Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I know that renewable energy is very important to my colleague. I wonder if, like me, he noticed in the budget that the government is not renewing the eco-energy program to help make homes more energy efficient. There is also no initiative for building green homes. This could not only provide homeowners with better energy efficiency, but also create jobs, while lowering heating bills.

Does the hon. member agree that this budget generally lacks a progressive vision with regard to environmental protection?

[Housing, March 24th, 2017]

By using the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Mr. Speaker? One thing we know for sure is that the Liberals are smooth talkers. This week's budget includes a nice bunch of announcements, but considering all of the 2015 promises they have broken, can we really trust them?

Canada's housing crisis is not letting up. Right now, 1.5 million households are in urgent need of housing. Waiting lists for social housing are longer than ever, and the social housing stock is in terrible shape. Why is there nothing in the budget to help people with inadequate housing right away?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how can we have a discussion when one party dictates everything? No party should be allowed to single-handedly change the rules for how our democracy works, no matter which party it is.

If the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons really wants Parliament to be more efficient, she should commit to working with all the other parties. Even Jean Chrétien sought unanimous approval for changing the rules when he was Prime Minister.

Will the Liberal government make a commitment here and now not to change the rules unilaterally, yes or no?

[Health, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, an organization in my riding, Projet Harmonie, has been receiving funding since 1999 from the community action program for children. The organization offers services to extremely vulnerable young people, including some struggling with problems related to street gangs.

As a result of a serious internal crisis and administrative management problems, which it has recognized, the organization's funding was cut. Project Harmonie has gotten back on track and would like to restore its partnership with the Public Health Agency.

Will the minister step up and support this important organization?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to change the rules of the House under the guise of making Parliament more efficient.

That party, which obtained only 39% of the vote in 2015, now wants to change the rules unilaterally. To hell with sunny ways.

As a show of good faith, why do the Liberals not drop their plan, like they did for Motion No. 6, and create a committee whose membership is representative of the popular vote to look into the matter?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner of Canada. Because of Bill C-22, there will be a “ministerial override of the committee's review function”.

Does my colleague feel that the committee's loss of autonomy could put Canadians at greater risk?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was previously a member of an oversight committee for a labour organization, looking over the union finances. We had access to every document, namely cheques, invoices and expense claims. We got whatever we wanted.

The subject here is national security. The oversight committee therefore will have an important role to play. Clearly, we are not talking about the exact same level of security. In this case, oaths must be taken and secrets must be kept for life. We are also talking about the highest level of security clearance. There are differences, I admit.

However, it is still an oversight committee. The committee will need to have all the information in hand so that it can do its work properly. If the committee does not have access to all the information, how can it be assured that Canadians are really safe?

Does my colleague feel that the country's security will be in good hands despite the shortcomings of the bill? Is he absolutely sure?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if it is an ongoing consultation, then why were so many recommendations set aside? Why was the original bill completely gutted? They talk about the recommendations that were accepted, but there are very few compared to what was proposed.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, first I hear that there had been no impasse in committee. Then I learn the all of the committee's recommendations were rejected. The report was not accepted as my colleague said.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign that they would lessen the negative effects of Bill C-51. They had also promised more transparency. However, in addition to gutting the bill, they are imposing time allocation. They are trying to sweep everything under the rug and make the issue disappear as quickly as possible. Twice, the people were let down. We call that a double whammy. It is very disappointing to Canadians.

How can Canadians trust a government that breaks so many promises? It is no surprise that people are so cynical about politicians.

[Railway Safety Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am surprised to see that the minister does not have the right to set up new crossings, but he is able to remove or modify them.

I also understand why private companies might be interested in this sort of bill. The member mentioned Ubisoft and gave us a concrete example. Does she have other concrete examples of private companies affected by this kind of issue so that we truly understand the importance of such legislation?