Yvonne Jones

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, comments made yesterday by the government side obviously spoke to the prematurity of suspending the member. Today, he quotes section 443 of the Elections Act and talks about the support of the government for expelling the member. It is all very confusing, I would say, and it is quite obvious that the government is very torn in terms of what direction it will take on this issue.

I ask the government House leader this. If there is agreement with section 443 of the Elections Act, it would indeed mean that the member would be expelled. Is that what the government supports, and if so, why is it not prepared to proceed with it immediately?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question is obviously for the government House leader.

Based on your comment yesterday that it would be—

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. My question is this. Now NDP members are proposing an amendment that talks about the expulsion of the member. I would ask why they have changed that thought and why they are introducing that amendment as opposed to making it the official motion moved at the beginning of the debate.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague and the NDP is this. You have introduced a motion today that talked about suspending the member based on the conviction and the sections of the act. You have now proposed an amendment that—

[Petitions, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition from many of my constituents who live in rural Canada. These individuals are opposed to the government's decision to downsize rural post offices in many of their communities. They have no postal service or very reduced service. They feel that this is not the appropriate way to deliver postal services to people in rural Canada. It will cause undue hardship in many of these areas that are highly dependent on postal services, and they ask the government to reconsider its decision.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Kitchener Centre and I certainly listened to his tone in the House. When he talked about the leaders' dictatorial whims and isolationism, I think he was referring to his own leader, the Prime Minister, who refuses to meet with the leaders of provinces in our own country.

I would like to say to the member opposite that one of the largest problems that we have with this mission is trusting his government. The Conservatives have given Canadians no reason to trust them when it comes to managing our military or when it comes to our place in combat missions around the world, or even in this House.

I ask the member why his Prime Minister did not brief the leaders of the opposition parties in our country, in Canada. Why did he not sit at the table with them and talk about why Canada needed to go into this combat mission and justify our position in a combat role in Iraq?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution to the debate today. He talked about the role that different countries are playing with regard to the mission in Iraq.

One of the things that causes me such grave concern when we send our military away is what happens when they come back.

I ask the member this. Is he concerned by the fact that there are so many soldiers in this country, today, who have come home from Afghanistan who feel they are not getting the services they should be getting as Canadian soldiers on home soil?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for the minister before we conclude all of this debate, unfortunately.

Can he tell me which countries are engaging in a combat role and which ones are in a non-combat role? Also if Canada is to go in a combat role, how will that affect the work that we would be doing in terms of humanitarian aid and other supports in a non-combat role?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that the government agreed to bring the motion to the House for debate. It is a motion of immense proportion and it would have a tremendous impact on Canadians. Regrettably, the government is going to stifle debate. This is not unlike the tactics it often performs in controlling and asserting itself in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that it has chosen to do this.

The irony in all of this is that we are debating this important motion during Mental Health Week. Many Canadians have asked me what the government is doing for our soldiers and our veterans who have already come home from combat and are receiving no services.

As the government revs up the CF-18s, I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing for all of the soldiers and veterans in our country who are suffering immensely today because of combat efforts.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was former prime minister Trudeau who established the particular original park boundaries in Nahanni Butte. It was done to support the creation and expansion of a national parks system right across Canada.

If I had time, I could tell a story about the importance of protecting ecosystems like this because there are so many examples of where we did not have appropriate protection and where we have seen a decline in animal habitat. In my area we have terrible examples of how those things have happened.

I want to say that there is also room to have good economic and resource development, along with good ecosystem protection and preservation. It is key for governments to strike the balance and key for all of us to ensure we do it in an appropriate and proper way.