So V ote

May/30/22 11:33:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, is the minister confident the Franklin, Cartier and Cabot vessels delivered by her government are seaworthy and safe workplaces for the Coast Guard and DFO personnel aboard?

29 words

All Topics

May/30/22 11:33:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it was the Canadian shipbuilding strategy established by the previous Conservative government that started the delivery of these vessels. The delivery has been under the minister's government and you are taking credit for a shipbuilding strategy. How does DFO manage fisheries when at-sea science data is absent?

51 words

May/30/22 11:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the minister previously stated that she is proud of her government's delivery of Coast Guard vessels, so I would like to ask her about the new offshore fisheries science vessels the Sir John Franklin, Jacques Cartier and John Cabot. These vessels have been plagued with corrosion, premature wear, mislabelling and even a stop-sail order from Transport Canada since entering service between 2019 and 2021. How much at-sea science and assessment capacity has DFO lost because of the deficient boats delivered by the Liberal government to the Coast Guard?

93 words

All Topics

May/30/22 11:31:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, how important is DFO's at-sea science to its assessment and management of fisheries resources?

18 words

May/30/22 11:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, according to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, it gives the exclusive legislative authority to the Parliament of Canada in all matters pertaining to fisheries. Considering that the common resources of Canada's fisheries belong to Canadians, who does the minister think should be the beneficiary of Canada's fisheries resources?

54 words

May/30/22 11:30:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, according to the Constitution, who is ultimately responsible for managing Canada's fisheries resources?

16 words

May/30/22 11:30:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, who owns Canada's fisheries resources?

8 words

May/30/22 12:15:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, again, it is troubling the way that this Liberal-NDP government is contributing to the decline of democracy here. There are signs that this government simply does not want to hear from Canadians, and does not want to hear from the opposition parties, so it is shutting down debate again. It is shameful that the NDP is siding with it on these time allocation motions. The heritage committee is already backed up with the legislation it is dealing with already. We have only had one speaker from the Conservative Party on the opposition side on this important debate. This is a debate that is important to all Canadians so that all Canadian voices can be heard. Is this stifling of debate necessary because the Liberal government does not want to work? The Liberals have set an example. In 2019, the House only sat for 75 days. In 2020, we only sat for 86 days. In 2021, we only sat for 95 days. Prior to that, the House sat for an average of 122 days. We know that this Liberal government does not like to be in the House and be held accountable. Why are they pushing to further shut down debate from the opposition parties on this motion?

210 words

All Topics

May/18/22 5:26:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, as I spoke about in my speech, effective representation is one factor that needs to be considered when we consider that some urban ridings may take only 15 minutes to cross from one end of the riding to another versus ridings in the country that could take hours and sometimes a full day to cross to get from one destination to another. Those are factors that also need to be considered with the electoral district redistribution plan, so people in every part of this country can feel that they have effective representation in the House.

97 words

May/18/22 5:24:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, the proportional weight of representation is an interesting one coming from a member from the Bloc Québécois, the only party that has seats only in one part of the country and that does not represent the rest of Canada. Therefore, that proportional weight of representation the member is speaking about is a challenging piece coming from that member, who is a member from the other side of the country, when I hear from constituents that they are disappointed that, by the time the vote count reaches British Columbia, the election decision has sometimes already made before votes get counted in British Columbia. I spoke in my speech about the parity of votes per se not being the only thing that is a deciding factor. It is also about representation of all of the other factors as well, so we have effective representation.

148 words

All Topics

May/18/22 5:22:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, the question is really this: Why did the member for Winnipeg North's government shut down debate hours early last night? We could have been through this debate. The real reason we are here debating this is because this is our right. It is our expectation, and the expectation of the people we represent, to be able to debate the legislation the government puts forward, which we continually see as flawed legislation. We want to use this opportunity, as the official opposition, to question the legislation to make sure that it is the best that it can be for the people of Canada whom we represent.

