Larry Maguire

[Curling, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to inform all members of the House that in 2019, the Tim Hortons Brier is returning to Brandon for the first time since 1982. As only a fellow Manitoban may truly understand my excitement, this is a huge announcement for our curling community, the Wheat City Curling Club, and western Manitoba.

After Brandon put on such a successful Canada Cup last year, the organizers proved that our small prairie city has the right stuff to put on such an elaborate bonspiel.

A tremendous thanks goes out to local vice chairs Ryan Shields, Nate Andrews, and Jackie Nichol, who have stepped into the hack and are busy organizing and recruiting volunteers to make this upcoming brier a huge success.

Without a doubt, Brandon is a host city. Having successfully completed the Canada Games, Scotties Tournament of Hearts, previous briers, and the first Olympic curling trials, we will once again show the entire country the depth of our volunteer spirit and our love of the game.

I welcome everyone to Brandon in 2019 to cheer on Canada's greatest curlers.

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I begin the debate on an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of many Canadians, and in particular my dear friend and colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, to officially recognize in law that Charlottetown was indeed the birthplace of Canadian Confederation. Not only is this legislation 150 years too late, but it finally solves the great debate on what place in Canada we should formally recognize as our official birthplace.

Second, this proposed legislation would unofficially give the blessing of the Parliament of Canada to the Province of Prince Edward Island to proclaim on its licence plates that it is in fact the birthplace of Confederation. I commend the tenacity of Islanders in their struggle to get this endorsed recognition. As the old saying goes, “It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission”. I would not be surprised to find this saying inscribed on the family crest of the member for Malpeque.

As only a squabble among Canadian provinces can break out, from what I am led to believe, our New Brunswick brethren decided that their Canada 150 celebration tourism slogan would read that people should visit their province to “Celebrate where it all began”. This impasse on which province should officially be designated by law as the birthplace of Confederation led to Bill S-236 being introduced by Senator Griffin from P.E.I., so that our dear friends from the New Brunswick delegation would know that the seed that led to the birth of our great country was planted in September 1864, while on the island of the great red mud.

In preparation for this momentous debate, my office reached out to the Parliamentary library and requested the book The Road to Confederation, by Donald Creighton, which some would call the most preeminent tome ever written on the subject. And lo and behold, their copy had walked away. While some would raise suspicions as to whether the Minister of Tourism for New Brunswick had somehow acquired this book to ensure that the waters remained muddy on this age-old question, as if by divine intervention the Parliamentary library found its original 1964 hardback copy at the thirteenth hour and saved the day.

The very concept of a united Canada in 1864 was as far-fetched as the idea that this current Liberal government will inevitably balance its budget. That said, hope springs eternal. Canada was indeed created, and there is a minute chance that the current federal ledgers may one day return to the black.

Today's debate is to prove that Charlottetown should be recognized as the birthplace of Confederation. To do so, I will rely on the evidence of Donald Creighton in his book, who went to great pains to illustrate that were it not for the Charlottetown Conference, we would not have been celebrating our sesquicentennial.

As has been said, the Charlottetown Conference was originally not designed or orchestrated for the sole purpose of unifying the various regions of British North America under one central government. The intent of the meeting was to explore whether Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia should amalgamate as one entity. While it would be an understatement to say there was hesitancy on the part of these three colonies to undergo a maritime union, it was none other than Sir John A., George-Étienne Cartier, George Brown, and Alexander Galt who struck when the iron was hot.

While the Province of Canada and the three maritime colonies may have been neighbours, their direct links and familiarity with each other were nowhere near as strong as they would soon become. While the delegates from the maritime colonies had arrived in preparation for the conference, P.E.l.'s W.H. Pope, the provincial secretary who had been tapped to be the official welcoming party, wondered where the interlopers from the west were.

It was not until the next morning, on September 1, that an unknown steamer pulled into view. As noted in the Road to Confederation, the Islanders later came to call her the “Confederate Cruiser”. As soon as the ship pulled into the harbour, the news travelled as fast as a Prairie wildfire that “the Canadians had arrived”.

