44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the member for Timmins—James Bay for all the work he has put into Bill C‑49. He pushed hard for a transition to clean energy. I think that his work should be recognized by the House.
We support Bill C‑49 because we finally see the Liberals taking the first small steps toward clean energy. Anyone who travels outside Canada can see how other countries around the world are investing in clean energy. They see that things are beginning to change in Asia. They see things are beginning to change in Africa. All anyone has to do is fly over Europe and the North Sea to see all of the wind power projects making a huge difference.
I visited the island of Samsoe in Denmark. The government of Denmark is making the necessary investments in clean energy. The island of Samsoe has converted all of its heating and electricity, and has almost finished converting its transportation system. Everything works on clean energy.
In the United States, with President Joe Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act, there are successful investments everywhere. The potential for Canada is enormous. When we look at the U.S. market, where states and municipalities are demanding clean energy, we can see the potential for the production of clean energy in Canada.
What we have is a grid that has not been set up, as some European grids have, to be able to include the potential of clean energies from a variety of sources. Scandinavia and Germany have already converted. Canada lags far behind.
There is work to be done. That is why the NDP and our entire caucus supports Bill C‑49. We can see the potential, and we think it is important to make these investments. This bill is a first step toward this clean energy potential. We need to see leadership on the part of the federal government in this area so that we can have clean energy projects across Canada.
When the member for Burnaby South becomes prime minister, we will have a New Democratic government and we will see the difference. We can make the transition that other countries are already engaged in.
Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic accord acts, notably by establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and their offshore areas. Currently, the Atlantic accord acts implement agreements between Canada and these two provinces on the joint management of offshore petroleum resources.
Under the proposed bill, regulatory authority for offshore wind power would be granted to the two existing jointly managed offshore boards that are currently exclusively responsible for regulating offshore oil and gas projects: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. They would effectively be put in place as regulators for offshore wind power.
This is extremely important, because we know that there is much to do in terms of putting in place all the foundations for renewable energy sources, which can be a powerful driver of Canadian prosperity in the years to come. We have unlimited potential right across the country. I think of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where we could ultimately be seeing powerhouses of solar and wind power.
The export of renewable energy could make a profound difference, particularly because so many American states and cities require renewable energy as their feedstock. They simply will not accept energy that is not renewable. We need to modernize our grid and make these investments. We have seen, both under the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government, no investments in any meaningful way to modernize our electrical grid to allow for the import of renewable energy. We have seen, quite frankly, a couple of decades of stagnation when it comes to renewable energy. New Democrats support the bill because it is a first step forward, but there is much to do.
The reality is that we are seeing investment moving into clean energy. This is vitally important. There are energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; we cannot leave them behind. We need to make sure we put in place the investments that allow for offshore wind projects for which energy workers could use their enormous skills. Having been an energy worker and having worked at the Shellburn refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which is now closed, I can say that the skills of workers in the energy sector are enormous. If we are to really capture the immense potential that comes from renewable energy, we need to make sure we pass legislation such as this, as well as making the powerful investments that are so important and that other countries have made in order to ensure incredible prosperity.
During the hearings, the member for Timmins—James Bay said very clearly that strong concerns had been heard from fishers about ensuring that any new developments respect the fragile nature of North Atlantic fisheries. New Democrats share their concerns, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said so eloquently. We urge the provinces to work with the stakeholders to ensure that any new projects are developed with the recognition of the need to protect the fisheries. This is vitally important.
We know that we need to catch up with other countries. I will give two examples. Off Rhode Island, there is a new wind farm that is going to provide energy for a quarter of a million homes. That is as a result of President Joe Biden's leadership in making the investments for clean energy. Twenty-seven other major projects in the United States are on track to be completed by next year, 2025. For example, the Vineyard Wind project is creating enough power for 400,000 homes.
Atlantic Canada, with its high energy costs, could become a world leader in low-cost energy, including wind and green hydrogen. However, the reality is that we have not seen from the Liberal government, as we did not see from the Conservative government before it, any real effort to provide the kinds of frameworks and investments that are so important for building those massive opportunities in offshore wind.
There was a promise from the Liberals to put in place investment tax credits to kick-start clean energy. That was last year, and the credits are still nowhere to be seen. Investment is still flowing south, and we see Canadian companies looking to partner in the United States now, where investment is guaranteed. The reality is that we have CAPP holding meetings with the government to continue to get subsidies for the oil and gas sector, but for energy workers who are interested in the potential for clean energy, there are no opportunities being presented to them. This is because of the fact that the government has not acted, in the same way as the Conservative government did not act before it. Therefore, what we need to see is a federal government willing to step up.
