- 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
- Apr/29/24 12:32:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member across the way to mislead because of the Conservative spin on this particular issue.
At the end of the day, no government has invested more, historically, in health care than this government has. That was prior to the commitment of $198 billion that was announced in the last budget. No government has invested more in mental health or has highlighted the issue of mental health more than this government has.
To make some sort of false accusation that the government has been dropping the ball on recognizing the importance of mental health, when, historically, we have outshone any other national government on the issue, I think, does a bit of a disservice. I am very proud of the way in which we have advanced and continue to advance the importance of mental health, today and into the future.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 4:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 2024-25 departmental plan.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 4:52:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, ultimately, I would take a look at the carbon rebate and carbon tax issue as more of a price on pollution and an environmental issue. However, I think that we lose that thought.
The best way to illustrate the politicization of the issue is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Alberta. One only needs to look at the current premier. Before she was premier, she seemed to be of the opinion that we were going in the right direction on a price on pollution and the impact it was having; she even cited a personal example. Today, she is a premier and one of the individuals who have really focused on getting rid of the carbon rebate or the price on pollution.
Could the leader of the Green Party provide her thoughts on the degree to which the politicization of the issue can be very damaging for good, sound public policy.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:17:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always find the leader of the Green Party to be a fountain of knowledge on the environment. She has a great history on it. My friend across the way paid a wonderful tribute to Brian Mulroney and highlighted how he was one of Canada's first powerful, well-spoken environmentalists.
She raises a point that does need to be emphasized. There is so much more we can do on the environment, whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures. I would like to think that over the last number of years, as a government, we have taken lead roles in both of those areas and have had a significant movement toward a healthier environment in Canada. We are demonstrating leadership around the world by some of the actions we have taken.
It would be nice to talk more about initiatives, some that we have done and maybe some that we could do.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 11:24:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment.
The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement. That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment.
We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process. Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment.
When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.
There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries. Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways.
There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review. We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.
This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.
This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing. These are some of the more high profile areas we have worked on.
An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.
I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69. This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful.
That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.
863 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:43:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised in how the Conservatives are approaching the debate. They have made it very clear that they do not support the expansion of MAID with regard to mental health. However, it will automatically take effect come March 17, unless this legislation passes. They seem to want to prevent the legislation from passing, especially if we take a look at the vote.
Does the Conservative Party want this legislation to pass and, if so, will they support it?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 1:18:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, no government has invested more in mental health than under this Prime Minister and this Liberal government. What a joke coming across from the other way. They are trying to give the impression that someone who is having suicidal thoughts could just go to a place and get it rubber-stamped, giving them a pill or an injection. That is just stupid.
If the member is so brave, why will she not go to any high school in Winnipeg North and have a debate on the issue with me? Will she accept that challenge? Let us have a debate, let us invite a few people over in a high school. That way we cannot be accused of trying to make it lopsided, one way or another. Will she come to Winnipeg North?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 4:42:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the first time that we have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever, in a tangible way, from the official opposition party as to what its environmental policy actually is. That is very discouraging. Many say it is because of the element made up of complete climate deniers, who just do not see it as a priority at all. Therefore, they continue to want to deceive Canadians on the price on pollution.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, another point the member did not talk about when he talked about how much they would love to get rid of the price on pollution is the rebate. The rebate ensures that over 80% of people get more money back than they pay in with regard to the price on pollution. Could the member be very clear on whether he supports Canadians getting the environmental rebate?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:54:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is misinformation. Many would say it is misleading. Let me put it this way. A constituent of mine is told that 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay for the price on pollution, and that has been affirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, the Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who is leading the Donald Trump charge, are saying that getting rid of the price on pollution is going to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and that is not true.
How would members classify that? I cannot be bold and blunt about what the leader is saying, because it would be unparliamentary. However, if we look at the information the leader is talking about, it is misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, everything the Conservative Party is doing today seems to be focused on that one issue. It is completely ignoring the environment. We are waiting to see any form of a climate plan from the Conservative Party.
