this: Given the very nature of his comments, would he not agree that the House should look at a way in which we could expedite the passage of Bill C-63?
By doing that, we are going to be directly helping some of the individuals the member addressed in his opening comments. The essence of what Bill C-63 does is that it provides an obligation, a legal obligation, for online platforms to take off of their platforms child pornography and non-consensual pornography. For example, the victims of these horrific actions can make contact and see justice because these platforms would have 24 hours to take it off. It brings some justice to the victims.
I do not understand, based on his sincerity and how genuine the member was when he made the presentation of his bill. I have a basic understanding of what the member is trying to accomplish in the legislation, and I think that there are some questions in regard to getting some clarification.
As I indicated, in terms of the idea of child pornography not being illegal, it is illegal today. We need to make that statement very clear. Non-consensual pornography is as well. Both are illegal. There is a consequence to perpetrators today if they are found out. What is missing is how we get those platforms to get rid of those images once those perpetrators start uploading the information and platforms start using the material. That is what the government legislation would provide.
Hopefully before we end the two hours of debate the member can, in his concluding remarks, because he will be afforded that opportunity, provide some thoughts in regard to making sure people understand that this is illegal today and the importance of getting at those platforms. If we do not get at those platforms, the problem is not going to go away.
There was a question posed by I believe a New Democratic member asking about countries around the world. People would be surprised at the motivation used to get child pornography on the net and livestreamed. I have seen some eye-opening presentations that show that in some countries in the world the person who is putting the child on the Internet is a parent or a guardian. They do it as a way to source revenue. They do it for income for the family. How sad is that?
How angering is it to see the criminal element in North America that exploits these individuals, and children in particular. This is not to mention of course the importance of non-consensual pornography, but think of the trauma created as a direct result of a child going through things a child should never, ever have to experience. This will have a lifetime effect on that child. We know that. We see generational issues as a direct result of it.
That is the reason I like to think that every member of the House of Commons would look at the issue at hand and the principles of what we are talking about and want to take some initiative to minimize it. Members need to talk to the stakeholders. I have had the opportunity in different ways over the last number of years to do so. It is one the reasons I was very glad to see the government legislation come forward.
I was hoping to get clarification from the member on Bill C-270. He may be thrown off a little because of Bill C-63, which I believe will be of greater benefit than Bill C-270. After listening to the member speak though, I found out that the Conservative Party is apparently looking at voting against Bill C-63.
We come up with things collectively as a House to recognize important issues and put forward legislation that would have a positive impact, and I would suggest that Bill C-63 is one of those things. I would hope the member who introduced this private member's bill will not only be an advocate for his bill but be the strongest voice and advocate within his own caucus for the online harms act, Bill C-63, so we can get the support for that bill. It would literally save lives and take ungodly things off the Internet. It would save the lives of children.
1039 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just so that we are clear on this, the government actually supports, which I have been indicating throughout the day, the individual in question coming to the bar. From the very beginning of the ArriveCan app, there have been concerns with the government, and the government has taken tangible actions. We have been very supportive of the Auditor General and the recommendations that came forward, and we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the system.
The challenge I give to the Conservatives, which is why at times I get fairly animated, regards their positioning, which seems to be more partisan and politically motivated, as opposed to looking to improve the system. I am wondering if the member opposite can give an indication as to how he envisions going forward when Mr. Firth comes to the bar because it is a very serious issue.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 4:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member has said, and I like to think that all of us have personal feelings on a wide spectrum of issues, this being one of them for me personally. Having said that, I understand and appreciate the importance of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is good to bring responsible public policy in regard to MAID.
Does the member share in the concerns that I have with respect to the Conservative Party's propaganda of spreading things that are grossly exaggerated, like people going to a food bank, feeling poor and wanting to apply for MAID? At the end of the day, they try to make it sound as if one can go and apply today and have suicide-by-government on the Friday. I personally believe that is damaging to the whole debate we are having.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:10:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the exchange that just took place. When we talk about cutting the number of international students, my biggest concern, quite frankly, is the exploitation of international students. That particular program has led to exploitation because provinces and post-secondary education facilities have not stepped up to the plate when they should have.