Now, much to the chagrin of Pope, the cruiser did not actually dock in the harbour but had anchored some distance from the wharf. How was he supposed to extend the most personable and warm Islander welcome, as only an Islander can do, without being in the presence of these Canadians? He found himself a rowboat, and according to the New Brunswick assembly journals, he started bravely out with all the dignity he could in a “flat-bottomed boat, with a barrel of flour in the bow, and two jars of molasses in the stern, and with a lusty fisherman as his only companion, to meet the distinguished visitors”.

As the Canadians assembled on shore and met in the legislative council chamber in the Colonial Building, the Prince Edward Island government was taken back by such a large delegation. They had only prepared a table to sit four delegates from the west; however, sitting across from them was a group of eight smiling Canadian ministers, and in tow, the clerk of the Canadian Executive Council and two of Sir John A.'s secretaries.

To highlight the excitement that was in the air, by a stroke of coincidence, the Slaymaker and Nichols' Olympic Circus were in town. Now, why, one might ask, did I bring this up? I do so because Islanders from across the colony had gathered in Charlottetown to attend the circus, the first in over two decades. There were no rooms available at any of the hotels or lodgings to accommodate all of the Canadian delegation. Because all of the accommodations were accounted, this provided for a far more personal interaction between none other than George Brown and W.H. Pope, as Brown was invited to stay at the affable latter's house, while the others were put up at Franklin House.

As they began the heavy work of negotiating a single unified country, P.B. Waite wrote in The Life and Times of Confederation, the Charlottetown Conference established Confederation as a political reality. It gave Confederation the official élan, the sense of common destiny.

It was that morning that the four principles, Macdonald, Cartier, Brown, and Galt, began the process of gently swaying their maritime cohorts. The Canadians, who were once bitter enemies, in particular Macdonald and Brown, had decided to holster their partisan leanings and personal political objectives in order to persuade the others that Confederation was “possible, desirable, even necessary”.

Day three of the conference proceeded in the same orderly fashion, with rhetorical flourishes and convincing arguments by the other Canadian delegates, who were doing an extraordinary job of convincing all those who attended of the great potential of a United Canada.

It was that night that the Canadians invited the maritimers onboard the SS Queen Victoria, aka the “Confederate Cruiser”, and swooned them over a decadent meal and a steady flow of Sir John A.'s water. The ice had been broken, the relationships were now firmly formed, and no longer were they strangers or even acquaintances; they were the architects of Canada.

According to George Brown's letter to his wife recalling the events of the evening, someone on the vessel had yelled:

If any one can show just cause or impediment why the Colonies should not be united in matrimonial alliance, let him now express it or forever hold his peace.

To the surprise of no one, there was silence, and George Brown said:

...the union was thereupon formally completed and proclaimed!

Confederation was meant to be.

That very word “Confederation”, which only two days before was as foreign to the delegates as the word “excitable” to describe Stephen Harper would be or the word “humility” to describe the current sitting Prime Minister, was now dripping with great excitement from the tongues those who had gathered around the mahogany table the next day at the Colonial Building in Charlottetown.

I think the evidence provided by my colleagues in previous speeches, and some of the colour I was able to provide, has helped convince this House that Bill S-236 should be passed with unanimity and expediency.

While the Charlottetown Conference was just one element that led to the official creation of our dominion in 1867, it was the birthplace that led to the successful Quebec City and London conferences.

As P.B. Waite said:

What is surprising is not how much was concluded at Quebec, but how much had been arranged at Charlottetown.

To Donald Creighton who wrote that people despairingly said that nothing could ever happen in Charlottetown, they have undeniably been proven wrong.

The story of how our nation was created, showing how westerners, maritimers and, yes, even Islanders, could put aside petty differences to focus on what was best for the greater good, is a lesson for all of us assembled here today 150 years later. It could perhaps lead to great compromises among all political parties in 2017, if only the member from Malpeque could row out in his dinghy and show us that true Islander hospitality for which Islanders are known.

There is more that unites Canadians than divides us; that the nation is unified and proud. As we gaze upon what the next 150 years will bring, we pay tribute to those courageous founding fathers for all they did, and we make the solemn pledge to pass down a stronger Canada than the one we inherited.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our previous Conservative government created the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program, which improved the habitat of millions of fish. However, the Liberals are not accepting a single new application for this program and are thereby ignoring many worthwhile conservation efforts. This includes projects such as installing an aerator to improve the water quality in Killarney Lake located in my constituency.

Will the Liberals commit today to support Canada's recreational fishers and start accepting proposals for this very worthwhile program?