The last time I can recall the Conservatives standing in the chamber talking about their environmental plan was when Erin O'Toole was their leader, and they said they supported a price on pollution. A Conservative member just asked where he is. The Conservatives kicked him out and he is no longer around. There have been a few Conservative leaders, but they really like the current one. Maybe it is because of the far-right element. Most, if not all, Conservatives seem to be onside with moving to the far right, and it is at great cost.
As I pointed out, all Conservatives who campaigned in the election two years ago made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution. It was in their election platform. However, that has changed. That is a fact.
310 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:01:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to address today's NDP motion in a couple of ways.
One thing that is overlooked and underestimated, in terms of the damage, is a concern related to the environment. This is the case whether it is this particular opposition day motion or the previous one that the Conservatives brought forward last week, which we actually voted on yesterday.
When I think of the environment, it really highlights an area where the Conservative Party leadership is missing the point. When people say there are climate deniers in society, I look across the way and see that in the lack of action and policy enunciations coming from the Conservative Party. Those things could provide assurances to Canadians that Conservatives, as a political entity in the House, take the environment seriously. I believe there are indeed climate deniers within the Conservative caucus. They seem to be winning the day. It is unfortunate.
I believe that the Conservative Party is being very irresponsible. When we think about their policies regarding the environment, if people hunt and find something, they will find that it is exceptionally reckless, and nothing more so than the price on pollution. To demonstrate just how reckless the Conservative Party is on this issue, all one needs to do is look at the history inside the chamber and the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Stephen Harper was saying one thing on one day, but then the Conservatives changed their position, and a new Conservative leader came in and took a totally different position. In fact, that position was incorporated into the election platform of the Conservative Party in the last election, just two years ago.
As all members would know, because I have talked about it and other members have talked about it in the past, at that time, the Conservatives talked about the importance of a price on pollution. That is when every political party inside the House of Commons seemed to recognize that what had taken place in Paris in 2015 made a whole lot of sense. A big part of that, coming out of the Paris conference, was that the countries around the world, and many of their provincial or state entities, started to adopt a price on pollution.
At one time, it was actually very encouraging. We had all political entities in the House recognizing that. How far we have fallen from a time in which we had 338 Conservative candidates going out with an election platform and saying that they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have a shiny new leader who says that Conservatives do not believe in a price on pollution anymore; instead, they are taking the bumper sticker policy of axing the carbon tax. That is what the Conservative Party of today is saying.
That is what I mean by reckless. To get a sense of the degree to which the Conservatives are reckless, and taking a heck of a risk, people should just look at the environment and what the Conservatives are saying or not saying in regard to it. I would like to think that the Conservative Party would be a little more reflective, in terms of what everyone else is talking about in regard to the environment. There is an expectation.
I am disappointed, and I think many Canadians are disappointed, in the huge vacuum in the Conservative Party today in regard to the environment.
Yesterday, we had a vote, about which the Conservative Party is trying to portray a false narrative. Its members are actually spreading misinformation in order to justify that false information and manipulation of a particular vote. I will expand on that.
Members can think about a time when people would heat their homes with coal. In fact, in many of those wartime houses, we can see steel plates where the coal would go into the home. Many years ago, people realized that there were alternatives to coal and started to gravitate toward them.
We can fast-forward to today, and we have heating oil, propane, natural gas and electricity. These are the options we have to heat 99% of homes. Where does heating oil fit in? Heating oil is exceptionally more costly as a way to heat one's home. Natural gas and propane would probably be next in line in terms of cost. What has been clearly established is that using electricity and heat pumps is far more energy-efficient and better for the environment. Thousands of Canadians have recognized that.
Members will remember the false information I spoke about. I have heard members opposite say that, as a government, we saw maybe a couple of hundred people changing over to heat pumps. As with many other things, this is misinformation; it is just not accurate. Through the greener homes program, we have seen tens of thousands of people take advantage of the program and convert to alternatives in terms of replacing heating oil, for example, with heat pumps. However, Conservative members, in one swoop, just kind of wave that aside, because it does not fit their narrative.
