Kevin Lamoureux

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, both the member opposite and I were sitting here when the Bloc representative was addressing the House. That Bloc member raised the issue of why the Conservatives brought forward part (k), which mandates that there be three individuals appearing before the special committee, and suggested that the committee should be allowed to make that determination and that it would be a better motion if part (k) was deleted.

I am wondering if the Conservative Party would be open to an amendment of that nature, thereby reinforcing the importance of committees, whether it is a special committee or a standing committee, to be able to determine whoever it would like to appear as witnesses.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the narrative of the member across the way in regard to Canada's relationship with China. China does have and should have a healthy relationship with Canada, as it has with many other countries around the world.

Canada has also spent a great deal of time in developing relationships with other countries. This is one of the reasons why under this administration we are seeing more trade agreements with other countries than any other government in Canada's history with respect to formal agreements being signed. Whether it is with countries in Europe or with the United States, we are moving forward from a global perspective. I understand and I appreciate the concerns the Conservatives are raising today.

Does the member feel in any way that we are undermining the potential of our standing committees, especially when we have a minority situation? I suspect that the standing committee could very easily cover the areas which have been point out. I am looking specifically at the foreign affairs committee. If the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was constituted, to what degree would the motion be necessary? We could empower a standing committee in which the opposition has a majority.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a dean of the chamber with a great deal of experience. I have always had a great deal of respect for the fine work that standing committees have done over the years, even when I sat in opposition. There are a lot of incredible contributions from all sides of the House.

Given that we have these standing committees, looking forward to the next six months or years ahead, does the member believe that anything has been lost at all in regard to not providing standing committees the opportunity at least to debate this issue or have that discussion? I am thinking of future standing committee meetings. Should the House be providing more direction? Does he have any thoughts on that issue?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the minister, especially when she makes reference to the collaboration Canada has been engaged with in regard to other nations around the world, which recognize what is taking place and have been exceptionally supportive of the actions we have taken to date.

The minister made reference to the standing committees of the House of Commons, and those standing committees are able to look into all sorts of matters. When I read the motion that has been brought forward to us to vote on today, I could not help but think that there is no reason an issue of this nature could not be addressed by a standing committee. If the members of the standing committee want to make it three days or three weeks, it is up to them to do so.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the official opposition seeking to have a special committee established when we have numerous standing committees in place, in particular the foreign affairs standing committee, which would be appropriate. A steering committee of that particular committee will also be established.

The member opposite recognizes that there are highs and lows in the relationship with Canada and China. I remember back in the early nineties when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister and the team Canada approach enhanced economic benefits for both countries by hundreds of millions of dollars. I remember Stephen Harper going to China and bringing back a couple of panda bears. There are highs and lows. I would suggest that the relationship between Canada and China is good, and that the ministers are doing a great job of protecting Canada's interests.

Why would the member not allow the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to look into the matter as opposed to trying to cause an issue that maybe is not substantive? This is outside the issue of captivity, which is something that all members are very much concerned about.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, this was actually going to be my longest question and I was saving it to the end, so it is going to be a bit tougher.

The minister responsible for the Treasury Board is probably one of the favourite ministers for my constituents and me because he has really delivered, on behalf of this government and this Prime Minister, some really good stuff.

We can talk about the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, taking hundreds of seniors out of poverty from Winnipeg North. We can talk about the Canada child benefit program, taking thousands of residents in Winnipeg North, our children, out of poverty. There are so many other things that the minister has done in his other portfolio, yet we seem to be committed to continue. A good example of that is with the seniors over 75, giving a substantial increase for those seniors who really need it.

I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we continue to support our seniors and our youth through good solid, social progressive policies.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, I was quite pleased that the minister responsible for indigenous affairs was able to be with us this evening, because it is one of the most important files. We see the importance of indigenous people in throne speeches and in every budget we propose. The Prime Minister says it quite well when he talks about the relationship between indigenous people and the national government.

In the last 30 or 40 years and beyond, we have been moving in the direction of doing some wonderful things by working with indigenous leaders. One of the issues that has come to the table in the last number of years is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and its 94 calls for action. I do not know if the minister is aware of it, but I know there were a number of direct responses to those calls for action. When we talk about those 94 calls for action, we are not saying that every one of them is of a federal or national nature, but a number of them are. The minister and I talked about this a little earlier. Language was part of it, and foster care and the issue of citizenship and the taking of the oath. In many ways, the government has made the Truth and Reconciliation report a very high priority when talking about establishing a sense of respect and having the dialogue necessary for us to move forward on a such a critically important issue.

The minister spent a great deal of time on Bill C-262, dealing with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Could she provide her thoughts on the progress made, generally speaking, on the bigger picture? We see it in the throne speech and in budgets. I would ask her to provide some of her thoughts on those issues, and to reflect in particular on the private member's bill, Bill C-262, that passed the House.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, as many of my colleagues will be aware, I have had the honour and privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years in the regular force. I was posted out in Edmonton, where I participated in the 435 Squadron. I was air traffic control assistant.

One of the things we were dependent on was the Hercules aircraft. It has been a workhorse for the Canadian Forces, in particular for search and rescue, for quite a while. Then just a couple of years ago, under the minister, we were looking at the replacement of the Hercules for search and rescue.

I had the opportunity to represent the Minister of National Defence in Winnipeg, where 435 Squadron, the search and rescue squadron, is located. We had a presentation of the C-295 aircraft, which is fantastic. I raise it because the minister is a leader on this. I like the line that he used in his report: strong, secure and engaged.

Through this government, the minister recognized the many different deficiencies of the Harper government. He said that we needed to be more long-term in our thinking and we needed to ensure we were moving forward on many different fronts when it came to our Canadian Forces. He recognized that we needed to be there in that very real and tangible way, and the report highlights that.

My question for the minister is twofold. First, could he provide some of his thoughts in regard to that report? Also, I was really impressed with the C-295. I had the opportunity to go in one, take a look at its radars, its ability to magnify and see things from 30,000 feet in the air. The details they could see were amazing. They had infrared. It was very impressive.

I am not too sure what the actual deal was or how many we would acquire, but it was a positive step in providing our women and men of the Canadian Forces a state-of-the-art search and rescue aircraft. I believe all Canadians will benefit by this, because it is not only for military benefit; it is also for civilian benefit. I may be a bit biased because, after all, I served in Edmonton, but we can now provide second to no other search and rescue in the world.

Could he provide his thoughts on those two points?

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, through this whole process, I have listened to several ministers talk about different initiatives and I want to share a few thoughts.

When we talk about the issue of transportation, for example, I have seen the minister talk about the importance of airports to our local communities. I can only imagine the potential impact that an airport and the facilities surrounding it would have on the economy and the community in which they are located.

I know that even though the minister responsible talks a great deal about rail line safety and how important that is for him personally, being his number one priority, I also know that he gives a great deal of attention to our aerospace industry and in particular our airports.

We have seen legislation that has allowed for significant growth in our aerospace industry, and in particular our airports. In the city of Winnipeg is our Winnipeg international airport. I know how much it contributes to our economy and, as I mentioned a few seconds ago, the social fabric of our community.

I wonder if the minister can provide some of his thoughts on how important it is that, when we talk about budgets, whether a budgetary measure or a regulation measure, the government recognize how important our airports are to the many communities in all the regions in Canada.