[Wallace and District Fire Department, October 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, once again the firefighters of the Wallace and District Fire Department answered the call and with the help of many others, put out a devastating inferno that recently engulfed Virden's downtown. With volunteer firefighters from both Elkhorn and Virden stations and with the help of a track hoe from Sparks Sand & Gravel, they stopped the fire before it could spread and do further damage to adjoining businesses.

It cannot be repeated enough that these are volunteer firefighters. They are everyday citizens who do not ask for anything in return, but are willing to rush to the scene of an emergency at the drop of a hat. It was a community effort that saved the day, and I would like to recognize all who contributed: the local RCMP detachment, EMS, Brock Koop, Longshot Services, the local Catholic church, Boston Pizza, Chicken Chef, and the spouses of the firefighters. They rose to the occasion to show the very best of what it means to be a Westman resident.

I thank them for being such pillars in our community.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer will be similar to what I just said. There is a definitive time frame that the government wants to move forward, which is next July 1. The people who spoke to me in my constituency, as well as police chiefs of Canada, have indicated there needs to be more time. In fact, some of them do not want it licensed at all. There needs to be more time for training and to make sure the roads can be made safer. We have law enforcement people who can make those decisions with the credibility of being able to go to court, because this will be challenged in court. There is no doubt about it, as I said in my speech today.

We have to look at the United States. The people I have spoken to in several states in the U.S. have indicated that when it is allowed to be licensed there is a sharp increase in usage, but it plateaus off and then it is a matter of whether there are fewer accidents on the roads at that point or not. Their situation has indicated there is not a reduction in accidents.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thanks for the work I did in my constituency and the five public meetings we held.

Whether people at those meetings were in favour of or deadly against the use of marijuana, the consensus was, if there was one, that we should defer this for some time, not necessarily a year or whatever, until training could take place, and I question whether the bill actually says it has to. However, my constituents felt that whether people were habitual users or not, the government should take more time to ensure the enforcement was put in place. That involves training taking place outside of the country. It was pointed out by one of my colleagues earlier today that only about 600 people out of 65,000 on the police forces in Canada were currently licensed to deal with cannabis.

While I commend the member for his question, I want to acknowledge that a lot more time is needed to ensure road safety is upheld. There is nothing to determine whether increased usage will ever reduce the impact of deaths and accidents on the roads.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, I took on the task of holding five town halls on the government's legislation to not only legalize recreational marijuana, but also on Bill C-46, which we are debating in the House today. I threw open the doors and invited constituents who cared to attend, so everybody would have a full understanding of what was being proposed in both pieces of legislation. It was from those five meetings that I got a better understanding of the concerns of not only everyday residents, but also from community leaders such as mayors, reeves, and councillors.

Listening to one's constituents should not only happen during town halls, it is a practice that every elected official should subscribe. If truth be told, not many members of the government hosted a no-holds barred public meetings on either Bill C-45 or Bill C-46.

I would argue that legalizing recreational marijuana is one of the largest changes to the Controlled Substances Act in my lifetime. However, not many government MPs took the opportunity to meet with their constituents in an open door forum. If they did, they would have quickly become aware that not only was the Liberal government's political deadline of July 1, 2018, to implement legal recreational marijuana usage untenable, it would unnecessarily raise the risk of bodily harm and injury on our roads and highways.

At a recent Council of the Federation meeting, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister requested an extension of the Liberal government's deadline of July 1, 2018. for marijuana legalization. In response to Premier Pallister's request, the premiers established an official working group on marijuana, co-chaired by Manitoba justice minister Heather Stefanson. Since then, it has been closely following the debate in the House and in committee meetings that were held on this legislation.

As was stated by many expert witnesses at committee or quoted in the news, it is simply unfathomable to expect that police departments and the RCMP will be prepared for the July 1 deadline as currently set out.

I would like to quote Director Mario Harel, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who stated at committee on Wednesday, September 20:

The question many in policing have is what level of readiness the government, and more importantly, our communities, expect law enforcement to deliver. We can be ready at some level July 2018, but are we delivering on the public safety objectives Canadians would expect of us?

That question gets to the very heart of the concerns that many members of Parliament, including backbench Liberal MPs, have publicly voiced.

