44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-257. The petitioners raise concern about the problem of political discrimination in Canada. They note that Canadians can face discrimination on the basis of their political beliefs and that this limits free debate and exchange of ideas. Bill C-257 would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:10:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second petition that I am tabling raises concern about cuts that the government is making to women's shelters. The petitioners note that women's shelters are, sadly, seeing increased demand. The high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder for women and children fleeing a violent home to find a safe place to live. They note that at a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants, it is cutting $145 million of funding for women's shelters.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to restore funding that has been cut for women's shelters.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling responds to grave concerns that I have heard from many of my constituents about changes that the government has made around the regulation and costs of natural health products. The petitioners say that Liberals are threatening access to natural health products through new rules that will mean higher costs and fewer products available on store shelves. New so-called cost recovery provisions would impose massive costs on all consumers of natural health products and undermine access for Canadians who rely on these products.
The petitioners also note that provisions in the latest Liberal omnibus budget have given the government substantial new arbitrary powers around the regulation of natural health products, and they call on the Government of Canada to reverse the changes made in the latest Liberal budget regarding natural health products.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:11:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the final petition I will table today raises concerns about the politicization of charitable status determination by the Liberal government, proposals around applying a values test to charitable status determination and having discrimination on the basis of values associated with charitable status determination. Petitioners note the Liberals signalled in their last election platform a plan to go down this road of politicizing charitable status.
Petitioners call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of all Canadians to freedom of expression.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:12:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here to present a petition from Canadians from across the country who want a permanent end to the ArriveCAN app and the COVID mandates. Currently, the government has only suspended most of these mandates, but the petitioners are calling for the government to permanently suspend the ArriveCAN app.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:12:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the health and safety of Canadians. They support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms and that firearms are a way of life in Canada, but they are concerned about the damaging noise levels of firearms and the need for noise reduction. These petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized device to do such a thing, but they are criminally prohibited in Canada.
Moreover, the majority of G7 nations around the world allow these things for hunting and sport shooting, for reduced noise pollution. Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to allow legal firearm owners to purchase these things and use them for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition is from petitioners across the country who are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading sexually explicit material. The petitioners comment on how this is an important public health and public safety concern.
Petitioners note the significant proportion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material has no age verification software. Moreover, age verification software can ascertain users without breaching their privacy rights. Petitioners note many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addiction, the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and harassment of women.
As such, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:14:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition is from petitioners from across the country who have increasing concerns about the human rights protections in India. The petitioners say that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom notes that there seem to be various actors supporting and enforcing sectarian policies in India.
The petitioners state that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers and threatening and humiliating their congregations. The petitioners say that crimes against the Dalit groups, including Dalit women and girls, are increasing. Petitioners also say that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence.
The petitioners ask for the Government of Canada to ensure that all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promotes a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:15:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Bangladeshi students in Canada. Bangladeshi students often face long wait times to come to Canada to be allowed to study.
Canada has a program called the student direct stream, or SDS, which is a method that allows certain countries to have much quicker processing times to allow their students to come to Canada to study. This is something the petitioners are calling for. They would really like to see Bangladesh included in that program of student direct stream, because it would allow its students to come to Canada more easily. Of course, they add value to our country by studying here, working here and doing other things after they have studied. Often, many of them are waiting for many years, so the petitioners are calling for the government to include Bangladesh in the student direct stream in a very timely manner.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:16:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from individuals who have brought forward concerns that continue to come across my desk. They indicate it is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant. Currently, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime is not considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code of Canada.
They indicate that Canada has no abortion law, which is true, and that this legal void is so extreme that it does not even recognize preborn children as victims of violent crimes when they are still within their mother. Justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and her preborn child be sentenced accordingly and that the sentence should match the crime.
Petitioners call upon the House of Commons to designate the abuse of a pregnant woman and/or the infliction of harm or death on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:17:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:18:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Let me begin by emphasizing that I have deep respect for the Speaker's office and for parliamentary procedure. Every point contained herein is made out of a desire to uphold the rules of Parliament and to bolster public faith in Canada's democratic institutions.
With that said, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the disclosure outside of the House, by the Speaker's office, of your decision to recuse yourself from the pending ruling on the question of privilege which I had raised before Thanksgiving. It is an established convention that the House has the first right to information concerning certain House of Commons business, such as the content of bills and committee reports presented to the House, failure of which is a breach of the House's privileges. It will be my argument that this situation is equivalent to one of those cases.
