- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/6/24 12:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no other member in the Conservative-Reform party who continuously harps on this one issue more than the member. Whatever the issue is, he will just add the word “scandal” to it. Whether it is real or not, that is his job. Members can take a look at this and try to look at what actually transpired, contrary to what the member tries to give a false impression of.
When it was discovered, the government did take actions. Those actions ultimately led to the national Auditor General taking a look at it and issuing a report. When the report came out, there was a consequence. That board no longer exists, and now it is going through the NRC.
I wonder if the member would like to reflect, as maybe he overuses the word “corruption”, because he uses it all the time. I would not mind doing a contrast between Stephen Harper and corruption versus our—
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:38:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the idea of sustainable development and funding green projects is something that is worthwhile. I would like to think that all political parties in the House support it, with the possible exception of the Conservative-Reform party.
Looking at it, yes, obviously everyone in the chamber recognizes that something is wrong here. The minister took immediate action, and the National Research Council is going to, in essence, ensure that we can continue to have funding ongoing while we address the concerns that have come out.
Would the member not agree that to have a government agency, such as NRC, take responsibility for this important file is a positive step forward?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:00:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one has to admit it is truly amazing when we get Conservative after Conservative standing up, saying they support the legislation and want to pass the legislation, but then go out of their way to actually prevent the legislation from passing.
The only reason the bill is going to pass is that we were able to finally get it time allocated. If we did not get it time allocated, the Conservatives would continue debating it endlessly. There are only a limited number of days that the House actually sits. We have to get 70-plus pieces of legislation across. They should do the basic math. All the Conservatives want to do, even if they support legislation, is cause it to fail and prevent it from passing. Thank goodness we have a tool called time allocation. Otherwise, no matter who is in government, they cannot get legislation passed with the Reform Party across the way.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 7:56:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concluding remarks from the member. He supports the bill. He is disappointed that it is taking us so long to pass it, and at the beginning of his comments, he was talking about how the government was unable to get it passed in the last session. It is truly amazing. “Look in a mirror”, I say to the members opposite. The reason it does not get passed is that the Conservatives do not want it to pass. The member needs to talk to his House leadership team. The Conservatives moved a very simple motion to delete the short title of the legislation in order to prevent it from passing.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why he believes his own Reform-Conservative Party does not actually want to pass it and instead filibusters.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton.
I want to address what I would suggest is the ultimate potential assault on health care by the Conservative-Reform Party of Canada. For the record, to be very clear, one needs to look at what the member for Abbotsford said today, which has been repeated in many different ways by different members. I have often talked about the hidden Conservative-Reform agenda.
I personally see health care as an important issue going into the next federal election, and my intention is to point out the contrast. When I say that the Conservative Party has crazy policies, we should think about them saying that the federal government has no constitutional role. One would think they were separatists, like the Bloc. They believe the federal government should just be an ATM machine, hand over the cash and say nothing about health care because the federal government has no role to play. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc believe that there is no role for the federal government to play in health care.
Then, they say that it is a constitutional God-given right that provinces are the only ones that have anything to do with health care. That is absolutely wrong. I would ask members to cite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that the Canada Health Act is in violation of the Constitution. I would like members to tell me which premier or which province took the government to the Supreme Court and had a favourable ruling on that issue. The simple answer is that it has not happened. That is why the Conservative spin of misinformation continues to flow, and that is most unfortunate.
Unlike the Conservative Party, Liberals understand and value the important role that the federal government in Ottawa plays. In terms of the pharmacare program, it is interesting to hear from different opposition members, the Conservatives and the Bloc, as they have that unholy alliance on Bill C-64 for different reasons. We have well over 100 policies on pharmacare, depending on what province people are in or which company they work for. There are many different types of policies facing the pharmacare issue.
The idea of a national pharmacare program is nothing new. The Prime Minister is moving the issue forward. That is what Bill C-64 is all about. It recognizes there is a need for the national government to work, where it can, with provinces, to develop a national pharmacare program that has similarities in all regions of the country. The way I see it, there are two areas where we are focusing a great deal of attention today. I see it as a step forward. I believe that provinces will continue to look at what is being proposed and will come on board.
The arguments I hear from the Conservative Party today are the types of arguments one would have heard generations ago regarding health care when public health was brought in. Those are the types of arguments of deniers. I suspect we will never hear the Conservative Party saying they are going to get rid of the Canada Health Act. Maybe a good opposition day motion would be what people have to say about the Canada Health Act and whether they support it or not.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: You could ask when you are in opposition.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that we cannot propose a motion of that nature because we are not in opposition. Maybe in 10 years, or whenever it might happen, we will have the opportunity.