We know the science surrounding the impairment of one's ability to drive after consuming cannabis varies widely from one individual to another. We know that one's level of impairment can be impacted by how long an individual has either legally or illegally consumed cannabis. For instance, if one has been consuming cannabis on a daily basis for 20 years, that person's mind and body will be impacted differently than someone who consumes it on a monthly basis. Let me give the House a specific example.

During one of my town halls, a constituent stated that she had taken medical marijuana for years. She consumes cannabis in an edible form for her chronic pain. She said, not only in our public meeting but also publicly in the local newspaper, that it would be more dangerous for her to drive while not under the influence of medical marijuana. While I am not a medical expert, nor proclaim to understand the precise impacts of one's cognitive functions, driving under the impairment of marijuana is just as dangerous as driving under the impairment of alcohol or other prescription drugs.

While this is my belief, it was quite a shock to hear that some individuals who had consumed marijuana for years, if not in some cases for decades, pushed back on this premise. They pushed back because they felt that under no circumstances was public safety at risk because of their consumption of cannabis while driving a vehicle. This is a huge concern and I am quite certain that if a Conservative member of Parliament is being told this, it begs the question, What other long-term beliefs are held by Canadians who have long consumed marijuana?

In respect to the legislation, beyond a shadow of doubt, as it is currently written, it will be challenged almost immediately when brought into force. The reason I am so confident in saying this is that unfortunately Canadians will be caught and charged for driving under impairment of cannabis. It is safe to suggest that criminal defence attorneys will be looking at every available avenue to lessen the client's charge. There is empirical evidence to suggest this is exactly what will happen.

We know that the current drinking and driving laws are some of the most heavily litigated areas of criminal law. In respect to determining the exact nanograms of THC per ml of blood, it was good to hear even Liberal MPs, such as the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, ask about the objectively determined standards for marijuana that the police could measure against.

What was disconcerting was that the Minister of Justice did not respond directly to her colleague's question. She noted that the government had set up a drug impaired driving committee, but neglected to answer his question of setting the benchmarks to determine impairment.

Now, I am not the only one who is asking these questions. The Canadian Bar Association recommends that the federal government base any measurement of blood drug concentration on proven scientific evidence that links the concentration of THC to impairment. According to the briefing to the Minister of Justice, it outlined the difficulties of introducing specific blood drug concentrations of setting an objective standard for penalizing a person and then linking the findings to impairment. It even goes as far as saying that legislating specific blood drug concentration levels is problematic.

While the Canadian Bar Association is probably well aware of the legal quagmire that will soon engulf our nation's courtrooms, it is wise to take a moment and reflect on whether the government is rushing ahead without the scientific data to back up its legislation.

We all want our roads and highways to be safe from those who make the callous decision to get behind the wheel after one too many beers, and soon to be one too many tokes. With that in mind, it is troubling to hear from legal experts and marijuana users that the Liberal government's legislation may not hold up under heavy scrutiny of a well-funded legal defence team.

The other aspect of concern is that the costs associated will be borne by the provinces and municipalities regarding Bill C-46. This was one of the most concerning matters raised by other levels of government.

Earlier this summer, I wrote the parliamentary budget officer requesting a costing analysis for implementing the Liberal government's legislation to legalize marijuana. I received a response from the PBO last month, describing both a lack of transparency by the Liberal government and an intention to offload costs onto provinces.

According to the PBO's letter, Justice Canada responded to its requests for information by stating that the estimated costs of marijuana legalization were a cabinet confidence. Similar responses were provided to the PBO by Public Safety Canada and Health Canada. In response to my letter, the PBO wrote:

This clearly indicates that the federal government does have access to some cost estimates of Bills C-45 and C-46, but without that information it would be difficult for the Office of the PBO to provide a reasonable cost analysis.

I requested an in-depth costing analysis for several areas of concern for my constituents, including the cost of education campaigns and workplace health and safety regulations. We know the Prime Minister has thrown out the idea of sharing any federal excise tax equally with the provinces, but even that was not enough to calm the nerves of the premiers and their respective finance ministers.

May there be no illusion of any member in the House that with the passage of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, the policing, legal costs, and court delays will go down. The fallacy purported by some well-meaning but ill-advised commentators about how police resources will now miraculously be shifted from cracking down on simple pot possessions to much more serious matters is but a dream.