While the events in question arose as a consequence of my previous question of privilege, this disclosure outside the House is, I believe, a separate and discrete incident giving rise to a separate and discrete question of privilege and requiring a separate decision on its own merits. In my original question of privilege, I argued that it is both inappropriate and impossible for a Speaker to recuse themself from ruling on a question of privilege in which they have some involvement. That involvement, of course, turned on your signature, Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, which understated the cost to taxpayers of the Prime Minister's Montana vacation this spring by over $200,000. I argued that, in circumstances where the Speaker has some involvement in the matter, the only appropriate recourse available is for the House itself to exercise the Speaker's screening function on a question of privilege as part and parcel of its deliberations on a privilege motion.
I would incorporate the same position and argument into the present question of privilege, where responsibility for the disclosure has been attributed to your office. In short, I believe that you also, Mr. Speaker, must refer this matter to the House.
As for the facts of this matter, on the afternoon of Friday, October 6, you emailed me to inform me that “as of early this morning”, you had recused yourself from my original question of privilege. What might have been considered, possibly, a personal and confidential heads-up about a forthcoming statement you would make to the House, turned out not to be. Despite your decision having been made in the morning, no announcement of this was made in the House.
Further, almost immediately after I received your email, which appeared above a signature block identifying you as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I noticed that the news of your recusal was published on Twitter, or X, and then on a Substack blog entitled Political Watchdog, both purportedly run by a teenager named Nolan Stoqua. The Substack posting included the following comment: “The Speaker's office confirmed to Political Watchdog that the Speaker...will recuse himself from ruling on the Member for Calgary Nose Hill's question of privilege. The Speaker has asked that the Deputy Speaker consider the matter and determine the next steps, says the Speaker's office.”
The House sat that Friday, yet you did not make a statement about this so-called recusal. The Deputy Speaker, who presided over most of the day's sitting, similarly did not make any statement on your behalf before the House adjourned for Thanksgiving. The first time that members of the House would have officially learnt of this significant development was via a teenager's Twitter feed. This, I respectfully submit, raises serious questions about whether the privileges of the House may have been breached.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 81, explains that:
There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within...the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege...is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House....In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.
...the House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through its exercise of contempt power....In other words, the House may...consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.
Continuing at page 84, it reads, “By far, most of the cases of privilege [raised in the] House relate to matters of contempt challenging the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament and its Members.”
The footnote which follows, footnote 125, points to the first in a series of precedents which I believe are most instructive in the present circumstances:
For example, in 2001, a question of privilege was raised regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held for members of the media on a bill not yet introduced in the House, while denying Members access to the same information. Speaker Milliken ruled that the provision of information concerning legislation to the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House constituted a prima facie case of contempt.
While it is understood practice now that the contents of bills that are on notice must not be disclosed before introduction in the House, something which Speaker Regan described on June 8, 2017, at page 12,320 of the debates as “one of our oldest conventions”, it was nonetheless a novel situation when Speaker Milliken gave his ruling.
Just as the 2001 case would not have appeared in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, often known as “Marleau and Montpetit”, we will not find in Bosc and Gagnon any precedent concerning the matter I am raising today, but that is not a barrier to proceeding.
In reaching his landmark ruling, Speaker Milliken said, on March 19, 2001, at page 1,840 of the Debates:
with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence...The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
Thus, the issue of denying to members information that they need to do their work has been the key consideration for the Chair in reviewing this particular question of privilege. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.
The matter was then referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which subsequently concluded in its 14th report in the first session of the 37th Parliament, “Such an action impedes, obstructs, and disadvantages Members of Parliament in carrying out their parliamentary functions. In all of these circumstances, the Committee has come to the inescapable conclusion that the privileges of the House [of Commons] and of its Members have been breached in this case.”
Just as the House has a pre-eminent position in the legislative affairs of the nation, it holds no lesser place when it comes to the law of parliamentary privilege. Bosc and Gagnon remind us, at page 76, “Matters that fall within parliamentary privilege are for the House alone to decide.”
The procedure and House affairs committee added, at page 3 of its 42nd report in the first session of the 41st Parliament, “Parliament is the sole judge of the appropriateness of the exercise of any of its privileges.” The House concurred in this report and its view, which I quoted, on December 2, 2013.
