Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 73.
“I often say it is the three Ts that are having a huge impact on Canada today: Trump, trade and tariffs. Today the focus is on tariffs, but it is all part of the package. We all need to be aware of what is taking place. On April 6, whether it was the aluminum, steel or copper tariffs, there were additional tariffs put on. There is the impact that these are having on our economy, not to mention the impact that tariffs are having on our lumber industry. These tariffs are not fair, nor was it appropriate for the United States to use them in such a fashion that they are hurting not only Canada but all of America. We can talk to some of the American consumers and listen to some of the American businesses that are out there. (1200) The other day, I was watching the hockey results and something flashed up on my news screen that made me feel good.”
“I am very proud of the manner in which the Prime Minister and this government have focused so much attention on the issue of trade and on expanding Canada's economy and opportunities that will generate the types of jobs and the sense of security that Canadians want and expect. That is something that is of the utmost importance. I want to highlight the degree to which trade is important to Canada. A very short way would be to say that when we look at total world trade, Canada contributes about 2.5% to world trade. We make up 0.5% of the world population. That should give us a good sense of the degree to which Canada needs to promote and encourage world trade. The other thing I want to highlight is that the position we find ourselves in today is primarily because of statements that flow out of President Trump.”
“Having said that, I want to get right down to the opposition motion. It is not too often that I am actually really happy with an opposition motion from the Bloc, but I like the way this particular motion is worded. I believe there is a lot of merit to it. I would like to think that the very first part would have unanimous support from the House: “condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade”. I appreciate that statement in a very tangible way. On many occasions, I have stood on the floor of the House and talked about the importance of trade. Trade matters. Canada is a trading nation. We need to encourage and promote trade for the betterment of our nation and ultimately, I would even suggest, for the betterment of the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have this particular motion before us. I plan to provide a number of thoughts on it, but if I may, just before I do that, I want to recognize that tomorrow, May 6, is a very special day in Canada, as Ronald McDonald House has a major fundraiser, McHappy Day, which last year made $11 million going toward Ronald McDonald House. Those who are familiar with Ronald McDonald House will know that it is a home away from home for sick children and their families. It is a wonderful event for people to get behind and support our hospitals, support our families and children, especially those in rural communities who have to commute with severely sick children. My hat is off to Ronald McDonald House and to McDonald's for having such a wonderful non-profit organization that has a real impact.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really clear that since the last federal election, the Prime Minister has been on top of the whole Trump, trade and tariff issue, recognizing that there are going to be serious impacts, and that is the reason that, from day one, the government has had the backs of workers, businesses and industries that have been and are going to be severely impacted. There has been a litany of support packages over the last number of months and general support as a whole. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it was important that we not just wait until today but have been on top of this file since the last federal election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's comment that Canada needs to get the best deal, the best trade agreement, with the United States. At times the Conservatives and the Bloc say they want this deal. Gee whiz, we all want a deal. The issue is getting the best deal for Canadians. That is why I appreciated the member's comments. Could the member expand on why it is important that we get the best deal by not rushing to get just any type of deal? It involves a great deal of negotiation, and we have to be prepared to wait it out in order to achieve that best deal. I wonder if he could provide some further comment with respect to how important that is to Canada's economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make it very clear, when we talk about these industries, that we have a Prime Minister who has been in the chair for a year. We understand the impact on these industries. That is the why we want to make sure that, for the workers in those industries that are so vulnerable, the Prime Minister, the government and all Liberal members of Parliament are going to have their backs. That is why we are providing the type of supports that are necessary. We recognize the impact that President Trump, the tariffs and trade issues are having on Canada. It is very real. It is tangible, which is why the Government of Canada is taking the actions necessary to protect those jobs. We believe in those workers. They are the best in the world. Would the member not agree with those comments?”
