SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 112 - Oct/18/22

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Oct/18/22 11:00:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always in awe at how the member for Winnipeg North manages to make a master class out of indignation in his remarks. I will say that I share his dismay that we are not talking about Bill S-5. It is a bill that is of interest to folks in northwest B.C., especially an organization called Douglas Channel Watch. It is very interested in this idea of the right to a healthy environment. The member did spend much of his remarks talking about Bill S-5 and the environment, so I thought I would ask, which amendments to the Environmental Protection Act does he find the most compelling?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/22 11:00:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is quite a list I could go through, whether it would be recognizing that every individual in Canada has the right to a healthy environment as provided under the act, or that the Government of Canada must protect the rights as provided under the act and, in so doing, may balance the right with relevant factors. If I could be granted another 20 minutes, and I could ask for leave, I would be happy to speak about our environment and go into details on this. However, I suspect the Conservative Party would not allow us to go into debate on Bill S-5. I would ask if it would be okay for me to continue to speak on Bill S-5, as I would be happy to do so.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Oct/18/22 11:01:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been implied that somehow the government was not giving priority to Bill S-5. However, we introduced it in the Senate to make it go faster because—

32 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:01:43 a.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member because there seems to be a problem with the interpretation. I am told that it is working now. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

31 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Oct/18/22 11:01:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government introduced the bill in the Senate because there was room in the Senate, whereas the agenda here was a bit more gridlocked. That shows that we were very much interested in expediting the bill. My second question to the member is whether it is possible that the Conservatives do not want to get to CEPA because CEPA is used to regulate greenhouse gases and vehicle emissions.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/22 11:02:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague raises very good points on both accounts. There is a fear factor within the Conservative Party. They tend to want to shy away from anything related to the environment. In regards to the legislative agenda, when we stop and think about it, the member is right on. With respect to Bill S-5, the Senate has put in a great deal of effort and working with the government, we now have a substantial piece of legislation that we could and should be debating. One of the reasons why the government was not in a position is because we had to deal with legislation, such as Bill C-31, Bill C-30, Bill C-22, all of which are there to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. Over 11 million Canadians benefit from those three pieces of legislation, and some of it has been very difficult to get through the House because the Conservative Party does not want them to pass. They take up the time of the House to prevent the government from getting some of this important legislation done. That is why I spent as much time out of my 20 minutes refreshing the back benches of the Conservative Party on why they should not be doing this concurrence motion. They should have allowed the debate on Bill S-5. That is what would have been good for Canadians today.

240 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/18/22 11:03:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given we are on the topic now, it is important to mention that the word “climate” is not in Bill S-5 even once. The term “greenhouse gas” is also not in Bill S-5. If the member for Winnipeg North is serious about moving forward with Bill S-5's improvements to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, can he reflect on other options that might also be available to the governing party to do so?

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/22 11:04:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the biggest option that the government has to deal with Bill S-5 is to bring forward the legislation at its earliest opportune time. For example, we are still trying to get the disability legislation through the House. We are also still trying to get through the rental subsidy legislation. This type of legislation is absolutely critical and will likely continue to require support from other opposition parties for the government to get it through. I suspect that, given the resistance from the Conservative Party today on Bill S-5, we will likely be requiring some opposition parties' support to do so.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/18/22 11:05:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North wants to talk about the environment, so I have a question about the environment. Environmentally friendly natural gas is something Canada has lots of, and Europe needs it so it can stand up against Russian bullying. Does the member for Winnipeg North support expanding Canada's natural gas industry, including that on the west coast, where my riding is?

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/22 11:05:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need to look at all commodities in whatever ways we can. There are going to be all sorts of markets that will come out of this and though working with our allied countries, as well as ways in which we might be able to support our allies in the future.

53 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/18/22 11:06:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on the comments of the parliamentary secretary, I suspect there would be unanimous consent of the House to agree that Bill S-5 be called for debate immediately after question period today.

42 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:06:20 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

We do not have unanimous consent.

6 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/22 11:06:27 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would think, given we have another motion coming up to pass other legislation, if the member is quite prepared to support that motion, then we could maybe consider doing Bill S-5. Better yet, why does the member not—

49 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/18/22 11:06:45 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

We are getting into debate, and I would like to give the hon. member for Trois-Rivières the opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