I suspect that even Conservative reformers, the very far right, would recognize that Canadians treasure and value the health care system we have today. They see it as a part of our Canadian identity. The federal government played a critical role in that. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that led the way in ensuring that the federal government here in Ottawa would be able to expand upon it so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. Bringing forward the idea that if someone has diabetes, no matter where they live in Canada, they would have public assistance in terms of those medications and have public support, I see that as a positive thing.
Today, the reality is that it depends on what province and what sort of private insurance that someone may have, maybe not as much of a deductible. It varies across the land. Many Canadians do not even have the opportunity to have virtually any subsidy, in terms of the medications required for diabetes.
It has been reported that just over 3.5 million Canadians are dealing with diabetes today. I heard that as many as 25% of those individuals reported that because of the cost, they are not taking all the medications they should be taking to deal with their diabetes. What is the consequence of not being able to take the medications? It could mean someone could prematurely lose their eyesight and become blind. It could mean having an amputation as a direct result. Again, affordability depends on the province where a person lives or on the company the person works for.
We have a national government saying that it believes this is a wonderful, positive step forward to see strong national leadership in providing this medication. This would profoundly change, in a positive way, the lives of many Canadians in every region of the country, including all provinces. This is factual. This would ultimately put us in a better light moving forward. This should come as no surprise.
We have had different social groups, such as unions, come to Parliament. They have been advocating for it. We have had a standing committee deal with it. We have had it incorporated into budgets. We have had statements from ministers of finance in regard to this, and the Prime Minister has been talking about it for a number of years. I have brought forward many petitions on the issue. There is no surprise here. If members actually consulted with their constituents, they would find that there is a wide spectrum, in terms of appetite, for the federal government not only to continue dealing with this, but also to consider other possibilities.
Why is it that the Conservative reformers feel that the federal government's role in health care should be diminished? They are not only against pharmacare but also against the dental plan. They are also against the commitment to provide $200 billion for 10 years for future generations of health and to provide the cash resources to support provinces. That is what I hope to be talking a lot about in the next federal election in 16 to 18 months. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are behind this policy.
1150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 5:21:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one concern that we have is the tendency of the Reform Party across the way to mislead Canadians. The issue here is that they are trying to give an impression that Canadians will save $670 over the summer. I suspect that this could be challenged. I do not believe there is any substantive, factual information that the Conservatives can present to clearly show that Canada's population would benefit by the full $670. I believe that fewer than 5% would achieve the maximum $670, yet the Conservatives go around and say they will.
Can the member provide any evidence whatsoever that would show that I am wrong on that?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 7:31:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the opposition House leader was the Speaker of the House. He not only had fundraisers for himself as Speaker, but also had fundraisers for other members, at least one that we are aware of. The Conservatives do all sorts of hokey-pokey stuff on it, but the bottom line is that we have to take into consideration the twists and turns that the Conservatives consistently use to present some sort of a picture that is not accurate.
Why do the Conservatives continue to try to demonstrate that the parliamentary precinct is dysfunctional, when the only thing that is dysfunctional is the Conservative Party of Canada, better known as the Reformers?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:04:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for those who listened in yesterday or are tuning in today, let there be no doubt that this is nothing more than a Conservative Reform Party tactic. That is all it is.
The issue that is before us is being used to try to say something that is not true. Instead of having a debate on issues that Canadians are having to face day in and day out, the Conservatives choose to play a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. We will continue to be focused on the needs of Canadians, as the Conservatives continue to play this destructive force.
When will the Conservatives get away from playing their destructive games and start focusing on what is in the best interest of Canadians and supporting the initiatives that are coming through in legislation and in budgetary measures?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 6:31:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the Green Party might not necessarily like this answer, but the truth of the matter is that, back then, there was no consensus achieved. I also know that the leader of the Green Party is very familiar with the history of this debate, not only here in Ottawa, but in other jurisdictions. Other provinces and other political parties, at the provincial level, for many years have been calling for a change to the first-past-the post system, yet all provinces, and here in Ottawa, have continued with first past the post. It has proven to be acceptable to governments, for the most part. Elections have been acceptable. I will acknowledge that there have been some anomalies that have caused a great deal of concern.
Reflecting back on what took place during that 2016-17 period, and the discussions around the table at the time, it became clear that we were not going to be able to achieve consensus. Some people were advocating preferential ballot, as an example, while others were talking about a different form to change elections. At the end of the day, we have seen provinces have independent groups do research into how they believed the province could change the system. That has taken place on several occasions. We have seen referendums at the provincial level.