In Alberta, there was incredible potential. My colleagues from Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton Griesbach would agree that there was immense potential. I believe there were $33 billion in clean energy projects in line to be built. Clean energy has immense potential in Alberta. However, the premier, Danielle Smith, basically put a hold on all those projects. Why would anyone do that when there is potential for enormous growth?
Alberta could be the clean energy powerhouse of the planet. Why would the premier basically halt $33 billion in clean energy projects? It makes no sense at all.
Under the Harper government, we saw a hatred of clean energy. The one program it did put in place regarding home renovations was so oversubscribed that, basically, the government abruptly cancelled it. In the years following, when I was the energy critic, as the NDP was the official opposition at the time, I went across the country—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague says we will be so again, but we are actually going for government. We are fine to leave the Conservatives as the official opposition, which they are currently. I wish I could say they are an effective opposition, but they are not effective at all.
The reality is that we had an ability for clean energy to thrive in Alberta that was nixed by the premier of the province. I think, right across the country, people would ask why she would do that and hurt her own province. However, I will leave that debate to the Alberta legislature at another time.
Coming back to the United States, since President Biden was elected, there has been an announcement of $240 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, in new clean energy manufacturing investments. The private sector has announced $110 billion in clean energy manufacturing investments, including more than $70 billion in the electric vehicle supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing.
We certainly see the reaction from Conservatives. They do not want to see these kinds of investments taking place in Canada, but the reality is that having a quarter of a trillion dollars in private sector investments in clean energy in the United States shows the incredible potential. According to a variety of estimates, the Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to be creating 1.5 million additional jobs.
I come back to the issue of Danielle Smith cancelling and basically stopping 33 billion dollars' worth of clean energy investment in Alberta and however many hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have resulted in. Again, it is a decision that makes no sense at all; Conservatives will have to explain why anyone would want to cut on something that could have been a real path for prosperity.
As a result of President Biden's plan, the U.S. is now on a path to meet the goal of cutting emissions 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaching net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. I contrast that, of course, with the utter failures of the Harper government and the current government. Both have utterly failed in bringing down emissions. Canada has a very poor track record.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I understand my Conservative colleagues are asking why Mr. Harper failed. I am more than pleased to talk about that.
I will start with the $30 billion Conservatives gave to overseas tax havens every year, through the Harper sweetheart tax haven treaties. That is $300 billion that Conservatives used to splurge on overseas tax havens over the course of the dismal decade when Mr. Harper was in power. Not one Conservative has ever been able to explain what good it did for Canada to give away a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens. The Harper government stopped pensions, forced seniors to work longer, slashed health care funding and cut services to veterans. It did all those bad things. It was a terrible decade, with $116 billion in liquidity supports going to Canada's big banks to maintain their profits and $300 billion, according to the PBO, given away to overseas tax havens. Conservatives' financial management is an oxymoron. They are simply not good at managing money; they are terrible at it. It is unbelievable.
If one does not believe me, one just has to look at the fiscal returns actually tabled by the Ministry of Finance, federally. It is hardly a hotbed of social democrats in the federal Ministry of Finance, but it has been saying, year over year, for the last few decades, that the worst governments, in terms of managing money and paying down debt, are the Conservative and the Liberal governments.
The governments that are best, of course only provincially, up to this time, at managing money, at paying down debt and at the same time ensuring we have effective education programs, effective health care programs and effective investments in our youth, and have better programs for seniors and for families, and this is from the fiscal returns of the federal government, are NDP governments. It should not be a surprise to anybody that we are not only the best at managing the services that Canadians need in every province that we have governed in, but also the best at managing money. That comes from the federal Ministry of Finance, no less.
I wanted to take just a few minutes to talk about, as the member for Timmins—James Bay has done so eloquently, the climate crisis that we are in.
Scientists who are monitoring the collapsing ice shelves of Greenland have noted how soot from fires, which lands on the ice shelves, draws more heat and leads to ever faster disintegration of the ice fields. This is raising water levels, causing ocean instability and leading to more storms. We are at a tipping point. It is essential that we act fast and take the magnitude of this crisis seriously.
The first step is to take on what the member for Timmins—James Bay has called a pathological obsession of big oil to extract as much profit as possible from the burning of the planet. Big oil has shown no interest in limiting the damages it has done and, in fact, is pushing for an increase in production.
Scientist David Archer states, “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge...longer than nuclear waste...longer than the age of human civilization so far.”