“Mr. Speaker, Madam Justice Arbour did an extensive consultation with victims, with members of CAF, with many other stakeholders, and came up with an incredible report with 48 recommendations in order to deal with the complexities of the issue. Thirty-six of those have already been implemented. The Government of Canada has been listening and has taken action. This very piece of legislation is an enactment of recommendation 40. Taking a look at the bigger picture and the support over the last year with this Prime Minister , whether it is 2% of the GDP, or whether it is a record number of people applying to join the forces last year, I believe we are on the right track. When was the last time the Conservative Party—”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem saying that is the standard the government has been hoping to achieve. It was not just one recommendation from the former chief justice. There were 48 recommendations to deal with a very serious issue. I believe over three dozen have been implemented, and this is one that is absolutely critical. I reflect on the fact that an incredible Canadian presented a report based on a lot of consulting, working with victims and CAF members in many different capacities and coming up with this recommendation that Bill C-11 supports. Can the member tell us when it was that the Conservative Party changed its position on transferring cases to the civilian court only?”
“Mr. Speaker, the first thing that happened last week when the majority of seats came to the Liberal Party was that, in collaboration, we passed a Conservative motion. Today we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would transfer files from the military justice system into the civilian justice system, which is a reflection of a report that was provided to the government a while ago. The report made it clear that this is what was being requested by an incredible individual. Based on the member's comments, does he support at all having the civilian process deal with military sexual abuse files?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the federal government wanting to punt its responsibility off to the provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the motivating factor behind us doing this in the first place was to deal with the harassment, in all forms, and sexual violence that was taking place in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is the reason why former Justice Arbour was brought in. That is the reason why 48 recommendations were made. One of them, the 40th recommendation, talked about transferring to the civil process as opposed to the military process. That is the essence of the legislation. Listening to survivors is important. I wonder if the member might want to revisit the history.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in regard to the significance of the legislation. In Justice Arbour's report, there were 48 recommendations. I believe we have implemented 36 of those recommendations, or possibly more. The essence of this legislation would be to implement the core of what Justice Arbour was asking us to do: transfer jurisdiction to the civilian process. She consulted, listened to and worked with, directly and indirectly, well over 1,000 people, I suspect. Many of them were direct victims. We need to be respectful of the legislation that is before us, and ultimately pass it. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why it was important not only to receive the report from Justice Arbour but also to follow through with it? That is exactly what the legislation would do.”
“Mr. Speaker, part of what I have been raising today is the holistic approach the Liberal government and our new Prime Minister have put into play. We have seen significant improvements in our Canadian Armed Forces, which include 2% of GDP, the military industry and the growth of that industry here in Canada, and the record number of people applying to become part of CAF. We also have Bill C-11 before us, something that has been called upon for a long time. Before this, we had Bill C-66 . The opposition has been saying that it has been pushing. I cannot recall Bloc members or Conservatives raising this issue, even a month ago, yet it has been here for a long time. I wonder if the member would recognize the hard work of former justice Arbour.”