We are talking about hundreds of thousands of international students every year. The federal government needs to step in more because we have seen neglect at other levels. As a result of the current minister getting more directly involved and putting in a cap, we are going to prevent the exploitation of potential international students. We need to continue with that.
Would my colleague across the way not agree that the federal government needs to continue to work with other jurisdictions and be sensitive to the issue of international students? It is not as simple as saying that we need to cut the numbers.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the many different types of issues on the floor of the House, and today we do that through Bill S-210.
The title of the legislation, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, sends a fairly powerful message. There is absolutely no doubt about that. When I think about the community I represent and the experiences I have had as a parliamentarian over the years with regard to this very sensitive issue, I suggest that it goes beyond pornography. What we are really talking about is the safety of our children.
We all have serious concerns with how the Internet has evolved, with access to the Internet and with what our young people are seeing on the Internet. I believe there is an onus and responsibility on all of us in that respect, not only at the national level but also at the provincial level. Even in our school system, we all have a sense of responsibility, not to mention the parents and guardians of children. We all have a very important role in recognizing that which quite often causes harm to the minds of our children, either directly or indirectly, and the impact it has, putting a child on a specific course in life.
I do not say that lightly. When I look at the legislation and think of the intimate images on the Internet, all I need to do is look at some of the streaming services, whether it is Netflix, Crave or the many others out there. I suspect that if we were to apply what is being suggested in this legislation, it could prove to be somewhat problematic. I do not know to what degree the sponsor of the bill has thought through the legislation itself. The title is great. The concern is serious. We are all concerned about it. However, when I think of the impact that this has on our children, I believe it is not just through pornography. Cyber-bullying is very real. We often hear of very tragic stories where a young person is bullied through the Internet.
We need a holistic approach to what we can do as legislators to protect the best interests of children. In looking at the legislation, there seems to be a mix of criminal and administrative law. On the one hand we are saying it is illegal, giving the impression that criminal law needs to deal with it, yet there is an administrative penalty being applied if someone has fallen offside. I see that as a bit of an issue that needs to be resolved.
However, the biggest issue we need to look at is why the bill is fairly narrow in its application with respect to harms to children. I used the example of cyber-bullying. It seems to me that the department has been very proactive and busy on a number of fronts, whether it is with the online news legislation or other legislation. I know departments are currently in the process of looking at legislation to bring forward in the new year that would have a more holistic approach to dealing with things that impact or harm young people. I suspect that through the departments, with the amount of consultation that has been done and continues to be done on the issue, we will see more solid legislation being provided.
In the legislation being proposed, issues arise, such as concerns dealing with the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy for us to say we want to ensure that young people watching these programs are at the age of majority. It is a difficult thing to ultimately administer. I am not aware of a country that has been successful at doing so. I am not convinced that the legislation being proposed would be successful at doing that.
In terms of the age of majority, I was citing earlier today how things can be very easily manipulated, such as by using VPN technology, which I must say I am not familiar with. Someone could be at their house and could somehow change their location to give the perception that instead of being in one community or neighbourhood, they are someplace thousands of miles away. There is also the whole idea of using identification that is not necessarily theirs. I will cite the example of teenagers being among friends when it comes time to get alcohol. False identification is often used or encouraged in certain areas by teenagers to acquire alcohol. To believe that there would not be any manipulation of the system would be wrong. Imagine a person getting information that then gets submitted as data points for a company and how harmful misinformation would be to the individual who has that identification.
To what degree has this legislation been worked on with the Privacy Commissioner? I suspect that the Privacy Commissioner might have something to say about the legislation. The difficulty that I have is in the name, Bill S-210, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. I believe that each and every one of us here today would understand that pornography for minors is not a good thing. It does have an impact.
