- 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/2/24 5:14:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the sensitivity of the member, since 99.5% of everything I said is absolutely relevant to the legislation. The Conservative Party of Canada is so determined to prevent the legislation from passing, and the question that needs to be asked of the Conservatives is what they have against Atlantic Canada that they are preventing legislation from passing that would enable the region to achieve a much higher potential.
The Conservatives do not have to believe the government. All they need to do is listen to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the provincial leadership. They are calling upon the Conservative Party of Canada not only to recognize that the bill is positive legislation but also, at the very least, to allow the legislation to pass. The Conservative Party is doing whatever it can to prevent that from happening, and I find that disrespectful to the people of those provinces.
I suggest that, at the end of the day, economic development is important. Economic development in Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. When we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party today, the attitude of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney about it is right, which is that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. It is not me who is saying that; it was former prime ministers of Canada who were real progressive Conservatives. The current leadership of the Conservative Party has fallen so far to the right that they have amputated the progressive nature—
266 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 1:36:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification from the member if I can. What the member was actually telling me in his answer was that there are conditions where Ottawa, or a political party in Ottawa, can be in opposition to what a province wants. Therefore, even though Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia want this legislation passed, because of the policy of the Bloc, its members believe that it is not in Canada's best interests to see it passed.
Would that same principle apply for all provinces?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting story. I would say to the member that, yes, he can. He can realize the potential by passing Bill C-49, which has the premiers of the provinces that are most affected recognizing the true value of it, as it is. I would ask the member to reflect on the great potential Atlantic Canada, in particular the two provinces in question, would have through the passage of this legislation.
I saw the passion in the speeches of the minister and others, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, when they talked about the future and how wonderful the future is, as well as the potential of this legislation. They are joined by the premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why does he not say that, yes, he can convince his Atlantic caucus colleagues, at the very least, to get behind Bill C-49 and do the right thing by supporting it? By supporting it, he would be supporting Atlantic Canada.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.
Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs.
Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.
Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.
Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.
We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.
Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.
Marilyn Gladu: Wait for my speech.
Kevin Lamoureux: The member says “Wait for my speech”, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what the member has to say.
Let me highlight a few aspects of the bill and maybe the member can provide her thoughts on what I believe are three very positive things. Let us remember that through the legislation, we would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council. It is a committee of sorts. It could be up to, I believe, 15 members. The individuals who would be on that council, which would provide advice to the government, are as follows: business community leaders; labour representatives; representatives of regional interests, like the Atlantic community, and the impact of billions of dollars of potential development, which the Conservatives voted against; indigenous communities; and others who could potentially contribute to a healthy, educated and well-thought-out process.
Why would the Conservative Party of Canada not support that? What do they have against having good ideas being brought forward to the government so it can be in a position to develop a report or take action? We will wait until the next Conservative speaker, who might say something positive about the council, but I will not hold my breath.
Another thing the legislation would do is put in place a sustainable jobs action plan. I talked about the council and how every five years there would an action plan presented to the government, a five-year forecast with respect to what we could look at in the up and coming years ahead. The first report will come out in 2025, and that as a positive thing.
The government is saying that it wants to share with Canadians a plan that can build confidence for industries, whether one is an investor or a young person who wants a sense of what direction to go in with respect to a career. What is wrong with having a five-year plan? Again, it as a positive thing.
Another issue is the sustainable jobs secretariat. The government is bent on having a secretariat, which would make a significant difference. We would have an advisory council that generates ideas, a reporting mechanism and a secretariat to ensure there is some coordination and action taking place. That is also incorporated into the legislation. Again, that is a good thing.
When I look at the legislation, the three things I just finished highlighting are the real basics of the framework that will make a positive difference. It will have a positive outcome for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Back in the late winter of 2015, we said that this government's focus would be on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. When we stand and talk about future jobs, those jobs will support Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are looking to build supports.
Let us take a look at what happened yesterday when we brought forward the legislation for debate, which I believe would have been the second day of debate on it. That is when members opposite, including the member who said that she has something to say after me, would have had her opportunity to speak to this legislation. As she knows, that did not happen. Why did that not happen? Instead of talking about jobs, as I referred to yesterday, what members of the Conservative Party want to do is continue their personal attacks, something I have referenced as character assassinations. They believe that as long as they focus on character assassinations, while staying away from the issues, that is all Canadians will focus on. That is what they push.