What I have witnessed over my relatively short term of 30-plus years as a parliamentarian is that first past the post continues to be the preferred choice of Canadians, governments and opposition parties, consistently. At times, the issue of electoral reform does come up. A good percentage of people are very much concerned about it and looking at ways to change the system. Maybe we will see some sort of a change in the future, in particular at a provincial level, where we will be able to look at what that province is doing. Until we can achieve that consensus, I do not believe that we are in a position where we can see the type of change that the leader of the Green Party would like to see. I do not say that lightly.
I have been in a political party in Manitoba where there were only two Liberal MLAs. In fact, my daughter is the only Liberal MLA currently in Manitoba. I understand the arguments on all sides from a number of people who would like to see electoral change. I know of the examples where one party gets a majority of the vote, yet it does not get a majority of the seats.
All in all, when we weigh things out, we find that people are accepting and content with first past the post because it has been working for Canada to date. Until we can build that consensus, I think we need to stick with that.
478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 11:04:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the “Reform Party” across the way talking about investing in jobs and their opposition to it. We can talk about Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda, directly and indirectly creating tens of thousands of jobs. There is government subsidy that is going there, and it is not only federal government subsidy but also a provincial subsidy coming from Doug Ford, who is a Progressive Conservative.
Does the member believe that Doug Ford should also be criticized? If he is criticizing the federal government, and the “Reform Party” across the way does not support this investment, would the member then be consistent and say that Doug Ford was wrong also?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 7:11:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a good way to conclude this is to say that the leader of the Conservative Party is behaving like an individual who is standing on a corner and gives a child a dollar to buy a chocolate bar, but every time the child takes a step, he sticks out his foot and trips the child. Then he wonders why the child is not getting anywhere. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party continues to prevent things from happening.
It is a conscious decision by the Conservative Party to prevent legislation from passing. It then blames the government for the legislation's not passing, and therefore argues that the House is dysfunctional. What is dysfunctional is the Conservative-Reform party of Canada today. At the end of the day, the people the Conservatives are hurting are the people we all represent.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 7:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate. I know it might please the member opposite and maybe some of the Conservatives in the back room. They do not necessarily like hearing the truth, so they stand in here to try to disrupt debate, which is something I find really unfortunate. Quite frankly, I think I should be allowed to start from the beginning.
Having said that, with regard to the Conservative Party and its attitude, where is it getting its mandate from? Who are the people that the Conservatives are trying to please? Let there be no doubt: The Conservative House leadership team, headed by the leader of the Conservative Party and his attitude toward the chamber, is being driven by the far right. Maybe some of the Reformers do not quite get that, but that is the reality.
That is the reason why the leader of the Conservative Party was very comfortable with walking in to the trailer of a member of Diagolon. All of my colleagues know that it is a far right, scary group. If someone does a Google search on it, they will find out. That is who is giving the marching orders, in many ways, for members of the Conservative Party. We are starting to see more and more of that coming from them virtually every day.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:55:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We have the Conservative Party of Canada, which many would call the Reform Party, because it is, for all intents and purposes, more the Reform Party than it is the Conservative Party, and I will try to explain to those who might be attempting to follow the debate.
We are talking about the fall economic statement, which is something that was introduced late last year. The Conservative member who moved this motion is criticizing the government for taking so long to get this legislation passed, which is truly amazing, because it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the legislation from passing by filibustering the legislation, and today is an excellent example.
What is the member actually moving? He is moving a motion to delete the short title of the legislation. What is the short title of the legislation? It is the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. This is a relatively large piece of legislation, and this member, who I hope did not require AI assistance this time around, comes up with an amendment to delete that short title. Then he says that not doing this, not passing this legislation, has a consequence. Well, the member is somewhat right, even though he does not admit that the Conservative Party, or the Reformers in the Conservative Party, are the problem in terms of why it is not passing, and many of them are rural members of Parliament.
Within this legislation is action that would double the rural top-up for the carbon rebate. This means that the Reformers across the way, the Conservative Party, are in fact keeping money away from rural communities in Canada, because they made the decision that they do not want this legislation to pass. To amplify that, they bring in a silly motion meant for one purpose, which is purely obstruction.
Then the member asks who the Liberals are talking to, and he is critical of some of my caucus colleagues. Let me frame it in a different way. After all, the member himself said, “The buck stops with the one who is in charge”, implying the Prime Minister. Let me reverse this on the member opposite. He is trying to ask who we are talking to versus who the Conservatives are talking to, so let us talk about the leaders.
