House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Fisheries Act June 7th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I salute the bill, because for the first time in 150 years, it recognizes the importance of rebuilding overfished stocks by creating a legal duty to develop plans, et cetera. However, I understand that this will be left to the regulations. While I understand that it is often useful to provide more detail, I wonder if the member shares my concern that it may never come to pass if those regulations are never enacted.
National Security Act, 2017 June 7th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the trenchant analysis and passion of my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton, with whom I have the honour to serve on the justice committee.
The member spoke about Bill C-59 in comparison to Bill C-51, the Conservatives' bill. He suggested, if I can summarize, that as a result of the changes the law would make us less safe. He cited a number of examples, including the requirement of a warrant for disruption activities and changes to the preventative detention sections, among others.
The legislation is being redrafted, and some of the changes would make it less likely to be struck down under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, of course, was the critique of so many when the Conservatives' bill was before Parliament. I wonder if it would have been more prudent, in fact, to make those changes to avoid the cost and delay of having those cases go before the courts only to find that these sections are unconstitutional. I would like the member's thoughts on that.
National Security Act, 2017 June 7th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner shares the NDP's concerns or if he is satisfied with the requirement in the bill for oversight mechanisms, including the new national security and intelligence review agency and the intelligence commissioner. Is the member satisfied with replacing the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has been around for quite some time, with this new agency, and bringing back the intelligence commissioner? We used to have an inspector general. Is the member satisfied with the oversight and review mechanisms created under Bill C-59?
Marijuana June 6th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, a Senate report has just concluded that Canadians who use cannabis after it is legalized and try to cross the border to the United States could be denied entry, but worse, those who do not answer certain questions in pre-clearance could face up to two years in prison under Bill C-23, which calls it resisting or wilfully obstructing an American officer, even on Canadian soil.
Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not Canadians who simply refuse to answer American officers in Canada about their cannabis use could face fines or imprisonment?
Business of Supply June 4th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I concede that my colleague is right that it is very different in Lakeland and Victoria. I have a hard time understanding what the graduation rates on reserves might mean. It might mean that the government could choose to put money into that, but the government, of course, has the ability to choose to put money anywhere it wishes. We do not know.
Business of Supply June 4th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's reference to boil water advisories.
The other thing the government said that it bought with the pipeline is 15,000 jobs, which of course I heard the Minister of Finance say, and I gasp at that. Robyn Allan, the former CEO of ICBC and an economist for Central Credit Union, has done a thorough analysis this. She says there is no number even approaching that, that it is something that was spitballed by the Bank of Nova Scotia and suddenly became the holy grail for the government. I think the pipeline would mean 90 jobs in my province, going forward, after its construction. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis, I really do not get it. However, there is also another kind of analysis. That is the risk-benefit analysis. Even though I would concede that the risk of a catastrophic spill is small, the consequences of a catastrophic spill are enormous.
I was asked a question at the town hall, and I promised to ask the Prime Minister it. I will do it now. In what way does this project help Canada transition to a low-carbon economy?
Business of Supply June 4th, 2018
Madam Speaker, the member referred to boil water advisories. I understand that the shortfall for clean water on first nations reserves is $3.2 billion. The cost of just buying this leaky 65-year-old pipeline was $4.5 billion. I do not think we need a lecture on skewed priorities by the member.
Business of Supply June 4th, 2018
Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the lecture by my colleague across the way, I do remember that platform, and the Liberals' one as well. Two things stood out for me, as I indicated in my remarks, the first being that it would be the last election with first past the post. The second was that suddenly the relationship with first nations was the most important one among Canadians.
I do not know about members but—
Business of Supply June 4th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I will start by indicating that I will be sharing my time with the hon member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
This is a historic debate after a historic debate that occurred five days ago in this place, during which my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who devoted 34 years of his life to this cause, had the House vote in favour of not only an aspirational document but a document that would now guide Parliament in its relationship with first nations peoples in this land. It is a bill that commits Canada to supporting not just in words but in action something that is known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 32(2) of which guarantees:
....free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources....
The hon. member for Lakeland seems to believe, as do the Liberals across the way, that this means we can choose our friends. We can say, “If you are with us, that's okay; we have your consent. However, if you happen to be a coastal first nation, that's different, because you disagree with us.”
That is not how constitutionally protected rights and aboriginal title work in this country, and that certainly is not what I voted for when I stood proudly with my Liberal colleagues to vote for our country's implementation of this historic United Nations document, guaranteeing the rights of our indigenous peoples.
I have to say I come with recent information from my riding. The member for Lakeland told us what her constituents think, and I now have very clear information about what the constituents of Victoria think, a community surrounded by oceans on three sides. On Friday, I held a town hall meeting on the Prime Minister's bailout project to buy a leaky 65-year-old pipeline and create another 1,000 kilometres of new pipeline, as well as the tanker project that would effectively almost triple the amount of diluted bitumen travelling on our waters in Victoria.
I thought I would just put a notice out on social media asking people if they would like to come to a town hall meeting on Friday. I did that on Tuesday, and we initially thought we would get 200 people. We got that many people in a couple of hours, and then we got up to 600 people. We had to change the venue twice, and we ended up in what I think is our largest venue aside from the hockey rink, where people told us what they thought.