If we look at the policy announcement, it is a national announcement. The Conservatives, even today during question period, try to regionalize it, as if it were there for one region of the country. That is just not true. They can read into it all they want and try to spread misinformation. However, the bottom line is that, much like the greener homes program, it is a national program. Every region of the country is going to be affected by that program.
It is important to recognize that the province that has the biggest potential to benefit from this is the province of Ontario, which has a quarter of a million households that are actually heating their homes via oil. Therefore, when the Conservatives try to give misleading and false information to Canadians in order to cause division, I find that somewhat regrettable.
I believe that the program is sound from an environmental perspective. That is why I have expressed disappointment with my New Democratic friends because I think they are sending a mixed message. We can look at the heating pump policy that has been established. Putting a pause on the tax and making heating pumps virtually free anywhere in Canada where provinces are participating in the program will cause more people to look at this program as a national program. We will continue to see Canadians buying in and recognizing that changing over is a smart thing to do. The math says that, if someone invests in heating pumps, the cost is substantially less, and over time they will actually save considerably more money than the cost of putting in a heat pump. That is very clear. We have demonstrated that in the past.
We know that there is a high level of interest from Canadians because they have looked to programs, such as the greener homes program, as a mechanism. We know that today other provinces are now looking at ways they can get on board. I hope the Province of Ontario, through Premier Doug Ford, will realize the benefits of encouraging that conversion by participating in it.
Getting back to the reckless attitudes of the Conservative Party, the other day, when the leader of the Conservative Party was addressing the House, I posed a question on the issue of taxes. He had indicated to the House that we should get rid of all taxes on home heating, implying that it is not just the carbon tax he was referring to, but all taxes, including the GST. It was members of the Conservative Party who put the GST on home heating.
Now the refreshed far right elements of today's Conservative Party are changing, again in that reckless fashion. Conservatives are not necessarily concerned about sound policy that is in the best interests of Canadians, whether it concerns the environment or the issue of taxation. That is an important issue. After all, that is the way we finance and fund the many different programs that are out there. They are more concerned about that bumper sticker. That is where their concern is. They want to make sure that they can fit something on a bumper sticker. They go around saying they are going to do this or that, throwing in common sense and then talking about bringing it home. That is what the Conservative Party today is all about. It is all a game; it is all manipulation.
I think they underestimate the importance of when it is time to present something. I do not know how long we have been waiting for the Conservative Party to come to the table and share with Canadians through the House, or in a meeting, what they are going to do on the environment. We are all waiting to see something come from the Conservative Party of Canada on the issue.
When we look at the policy, and combine the issue of affordability with the issue of supporting the purchasing, acquiring and installing of heat pumps, we see that it is a sound policy. As I indicated in the question that I put to my New Democratic friends, how do the Conservatives justify not supporting that particular policy? It sends a mixed message.
Earlier today, I posed a question on the GST. Today, the New Democrats are kind of buying in to some of the things the Conservatives have been saying. They just want to get rid of the GST on home heating. Let us think about what that actually means. They say the purpose of getting rid of the GST on electricity and on natural gas is so there can be more money for individuals who want to be able to heat their homes. The problem is that, when people purchase their electricity, it is fro more than just heating homes.
In the summer in Winnipeg, we do not need to heat our homes. When it is 35°C outside, I do not think there are any furnaces, electric or natural gas, that are being used to heat homes. We have all kinds of items that use utilities in a house, such as a PlayStation, a toaster and lights, and those are not used to heat homes. Are we saying that, for example, if people consume natural gas and electricity, and they have a propane tank, all of those would be exempt for that one household? That is in essence what the New Democrats are saying.
Who would be the biggest benefactors of that policy? I would suggest it would not be the middle class. Do members remember that, in the last budget, we brought in the grocery rebate? Where did the money come from to support that? It was through the GST. That is what allowed us to provide that particular support. By doing that, whom did we help the most? We helped 11 million-plus Canadians, including the middle class and those with lower-end incomes, to get money directly into their pockets so that they would be in a better position to have a higher disposable income to purchase groceries.