All one needs to do is look at what they actually did yesterday. Instead of talking about jobs, they brought forward a motion for a concurrence report. When someone brings in such a motion, what they typically want to see is the House pass a report by having a vote, so that we will, in essence, agree to it. That is usually the desire. However, then they moved an amendment to have the standing committee deal with it.
Colleagues can see the relevance of this very quickly, because the motion to defer it to a committee could have been done in a standing committee. Members could have raised the amendment and tried to put that on the agenda of a standing committee, but they chose not to do that. Why did they choose not to do that? It was because Bill C-50 and those points that I just finished highlighting were not debated. Instead, we talked about the concurrence report amendment. As a result, we never had the debate on this.
We can fast-forward to today. The government now brings in time allocation and says that there is a limit to the amount of debate on this bill. I am sure we are going to hear comments from the other side during the debate in terms of how the government is trying to limit debate. In reality, those individuals who are following the debate, looking at the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour on legislation in general, will find that, when the Conservative Party opposes legislation, it has no intention to pass the legislation.
It does not take much. I could take a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler or Maples high school in my community, R. B. Russell or Children of the Earth, and I could prevent legislation from passing if they were members of Parliament. We would just have to put them up to speak. We all know there is a limit to the amount of time for speech, so all someone has to do is put up one speaker after another and then maybe move an amendment. They can repeat that and it will never get voted on, unless of course a closure motion or time allocation is brought in.
The Conservatives were very clear yesterday. Prior to that I honestly did not know how they were going to be voting on Bill C-50. Now I have come to believe they are going to be voting against it. That is one of the motivating reasons that they did not want the debate to occur yesterday.
The government only has so many hours of debate in any given week. We can take a look at the number of times that the Conservatives have tried to kill that time, as much as they can. We can look at the times when opposition members have stood up to move that so and so be heard, and then they cause the bells to ring, to prevent debate on government bills.
We can look at the times they have tried to adjourn the House, again in an attempt to prevent debate. We can look at the times they denied the House sitting until midnight when the government wanted to provide more time for debate—
1664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, is the member saying that this government, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are all pushing forward unconstitutional legislation? Does she really believe that?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:05:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-1
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to.
When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.”
We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 11:56:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
1. That, in relation to its study of the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border and implications for peace and security, seven members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Brussels, Belgium; Helsinki, Finland; Stockholm, Sweden, and Warsaw, Poland, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
2. That, in relation to its study of Arctic sovereignty, security and emergency preparedness of Indigenous Peoples, seven members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Kugluktuk, Nunavut, and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
3. That, in relation to its study of large port infrastructure expansion projects in Canada, seven members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montréal, Québec; Toronto, Ontario; Hamilton-Niagara region, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:47:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here is a bit of a challenging question, and I hope the member chooses to answer it. He makes reference to the Atlantic, and I do not know whether he said Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, and he said the government would receive hundreds of millions, I think he actually said a billion, in terms of a carbon tax. That is what we are going to be receiving.
Ottawa is not receiving carbon tax dollars coming from Atlantic Canada. It is the provinces that are receiving that money. If he really believes it is Canada that is receiving it, can he provide us an actual number that he believes the Government of Canada is receiving because of a carbon tax in Atlantic Canada?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that there are only seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. One would never know it, given the power of the Atlantic caucus. It is exceptionally effective, I must say, and Newfoundland and Labrador is represented exceptionally well in the House and in the committees in terms of the amount of workload that the members carry and their impact on government policy.
However, the member raises a very valid point. People as a whole in Canada understand our federation and why it is important that Prince Edward Island has four seats, and why it is important that we guarantee that the province of Quebec never goes below 78 seats, which is what Bill C-14 would do.
My colleague planted a seed asking about the future, about the province of Newfoundland or other provinces and the representation that they have. There are other opportunities, no doubt, both in opposition and in government, for us to enter into that dialogue. Canadians as a whole understand what is happening, they support it and it is time that we move on.
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to talk about issues that are important no matter where one lives in Canada. In fact, from coast to coast to coast, as well as inland, our fishing industry is of critical importance. We can talk about Lake Winnipeg, the north, Atlantic Canada and the Pacific, where we have relatively healthy industries that are of critical importance to all Canadians, not just to those who fish our oceans or our inland lakes.