This was not a rally and it was not intended to be a rally. Indeed, I invited a former deputy minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs from the Government of Canada, Mr. Harry Swain, to speak about the issues from a business perspective and to speak to the way in which crown corporations are established so as to give us a broader understanding of what it means for the government to take over this project—somewhat in desperation, I might add.
It became very clear, despite our efforts to hear both sides, that the people of my community, including many indigenous leaders around the coastal part of British Columbia, are deeply opposed to the risk that the government is prepared to impose upon them without what article 32 requires the government to do—namely, to take into account their perspectives.
I understand that the government wishes to create a crown corporation; at least, that is what the media informs us. I do not know whether that is how it is going to proceed.
I would like to back up. We have a court case in the Federal Court of Appeal that was argued several months ago. We expected to have a judgment from the court in the last little while, and I expect we will get it soon. The temerity of the Liberals to proceed in the way they are before we have the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is deeply disrespectful, and appears to me to be a little inconsistent with their commitment to the rule of law, about which we heard so much this morning. The Federal Court of Appeal sat day after day and heard testimony about whether there was an infringement of aboriginal rights in the process that led to the approval of this project by the National Energy Board; then the government announces it is going to buy the whole thing and triple the capacity and double the pipeline. Does that sound like a commitment to rule of law and respect for indigenous rights?
I had indigenous leaders stand up at my town hall to describe their sense of utter betrayal and disappointment in the government. Madam Speaker, you may have heard in your riding what I heard over and over in mine during the last election, which was that there is no relationship more important to the government than that with Canada's first peoples. I guess that was then and this is now.
The sense of betrayal among first nations is palpable, but I come with real sadness today because what really disturbed me at this town hall, which there were many people from all ages and all walks of life, was the sense of betrayal that young people felt with the government. I am doing my best to tell them not to give up hope.
First of all, the election led to 39% of the people getting 100% of the power. Just 39% of those voting voted for the government—about the same, by the way, as happened when the Harper government was elected and ended up with 100% of the power. Members must have heard in their ridings what I heard many times in mine, that this would be the last election that would be first past the post. Our Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and said that.
Now people came to this town hall to be told that the government had decided not to stand up on climate change and be the climate leader that we heard our Prime Minister so proudly declare himself to be in Paris, but to actually become, essentially, the CEO of a pipeline. I do not recall seeing that in the mandate of any minister, let alone the Prime Minister. I do not recall reading that was going to happen. I guess that is different now.
The point is the sense of betrayal that young people feel, the sense of hopelessness, the existential concern about climate change, which I am sure everyone in this House has had a conversation with a young person about. Now the government is doubling down, essentially, on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
Members may remember that at the G7 meeting about two years ago this month in Japan, our Prime Minister and other leaders said that they would terminate most fossil fuel subsidies. Canada and other G7 nations encouraged countries to join them in eliminating what they referred to “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. The declaration said:
Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global GHG emissions, we recognize the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combatting climate change.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens at the G7 meeting coming up, when Canada has to explain why it has decided to double down on fossil fuel subsidies and become the champion of a pipeline. In my riding at least, that is a little hard for young people to understand.
In terms of first nations, what happens if a crown corporation is established? That is not a proponent like Kinder Morgan; that becomes the Government of Canada, does it not? Is the government going to say that since it is a crown corporation, it is at arm's length? How many times have we heard the government stand up and say that it cannot do anything about the telecommunications issue or the postal issue, because those are crown corporations and the government does not really go there?
I wonder if it is going to be just the same from now on, because is the Government of Canada not going to be the primary owner of that pipeline? It seems to me that there is an argument, at least, that it has responsibilities now that are enhanced vis-à-vis the consultation duty.
It was revealed through an access to information request that just before the pipeline was actually approved by cabinet, it appears that a decision had already been made by the government to move full steam ahead, so the consultation that occurred thereafter was nothing but window dressing—at least, that is how it appears, looking back objectively at what happened.
The level of commitment to first nations, despite the heroic stance of the government in approving the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has to be suspect. Will it say it applied in the past? Possibly not. However, its spirit should guide this crown corporation's relationship with coastal first nations people, and they do not approve. They are deeply opposed to this, and, as I said, their sense of betrayal is obvious.
Extension of Sitting Hours May 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. friend and colleague from British Columbia for her strong endorsement of the NDP's management of that economy, which she correctly states is the strongest economy in the country and for which I am grateful.
However, I thought we were here to talk about Motion No. 22. As a consequence, I feel compelled to bring the member back to the question my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona put on the table. I think he fairly and properly characterized his motion as a compromise in an effort to get from the opposition agreement with the government that we extend the sitting hours of this place.
They would be prepared to do that, I think he said very clearly, if they would treat non-government business the same as government business and let matters involving supply from the opposition, sometimes called opposition day motions, be treated in the same fashion.
I am sure my colleague would agree that all members are equal in this place. That is a fundamental principle of Parliament. I wonder, therefore, in the spirit of compromise offered by my colleague, if she would be willing to accept that as a way to move forward to do the important work she described.