“Mr. Speaker, former justice Arbour was an incredible Canadian. Whether as a jurist, a prosecutor or a human rights advocate, she did a lot of fine work. She even went beyond Canadian borders, which is all somewhat related, directly or indirectly, to the issue. There are 48 recommendations that came out in that report. If we take a look at recommendation 40, it states, “transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.” The essence of the legislation is to meet that recommendation. I think we have already done 35 or 36 of those 48 recommendations. It is an important recommendation. I suspect that in all of her consultations she knew what was being proposed. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the former justice—”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member was reflecting on the majority issue, I remembered very clearly the day we acquired the majority of membership on the floor of the House of Commons. One of the very first actions that took place that day was a collaboration where we saw an opposition Conservative bill actually pass, and that was with the majority. I think collaboration has been, and will continue to be, on the table. We need to recognize that the work and effort put in by former chief justice Arbour were significant. Everyone seemed to be onside with that, at least in the last couple of weeks possibly, but we now see Conservatives in opposition to the legislation. My question for the member opposite is in regard to the—”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been significant gains over the last year, when I think of the Canadian Forces, as we try to build up that trust, faith and support for members of the forces. We have seen some very encouraging signs. One of the best ones was the fact that well over 7,000 people actually applied to join the Canadian Forces. That is a 30-year high. Part of that is making sure that we have a respectful workplace. This legislation that has been brought forward is based on a recommendation from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour, who directly and indirectly consulted with well over 1,000 people, I suspect. This is the core of her report. I am wondering—”
“This legislation is part of a bigger package that this Prime Minister and this government are proposing. I would encourage members to maybe revisit their thinking on the legislation and recognize it for what it is.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize that, with the collective opposition we are seeing today on Bill C-11 , it was important that we advance and move forward with the legislation, given that the government, in particular this new Prime Minister , was elected last year by Canadians and we made a commitment to the Canadian Forces, the CAF members, whether it was hitting 2% of the GDP or reinforcing supports for the Canadian Forces. We now have legislation to build upon the respect that is necessary among CAF members. It is starting to see results. We actually had over 7,000 people last year who put in their application to become members of the Canadian Forces, which is a record high in 30 years. I believe we are going in the right direction.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the background of former chief justice Arbour and the work that she conducted. We are not talking hundreds but likely going to 1,000-plus consultations, both direct and indirect. She is an incredible woman who is recognized for human rights beyond Canadian borders and who ultimately came up with this recommendation. I suspect that in all the consultation with former and current CAF members, she came up with a recommendation that she truly believed was in the forces' best interest. That is what the legislation would put into place. I am wondering if the Bloc would see that maybe we should be giving her more recognition for the work that she did.”
“Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite appeals to members of the Canadian Forces. I, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate. This has been a long time coming. Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long and why the government has taken so long to bring forward legislation on the issue. We were being criticized. Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago. We are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there. The Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security, and we have a government committed to advancing it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to fight this legislation, and not recognize the phenomenal work that former Chief Justice Arbour did. It is only over the last couple of weeks that the Conservative Party has come out against the legislation as much as it has. At the end of the day, we have a government that is pushing forward a number of agenda items dealing with the Canadian Forces, whether it is the 2% GDP or the increase in the overall interest in joining the forces, which is at a 30-year high. We are improving the conditions of the military and Bill C-11 is a part of that. I wish the Conservatives would get onside.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize how we have enhanced our military, whether it is increasing their budget to 2% of GDP or providing support for CAF members. Just recently the minister made an announcement of 7,000-plus new applications to join the forces. It is all about credibility. The minister sees the value of bringing forward this legislation. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada is now in opposition to it. It is interesting, because two weeks ago I did not hear the Conservatives crying about it or saying that they were going to oppose the legislation. It is coming back to the House and now they have taken the position of having the full intention of debating it endlessly so that it does not pass. My question is for the minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really important for us to recognize that former Supreme Court Justice Arbour put in a great deal of effort. She consulted and listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of direct or indirect opinions on the issue. The core of the issue is the transfer of cases from the military courts to the civilian courts. This has been in the works now for a while. There have been all sorts of debates and discussion, whether at second reading or in the standing committee. There are those in the chamber who would never see this legislation pass. Does the minister not agree that the principle of the legislation is being supported in such a way that the legislation needs to pass in the House of Commons?”
“It is important that we recognize all these negative things that have taken place. It is also important to recognize the many different forms and to be diligent so that it does not continue to take place.”
“It is because of those brave and courageous women from the past who had to live through that experience and then continue to share their experiences that the public and parliamentarians at all levels have become enlightened about the issue, which ultimately has led to the legislation we have before us. Survivors, particularly indigenous women, have been clear about the harm caused by forced or coerced sterilization. They are the ones I would like to recognize in particular and thank for their persistence on the issue. They are the reason the legislation will be passed, as well as indigenous leadership, individuals within the disability communities and others, human rights advocates who have seen the violation that has taken place and recognized it for what it is: a lack of consent, disinformation and discrimination.”
