Ellis Ross

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, [more]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, we should not be here. We should be building on past successes. We should have been building 18 LNG projects out of B.C. We should not be having this discussion about Canada being Canada strong in terms of breaking down the barriers. I mean, after that big announcement of one Canada, one economy, we still cannot sell wine from one province to another province. It has [more]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are back in Ottawa with a plan to save Canadians money and make life more affordable. We have identified more than $150 billion in savings by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, unnecessary consultants, foreign aid, handouts to fraudulent asylum claimants, corporate welfare and money-losing boondoggles like Alto rail. These savings would bring down debt, taxes and inflation [more]

Sudbury Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for. C-39 C-69 C-48 We are here talking about Bill. It is another announcement, another 250-page bill to talk about what we already announced last year, basically rewrapped in a more complicated bill. We are trying to talk about building Canada strong when we really should be talking about how to rebuild Canada strong, because we [more]

parliamentary secretary to the government House leader Mr. Speaker, Canada's own policy says that. Even though I am getting heckled by the, I am just reciting what Canada's policy says. How is the government going to square that? I have seen what has been done in the B.C. treaty process. The government makes the decision and then promises to continue consulting and accommodating. That is not [more]

C-39 Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, yes, I agree with one year, as long as the process is followed and is described clearly and, by the way, as long as the case law is followed that has been laid out by the courts on how to address rights and title. We cannot put an arbitrary time limit on the rights and title of first nations people. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the [more]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his confusion because I am confused as well. I know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office, and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge. As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus. If people do not understand the process, which should [more]

Mr. Speaker, that is great question, and it is an important issue. I mean, the labour is what actually builds Canada. It provides the jobs, the contracts and the subcontracts. Those are the people who build the bridges, the buildings and the LNG plants. Really, this issue is so important that it has to go to committee. It cannot just stay the way it is. That is what committees were built for, [more]

Mr. Speaker, it was just mentioned by one of the Liberal government members that it does not matter where the idea comes from. Yes, it does for the Liberal government, because this idea was brought up in April, and previous to that other measures were presented by the Conservatives. They were all voted down by a majority of the House. This is exactly what we are talking about today. To the [more]

Mr. Speaker, that question is actually very relevant. In terms of what the governments are doing, not only federally but provincially as well, we are not adapting. We have all these measures that propose to lessen the risk, but they are not doing anything about adapting to what happening in our regions. There is no measure of activity for the provincial government of B.C., for instance, to talk [more]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are acting like they discovered plutonium here and like this is the first time the idea has been brought up to actually suspend a tax that would reduce the cost of fuel. However, when I look at the debate record, Conservatives have been asking this for well over a year. It came from listening to the stories of people who just could not afford life. However, this tax we [more]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. C-38 It is an honour for me to get up to talk about affordability on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically with respect to Bill, the Canadian fuel affordability act. Fort McMurray—Cold Lake By the way, I am sharing my time with a member for. C-38 leader of the Conservative Party The government has framed Billas a collaboration [more]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask that senior why they do not qualify and why the government keeps getting up and trumpeting, as if this program were the best thing in the world, when a lot of the seniors, especially in my riding, do not even qualify in the first place. Why are there two signals, two messages? When we are really talking affordability, why is the senior so confused that they cannot [more]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government just cannot get it right. On one hand, its members say that affordability is the best it has been for 10 years. On the other side, they recognize the affordability crisis our constituents are facing in Canada. To the member, where are these stories coming from of Canadians struggling to put food on the table or gas in their gas tank?

Mr. Speaker, it is as if every young person across Canada does not see a future here, not only in terms of the affordability of a house and the cost of living but also where their future is in a profession. We are talking around the issue of Canada's becoming an energy superpower, but there is no action. We have so many different issues with Canada, but the economy and affordability are probably [more]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Having been a boat person and a coastal person basically my whole life and watching these sinkings and these transfers of ownership and sales, I'm finding it hard to understand the enforcement of this at the sale level as well as the enforcement level. Madam Chair, who am I talking to? Am I talking to the mover or am I talking to...?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is along the lines of what MP Mel Arnold was saying. It's around the definition of disposal at sea and whether or not it means any act resulting in disposal, intentional or not. Does that include a sinking, like what MP Mel Arnold was talking about, whether it be accidental or even an act of vandalism or theft, and then the vessel sinks? Does this amendment [more]

To follow up, the due diligence is making sure that the bilge pump works, that it's secured to a dock and that the battery is actually there, in place, to make sure that the bilge pump is working. However, because of some act of vandalism, maybe it's untied or maybe the battery is disconnected—and this does happen, by the way, especially where I'm from—the vessel sinks. Is the owner, then, still [more]

Is it to anybody or just in general, or do I ask and then we decide?