The Prime Minister of Canada came to Winnipeg one day, and we were talking about child care. He came to Stanley Knowles School in my riding, and we talked about the importance of $10-a-day child care. What is wrong with talking to child care workers?
The next time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we went to the Grace Hospital. It was the premier, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. They talked about the $200-billion transfer for a generation of providing services in health care on issues such as mental health, family doctors and so forth. We were surrounded by the real VIPs, which were the health care workers who were there. These are the people we are listening to.
In fact, the last time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we met again with the premier and the provincial minister of housing. We also had the mayor of Winnipeg, and along with the Prime Minister was the Minister of Housing. We talked about the issue of housing and, again, we had stakeholders there.
When we think of the budget or the fall economic statement, what we will see is that they are a reflection of what Canadians are telling us.
Whether it is the member for Avalon, me or the member from Surrey, we take the ideas and the thoughts that constituents and Canadians tell us and bring them here to Ottawa. The budget and the fall economic statement are a reflection of Canadian values and what they are—
658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 5:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us think of the improvement in the quality of life for the thousands of young people who are going to have the opportunity to gain employment through companies like the VW plant, Canada's largest manufacturing plant; 200 football fields could fit into it. That is not to mention the Honda plant. We are not alone. Not only does the Liberal government see that, but so does the Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario, because it is also supporting these two initiatives.
We are supporting industries, and, yes, it does cost money. Can the member from the Reform Party tell us why it is that they oppose this type of investment, when we see Progressive Conservatives getting behind it?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:01:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I guess if I had the opportunity to sit down with some wise people to talk about how we could reform our Standing Orders, one of the standing order changes I would love to see would be how parliamentary committees need to work more on a consensus basis as opposed to a hard vote. The reason is that there is a completely different attitude in a majority situation versus a minority situation. In minority situations, opposition will often combine and work together on issues.
As I pointed out and we have to be aware of it, the Conservative leadership and that regime have been on character assassination since the current Prime Minister was first elected back in 2014 as leader of the Liberal Party. We can even look at when we were the third party and the criticism that occurred. Character assassination has been the Conservatives' primary objective and a lot of that objective is carried out through some of the standing committees. That is why, if we really want to see more positive outcomes from the standing committees in the modern era, I think we need to look at how we build consensus as opposed to using hard votes.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 1:21:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member referred to the well over 1,000 cuts in terms of Canada border control service officers. Not only have we, as a government, restored every one of those cuts, but we can add on another 800.
As a government, we have provided supports from a budget perspective; we continue to look at ways to enhance and try to improve the system, whether through the budgetary measures that we just cited or legislative measures, in terms of working with provinces on the bail reform legislation we ultimately passed.
The Government of Canada is committed to making our communities healthier and safer. We are taking the measures that are necessary and are prepared to work with other levels of government and stakeholders to do just that.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when the leader of the Conservative Party went to PROC to try to justify electoral reform. There were a lot of manipulations of the Elections Act there. If I only had more time, if I had another couple of minutes, I would be more than happy to expand on my answer.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 12:36:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the price on pollution gets such a reaction from the Conservative Party that its members will actually vote against, as they have, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, all because of that red herring of an excuse.
When it comes to the Senate, again, there is legislation that is dealing with bail reform. The Conservative Party of Canada itself, in August, said that we should come back in session so we could pass the bail reform bill. The provinces and stakeholders were saying that it was important that we pass it. Why has it not been passed? All members of the House passed it unanimously, but the Conservative senators are now actually proposing amendments to it. They are preventing the bail reform bill from passing. There is no word now from the Conservative Party in regard to that important legislation; it completely evaporated, and why? It is because the Conservative Party is so fixated on the price on pollution that it will do anything on the issue. It is completely high-risk as a political entity.
My question is this: When the Conservative caucus meets tomorrow, and the Conservative senators meet with the Conservative MPs, will they ask what the holdup is with the bail reform bill?
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, every so often, when we bring in legislation, there are some surprises.
Yesterday, it was quite encouraging when we brought in Bill C-48 on the bail reform issue and we saw parties come together to recognize the value of the legislation and understand and appreciate how important it was to get it passed.
In fact, later yesterday, after a few hours of debate, a Conservative member suggested that we go ahead with unanimous consent and pass it through the system.
That was a bit of a surprise. I was quite pleased about it. I thought it surprised a number of people. It was quite encouraging because it shows that, if the House recognizes something of great value, collectively, where we have all parties onside, we can accomplish things very quickly inside the House.