What is the NDP proposing today? Someone pointed out that Mr. Weston would be one of the biggest benefactors. He has a fairly big house, not to mention other luxury items. The 1% of the wealthiest in Canada would probably get the biggest reward on the motion the NDP has brought forward. Let us think about a senior on a fixed income living in an apartment versus the 1% wealthiest and where they might be living and the type of resources that they would be spending in consuming electricity, propane and natural gas.
What about pointing out how this policy would help? I would suggest that there is a better way to support Canada's working class and those aspiring to be a part of it. They are those whom we want to help in a more direct way. We have seen a national government over the years lift children and seniors and people with disabilities out of poverty because of targets.
I would suggest that this is irresponsible of the New Democrats, and I think it is, unfortunately, because they are being heavily influenced by the Conservative Party. They need to get a bit more distance from the Conservative Party to have a healthier party in the future.
2075 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
- May/29/23 4:24:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservatives? I can say that it would be awfully awkward when they take a look at their own party platform. We know that, as candidates, when we go knocking on doors, we are there supporting the party platform. All 338 Conservative candidates made it very clear in the last election that they do support a price on pollution.
Some members have heckled that they take it back, but hindsight is 20/20. The bottom line is that they did do a flip-flop on that. The relevance to that issue, to what we are debating today, is that, once again, we see the Conservative Party taking a flip-flop on an important piece of environmental legislation. I think that Canadians would be very disappointed, given that it includes things such as the right to a healthy environment. The Conservatives are actually going to be voting against it.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.
If we listen to what Canadians are talking about, we often hear the issue of the environment coming up. Within the Liberal caucus, I can assure people who are following the debate that, whether it is me or members of the Liberal caucus, we have a high degree of sensitivity in wanting to ensure that what we are doing here in Ottawa reflects Canadians' desires and interests in terms of what they are telling us.
Canadians tell us that the environment does matter and that it counts. We have a government in a minority situation. They would like to see members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, recognize the importance of the issue of the environment and start taking actions to support the words we use during an election.
We see the position that the official opposition is taking on the environment. I want to use two examples. Today, it is all about Bill S-5 and what is happening with it. It is about how the Conservative Party has once again made a change towards the environment. I would suggest that this is a negative change. This is consistent with what the Conservative Party did in the last federal election.
We constantly get criticized by the Conservatives regarding a price on pollution. Most Canadians see and recognize the value of this, as do other countries and jurisdictions around the world. They see that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on pollution. However, only the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons, from the get-go, said it opposed a price on pollution. After being tuned up by Canadians, it actually said it is now in favour of a price on pollution.
In the last federal election, every one of the members sitting here today actually said they agreed with a price on pollution in their election platform. They all campaigned on it. However, with a new, shiny, ultra-right leader, they now say they do not support a price on pollution.
How is that relevant to the debate we are having today? It is relevant because not that long ago, about two weeks ago, the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they voted in favour of Bill S-5 and they thought Bill S-5 was a good idea. They were right two weeks ago when they were telling that to Canadians. They were ultimately responding, in part, to what their constituents were telling them.
One of the biggest things in Bill S-5 deals with the right to a healthy environment. Imagine taking a statement of that nature and incorporating it into law. This is why I asked my NDP colleague to provide a comment on it. Given what Canadians are telling us about the importance of the environment, how could someone oppose that? How is it possible that the Conservatives would vote against it?
If we want to talk about popping the bubble of hope, that is what the Conservatives have done in recent days. The Conservatives have said that they now oppose Bill S-5. Why did they flip-flop?
An hon. member: Because of you. You flip-flop.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say it is because of me. I do not think I carry that much influence within the Conservative caucus.
I can say that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of yet another important environmental issue. They need to understand that the environment does matter. When they say they are now opposed to it, what are they voting against? They are voting against what their leader often talks about: common sense.