It also does not make economic sense. Last week, the International Energy Agency stated that we are at “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”, as “demand for oil, natural gas and coal” are all going to “peak” over the next few years. Therefore, we need to prepare to ensure that we are actually putting in place all those fundamental issues, programs and foundations and to ensure that we can benefit from the clean energy economy to come.
The reality is that the declines, in terms of production and emissions, are nowhere near steep enough to put the world on a path to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. We are going to have to work more steadily, and there has to be faster policy action by governments.
That is why it is so important to move on Bill C-49. I am pleased, on behalf of the NDP caucus and on behalf of the member for Timmins—James Bay, to support this legislation.
It is not a panacea. It does not get the job done, but it is a first important step that allows us to move forward for the clean energy economy to come, to allow energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to do the important work that they can do to ensure that we have growth and development of clean energy and that we have more jobs in Atlantic Canada.
It is for all those reasons that the NDP is supportive of Bill C-49.
Now, should the government be doing more? The answer is yes.
We have had two decades of inaction, first with the Harper government, then with the current government. These two governments did not make the investments other countries made. In our opinion, it is essential that we put all the tools in place, including, of course, Bill C‑49.
It is extremely important that we implement the bill, and that we invest in order to create jobs and prosperity and to lower the price of energy in Atlantic Canada, ensuring that everyone can benefit from clean energy in the future.
2658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:31:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will be very brief. This is just a reaction to my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who seemed to censor the intervention I gave on Monday on the issue of using false and misleading titles. What he censored was that Conservatives have been using the false and misleading title in French of “the Bloc-Liberal government”. This false title is something that the Conservatives have raised repeatedly in the House and it is something that applies as part of your considerations, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that the Conservatives are misleading Canadians by using a different false and misleading title in English than they are in French.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the real slogan of the Conservatives should be “tackiness, not technology”, because we saw in Alberta Danielle Smith blocking $33 billion worth of clean energy projects, which would have meant so much for energy workers in Alberta. We know that other jurisdictions around the world are making the investments in clean energy. In Conservative-run provinces, it is an absolute lockdown on any new technology that actually provides for clean energy. Now we see their fervent opposition to clean energy in Atlantic Canada by their blocking of Bill C-49, which they have been doing now for months.
The reality is that we are talking about a party of Luddites within the Conservative caucus. They simply refuse the clean energy prosperity that comes from making the investments in clean energy. Bill C-49 is one of the first steps that need to happen.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:40:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague. I enjoyed working with him on the Canadian heritage committee.
I would certainly say that a lot of investments came from the former NDP government in Alberta under Rachel Notley, which really made a serious effort to provide for those clean energy jobs. Of course, many of those projects were ultimately approved.
Danielle Smith then did the lockdown, and $33 billion in additional clean energy projects have basically been stalled.
I know that the member knows his riding well. I think the difference between us is that he might try to attribute it to the Conservative government. I certainly attribute it to what was the best government in Alberta's history, the government under Rachel Notley, which made such a difference. It helped to reinforce the education sector and health care sector and it made a real difference in terms of good governance in Alberta. I know that for many Albertans they are hoping that day will come back again, when they can hope that there will not be the gutting of health care and education that we have seen, the stalling of clean energy projects.
The reality of farm receipts in Alberta is that they are among the worst in the country. The Danielle Smith government, the UCP government, has been devastating for Alberta.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:42:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, of course we are concerned about the fishers, who have raised some very legitimate concerns. When we look at the issue of clean energy and the future of clean energy across Canada, it is important that we consult and that the needs of the fisheries and fishers be taken into consideration. We support all of these elements to ensure that consultations with fishers take place. With respect to Bill C‑49, there are some legitimate concerns that we think are important as well.
We think it is important to move forward with Bill C‑49 and to have these clean energy projects. At the same time, we must ensure that consultations on this industry that is so important to the Atlantic provinces are taken into consideration.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am highly critical of the Conservative approach under the party's new leader, the member for Carleton.
The reality is that there used to be this ability in the House of Commons, particularly in minority governments, and the NDP, in minority governments, has pushed hard to make a difference. We have seen the results in universal health care, and are now looking forward to the results of dental care and of pharmacare for people with diabetes. Six million people across the country, 17,000 in each and every riding, would finally have their diabetes medication, which costs over $1,000 a month in many cases, being paid for. All of those things, as well as anti-scab legislation and affordable housing, were all blocked by the Conservatives.
The Conservatives seem to have taken an approach of blocking everything that comes before the House. It is almost like they do not want to see any benefits going to their constituents. I find it surprising. I find it tragic that parliamentarians elected with the commitment, as we all make during election campaigns, to come to the House of Commons and do the best for their constituents, would do the exact opposite.