108 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

May/18/22 5:11:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the representative of the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, as always. Finally, after three days of delay, I get to speak to Bill C-14. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill before us today proposes measures to ensure that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. This proposal is not without precedent. There have been times when the House has agreed to adjust its system of redistribution to ensure that provinces do not lose seats in redistribution, and this is the essence of the legislation we are assessing today. It is not the first time the House has debated this long-standing question: What are the objectives and factors for adjusting or creating federal electoral districts? In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the question, precipitated by a redistribution process in Saskatchewan for adjusting electoral boundaries. In its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated: The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind. The court highlighted the ideal of a “free and democratic society” upon which the charter is founded. The Supreme Court also wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’. The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one.” Basing voting power or parity on mathematical calculations of populations is important, but these are not the only factors for the House to consider. On June 1, 1872, 150 years ago, the House was debating factors for proposed adjustments to representation in the House of Commons, and Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told the House, “while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one.” In the 1991 Saskatchewan case, the Supreme Court further explained reasons why parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to consider in ensuring effective representation. In 1991, the Supreme Court wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible. Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. As we examine this bill's legislative proposals for our system of redistribution and determining representation provided to each province, I would like to reflect on effective representation. What did the Supreme Court mean when it wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’”? The court provided some answers to this question in 1991, when it stated: Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed. When I reflect on this statement from the court, I see the court highlighting the importance of social fabric and the threads of culture, history, geography and identities interwoven in social fabrics of specific communities, regions and constituencies. I agree that these factors must be considered as constituencies are created or redistributed and as the boundaries of electoral districts are redrawn. Whether we are talking about political boundaries or boundaries such as those the government is drawing on our oceans in a desperate effort to deliver campaign promises, we must reflect on what the purpose is of drawing lines and what the realities are of the societies or waters that we draw lines through. While the Supreme Court stated in 1991 that the determination of political representation and adjustment of electoral boundaries should support the pursuit of “effective representation”, I believe there are some important points to be made today, in 2022, regarding effective representation. Canadians depend on us, their elected representatives, to function in the House as their voices, their advocates and their representatives. Effective representation, I believe, is dependent on each of us being open to the Canadians we represent so that we can understand and advocate for their ever-evolving needs and priorities. That is what each of us as individual members can do to support effective representation and the Canadians who depend on us to do so. However, and I hope members on all sides agree with me on this point, our ability to deliver effective representation to Canadians is severely hampered when Parliament is shuttered and the House of Commons sits silent in adjournment. Last year, in 2021, the House sat for just 95 days. In 2020, the House sat for 86 days. Yes, in 2020, the House's operation was hampered by the arrival of the pandemic. Yes, in 2021, the Prime Minister chose to trigger an unnecessary election and then delayed the return of Parliament for nine weeks. At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister chose to shutter one platform that we all need to deliver effective representation to Canadians. It is clear why the House was reduced in its function as a forum for effective representation in 2020 and 2021. However, the same cannot be said for 2019, when the House sat for a mere 75 days, even fewer days than in 2020 and 2021. To put things in a historical perspective, from 1945 to 1975, the House sat an average of 138 days each year. From 1975 to 2015, the House sat for an average of 123 days each year. As we assess the legislation before us today, I hope all members can reflect on the objective that I hope we all share: the goal of providing effective representation for all Canadians. Let us also reflect on the essential role the House plays in facilitating effective representation by providing representatives the forum in which to represent. It is not enough to champion effective representation only in today's debate; we must pursue it every day. While the House was shuttered, I used my time to connect with constituents and hear their concerns in order to be more effective when Parliament resumed sitting. Let us never sit idly by while the Prime Minister shutters the House, which we need for doing our jobs.

1237 words

Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22

May/17/22 6:47:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted by the indignation of the Liberal side on this debate. The member speaks about dysfunction in the House. It is their House, as government, to manage, and it is obvious that they are so dysfunctional in managing the House that they cannot get legislation through. Last night, the Liberals adjourned the House two and a half hours early, after cancelling committees so that we could have interpretation services available and other House services that were required. They sent those people home early and sent the whole House home two and a half hours early after they had scheduled it to sit until midnight last night. We have to really question what is behind this determination to serve time allocation notice on the bill before us. What is coming behind it? We have seen previous legislation, such as Bill C-10 now Bill C-11, which will be coming through for debate. Is this an effort to get things out of the way so that they can push that forward through time allocation as well? I hear NDP members rail against the procedural tools that we have to hold this government accountable. For years, in Parliament after Parliament, they railed against time allocation votes. Here they are, after this marriage of the NDP-Liberal government, now joining in with the Liberals in supporting time allocation votes. I question what really is behind all of this rush to get legislation through and to silence the opposition that we are here to provide, having been elected by the people that we represent.

264 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

May/16/22 5:59:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil for putting this motion forward and the discussion on splitting up the budget implementation act. There are so many pieces in that bill that really should be separated and discussed, debated and considered at committee separately, not pushed through the way the government has pushed legislation through in the past. I recall Bill C-69, when there were literally hundreds of amendments proposed that could not even be debated. Does the member for Barrie—Innisfil expect the same is going to happen with the budget implementation act?

102 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

May/10/22 10:09:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present this petition provided to me by constituents of North Okanagan—Shuswap, raising attention to the fact that all Canadians have a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to freedom of expression without discrimination. The undersigned citizens 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 affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

May/6/22 11:35:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, only the NDP-Liberal government could be capable of killing two economic drivers with one blow. The proposed surtax on vessels would destroy capital investments in the charter boat industry, kill jobs and drive investment out of the country. Without new charter vessels coming into the market here, tourists will choose to go elsewhere to spend their vacation dollars, further crippling Canada's tourism recovery. Does the finance minister understand that her high-tax regime will do nothing but kill jobs in the manufacturing and tourism sectors?

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

May/3/22 10:36:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly we in the opposition are here to hold the government accountable, not to block the process of what is taking place in the House in the way the government has worked in cahoots with the NDP to block our voice here.

44 words

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

May/3/22 10:35:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this question comes from the House leader of the NDP. I would ask him in return why his party has decided to go along with the government that has railroaded the official opposition voice in the House through Motion No. 11? The government has pushed it forward and the NDP have supported it. It basically quashes the ability for the opposition parties to hold the government accountable on the measures that it is taking and the scandals that continue to develop. It continues to block our official opposition investigations into the ethics breaches of the finance minister and the SNC-Lavalin issue. It continues on and on. Every time we get close to finding the answers, the government, and the NDP supporting it, shut us down.

132 words