Why would one oppose the right to a healthy environment? Yes, a lot of regulations and protocols need to be established to ensure that right, but, again, for the very first time, we actually have that now in legislation, the very same legislation that the official opposition is going to vote against when it comes up for a vote.
Maybe we should wait another week or two. Maybe they might change their mind again on this issue.
It is an important vote. We are dealing with additional regulations to deal with toxic chemicals. What is it about toxic chemicals that the Conservative Party of Canada feels, within this legislation, is bad? We are not hearing that.
The Conservatives are not saying that they do not like this legislation because of this particular aspect. They are talking about tailings ponds and apparently that is what caused them to flip, even though, before the amendment, it came to the House from the Senate with it.
One has to start questioning where the Conservative Party is on the environment. I will give part two when we begin debate again after question period.
823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 12:29:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, for many years, has been a very strong advocate on the environmental file, in particular with regard to waterways. I know he was in charge of a press conference we just recently had in the city of Winnipeg, dealing with the Canada water agency, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important that is to our country and to our city.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:33:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I do not know all the details in the legislation to the degree that I could actually give a specific answer to the member. However, when we talk about Canadians having that guarantee of environmental rights, I suspect there are ways to take into consideration a wide variety of environmental issues related to what the member has said.
Again, maybe the member was at the committee or is going into details with which I am just not quite familiar enough.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:22:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support this legislation, Bill S-5. I understand, from what I have been told, that all members of the House recognize its value and are in favour of supporting it. As the House will know, it is a substantive piece of legislation.
It has been a long time since we have seen substantial changes to our environmental laws, which is the essence of what Bill S-5 would do. In many ways, it would make substantive changes that would modernize the law and make a very powerful statement to all Canadians. They have a right to a healthy environment. The essence of Bill S-5 is about ensuring that Canadians recognize they have a right to a healthy environment.
What is interesting is the process that has brought us to where we are today. The legislation has been thoroughly debated in different committees, both at the Senate and at the House of Commons, and it has already had a substantial number of amendments. During the years I was in opposition, it was rare to see amendments, unless of course they were government amendments, but when we think of—
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 11:58:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite history, and history is very clear. For anyone who wants a clear indication of a lost opportunity, a simple search of Dr. Google will quickly tell them that the Avro Arrow, a leading interceptor that was ahead of its time in the late 1950s, was cancelled in 1959. If we do a Google search, we will also find that the prime minister at the time went out of his way to say that we were cancelling the program. Hundreds of jobs were lost. The member does not have to believe me; he can read the history books. We can choose what to believe, but we cannot rewrite history.
Canada is looked up to, around the world, because of our procurements and tendering. We recognize that our aerospace industry is a worldwide issue. That means that, at times, when we go abroad, there are all sorts of other aerospace industry SME benefits that would be taken into consideration.
It is a fairly complicated issue. The member is more than welcome to sit down with some of the departmental staff, who, I am sure, would be happy to explain the benefits of the program that the federal government provides with respect to procurement.
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 12:24:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member raises an excellent point. That is one of the reasons why, when we take a look at the more recent trade agreements, we will see that there is an environmental component to them.
With the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, everyone else seems to understand and appreciate that climate change is real, and that we do have to do things to protect our environment into the future. Incorporating the environment in our trade agreements sends a very strong message.
Also important are things such as the Paris conference, which took place back in 2015, when countries around the world came together to recognize that things such as the price on pollution are good things. At one time, even the Conservative Party supported it. There are many things we can do to enhance and promote a healthier environment as well.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite, along with many of her colleagues, needs to read other things outside of just the Conservative notes that are being provided. If the member genuinely believes that we have not been investing in mental health, she can go onto the portal and she will find that we have spent $180 million on a portal that is providing mental health services directly from Ottawa. That program has reached over two million Canadians.
The Conservatives do not even know what they are talking about when it comes to health care because, at the end of the day, they do not see and believe that the federal government plays a role in health care.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
