Debates of Jan. 27th, 2020

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to try to work together with people.

The challenge we have with a price on pollution in my mind is that it is an urban-rural divide issue. I come from a rural riding and the carbon tax is going to make life that much more difficult for the many people who live in my riding who struggle to make ends meet as it is, who struggle to pay the rent at the end of the month, who struggle to get to work. We do not have the option of hopping on the TTC subway. We have to drive.

There have to be better solutions than just taxing our way out of the problem. That is a Liberal way. That is certainly not a Conservative way. I do not agree with that. There have to be ways that we can work together to solve the problem and not just tax people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the member across the way when he talked about that sense of co-operation. We had a great example today when the Deputy Prime Minister brought forward the agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States, a trade agreement that would affect every Canadian in all regions of our country. Stakeholders, whether they are premiers or industry representatives, are coming onside. They say this agreement is a good thing and that we need to pass it.

I wonder if I could get my friend's thoughts on how important it is that we look at the opposition working with the government, and when I say opposition I am talking about more than just Conservative members. I am talking about New Democrats and Bloc members. This is a great piece of legislation. We have the details. Would the member not agree that this is a good example of how politics can be put aside for the betterment of Canada and this legislation goes through?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the Liberal government would just love to have us rubber-stamp whatever it puts in front of us, but the awkward thing here of course is we have not seen anything yet. We would love to work together. We would love to try to find solutions to problems and support something, but it would be really nice if we could see a copy of the text. There may be members opposite who are willing to stand up and sing the praises of a deal they have not read, but Conservatives do not happen to operate that way.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, l want to congratulate my colleague on his inaugural speech in the House.

The member for Winnipeg North has just indicated that is the Liberal form of transparency. The document was tabled this morning and the government wants us to debate it, vote on it this week and then pass it without even seeing it. My colleague has said that we are not going to rubber-stamp these kinds of things until we get more determination on it, and that is similar to a lot of things that are in the throne speech. We have talked about infrastructure and other areas that are in great need as well, such as connection with the Internet. I assume my colleague's rural riding is the same as mine. There are deficits in those as well.

In spite of the government's best efforts to talk about these things, I wonder if the member could talk about what the government is really doing and how little it is improving our infrastructure.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly a lot of examples. One of the issues we have faced a great deal in Parry Sound—Muskoka is housing. The government has committed billions of dollars. However, we would like to see it go back to a program from the Chrétien era which was a capital subsidy to help get more affordable units built. That is not part of the Liberals' plan. They would rather have big government and big spending.

We would rather incentivize the private sector to get more units built faster. It is done more efficiently. It is cheaper for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, these private sector units pay property taxes to the poor old municipalities that do not have the revenue they need to provide the services the citizens living in those units demand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Yellowhead, I will let him know there are only about three minutes remaining in the time for Government Orders before we will get into another bit of business. It is probably about two and a half minutes by this point. I will let him get started with his remarks and will give him the usual sign when I need to interrupt for this other business.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is my maiden speech, which is going to be cut incredibly short.

The Speech from the Throne is informative not because it outlines what exactly the government is going to do, but because it shows us where its priorities lie.

Equally notable are the topics the government avoids mentioning. The Speech from the Throne was notably silent on some of the most pressing concerns our country is facing today. As the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan are facing an economic crisis, all the government offered them was one throw-away line in the throne speech about getting resources to market. While the Liberal government has long said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, the policies it implemented in the last session and those it pledged to implement going forward tell a different story. It sacrificed the economic prosperity of Alberta and the other provinces for merely the appearance of environmental protection.

As Canadians have pointed out time and again, Canada produces some of the cleanest and most ethical oil in the world. The Liberal government imposed Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which prevented our oil and natural gas from getting to market. That demand not met by Canada is satisfied by other countries with lower environmental standards, many of which have a proven record of ignoring human rights. In the case of the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, it resulted in oil transportation by alternative methods, namely rail, which can cause significantly more pollution. The push behind these job-killing and environment-killing bills come from a surface-level understanding of an issue at hand and the misguided intolerance of domestic oil production. When it comes to policy, the choice comes down to doing good or feeling good. As Conservatives, we will always support legislation that does the former, even when there are no sound bites and selfie opportunities that go along with it.

Concerning the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, the government has claimed the ban is necessary to protect the environment. If the government legitimately wanted to protect the environment against the remote possibility of oil spills, do members not think it would have implemented a tanker ban on the St. Lawrence River or the east coast? After all, the beluga whales that inhabit the area are on the endangered species list. The government did not implement any other tanker bans. Why not?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I certainly hope the hon. member for Yellowhead will have an opportunity to get another speaking time for the second part of his maiden speech and will be afforded the usual accommodation that members are given for their first speech in the House. I am sure the House will be more than happy to do that.

It being 6:39 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are just back in session for the first day today, but members who are not in the chamber when the motion is being read are not supposed to vote.

The member for Vimy entered well after the vote had started, and I am sure she would not want her vote to be counted.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Would the hon. member for Vimy like to reply to that?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear the question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Let me clarify the rules for everyone.

Members have to be in the House when the question starts being read. Of course, the Speaker cannot be here keeping eyes on everybody. We do have hon. members, so I would leave it to the honour of the members to determine whether they are here or not. I will leave it in her hands.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I was here, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #9

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That the address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the Speaker.

(Motion agreed to)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we had moving tributes from all parties to the victims of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, which was shot down when leaving Tehran. It is important that, as members, we honour the victims, reflect on this terrible action and also call for accountability.

I asked a question back in December that dealt with the IRGC, which is the entity responsible for shooting down this aircraft. The question was about a motion that passed in this House a year and a half ago, which called for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. The opposition put forward that motion and the entire Liberal benches, all the members of the government, supported our motion regarding the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an agent of Iranian regime-backed terror inside of Iran and beyond. All members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party voted in favour of that motion. Subsequent to that, the then minister of public safety, Ralph Goodale, said that the issue was being studied. It has been over a year and a half since that motion passed and we have not seen any action from the government in terms of actually following through on what Liberals voted to do.

I asked the Prime Minister in December whether he still intends to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. Amazingly, the Prime Minister offered no response to that question. In fact, he talked about another country, Iraq, and the government's view of what was happening in Iraq. I accept there are two countries in the Middle East that start with the letters “Ira”, but my question was about Iran. It was not a question about Iraq. In particular, it was a question about the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity. The government has refused to act despite Liberals voting to list the IRGC and they have also refused, more recently, to even respond to questions about whether it is their policy to list the IRGC.

Subsequent to that question being asked in December, we all know what happened. The IRGC was responsible and acknowledged responsibility for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines flight 752 killing many Canadians and others who were en route to Canada and many Iranian nationals as well. This event was responded to by the Iranian regime saying it was an accident and it was trying to pass blame off on somebody else. What happened in this instance shows a capricious disregard for human life by that regime. It follows shortly after over 1,000 peaceful protestors were killed by the same IRGC. We see so many instances in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere where IRGC terror is spreading throughout the region and is causing a significant loss of civilian life. We have seen the impact on many people and communities and we see now, in particular, how Canadians have not been immune from the impacts of this capricious disregard for human life that we have seen from the IRGC.

Canadians expect answers from their government, so I will ask the question again, a question that was not answered before and should be answered. Does the government intend to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity? Liberals voted to do it immediately a year and a half ago and they have not done it. If they have changed their minds, we should know that. If they are still studying it a year and a half later, we should know that, too.

It is time for the government to answer the question. Does it intend to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity? It should answer now, yes or no.