I remember taking a course in sociology many years ago at university, and a test group was put to the side. One part of the test group had to watch hours and hours of pornography, and in the other group it did not occur. The groups were then brought together and the consequence was striking. The group that watched pornography was more open, to the degree that they did not think certain offences and the inappropriate treatment between sexual partners were all that bad.
This has an impact in a very real way. I understand the concern, but we should be broadening the concern to include things like cyber-bullying. We need to leave it to the department to bring forward more comprehensive and substantive legislation that would take out some of the conflicts and deal with issues from the Privacy Commissioner. It would ultimately be better for all of us.
1022 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 4:39:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to talk about Canada, Ukraine and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
Before I get under way, I want to emphasize just how encouraging it has been to see a team Canada approach to dealing with what is taking place in Europe. We have had organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, along with different political entities of the House, different stakeholders, provincial governments and municipal governments, that have expressed nothing but love and care for Ukraine. We have seen phenomenal solidarity with Ukraine.
We are looking at the report that was brought forward today, and I would like to quote the response to the report that was provided by the minister. In the closing to the letter, she states:
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for their multi-partisan support for Ukraine, which is crucial to Canada’s ability to be a steadfast ally of Ukraine, and for remaining so actively engaged on this critical area of Canadian foreign policy. This issue is above politics; it's about defending democracy and defending the right of freedom and sovereignty.
This is a letter from the minister to the committee members, and it responds to 15 recommendations, all of which are well detailed. It is a public document. Anyone who is following this debate can get a copy of the response to those recommendations. The study itself is still not complete. As I am speaking right now, the foreign affairs committee is continuing to have that dialogue.
I should add that I will be splitting my time with the deputy House leader.
I want to break my comments up into two areas. One is the report, and I just made reference to it. I will talk about the contents of the report and the way the committee has worked together. I applaud that, but there is no reason whatsoever for us to be debating the report today. The second is what we should be debating, which is Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.
This report is still being studied at the foreign affairs committee. The purpose of the Conservatives bringing forward this motion today has more to do with playing a game on the floor of the House of Commons than it does with the critical issue of what is taking place in Ukraine today. That saddens me. By doing this, they are politically intervening with what we could be debating today, Bill C-57.
Back in September, President Zelenskyy visited Canada. At a time of war, the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with parliamentarians of all political stripes. He signed a trade agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. We now have an agreement, and it means so much more than just economic ties. We recognize the true value of this trade agreement. It goes far beyond just economics. It is a very powerful statement. It says to Europe and the world that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that will have trade around the world.
What we are talking about, or what we should have been talking about this afternoon, is how this unique trade agreement would enable Ukraine and Canada to build upon a very special, friendly relationship, which we we have had for decades. We have 1.3 million-plus people of Ukrainian heritage, and that was before the displacements from Ukraine. Many of them are in the Prairies, but they are all throughout Canada. They are very much interested in the debate, whether it is the debate in the chamber or at the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs. There is also a great level of interest in all areas as to whether we will be able to get Bill C-57 passed before Christmas.
Canada is in a great position to send a strong message, a message of leadership to the world, about our relationship with Ukraine by passing this legislation. Sadly, today is not the first time in which we have witnessed the Conservative Party of Canada filibuster this legislation. It is upsetting. It is upsetting because I see, first-hand, as Canadians see, what is taking place in Europe. The expectations for us to pass this legislation is, I believe, very high. It is the right thing to do.
This should be a non-partisan issue. I would suggest that, when it comes time to actually have that debate, if the Conservative Party would allow that debate, then the government should not have to bring in time allocation for it. I would suggest that, at this stage, if the Conservatives wanted to show good will, they would agree, unanimously at this point, to see Bill C-57 at the very least go to the committee stage. They should reflect on their behaviour and what they are doing.