The Supreme Court of Canada shares the view at paragraph 9 of its unanimous 2005 Vaid decision: “In other words, within categories of privilege, Parliament is the judge of the occasion and manner of its exercise and such exercise is not reviewable by the courts”.
To hold such a place in our constitutional order is significant and must be treated with great respect. That, I would argue, means the House itself must be the first recipient of rulings and decisions related to its privileges, not outside media or teenagers' blogs.
As for context of the role the House holds, Bosc and Gagnon note, at page 62, “Parliamentary privileges were first claimed centuries ago when the English House of Commons was struggling to establish a distinct role for itself within Parliament. In the earliest days, Parliament functioned more as a court than as a legislature, and the initial claims to some of these privileges were originally made in this context.”
Erskine May, 25th edition, paragraph 12.1, adds, “The power to punish for contempt or breach of privilege has been judicially considered to be inherent in each House of Parliament not as a necessary incident of the authority and functions of a legislature (as might be argued in respect of certain privileges) but by virtue of their descent from the undivided High Court of Parliament and in right of the lex et consuetudo parliamenti.”
Put another way, when considering matters of privilege, the House is cloaked with the vestments of a court. In a court of law, one would imagine the decision of a judge, who has been asked to make certain decisions, not being provided to the parties equally and in public, but instead passed to a teenaged blogger, to be a scoop from a court clerk. However, that is effectively what happened before Thanksgiving when the “Speaker's office” provided a statement to a person ostensibly named Nolan Stoqua.
Via these actions, I believe the House's pre-eminent place in being the sole judge of its own privileges has been breached. The dignity and authority of the House has been negatively affected by this.
To further this point, colleagues who had indicated that they had intended to come back to the House to make interventions on my original question of privilege and my call for your referral of the matter to the House were effectively denied the opportunity to do so.
Indeed, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, the New Democratic Party's House leader, raised similar concerns in his intervention about this matter earlier today. He said that, even more frustrating, was the fact that the office confirmed this decision to a member of the media, in the case, an unverified blogger, and then did not inform the House as a whole or even the House leaders group.
He went on to say:
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution....
He continued:
The responsibility of the Speaker is to the institution of Parliament and to the House of Commons as a whole, not to an individual member who raises a point and not to reporters who may be interested in the decisions taken by the Speaker. Providing more information to the media than to Parliament on matters that are fundamentally parliamentary in nature is really not acceptable.
In discussing how Speakers' rulings are delivered, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our bible, further states:
Sometimes, a ruling is delivered quickly and with a minimum of explanation. At other times, circumstances do not permit an immediate ruling. The Speaker may allow discussion of the point of order before he or she comes to a decision. The Speaker might also reserve his or her decision on a matter, returning to the House at a later time to deliver the ruling.
He concluded:
It is clear that rulings are meant to be made in the House. There is no precedent for a Speaker doing otherwise, and the rule book does not contemplate otherwise.
I agree with my colleague from the NDP on this point. It should be considered in the deliberations on this potential breach of privilege.
I believe the appropriate course of action to determine whether a prima facie case of privilege exists when the Speaker has a conflict of interest, as when the Speaker's office is said to be at the heart of the actions in concern, is to simply turn the matter over to the House. An appropriate analogy lies, I would submit, in the circumstances of a chair of a committee when a question of privilege is being raised in that venue. Bosc and Gagnon elaborate on page 1060, stating:
The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege...If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting, or an incident arises in connection with the committee’s proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the member to explain the situation. The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House.
Accordingly, in closing, I believe the correct course of action on this matter is twofold: first, for you to refer this matter to the House for deliberation, given your personal involvement and your office's involvement in this matter; and, second, should the House agree with me that my concerns raised today in this new question of privilege constitute a breach, the matter can be referred to the appropriate committee to determine the appropriate remedy.
As such, I am prepared to move the motion.
2376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:31:22 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for her statement. Of course, we will look at that statement closely.
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:31:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice in support of the comments made and the point raised by my colleague in the official opposition.
I will endeavour to not repeat what she has so eloquently put before the House, but I want to stress a couple of points. The first is that there is definitely precedence on things, such as legislation being leaked, constituting a breach of privilege. That has been well established. My colleague very skilfully underlined the fact that that was a new precedent at the time Speaker Milliken made his ruling.
This is an unprecedented situation, to find ourselves in this part of the life cycle of our Parliament, where the Speaker's position has now been filled by someone who was a parliamentary secretary right up until the moment of the Speaker election. It is new territory for parliamentarians.