I look at Bill C-49, which we are debating today. I am not from Atlantic Canada, as we all know, but I understand the importance of regional development. The Atlantic accord is of critical importance to Atlantic Canada, to two provinces in particular, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia.
We understand and appreciate all of the efforts. I have had a number of Conservatives stand up and ask why it took so long to bring it before the House. It is not like one can snap one's heels together, wave a wand and make legislation appear. There is a lot of work that is done prior to bringing the legislation forward. There is a timing issue. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place.
As for my quick readthrough, in terms of the legislation, and the passion that I have seen from my Atlantic colleagues in dealing with this legislation, and they are a passionate caucus, as we know, this is good solid legislation that should be supported.
What surprises me today with Bill C-49 is that it is one thing to say one does not want to pass it today. It is another thing to come out saying one opposes the legislation. That is what we are hearing from the Conservative Party today.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the principles of this legislation. This is legislation that has the support of every other political entity, from what I understand, inside the House. It also has the support of provincial jurisdictions of different political stripes. We have heard member of Parliament after member of Parliament, at least from some opposition benches and the government benches, talking about how important this legislation is.
Even the Minister of Labour and Seniors came forward, in a very passionate speech. He was not the only member of the caucus who spoke passionately about the importance of this legislation to their respective provinces.
Renewable energy is so critically important when we talk about economic development into the future. I know that first-hand from being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, first as an MLA in Manitoba, and the impact that Manitoba Hydro has had on the residents of Manitoba, to the benefits of Canada as a nation.
It is a renewable energy. It is one of the reasons why, and I do not know if it still is today, and if not, it would be very close, the cheapest energy price in North America, in terms of electrical rates, is in Manitoba. It now might be two or three. I know that when I was a MLA, for a long period of time it was number one, the cheapest rate.
I can tell members that here is an opportunity. When we talk about Canada reaching its climate targets and looking at offshore renewable energy projects, one can very easily get excited to think of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal communities, because the opportunities are great.
However, I do not understand why, in looking at the legislation, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to say “no” to Atlantic Canada. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I listen to the energy that is coming from the government benches, which is being driven by my Atlantic colleagues, like the member for Avalon talking about how important this legislation is, there seems to be a disconnect with the Conservative Party.
It was interesting when the member for Avalon posed a question earlier to a Conservative member asking why he did not support the bill. The Conservative member stood up and said that the it is the principle of the legislation and that it is about the carbon tax. Really? I do not think that a number of the Conservative speakers who have stood up really understand what the legislation would do, as they were trying to rope in the issue of a price on pollution and, as that one member implied, base an opinion on a price on pollution to not support the bill. It seems to me that they are being somewhat misguided. I have not heard from any Conservative member, and I have been here all day listening to member after member speak on the legislation, specifically why this legislation cannot be passed.
We had the former Conservative member stand up and speak for 20 minutes about, based on the past, we are going to see time allocation and that we are going to see some opposition parties working with the government in order to get the bill time-allocated in order to pass. Well, I can assure the Conservative Party that there will be time allocation on this bill if the Conservatives are going to filibuster it, because we on the government side see the value of this legislation to Atlantic Canada and to Canada as a whole, which is the reason we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we see this type of regional economic development take place. If that means working with New Democrat and Bloc members in order to ensure we get time allocation so that we can get legislation passed, I am game for that.
We recognize that we are talking about our environment. We are talking about future jobs and opportunities. I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador continue to be a “have” province. I want to see the prosperity of all regions of our country. I recognize the value of renewable energy, because of the example of Manitoba Hydro. I see where government does play an important role. What I do not see is why the Conservative Party would take an issue such as this and deny two provinces the opportunity where there was an agreement.
After this legislation passes, with the support of at least some opposition parties, and it will pass, it will receive mirror legislation from provincial legislatures in order to enact and make sure that it turns into a reality so that the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will have wonderful renewable energy resources being developed and opportunities well into the future.
1166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the deputy leader of the Conservative Party taking this position and leading the fight against Bill C-18. Whether it is Bill C-18 or Bill C-11, a great deal of consultations have taken place. One sees that New Democrats, a member of the Bloc, a member of the Green Party, obviously the Liberals and even the former Conservatives, when the Conservative Party was under different leadership fewer than two years ago, supported the legislation.
What has changed, outside of the leadership of the Conservative Party? Why is the Conservative Party moving so far to the right? I would suggest it is going even further right than the Reform Party.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