“As has been pointed out, these sterilization policies were enacted generations ago, probably 60 or 70 years ago. At the end of the day, the House of Commons is providing clarity on an important issue. The only reason the House is recognizing this is that survivors have had the courage and bravery to continue to talk about it. I remember in the Manitoba legislature, years ago, when I was first made aware of the issue. There were even issues being raised back then in regard to sterilization and crossing the line between what is advice and consent versus coercion, and it still happens today.”
“(1125) Coerced sterilization is a serious violation of bodily autonomy. Whether one likes it or not, the bottom line is the realization that it is a woman's right to decide. We as a society need to support that in every way. The legislation before us, Bill S-228 , is not the first time we have attempted to get this through, but I believe that now, given the current political situation and having it at the third reading, we are talking about another hour or hour and a half's debate before its ultimate passage. With the support that the legislation has received from the Senate and members of Parliament, current and past, there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will not only pass but receive royal assent. That is a good thing. It has taken a long time.”
“Indigenous people were targeted, if not intentionally, but I would suggest that it was intentionally by many, to have sterilization. It was the same thing for people with disabilities, where the line was crossed. It is an issue of trust. When we seek assistance or advice, we have faith in the people in our institutions, that they are going to take a balanced approach in providing advice that is based on medical conditions, some social factors, no doubt, and other considerations. We have faith that ultimately was displaced. There was another agenda being served, over and above the interests of the woman who was having to make a difficult decision or, in many ways, on whose behalf a decision was made. One can only appreciate how it is that someone's human rights, very basic ones, were violated in a situation like that.”
“That is a very serious violation of human rights. At the core of the issue, it is about trust. The question I posed to my colleague across the way was to recognize the terror and horror that an individual would have experienced as a survivor. I suspect we would find that many of the women who were put through this tragedy had no sense of what was being done to their bodies, to then find out at a later point that they were sterilized. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to address the emotions and the fact that they were not able to have a child. Often individuals were completely misled to believe that they could change it in the future. Some people today still think sterilization is something that can be reversed a few years later, which is not the case. It was particularly devastating to some communities more than others.”
“Not very many people are aware of the type of discrimination I am referring to. We are dealing with the issue of sterilization. Many women, we are talking about hundreds, were coerced or forced in one way or another and convinced that the sterilization was absolutely essential. It came at a substantial cost, and I am not talking about money. I am talking about human rights. It is quite unfortunate that it took so long for us to recognize, as a nation, that it was being done in some provinces. In Canada, there is a joint responsibility related to many different portfolios, jurisdictional responsibilities between Ottawa and the different provinces. We had some provinces that had a law that supported forcing women, in essence, through coercion and other ways, to be sterilized. B.C. was one, and there were others.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to briefly make mention of the significance of tomorrow, which is Red Dress Day. Across our great nation, individuals will be recognizing the tragedy that occurred with the murdered and missing women. For me, it is important not only to highlight it but also to recognize that even today we still see young girls and women, particularly from the indigenous community, who continue to go missing and be murdered. We have to be diligent and support indigenous leadership, like my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski , who has a beautiful red broach on, I noticed, in recognition of tomorrow's special day. (1120) The legislation we are talking about for private members' hour is about a form of discrimination, in many ways, that took place here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record with respect to such an important issue. I would like to highlight in my question and comment the bravery and the courage this would have taken for survivors, individuals who have gone through this experience and who have continued to raise the profile of the issue to such a degree that we actually have legislation before us now that I anticipate will pass, at the very latest, after the second hour of debate. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of recognizing those outstanding individual Canadians?”
“If there are ways it could be amended so it could receive broader support, I believe the government would be open to that. I do not think it is that some members care more about the issue than others. We see the deaths that occur, the impacts on families and the impacts all around. Having a caring heart and wanting to do the right thing is something that I believe all members on all sides of the House would like to see.”