The fact that the Speaker has had to rule on something that he himself was implicated in, in his previous position, is unprecedented. That is why our suggestion was that the proper way of recusing himself would be to put it to the House to decide.
It is important for parliamentarians to remember that the Speaker does not, formally, rule that a breach or a contempt has taken place. All the Speaker does is act as a filter, to say that a situation, on its face, or prima facie, rises to the level that we set aside all other business of the House to allow members themselves, and the House itself, to determine whether or not there is a breach or a contempt.
Our suggestion was that putting it to the House and removing the Speaker from that filtering position would not set a precedent in the case of the Order Paper question that prompted the original question. It would not bind future Speakers to rule that incomplete answers would necessarily, on their own, rise to that level. It would just say that, in this specific case, because of the Speaker's involvement in his prior role, the Speaker would remove himself from that filtering role.
The decision that was made today by the Speaker to recuse himself by way of allowing or empowering the Deputy Speaker to make the ruling was not something that the opposition had considered before the last break week. We had proposed an alternative. The Speaker had not yet ruled on that.
To find out by way of a public blog that that is the course of action that the Speaker is taking rises to the level of raising this question of privilege here today.
It also does not address the points that we made about the Speaker's conflict on the original point. It is true that the Speaker did underline for the House this morning that the Deputy Speaker is selected by the House. That is true. There is a motion that is put forward to the House and the House agrees with it, but that motion is proposed by the Speaker.
The Speaker is the one who consults with other party leaders and proposes that name to the House. The Deputy Speaker is not fully removed from, at the very least, that perception of a conflict of interest. Having been in the roles of both the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker, I can also speak to the dynamic way that the Deputy Speaker works with the Speaker. It is very clear that the Speaker is at the top of the list for chair occupants, and that deputies and assistant deputies are his or her subordinates.
That is why the statement by the Speaker this morning still does not address that aspect of the conflict. I would also pose the question to the Chair, because this decision was made on the Friday, not in the House but through what seems to be some kind of a political blogger, and that parliamentarians have not had the opportunity to raise this concern about even having the Deputy Speaker make this decision, we still believe that there is a point there that needs to be addressed.
I just want to stress that I believe the best way to move forward on this is to have the Speaker fully recuse himself by not delegating it to a Chair occupant, not delegating this question to his deputy, but by just stepping back and saying that he would let the House decide this one because he is not in a position to act as that filter.
I do not think it is too late. I understand the Speaker did make that statement this morning. I would urge him to look at the intervention by my colleague, my remarks and comments by the House leader for the New Democratic Party, and come back to the House with the tidiest solution that keeps the Speaker, as an individual and his entire office, out of the appearance, or even the suggestion, of a conflict of interest by putting it to the House to decide.
837 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:36:22 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a matter of great importance for Atlantic Canadians, in particular constituents of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, I am going to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord acts. Introduced by our government this spring, this is a piece of legislation that intends to bring Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador into the green energy future. More specifically, our government intends to strengthen and modernize the regulations governing their offshore regimes.
As a proud Atlantic Canadian, I can tell members about the importance of safeguarding our unique coastal environment, as well as the importance of creating sustainable economic opportunities at home. This is especially true given the events of the past year in Atlantic Canada.
This last year, we saw a once-in-a-lifetime hurricane, Fiona, followed by an uncontrollable once-in-a-lifetime wildfire, followed by deadly once-in-a-lifetime flooding. This devastating sequence of events is no coincidence. It is the consequence of a climate emergency that has been brewing for decades. It is the consequence of leaders who do not recognize that we must act now to protect our communities.
Atlantic Canadians needed economic growth this year. What they did not need was a significant taxpayer bill for climate disaster cleanups. That is why Bill C-49 would support Canada's clean energy sector to fight the climate crisis. That is why Bill C-49 would unlock the incredible economic potential that lies in the renewable industries within Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I cannot speak for the official opposition, but my constituents in Cape Breton—Canso sent me here to do my part to make government work for them. The same is true for my government colleagues on this side. We are here to work for all Atlantic Canadians and for all Canadians. With that, our government intends to do the right thing for the economic and environmental future of Atlantic Canadians. I will discuss how this legislation is going to help in that effort.
