Lisa Raitt

[Foreign Investment, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Minister of Innovation one more chance on this one, because I am very troubled about how there were two answers being given in the House today.

Despite the fact that Norsat actually sells technology to Nav Canada, which is in charge of our air traffic, the minister said to The Globe and Mail that it was decided in the security screening analysis that an in-depth security review by CSIS and the Department of National Defence was not necessary. Will he tell us once and for all in this House if he is relying on a flimsy screening analysis? Why did he not allow for a full in-depth review?

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this week Canadian mayors indicated that they are very concerned about the costs associated with this legislation. They have asked the Prime Minister whether there is going to be any help.

I am wondering if the member can tell us whether the federal government plans on sharing any tax proceeds with municipalities to deal with the costs associated with the production, sale, and recreational use of marijuana.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the voices that the government should listen to is the Parliamentary Budget Office, because it did take a look at whether this was going to stay out of the hands of kids between the ages of 15 and 17. I think it would be a surprise to the minister to note that what it said is quite the opposite of what she has already said in the House today, which is that it will increase the use in 15- to 17-year-olds. The metrics it used were estimates that took into account the existing and planned policies of the federal government as defined in the task force.

Is the minister telling me, a mom of a 15-year-old, that she is guaranteeing, despite the PBO's advice, that marijuana use in the age group between 15 and 17 is going to decrease?

[Intellectual Property, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is a major flap in the art world today. The taxpayer-funded giant rubber duck is a counterfeit. We know that this new Canadian symbol just does not measure up to the industrious beaver or the very famous loon. I hope the Minister of Finance is not promoting it internally as a cheap alternative to new frigates.

I also heard that PMO issues management thought maybe it would be a great distraction from the Prime Minister's own cardboard cut-outs. That is true. Perhaps at the end the Prime Minister is actually going to be using it as a beach toy on his next visit to billionaire island.

All joking aside, a serious allegation of intellectual property theft has been made by the original artist. This duck will be coming across the Canadian border. I certainly hope that the Minister of Public Safety is paying attention to the matter and that he will not try to duck his responsibility.

[Government Appointments, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not get it. The Office of the Commissioner of Ethics belongs to Parliament, not to an appointments process. They are abdicating their responsibility to put someone in place in order to ensure we have ethics and conflict of interest guidelines in place.

I am very serious. Do they have a response? Is this just going to be a list filled with Liberal donors, or do we have a chance of having somebody responsible in this role?

[Government Appointments, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. minister should check the facts and realize that the position that is posted closed on January 7. We have been waiting a very long time. The Ethics Commissioner has an unprecedented investigation into the Prime Minister's dealings. Her term is expiring in July, and there seems to be absolutely no rush to fill this role. Are we waiting to see how somebody's chat with Gerry and Katie goes before we get someone in this place?

We have seen no openness and no transparency in the other process, so why can we expect to see one here? Quite frankly, will the Prime Minister—

[Labour, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, that is not a plan.

Here is the deal. In five days, mines will close. In five days, grain will back up in elevators. In five days, auto plants will run out of auto parts. In five days, retailers like Canadian Tire and Walmart will choose to leave Prince Rupert and Halifax.

Does the Minister of Transport have a plan to make sure our transportation continues?

[Labour, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, farmers, resource workers, transportation workers, and small businesses are all reliant upon a stable and dependable transportation system. CN Rail has received notice of a strike. While the parties do remain at the table and continue to negotiate, people are concerned about the effect that a work stoppage is going to have on their jobs.

I want to know from the Minister of Transport if he actually has a plan in order to protect the jobs of these workers in the event of a work stoppage.

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the interpretation of what I was trying to say.

As was indicated in my original intervention on March 22, wherein I gave the reason that we were impeded from the Hill as the first point of evidence, that indeed it was the Prime Minister's motorcade, the empty one, having precedence over our approach to the Hill. It is a very flimsy excuse and as such one would worry going forward as to what kinds of excuses could be given in order to ensure certain members of Parliament of any stripe did not come onto the Hill or fulfill their duties as a member.

The reason I brought up the quote from former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau is that it goes to the point of our being viewed as nothing. The reality is we are somebody when we sit in the House, and we are somebody when we represent our constituents in our home ridings, and we should be treated as such. We should not have the precedent of some individual making an erroneous call that an empty motorcade of the Prime Minister is actually paramount and supreme over the voting obligations of members of Parliament.

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of reading the two documents to which you referred, so I do not know whether or not it is in there. However, I can tell the member that my colleague from Beauce did approach and ask why we were being impeded. The fact of the matter, not the interpretation, is that the member was told by the security service that we were being impeded because of the Prime Minister's motorcade.

Is the member calling the member of Parliament for Beauce a liar? Is this what he is trying to say on the floor of the House of Commons? If he is, I invite you to go outside and say exactly that same thing, and we are going to see—