First, as with anything the government regulates, legislates, and oversees, there will be no cost savings when equipment, training, bureaucracy, and simple paperwork are all accounted for. Second, as the provinces have announced, the government will make the purchase of legal recreational marijuana so restrictive that the neighbourhood pot dealer just gave a loud round of applause as his business will prevail in the near future.

The issue of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, while also updating the Criminal Code so police officers have the necessary tools and legal framework to keep our streets and highways safe, are not necessarily bound by one another.

Under no circumstances should the legalization of recreational marijuana be pushed forward without at least some time after Bill C-46 is brought into force. Not only should Bill C-46 be allowed to be tested, prodded, and probed, but the federal government has the responsibility to fund the vast majority of upfront costs of doing so. The provinces and municipalities should not be taken for granted and their cause of concern on the timelines proposed in the Liberal legislation should be heeded.

As I have stated on many occasions, the Liberal government should wade carefully into the full legislation of recreational marijuana. It needs to move beyond its politically motivated deadline, disclose the true cost of marijuana legalization, and provide municipalities and provinces with the resources they need to ensure safety for all Canadians.

Until that time, the legislation should not move forward. I encourage the Liberals to listen to the myriad of voices that echo similar apprehensions.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a pity we have not heard anything in my hon. colleague's speech across the way regarding the issue before us today, the motion about the ethics of the finance minister. The Liberals do not have a plan because their plan is coming out. Maybe there will be a plan tomorrow that will try to convince Canadians that what the Liberals have done over the last two years has been to their detriment as Canadians, and to the detriment of the members across the way as government. If we could just bring the member back to the topic that is at hand, we may get some more clarification in regard to what was asked today.

[Carbon Pricing, October 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, having been a critic in the Manitoba legislature for conservation and environment for nearly seven of my 14 years, and a farmer almost all my business life, nature is a great concern of mine. That is why I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion, which instructs the finance committee to undertake a study on ensuring maximum transparency of the costs associated with the carbon tax, including a requirement for a dedicated line item on invoices and receipts. This is important to every one of my constituents in Brandon—Souris.

For months, I have been trying to get the Liberal government to come clean about the full costs of the carbon tax. I know that many members of our Conservative caucus, including the member for Carleton, have tabled numerous petitions, filed access to information requests, and even tabled Order Paper questions. Alas, no information has been forthcoming. The Liberal government either has no idea what consumers will have to pay once the carbon tax is implemented, or it knows exactly what it will cost but is afraid the information will cause the government even further political pain.

Never has a government changed its stripes so quickly and with such abandon as the Liberals who sit across from us today. Just mere months ago, they were touting how they were going to be open and transparent. That promise even got a separate page in the Liberal Party platform. They said they would restore a sense of trust in our democracy and would make all government data and information available by default. They said that access to information requests would start to apply to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. So far, the Liberals have failed to even make a remote effort to live up to these campaign promises.

This brings us to today's debate on Motion No. 131. It is almost comical that a member of the opposition has to use private members' business to get the government to provide even the most basic information on the carbon tax plan. Regardless of whether one thinks Canada needs a carbon tax, the Liberal government owes Canadian taxpayers the cold, hard truth of what it will cost them. No taxation without information is not a revolutionary idea. If the government wants to introduce a new tax, it has an obligation to tell us what it will do to our wallets and the overall economy.

I would think that the Prime Minister would want to share this information. It is a significant change in environmental policy, and it is clearly the Liberals' flagship initiative to deal with greenhouse gases. However, after the many unsuccessful attempts by us to get the financial analysis of this, it is clear that the Liberals have failed to live up to their own word about making government data and information available by default. Probably not a single Liberal member of Parliament across the way will vote in favour of this motion, which is a sad state of affairs considering that they all ran on this solemn pledge.

I should also point out that the government refused to respond to a direct Order Paper question asking for a financial analysis on what the carbon tax will do to families' household budgets. The Liberals refused to provide any information on how their carbon tax will impact low-income persons and families. The government refuses to tell us how much the carbon tax will impact inflation and how it will erode the disposable income of pensioners and seniors. It begs the question of what they are hiding.