Then we come back to Bill C-49, where there is a notable benefit to start moving forward with clean energy projects. There are 1.5 million new jobs in the United States, and in Canada, we are talking about tens of thousands of new well-paying jobs that could come from those good investments. We did not see any under the Harper regime.
Tragically, we have not seen any from the Liberal government. However, at least with Bill C-49, we are seeing the foundation that would allow for the investments to be made, so we would be able to create those jobs.
In the end, Conservatives will have to defend their record when they go back to their ridings when the next election happens.
328 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it tragic that governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the wake of the opioid crisis, are seeing the highest rise in the death rate in Canada in those two provinces. In Saskatchewan it is a 23% increase. I am surprised the member is unaware of this. He represents a Saskatchewan riding, and he is unaware of the massive increase in opioid deaths—
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 5:20:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, the Liberals have been woefully weak when it comes to actually making the investments around clean energy so we can do the transition. Look at the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. We can see that 1.5 million jobs have been created from President Joe Biden's investments in clean energy. When is the Canadian government going to step up on those kinds of investments?
Second, I found it a little rich to hear a Conservative colleague talking about scrutiny, when the Conservatives, during the dismal decade of the Harper regime, gave $116 billion in liquidity supports to banks. They gave $30 billion each and every year, $300 billion total, a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens through the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, and then, of course, massive subsidies to oil and gas CEOs.
I want to ask my colleague whether he finds it rich that Conservatives, after all of their fiscal mismanagement, are trying to give others lessons.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 5:42:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sincerity on the issues, and I appreciate his openness for ideas. There is no doubt about it that this is an important issue. The member did say this was across Canada, but there is an exception.
As members are well aware, British Columbia, under the B.C. NDP government, has actually seen, year after year, a decrease in the number of auto thefts. The police with the integrated crime units have been particularly good at breaking down gangs that have tried to come into British Columbia from elsewhere in Canada. We have a bait car program, which has been very successful in making sure that criminals are actually caught.
As my colleague is listening, I would like to add both the fact that the auto manufacturers need to upgrade their technologies to make sure that auto theft is headed off and the fact that 12 years ago there were cuts to CBSA. The Liberal government has never restored the number of positions that we need to ensure that these stolen automobiles are actually caught before they are exported. Would the member agree that what the B.C. government has implemented, including the bait car program and integrated crime prevention, are the kinds of ideas that we also need to incorporate to make sure that we can drive down auto theft rates elsewhere in Canada?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:03:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Albert for bringing this forward. I know that he is very sincere, having worked in Parliament with him for a number of years on this issue.
I will get into some reasons a little later on as to why I do not think this bill is the response that is needed, but I want to start off by talking about British Columbia and the British Columbia difference. We have been talking a lot about car thefts. Why is it that in British Columbia there has been an opposite result from what we are seeing in other parts of the country?
I would like to thank the integrated crime prevention services for their work, the New Westminster Police, the Burnaby RCMP and a wide variety of law enforcement from across the Lower Mainland and British Columbia who worked very carefully with the B.C. NDP government to ensure the rapid increase we have seen in so many parts of the country is not reflected in B.C. Gangs have attempted to come to British Columbia and have been pushed back and arrested. That is fundamentally important.
The bait car program, the fact that we have integrated law enforcement on this issue and the anti-gang strategy that the British Columbia government has been a very strong proponent of have all made a difference. We need to make sure that we continue to act to ensure that we are not subjected to the same rise in auto thefts in British Columbia that we have seen elsewhere in the country.
I want to come back to the rest of the country. Particularly in provinces with a Conservative government, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of auto thefts. This is very unfortunate. Having bait car programs and integrated law enforcement can help make a difference, but the federal government has a responsibility. Where I think the federal government can play a role is in providing supports so that the provinces do the right thing, as British Columbia has done. I think we will see the new Manitoba NDP government take similar types of action to help bring down the crime rate.
The reality is that we need to ensure we have an anti-gang strategy, and that includes ensuring that money laundering is not present. As members know, the NDP has long been an advocate of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry that ensures criminals cannot hide behind numbered companies. This is something I brought forward under the Harper government and was rejected by the Conservatives at the time. The Liberals have moved very slowly on this, but it is absolutely essential.
Law enforcement knows about this and so do so many Canadians. Having a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry would ensure that people cannot hide behind numbered companies. An anti-gang strategy and ensuring criminals cannot launder money are absolutely fundamentally important. Canada is known as the snow-washing capital of the world because there have been successive Conservative and Liberal governments that have not taken action on this. An NDP government would make sure that we no longer have criminals hiding behind numbered companies.