“(1355) There is homelessness. Homelessness is a very serious issue for which there is a great deal of effort and government initiatives, and not just federal government initiatives. The federal government works very closely with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, often municipalities and non-profit support groups, such as Main Street Project and Siloam Mission in my home city, that support these organizations, where many individuals have had to deal first-hand on a daily basis with individuals who are trying to overcome their addiction. The government has taken a number of actions, and it is making a difference. Is it going far enough? There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons I said at the outset of my comments that it is important to look at the legislation.”
“I have referred to first responders and the numbers of lives they have saved by responding as quickly as they do and having the proper equipment. I think of the Bear Clan Patrol, which has done an outstanding job in being there in a very real way for many individuals who have drug addictions, some of whom are on the verge of breaking out of that addiction. These addictions are very real, and we need to look at ways to provide the programs and supports so there can be recovery. At the end of the day, substance abuse involves education. There is a treatment component to it. There is follow-up and a need for support groups. Much like we want to ensure that we take can take corrective actions in a non-partisan way, that has not always been the case. Asserting blame is unfair at times, and we need to look at ways to improve the system.”
“For many years, I would drive down McPhillips going toward Salter, and down Salter to the Manitoba legislative building. The devastation in our communities is very significant. (1350) There is a great cost. That is why I believe we need to see how the broader community and different levels of government can contribute. Over the last number of years, much like what has taken place in the United States, we have seen a severe increase and too many losses of lives. Fentanyl is a very serious issue. I remember talking about fentanyl when we were debating Bill C-2 and how it could be put into an envelope and mailed anywhere in Canada. There are things we can do to try to minimize the damage that is caused by some of these harsh, addictive drugs. I look to the community to provide some ideas and thoughts. There are some outstanding groups.”
“It seems to me that we have had provinces, administrations, first responders and some individual survivors who have gone through that experience, and we want to make sure that we take it all into consideration. The issue of the drug crisis is not being questioned whatsoever. I do believe that we need to recognize that it is a shared responsibility. The member bringing forward the legislation has provided the opportunity for Ottawa to potentially take some tangible action. For that, I do appreciate it. When I think of the shared responsibilities, I think in terms of the departments of health, family services, education and housing, all of which I have personally had the opportunity to be directly involved in. I think of the impact that it has had on our communities, the communities we represent.”
“However, I think there is a great deal that needs to be talked about. When I was in opposition, I can recall discussions that took place in Vancouver a number of years ago in terms of how first responders and many other stakeholders were talking about safe injection sites. I mention that because, at the very tail end of the member's comments, it was interesting to hear her response to a question. I think maybe it is necessary at times to have the ability to be engaged with and hear from different stakeholders. I appreciate what she said, but I do want to get a better sense of what other professionals are saying, some of the others who have gone through that lived experience.”
“I do commend the member for having the courage to bless this House by sharing her personal story. I think it does make a difference in terms of the tone and the potential carrying of the legislation. In the discussions I have had with respect to her private member's bill, Bill C-240 , I think it has been encouraging that the principle of the issue is such an urgent matter that there is an openness to see if, in fact, the legislation could potentially be amended so that we could get a broader sense of support for the legislation. The principle of extending and trying to help is of critical importance. After listening to the member, there is no doubt that having first-hand experience and, as I said, the courage to be able to share it today is second to nothing, virtually, in terms of having the issue elevated.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the member for Kitchener Centre 's private member's bill. We could see around the chamber when the member was speaking that a great deal of attention was given. I do believe the member should be given full credit for having the courage to share her personal story. Over the years as a parliamentarian, what I have found, especially when it comes to social issues, is that when we have members who are prepared to share a personal story, it really does have an impact. While I was listening and observing what was taking place in the chamber, I was reminded a lot about the MAID debate we had. We could see how the debate influenced the minds of members and how they expressed in their own ways, in different ways, how much they cared about the individual who had shared their experience.”