The world is now looking for cleaner sources of energy, and offshore renewables are becoming a leading contender in that very search. As we look to the future of Canadian energy, offshore renewables have the potential to not only help Canada achieve its net-zero goals, but bolster our energy capacity in sustainable ways. However, current regulations are standing in the way of these very crucial renewable projects. That is why Bill C-49 would remove the red tape that is currently preventing green energy projects from getting under way. In fact, without this legislation, not a single offshore wind project can be built, which is an important fact to note. This fact alone should be sufficient to convey the importance of passing this bill.
The reality of the situation is that if we do not create the regulatory environment that allows these clean energy projects to go forward, then massive private sector opportunity will go elsewhere. In other words, Canada has the opportunity right now to be a leader in the emerging offshore renewable industry. If we do not rise to the occasion and become the leader, another jurisdiction surely will. Our government believes that meeting this moment to chart a new path for Atlantic Canada and indeed all Canadians is here.
However, Bill C-49 is not just about removing red tape. It is also about advancing our commitment toward strengthening our environmental protection. This legislation would ensure that the Government of Canada's MPA protection standard is applied in a manner that respects the joint management framework for the Atlantic offshore. It would also provide the federal minister and provincial officials with the ability to prohibit oil and gas activities in areas that could be important for marine conservation and protection.
This is an incredible step forward in our commitment toward expanding Canada's energy capacities in a responsible and sustainable way. It is also reflective of the great partnership we forged with our stakeholders and provincial counterparts, which has allowed us to work together toward common goals. It is why the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have declared their support for this bill. In fact, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone so far as to publicly urge the federal opposition parties to support the passing of Bill C-49. I wish to echo this statement and reiterate to my opposition colleagues that the legislation is indeed critical for the future of Canadian energy. I would say it is critical for economic development in Atlantic Canada writ large.
The Conservatives, and many of them are colleagues of mine, have been talking a lot about common sense, but on this item, they seem to intend to vote against Bill C-49. I do not see the common sense in that. I believe that the magnitude of the opportunity before us is real and that the regulatory framework is strong. It is important for me, as a member of Parliament, to reach across party lines and ask for their support. It is support for Atlantic Canadians and support for coastal communities.
This regulatory framework would indeed provide it to rural communities like mine in Cape Breton—Canso. Historically, in my riding, we have felt left behind in large-scale investments. The large-scale investment that I think can happen here is the best case scenario. It is private sector investment. Eventually, no doubt there will be government support, but this should be led by the private sector, which is so key.
We are partnering with Atlantic Canadians to work on offshore wind and green hydrogen. I think that is fundamentally what common sense is about. It is about working together and working together for the common good. Canada is well positioned to lead, as we all know in this chamber, the clean energy economy, but we need to make the right choices now. That is what Bill C-49 is all about.
With that, there is a simple conclusion that I would like to make here. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against unlocking historic economic investments in Atlantic Canada. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against bringing good, sustainable jobs to my area, to the Atlantic region. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, with whom we have worked together to bring these projects to life. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against putting partisan politics aside for the betterment of our constituents.
I implore each member of this honourable House to vote with us on this legislation. Let us all do the right thing for Atlantic Canada with Atlantic Canada. Let us work to pass Bill C-49.
I am thankful for this opportunity. I look forward to working not only with members on this side of the House but with the opposition to make this legislation a reality.
1177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the Liberal member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, talk about the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Nova Scotia. Those premiers will answer to their electorate if they do the wrong thing by their electorate and by the industries that are going to be impacted either positively or negatively by offshore wind or offshore oil and gas.
There is a little paragraph in the summary of Bill C-49, and if our Liberal members from Atlantic Canada do not have the time to read the bill, they can read this. The bill provides that the Governor in Council, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, can “make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection”. Does the member agree that item (g), referencing proposed section 56 in this bill, could be removed? If so, I would support a bill that takes out—
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 4:46:35 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member across asked if we read. I can tell him that in Cape Breton, they do teach reading and writing and we are quite good at it.
I will also say this. When we look at this particular bill, it is looking at focusing on greater collaborations. I think the premier and the governing party in Newfoundland and Labrador understand the importance of collaboration and understand working for the benefit of the future, for jobs and for economic development. They understand that.
We can sit here all day and pontificate and throw barbs, as we do from time to time, but we are here as Atlantic Canadians to get people to work, to become economically resilient for our region and to export our energy in Atlantic Canada to Europe.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague spoke about the various impacts of voting against Bill C‑49. I wonder whether a vote for Bill C‑49 is a vote for increased oil and gas production in eastern Canada. I think that is a fair question.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