33 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Oct/18/22 11:06:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to send my regards to the people of Trois-Rivières, whom I talk to every day about Ukraine. I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his display of contempt. It is something we learn to live with over time. The people across the way often talk the talk but do not walk the walk, yet curiously enough, on this and other topics, they do not even want to talk at all. I was at yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics about Roxham Road, and members there were anxious to avoid the issue. I think avoiding the issue is the new way of doing things. What is this morning's motion about? It condemns the continuing attack on Ukraine. It recognizes that a growing proportion of the Russian people are bravely resisting and opposing this attack. It calls on the Government of Canada to develop measures to support Russian dissidents and so on. What is it about? It is about war. From the Umma–Lagash war in the 16th century BC to Alexander the Great, from the Punic Wars to the war in Kosovo, war is as old as humanity itself. War is a show of the leaders' contempt for the people, pure and simple. No war could ever be justified when human life comes a distant second to commercial interests or the interests of a particular leader. That said, we may have talked a lot about Ukraine so far, but it is clear that nothing has changed despite all our talk. The situation remains the same in that sanctions have been put in place. Steps have been taken. There has been plenty of talk, but has there actually been any action? We are told that there has, but did that action have any result? I do not think so. There are Russian and Ukrainians dissidents who want this situation to end. If we break down the etymology of the word, a dissident is someone who wants to separate. Needless to say, we have a great affinity with those people. The dissidents in this case must be treated as heroes, because they are risking their lives to try to convince a leader that human life cannot come second to private or commercial interests. A dissident who wants to separate and do things differently will have certain values they want to promote. When we talk about values, we are talking about ethics. As a quick aside, as I was saying, certain values are promoted. They might say that human life, for instance, trumps commercial interests. They might talk about respecting human life. In the past, I often heard people say that they respect the environment, that they respect their colleagues and the trees. Such statements can be meaningless. They can just be empty words. Let us break down the word “respect” into two parts, the “re” and the “spect”. In language, “re” means “twice”, like “return”, “redo”, “restate” and “repeat”. It is the same thing. “Spect” refers to looking, as in “spectrum” and “spectral”. Respect means taking a second look to avoid needlessly hurting others. It is the very opposite of war. War is the pinnacle of disrespect. We currently have one party, the Russian party, that refuses to listen. It has turned a deaf ear to international appeals. It has turned a deaf ear to the appeals of its people as well. Clearly, this must be condemned. We must keep going because we are dealing with a Russian leader who is absolutely convinced that Ukraine must be taken. What does it mean to be convinced? It is to believe something absolutely, to hell with the consequences. “Let them all die” seems to be the motto here. As a country that claims to be a friend of human rights, we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing. Doing nothing is not an option. What can be done now? The support provided to date was necessary, but it is not enough. The dissidents must be supported. We might even have to come to their aid, perhaps by offering them asylum. We are good at offering asylum, by the way. They will be told to take Roxham Road. Things are moving well there. Just in case, diplomatic efforts must continue to allow for ongoing dialogue. I get the impression that there is no dialogue right now between the parties, whether by text message, tweets or any other means. The President of France tried to open a dialogue. That did not go over well. Because that dialogue was unsuccessful, does that mean that all dialogue will be unsuccessful? I do not believe that. Let us remember that, during the Second World War, Churchill came to Quebec so he could speak with the allies about his plans. Does Canada have a role to play in the type of dialogue that, beyond condemning the attack, would provide assistance and allow us to take steps to support the dissidents? Could that be a solution? We must certainly stop taking without action. The time for action is now and I would not want to debate it for 20 minutes because the situation is quite clear: We cannot not take action. What is the government's response to that question?

918 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/18/22 11:13:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question I have for members of the Bloc is about the agenda for this morning. I believe that most members were anticipating that we would, in fact, be talking about the environment. The Bloc in the past has talked quite extensively about the environment. Is there any disappointment, from the member's perspective, given that there were other opportunities for the Conservative Party to bring forward what we are debating right now?

75 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:13:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his very important question. We were supposed to discuss the environment this morning. It really is a very important topic, and we must deal with it as soon as possible. However, a motion on support for dissidents was moved this morning, and I do believe that human life should take priority for now. It is a matter of context. The environmental challenges themselves cannot and must not be ignored. To be frank, I think we are just putting them on the back burner this morning, which is something I would rather not be doing. That said, I still want to make it clear that we cannot remain idle with respect to the Ukrainian dissidents.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/18/22 11:14:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, when this issue came before the immigration committee, the member's colleague was very supportive of it, and we had all-party support in moving it forward. It was a pleasure working with his colleague and with other members on the immigration committee on that. I wonder if the member could share more about specific things that he thinks Canada can do to support the Russian opposition. Obviously, this motion speaks to immigration measures, but what other steps can we take to empower, strengthen and support those voices inside Russia? To me, the only long-term solution is to have Russia join the community of free, democratic nations that respect the international rule of law and to have a government in Russia that is prepared to join that community of nations and enjoy the benefits of prosperity and community that come from that. What are the member's further suggestion for moving this agenda forward?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Oct/18/22 11:15:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. He mentioned immigration. I will not say any more about that, because the committee discussed it at length and made some very useful recommendations. However, I would like to talk about the fact that it was said that the Canadian embassy in Ukraine was being opened. It was opened, and the diplomatic staff were taken out. I think the first thing we must do is open an embassy. What we need is genuine, meaningful diplomatic dialogue, not superficial diplomatic dialogue or diplomacy conducted via images and tweets. I think seasoned diplomats are needed to establish dialogue between the parties. We are not mediators, but we must have a presence in Ukraine and Russia. There has been quite a bit of talk about closing the embassies in Russia, but that is not a good idea. The dialogue must continue. A long-term diplomatic solution must be seriously considered. Superficial diplomacy is simply not an option. It must be seriously considered.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Oct/18/22 11:16:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very important discussion, but I find it disturbing that we are talking about supporting legitimate opposition in Russia when we have the Premier of Alberta spreading pro-Putin falsehoods and propaganda. She has claimed that Russia had a right to be upset with Ukraine, when we see mass murder, rape and killing, and the forcible annexation of Ukrainian territories. We have not heard a single Conservative in the House denounce this pro-Putin propaganda, so I would ask my colleague this. What does it say about our credibility of supporting opposition in Russia when we have pro-Putin propaganda right here in Canada? The silence from the Conservatives supporting Danielle Smith and her abhorrent comments is very concerning.

123 words

All Topics