Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[Rail Transportation, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, the Liberals refused to listen to the NDP and remove the section on grain transportation from their omnibus transportation bill. As a result, the bill is still being studied in the Senate and our grain producers are still being held hostage by CN and CP. It is time for the Senate to fix the Liberal government's botched job and remove the section on grain transportation from Bill C-49.

Will the government commit to supporting our motion today formally asking the Senate to expedite the passage of these provisions, and help the crisis facing grain farmers out west?

[Privilege, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. House leader for the official opposition, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for her presentation today. She raised some really important issues. Obviously, we have some concerns also. Therefore, I would like to take the time to reflect on and go over some of the points that she put forward in the House today, and if need be, I will come back with my comments.

[Privilege, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, first off I would like to thank the member for Durham for his remarks today in the House of Commons. They are very timely.

He has raised some very important issues. We have deep concerns. This whole issue has blown up and moved very quickly. We are very concerned about the breach of privilege and respecting members' rights in the House of Commons, and making sure that we can do our job adequately on behalf of the people that we represent.

I am hoping to reserve some time to reflect deeply and come back to the House as soon as we resume work on Monday.

[Regional Development, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what my colleague just said. It is very easy to throw numbers around in the House. As the mayor of Trois-Rivières put it, it might be easier to go to the moon than to get a train running on the north shore. He really believed that the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain would be able to make it happen.

Our people are facing some major problems. There are families in pyrrhotite limbo, disaster victims in Yamachiche, and I will not even mention our supply management system. Add to that a labour shortage for our small businesses, and that is just the beginning.

What good is having a Liberal minister from Saint-Maurice—Champlain if he has forgotten all about the Mauricie region?

[Health, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what déjà vu. I clearly remember the promise around electoral reform.

Three major organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, have asked that the minister recuse himself from discussions on the pharmacare program, not only to avoid another conflict of interest, but also to keep him from working against Canadians' interests by trying to influence the results of the consultation. Canadians need universal pharmacare now.

Will the Prime Minister remove the Minister of Finance from the discussions, and can he assure us that the consultation is not just a stalling tactic?

[Health, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are confused with the Liberals' promise around pharmacare. Not only is it unclear whether the Liberals will eventually, maybe one day, sometime in the future go ahead with a universal pharmacare program, but even more troubling, just one day after this big announcement, Canadians learned that the dice is already stacked. The Liberals plan to go forward with a means-tested system.

Why is the government putting together this advisory council if it already knows what it wants to do?

[Privilege, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add my thoughts on the question of privilege that was raised earlier this week by the hon. member for Abbotsford. I would like to thank him for his intervention on Monday as it does raise important questions about the work we do in this place on behalf of Canadians.

This type of event, in various incarnations, has been the subject of numerous questions of privilege over the years during my time as a member of Parliament, and I know how hard it is for members to establish the burden of proof required by the Speaker to rule that there is a prima facie breach of our privileges here.

I would argue that the prima facie, or first glance, impression that I have been given, based solely on the remarks of the member for Abbotsford, is that there is a case for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the minister or her staff have shown contempt for the House and its members.

One point that I found particularly enlightening from the member's remarks is that the Chair does not actually have to find that members have been obstructed or impeded from doing their work. In fact, the Chair only has to believe at first glance that the incident in question is an offence against the dignity of members. The description of events from the member should be taken at face value. You, Mr. Speaker, and just about every Speaker before you, have cited the convention that MP statements should be treated as facts.

The member went out of his way to ask the minister's office if he could attend a briefing on an important bill that is before the House. He was denied access for no other reason besides the fact that he is an MP. I submit that the dignity of the member and the House in which he holds membership was offended by that action. I am offended on his behalf as well, and I trust that you, the duly elected guardian of our collective dignity, will be offended too.

Finally, I have to say that I am really saddened by the fact that the minister will not simply apologize for the event in question. The approach of her department in this case is obviously problematic. Perhaps if she reconsiders and issues a sincere apology, even at a later date, on behalf of herself and her department, the member for Abbotsford will consider the matter closed, but if she does not, Mr. Speaker, I think that you will have no choice but to rule favourably on the member for Abbotsford's claim that an offence occurred against the dignity of the House and its members.

[Point of Order, February 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for raising these important issues in the House of Commons. It is very frustrating, and quite alarming, to see the members of the government laughing about such an important issue. I would like to take the opportunity to confer with my colleagues and bring back concerns we would have on the same point of order.

[POINT OF ORDER, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 also enacts the Canadian energy regulator act. The impact assessment agency of Canada will be supported by the National Energy Board, which will become the Canadian energy regulator.

Bill C-69 also changes the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was repealed by the Conservatives in 2012, and renames it the navigation protection act. With this bill, the Liberals have also expanded the Canadian navigable waters act, which was gutted by the Conservatives in 2012.

In the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised Canadians that it would review the previous government's repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, restore the lost protections, and add new, more modern ones. Although the new navigable waters act does increase legal protections for most navigable waters in Canada, it does not come close to restoring all the protections that were abolished.

The legislation used to provide both environmental and social protections for all future usage, as well as current usage. The new legislation is too technical, and its scope is too narrow, ignoring the overall social and environmental benefits of navigable waters.

Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate to split this bill for voting purposes at second reading so that members could review this legislation more carefully and better represent their constituents by voting separately on two completely different matters.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are asking you to separate completely the section of the bill concerning the impact assessment from clauses 1 to 9, 81 to 86, 101, 103 to 114, 143 to 146, 174 to 181, 184, and 189 to 196.

Then there is the part that establishes the Canadian energy regulator and sets out its composition, mandate, and powers. The role of the regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development, and transportation of energy.

We believe that this part is comprised of clauses 10 to 44, 87 to 100, 102, 115 to 142, 147 to 173, 182, and 185.

These are clearly not environmental matters because they have to do with natural resources, not the environment per se. We strongly believe that all matters related to natural resources, energy, forestry, ores, and metals should be dealt with separately from environmental matters.

Finally, there is the section on navigation protection comprised of clauses 45 to 80, 186, 187, and 188, which would modify the Navigation Protection Act, and also touches the transportation file.

This is a massive, complex, and blatantly obvious omnibus bill. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that you will agree that members and Canadians whom we represent would be much better served by dividing the votes on the bill accordingly.

[POINT OF ORDER, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the omnibus nature of the most recent government bill, Bill C-69, an act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I do so somewhat reluctantly because the government has just finished passing a time allocation motion that will limit the debate on this enormous important and sensitive bill. There will be fewer than 10 hours of debate. The time is at such a premium here that I will do my best to be very brief.

I also note, Mr. Speaker, that in your ruling of November 7 of last year on a similar request, you said, “I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable.”

I doubt even you could have foreseen the government would have shut the door on debate here after just two hours, but I trust that you will still have enough time to rule on this request before the debate wraps up this Friday.

Standing Order 69.1 states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Bill C-69 repeals two laws, enacts three new laws, and amends 31 existing laws. In total, Bill C-69 will affect 36 statutes. Bill C-69 enacts the impact assessment act, which will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As a result, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which were put in place by Mr. Harper in 2012, will be replaced by the new impact assessment act and the new impact assessment agency of Canada. This agency will now be responsible for any assessments requiring federal review—