The member made reference to one of our chamber colleagues about how, being from Newfoundland and Labrador, it is kind of in the blood. I think of the member for Labrador, whom I have come to know over many years, and her position on the issue of seals. I can very much appreciate the sensitivity with respect to what is taking place.
The member made some specific references to numbers, numbers we should all be concerned about. I will give him that. When we talk about the number of seals out there today, it is a significant number. He often made reference to pinnipeds, such as seals and walruses, which consume vast quantities of fish.
I am pleased the member has brought forward the debate in the form of a piece of legislation, because it reflects a lot of the discussions I have personally had with the member for Labrador, but also with other members, in particular from our Atlantic caucus. We are all concerned, some maybe a bit more than others. That is something I have witnessed first-hand. I can assure the member that I have always been somewhat envious of the members of the Atlantic caucus when they get their teeth into an issue, and I know this is an important issue for them. However, this is not just an issue for Atlantic Canada. That is why I started off talking about what is taking place not only in the Atlantic Ocean. We also need to be concerned about the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic and our inland lakes.
We have the DFO management group, which in essence puts into place measures to try to provide a level of comfort to people that we are on the right track. I can appreciate that there will always be some members who will say that we should be moving more in a particular direction. What this bill is attempting to achieve is some form of a more detailed management system that would ultimately provide additional assurances. The government itself, in recognizing the special situation that is taking place in Atlantic Canada, brought together the Atlantic seal task team. It is not a task force; it is a team of individuals, but one could ultimately call it a task force of sorts. However, at the end of the day it is a group of individuals that includes people who are fishing our seas.
I think it is really important that as politicians we all have an opinion on it. I can sit across the way and talk to my friend who introduced the bill. It appears he has some fairly solid arguments, and I respect that. Having said that, I think we also need to factor in, much like when we went through the coronavirus, that we have science that needs to be taken into consideration and controversial issues that have to be overcome.
I look at the seal population and the damage that industry has caused as a direct result of, what I would call, unfair practices by a number of people to make it sound as if there is no role for a seal industry. I would like to believe that there is a healthy future for our seal industry here in Canada.
When we take a look at fishing stock issues, we need to focus a great deal of attention on the issue of science. We need to listen to the people who get paid to do the job they are doing and listen for the advice they might have to offer.
When we talk about the industry, as a whole, it is significant. We are talking about billions of dollars of seafood. It is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 billion to $10 billion, depending on the year. Yes, the United States is the primary country we export our products to from our oceans and inland lakes, but it is not the only one.
Members might be surprised, and I know this from past discussions and debates, that there are many countries around the world we export to. It is not just the United States. The products that are pulled from Canada's oceans are well recognized. I believe there was a time when there was an idea to fly fresh lobster from either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick directly to France because the demand for fresh Canadian lobster was so high.
There is a very real market. We are talking about literally hundreds to thousands of direct and indirect jobs. I suspect we will see during debate of the member's piece of legislation many contributions that will hopefully allow for us to have an informed vote when the time comes. We will have to wait and see whether it ultimately passes.
The member is fortunate in the sense that he is in the first draw, which allows the member to ensure the legislation will, in fact, be voted on. There might be an opportunity to see it go to committee. We will have to wait and see. One of the things I do know is that there are members in all political parties who are taking a look at the issue of pinnipeds populations, because it is not just seals, as we can factor in walruses and so forth. They are having this huge impact.
I can appreciate that the impact is probably the most significant in Atlantic Canada. I do not want people to lose sight of the fact that one does not have to be from Atlantic Canada to care about the industry. I would like to see the advancement, as I said earlier, of a seal industry. I think we can improve our seal industry here in Canada. It might be colleagues of mine who will wear a seal tie. In fact, I do not have perfect eyesight, but the member opposite might be wearing a seal tie because it seems to have that gloss to it.
There are many products out there. I think there is a potential demand, but we have to work with the different partners and stakeholders, whether they are indigenous people, environmentalists or industry reps. We need to make smart decisions on this industry. It is worth billions and involves thousands of both direct and indirect jobs.
1133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