“Finally, the absence of a requirement for a time frame to be complied with brings into question whether the government has not exercised, or will not exercise, the obligation under that order in council. I therefore submit that this is not a procedural question, nor can a determination be made that the government has not complied with its own exercise of authority under the order in council.”
“Moreover, the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is not an official standing, legislative or special committee of the House. There is no mention in the Standing Orders of the powers, mandate and functions of such parliamentary working groups. These unofficial forums are not official creatures of the House and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of Standing Order 108, which set out the powers and mandates of official committees of the House. I submit that the matter raised by the member for Peace River—Westlock is a question of law, which is outside the purview of the Speaker. Secondly, the legal instrument referred to was not a requirement of an act of Parliament.”
“The tabling of the report in question is not done pursuant to a statutory obligation but rather a legal instrument made by an order in council by the executive branch of government. The order in council referenced by the member, unlike the situation in 1992, does not provide a requirement to table the document by a certain date. Both of these points diverge distinctively from the situation facing the House in 1992. More substantively, the case of a statutory obligation requiring that an order in council be tabled in the House respecting the alleviation of a tax or the elimination of a tax on certain products would be of legislative concern to members of the House. The question currently before the House is not a legislative requirement and has no direct impact on any legislative matter currently before the House.”
“In response, Madam Speaker ruled that the Chair had neither the responsibility to interpret the law nor the authority to compel the Government to obey it. There are two important distinctions between the case of the ruling of February 1992 and the case currently before the House. In the situation facing the House in 1992, there was a statutory requirement found in the Customs Tariff, an act adopted by Parliament, to table an order made pursuant to that act respecting the elimination of tariffs on certain plywood and related products under a free trade agreement that required the Minister of Finance to table in the House no later than April 2l, 1989. The case before the House is not analogous.”
“On June 19, 1978, a question of privilege was raised respecting the late tabling of the Postmaster General’s annual report. In rejecting claims that the failure to respect the law constituted a breach of privilege, Speaker Jerome warned the House that the authority of the Chair did not extend to the determination of questions of law. On two occasions—March 27, 1981 and February 10, 1983—Speaker Sauvé confirmed this principle in denying claims for the Chair to intervene in cases similar to the one raised by the honourable Member for Scarborough—Rouge River. In each of these situations, the Government had failed to live up to its statutory responsibility to table documents within a specific period of time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the member for Peace River—Westlock respecting the tabling of annual reports pursuant to an order in council. I submit that this matter is a question of statutory law upon which the Speaker is not empowered to make determinations. In the ruling referenced by my colleague, I would like to draw the attention of members to parts of that ruling that were not addressed in the member's submission to the House. On February 5, 1992, in the Speaker's ruling respecting the tabling of a document pursuant to an act of Parliament, he stated: The first point that the Chair wishes to highlight is that Speakers do not interpret or enforce matters of statutory law. There are many precedents to this effect.”
“Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is extending his hand in collaboration. I think some standing committees can be very effective. I find that a lot depends on the different personalities and subject matters. The member raised the issue of agri-food. It was not that long ago I was in the Philippines. We were talking about an expansion where an office could be established to look at dozens of countries and how we could expand. How we can enhance our agri-food system is a wonderful topic to talk about. I look forward to the member's contributions at the standing committee level, and I hope there will be a higher sense of collaboration going forward.”
“Madam Speaker, our standing committees of Parliament play a very important role. I think it is important that we encourage collaboration as much as we can. Many would argue that what happens in standing committees is very beneficial for the entire House. Let us look forward to seeing more collaboration at standing committees.”
“Madam Speaker, how depressing it must be to be a Conservative member of Parliament. Let me give members some good advice. Canada is not broken. There are a lot of good things that are taking place. All they need to do is open their eyes and open their mind. If we believe in Canada, we need to invest in Canada. That means building on infrastructure. It means investing in Canadians. The Conservatives have a choice. They can either get on board and be part of a team Canada approach to build a stronger Canada, or continue to be a depressed group of people. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”