I also want to talk about the importance of having the auto industry and auto manufacturers take action to ensure there are new measures to improve security features in automobiles. This made a big difference about 10 years ago. There was an evolution in technology 12 years ago, and we started to see the high rates of auto theft come down. There needs to be a similar requirement that auto manufacturers improve security features. That would make a fundamental difference.
We also need to ensure that we are funding programs that prevent youth from reoffending. This is where the funding cuts to Canadian crime prevention centres, including the B.C. crime prevention centre, are so regrettable. This happened under the Harper government. The Liberal government did not restore that funding. It is critical to have crime prevention programs in place to ensure that we can crack down on crime before it occurs. Part of that is funding programs for youth at risk to ensure that they are not subject to the kind of recruitment that, sadly, we are seeing in eastern Canada right now and on the Prairies.
There was a very regrettable decision by the Harper government to slash CBSA officials. We lost over 1,200 positions. This was over a dozen years ago and we are still bearing the consequences of this. When we talk to people in port authorities across the country, this is something that continues to be a problem. We do not have border enforcement in place, because of the cuts that occurred under the Conservatives and have been continued by the Liberals, to ensure that, if an automobile is stolen, it cannot be exported. This is a fundamental issue that has to be dealt with by the current government; it cannot be ignored.
We need all these measures that I am talking about: comprehensive crime prevention, an anti-gang strategy, and ensuring that criminals can no longer hide behind numbered companies and money launder through a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. We need to ensure that CBSA is staffed up so that the border agents who work so hard on our behalf have the resources to do the job they are supposed to do and that successive federal governments have not let them do because of chronic underfunding. We need to force auto manufacturers to actually put security measures into place. Often, we are talking about an automobile that costs $50,000 or $60,000 that is protected by a relatively cheap security system of a couple hundred bucks. This is not an appropriate way of ensuring that we can bring down the level of auto theft. All of these measures are really important.
I wanted to come back to the member for Prince Albert and his bill. Again, I do not, in any way, question his sincerity; it is quite the contrary. I know he is somebody who upholds the principle of effective representation. However, he has presented a bill that really does one thing: It re-establishes mandatory minimums. The reality is that, as we have seen and when speaking with Crown prosecutors we get this sense, if what we are trying to do is to have a comprehensive strategy to crack down on criminal gangs, then we need to make sure we get the gang leaders.
The way to ensure that is to be able to talk to the lower levels in the criminal organizations. The way to ensure that co-operation is not through mandatory minimums. There is nothing to deal with. The mandatory minimums mean that the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement are tied in terms of getting the co-operation that is so vital to getting to the leadership of these gangs. That is what we need to see right across the country, and mandatory minimums stop that. It is actually counterproductive in terms of how we can crack down on the auto theft that, outside of British Columbia, is becoming epidemic.
We will not be supporting the bill at second reading, though I thank the member for bringing this forward. I believe this is an important debate. The NDP believes in the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have seen work in British Columbia. Though auto theft is still high, it is lower than in the rest of the country. That is because of the comprehensive approach of integrated law enforcement, ensuring an anti-gang strategy, ensuring that we are moving to crack down on money laundering and ensuring that we are staffing up CBSA officials, so we can stop the exports of stolen automobiles at the border points that we are simply under-resourcing right now.
We need to ensure that automobile manufactures have a responsibility to improve the security features of the vehicles we spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy. These are all actions that can make a huge difference in bringing down the auto theft rates, which are far too high in the rest of Canada. We need to bring them down to what we are seeing in B.C. All these measures taken together have had a noticeable impact and have stopped it. We will continue to work hard to make sure that they are maintained to stop the chronic rise in auto theft we are seeing in the rest of the country.
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:15:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a falsehood, and the member should withdraw it.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 7:14:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I like the member, but quite frankly, I am concerned when he talks about what a future Conservative government will do.
We saw what the Conservatives did for veterans. They closed about 20 offices that provided services to veterans. People had to drive hundreds of kilometres to get any kind of service. The Conservatives cut services for veterans. They treated veterans with a total lack of respect. I have a lot of respect for the member, but quite frankly, we saw the contempt with which the Conservatives treated veterans under the Harper regime.
The Conservatives treated veterans terribly under the Harper regime. Can the member explain how the Conservatives will in any way treat veterans better if ever they take office?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 7:28:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did find the speech quite stimulating, but my head is fine. I hope, for the hon. member who just spoke, it is the same.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