I referred to a question I asked the member for Cumberland—Colchester. My colleague, the deputy House leader, made reference to it as well. The Conservatives continue to filibuster the Ukraine trade deal, but one of the last Conservative speakers to speak was the member for Cumberland—Colchester. Imagine what he said in his speech. He said the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is “woke”, that Bill C-57 is “woke”, and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine by having a trade agreement when Ukraine is at war.
That aspect concerns me greatly. I do not know where the Conservative Party really is on the issue because we have raised it before, and they are not providing comments. The Conservative Party in the past would say that it supports the concept and principles of free trade. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more free trade agreements than this government. We have the expertise. It is a good trade agreement, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine. Why is the Conservative Party not allowing this legislation to move forward? If it does not support the legislation, then it would be fully understandable, but if it supports the legislation and wants to get behind the trade agreement, why not allow it to pass and allow it to be debated?
I am going to be sitting down in a minute, and I trust that there will be a question from the Conservative Party. Maybe in that question the Conservatives can explain why they do not support the bill being debated or, at the very least, if they will consider allowing unanimous consent to see it go to committee so that we would have an attempt at getting it passed through the entire system, including the Senate, before Christmas. If we all want to get behind what is taking place in Europe and Ukraine today and continue to be non-partisan about it, I think that would be the right thing to do.
1163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 10:57:37 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me start by providing a comment reflecting on what is happening in our communities from coast to coast to coast.
We do not necessarily need to be lectured by Conservatives on the issues of inflation and interest rates. We understand, as we are often told by the Prime Minister and others, that when we look at what is happening in our constituencies, it is important that we bring those concerns to Ottawa, as opposed to trying to tell our constituents what Ottawa is doing for them.
If we look at the most recent budget that was passed by the House, we will find that it is very much a reflection of what is happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. People need to understand that, yes, we are very much concerned about the interest rates and the impact they are having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
Last weekend, the President of the Treasury Board came to Winnipeg to meet with some of my constituents who are primarily entrepreneurs. We talked about the impact of interest rates. We talked about homeowners, and so forth. We also talked about the rates of inflation. We are all concerned about that. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward legislation, such as Bill C-56. That is one of the reasons we brought in the inflation or grocery rebate, affecting 11 million Canadians, last spring, which came into effect in the summertime.
The budget and the type of legislation we are bringing forward are a reflection of what we are hearing from our communities. Therefore, one needs not lecture us on what is happening in and outside of the Ottawa bubble. We are very much aware of it.
At the end of the day, we look at not only what is happening around us, but what the Conservative Party is saying, particularly in the motion it presented today. Today, it wants to give the impression that there is this huge debt that has been acquired over the last number of years, and there is a huge debt. It is a huge debt that, in good part, was supported by the Conservative Party when we were borrowing money to help Canadians through the worldwide pandemic, and I underline the word “worldwide”.
389 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one issue I want to pick up on is that there are some environmental concerns, there is no doubt about that, but there is also the economics of ensuring that our ports are efficient and effective. The legislation does some modernization of sorts, which will help facilitate a better system.
Canada is very much dependent on our ports. Could the member comment on the economics of this and why it is so important that we deal with this legislation?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 9:11:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member can recall, it was not that long ago, just a few weeks back, that Winnipeg had a derailment of 12 cars, which ultimately shut down McPhillips Street. McPhillips goes right through the heart of Winnipeg North, so we have very recent first-hand experience of the impact this has on a community, with community members feeling concerned about their safety. Not knowing what was in the derailed cars initially caused a great deal of concern. There was even an economic impact on some of the small businesses.
I am wondering if she can provide her thoughts on the importance of getting this type of legislation through, because it will have a positive impact.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:42:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member is right to raise the issue of dangerous cargo and hazardous things that go through our municipalities and our cities. I very much recall what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just a few weeks ago in the city of Winnipeg in my area, the CP tracks had some issues that caused McPhillips Street, a major thoroughfare that is travelled by 90,000-plus people, to be shut down. A lot of thought was given to what would have happened had the cars gone over and spilled onto the street itself, as opposed to just staying on the top level. There is a great deal of concern.