I imagine that every member of Parliament has received correspondence or has been stopped in the street by a constituent asking for information about the carbon tax. I know I have. Let me just provide one example of what I am hearing from constituents. My office was contacted by a couple who live just outside the city of Brandon, but drive into the city every day to work, shop, and run errands. They drive hundreds of kilometres every week, out of necessity, and take every possible measure to keep their fuel bill manageable. Once their income is taxed, groceries are purchased, and they pay their bills, there is not a whole lot left. They would like the Liberal government to be forthright with them. In particular, they would like the government to spell out exactly how much more money it will take out of their family's budget.

While this is just one specific example of constituents wanting to know more details about the carbon tax, I can guarantee people that every member in the House has a similar story. Not only should this motion be passed, it is also incumbent upon the Liberal government to change its secretive ways when it comes to accessing financial information.

The documents that were released from Finance Canada were so heavily redacted we would swear they must have contained the nation's secrets or maybe even the Minister of Finance's disclosure to the Ethics Commissioner. What we can glean from the documents is that the government knows there will be a cascading effect on prices that consumers, families, and businesses will pay as a result of this new carbon tax.

These documents reference data tables in which those costs are laid out for families, broken down by income brackets: the very poor, the poor, the middle class, the upper-middle class, and the very rich. However, they are all blacked out. So much for a government that ran on a pledge that all government data and information would be made “open by default”.

What exactly is it hiding? The secrets to Area 51 or the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart? The negative financial impact on these income brackets should be laid bare in front of the House so all members, even backbench Liberal MPs, can scrutinize and review the government's carbon tax.

Now in respect to the motion, I am fully supportive of the government having to report annually on the financial impact of the carbon tax. As my colleague from Oshawa has said, transparent government is good government. If Canadians are to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians.

Considering the amount of times the Liberals have had to be forthright but passed on every occasion, they should not be surprised that when they decide to impose their pan-Canadian carbon tax, they will be met with the same fury as their proposed tax hikes on small businesses and farmers.

In this vacuum of information, we can only estimate what the negative impacts will be. What we do know is that a Statistics Canada official testified at committee and stated that any increases in fuel, food, and other basic necessities would increase the number of people living below the poverty line. While the price of fuel, food, heating and electricity, and just about anything else a family buys continues to go up, they will have to find another extra few dollars out of their budget to pay for a carbon tax that we have no idea will even reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I want the Liberals to turn back the clock and think about when they were knocking on doors in the last election. They said that they were going to bring out real change. I ask that they keep their solemn promise of making government data and information available.

I ask every one of them to vote in favour of this motion and send the entire issue of the carbon tax to the finance committee. I ask that members pass the motion so Canadians know exactly what this carbon tax will cost them.

I know some members on the Liberal benches are uncomfortable with the recent direction of the government and I know it will take courage to break ranks. Unfortunately, they know full well there will be consequences if they vote in favour of the motion.

I want my colleagues across the aisle to remember that it is their constituents who put them in the House to represent their interests. Not a single member of the House was given the great honour to be a member of Parliament by the Liberal Party hierarchy. It was their voters who gave those members the opportunity to be their voice in Parliament.

I believe we can all agree the government should be transparent with its carbon tax. Canadians should know what it will cost them. Taxpayers of our great country deserve no less from their duly elected government. I say that because the government even refuses to release that information. It expects us to believe it, it expects us to give it the benefit of the doubt, and it expects us to go along with its plan, while refusing to provide any meaningful data.

This is a government that has made an absolute mockery of answering questions in the House. It obfuscates like no other. Today, all I ask it to do is to turn over a new leaf.

[Natural Resources, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly outlandish that Canada imports oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and has continued to rely on them. I am still seeing ignorance on this.

The Liberals still do not get it. They have never lived in an oil field to understand how clean and operative this industry can be and is. It provides a very significant portion of energy for the development of things like our auto industry, airline industry, and other industries in Canada. That is why I say it impacts everyone.

It is unacceptable for the Liberals to have politicized the National Energy Board's process. Of course, they did not even answer, or come close to answering, the two questions I asked.

This bill will only ensure that oil tankers from the Middle East continue to ship their oil to be refined in Canada.

Energy east was supported by numerous provincial governments, such as Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Liberal, NDP, and Conservative provincial governments set aside their political differences and heavily backed this nation-building project.

I ask the Liberals once again, will they stop politicizing the NEB and stop putting the interests of foreign companies ahead of Canadian workers?