My question to the member is this. We have had a great deal of time. We have had lots of reports and recommendations now on the issue. I would like to know the member's thoughts on seeing this bill continue to progress through the House.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on part of the member's concerns. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party, given its track record, has no intention of supporting the type of program we have negotiated with our provinces. That is the primary reason we see Bill C-35. It is because I do not believe the Conservatives can be trusted on the issue.
Does the member have any thoughts on the importance of this child care issue? How important is it that the agreements continue on into the years ahead?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I share the same concern.
Others have actually posed that sort of question to members of the Conservative Party. They have been kind of dumbfounded, not knowing how to answer it, so they go right to the spin cycle that the Conservative Party says, and a part of that is “do not answer it”.
The simple answer is: zero. There are no restrictions. As I say, this is not, in any way, an attempt to put restrictions on those law-abiding gun owners.
We are being very respectful of that and we will continue to do so.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that a number of members have talked about border controls. I have referred to the fact that, last year alone, over 1,200 guns were confiscated at the border. We have invested in border controls.
I have posed this question to other members and would like to see if the member can respond to it. Is he aware of any guns that were confiscated, any sense of the number, while Stephen Harper was prime minister, because he did cut back on that?
With respect to the bill itself, concerns have been raised not just by the Liberal Party but by all opposition parties regarding the Conservative Party's desire to spread misinformation in order to achieve fundraising goals. I would like the member's thoughts on that.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:36:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to disagree with the member. If we look at the legislation, it would establish a framework that could ultimately be complemented by regulations, which could address some of the concerns she may express during the third reading of Bill S-5.
I believe it enshrines the principles of Canadians to have a right to a healthy environment, and that is a strong and positive step forward.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:46:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.
I always thought that it is a positive thing when a government is prepared to entertain and bring forward amendments, in the sense that this often reflects concerns that have been raised by MPs, other stakeholders or people who make representations at committees.
Would the hon. member not agree that it is a good thing when government listens, brings forward amendments and supports even opposition amendments?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the government has recognized and said, an offence on one member of Parliament is an offence on all members of Parliament. We should all be concerned. It is one of the reasons we have seen literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of government investment in places like the Board of Internal Economy to ensure that MPs have things such as panic buttons and cameras around homes. We have seen all sorts of actions, such as legislative initiatives, to deal with the issue of election interference and foreign interference.
At the end of the day, I would suggest to the member that, when we take a look at the—
An hon. member: Apologize.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 5:27:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is quite possible I missed the word “tailings”; that does happen at times. My apologies. I did not mean to offend the member.
Having said that, when we think about tailings ponds, members will find that this is covered within the current legislation. At the end of the day, I would refer the member to the amendments adopted at committee that related to the concept of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects. There are other situations that empower and allow for the minister to track and, ultimately, enforce issues related to tailings ponds. The member, I suspect, would likely be aware of that.
As I indicated, information on tailings ponds is already collected through CEPA. Members tend to give a great deal of attention to this particular issue. I know the member is anxious to ask a question, but unfortunately we are going to run out of time because I only have another minute to go.
I think one of the things we have missed is the recognition of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals. The government takes that very seriously. The right to a healthy environment is being enshrined and supported in a very real and tangible way. Canadians are very much concerned about our environment. Through this legislation, there is a direct connection that would enable Canadians to express their concerns where there will be attention drawn to that concern. That is something I really have not heard in the relatively short amount of time that we have had to debate the issue, but it is something we should be talking about.
We see our constituents growing more and more concerned about our environment. Having a statement that is very clear as to the rights of Canadians to have a healthy environment is something that is very positive. I would like to see more of a discussion the next time the bill comes up, when maybe I will get the tailings—
327 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
