Elizabeth May

Mr. Speaker, apropos that last exchange, it is a shame Maclean's magazine did not have a hypocrite of the year award for parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 omnibus budget bill, the infamous Bill C-38, repealed environmental assessment and put in place a bogus, weak Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, so-called, which has allowed the National Energy Board to make a mockery of real EA. I was shocked to find in this budget, at page 166, four years of funding specifically referenced to keeping the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 alive. Does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change intend to entrench Bill C-38, or do the right thing and get rid of it?

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to rise today and join all my fellow MPs in paying tribute to our colleague, the distinguished member for Outremont.It is hard, as members would recognize, to play a sort of backup hitter at the very last of many fine speeches. However, I want to acknowledge something that was not specifically mentioned. The word “courage” was used. I would not attribute it to continuing to wear a beard, but it does have to with the face. I think it was the bravest thing I ever saw. We were all together in the leader's debate in Montreal. It was a tough thing to say that telling women what they can and cannot wear is not the proper role of federal leadership, and I want to thank the hon. member again for taking a strong stand on the very divisive niqab debate.It can be said of every member that their family is always there, working side by side with them. If I am not mistaken, the member for Outremont was first elected in 1994 to the Quebec National Assembly, and already that was a tough job. It is an enormous sacrifice for a family. If there is one thing that appeared to me quite clearly, it is the very strong bond between the member and his extraordinary wife, Catherine.Like the hon. member for Milton, I want to say how much I have enjoyed getting to know Catherine P. Mulcair, someone who has shown extraordinary presence in all situations at his side. It must be very handy for anyone leading a political party to be married to a psychologist, which I failed to do.I also want to say that the relationship informed a lot of of who the member is today. The most moving speech I ever heard my friend, the member for Outremont, give was on the occasion of remembrance of the Shoah. It was a very emotional recollection of going back to the very barn in the fields of France where his wife's mother hid throughout the Holocaust, descendants of Sephardic Jews hiding in a barn from the Nazi regime of Vichy, France. I do not think I have ever heard any words on the occasion of remembrance of the Shoah that were more keenly felt and brought us back to the individual cases and enormous horrors and evil of that period.With that, I join others here in thanking Catherine, Matt, Greg, the family as a whole, who have toiled alongside, in a very distinguished career, the hon. member for Outremont.I thank them and wish them all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents—indeed, all British Columbians—are irate at the money-laundering scandal that went on in B.C. with government-owned casinos. A billion dollars a year was laundered through those casinos from drug profits, illicit gambling and extortion, and it fuelled directly the housing crisis and the opioid crisis.What did the RCMP know? Why did it turn a blind eye? Are we looking into it?

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed in question period that occasionally I attempted to gesture to you. I would like to explain. The Standing Orders make it clear that we are not supposed to heckle in this place. It would be a fool's mission to try to get the volume down all the time. However, I do not recall the disrespect toward the Prime Minister and the front benches in the 41st Parliament that I am seeing in the 42nd Parliament. When I cannot hear the Prime Minister's answers, even with my earpiece in, I would ask the hon. members on the opposition benches to at least show the courtesy of not heckling so loudly that other members cannot hear the answers.

Mr. Speaker, as you have directed us on numerous occasions, it offends Standing Order 16 in several places when hon. members interrupt someone who is speaking.I wonder if you could direct us on the question that strikes me. Quite often you will chastise someone you have heard interrupt. Down here we do not hear members interrupt, because the noises, while rude, are isolated. It seems there is a new practice of organized, loud laughter, which is actually so loud that it interrupts my ability to hear members across the way.I wonder if loud laughter when someone else is speaking, organized by the party whip, could be seen as a violation of our standing rules.

Mr. Speaker, over 150,000 students demonstrated in Montreal last Friday.Thousands more walked in almost every town and city in Canada, with students saying that we were stealing their future and they wanted to take it back. One sign in Victoria, where hundreds and hundreds of kids were marching, said that the kids were the only adults in the room.When will the government get rid of the Harper target to extinction and bring in place a target that takes us to survival?

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board expert panel that reported this week included prominent industry people, such as Brenda Kenny of the Canadian Pipeline Association and Hélène Lauzon of the Quebec Business Council on the Environment. The report was damning. This is an agency that has no credibility whatsoever, and needs to be massively overhauled. Coupled with the expert panel on environmental assessment, it is clear that the bogus process upon which Kinder Morgan was subjected to a sham of a review does not have any credibility.Will the government reconsider approving a pipeline that should never have been approved?

Mr. Speaker, advice from my heart to my friends in the Liberal Party: do not dispute the truth of what our former minister of justice has said; do not attempt to question or undermine or impugn her integrity. No one will believe them if they do.What the Liberals must do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, starting with these three steps: call for a public inquiry, release the former minister of justice from restrictions on her evidence and fire the Clerk of the Privy Council office.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have found the heckling so bad in this corner that I even feel intimidated to raise the point that we are violating Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18. People are yelling so loudly that I have trouble hearing the answers even with my earpiece. I know raising this makes me unpopular with those who yell, but I hope Canadians will know that some of us in this place value decorum and are actually embarrassed by the conduct of our fellows.I plead with members to read the Standing Orders and follow them.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware what I am alleging is indeed shocking, but it appears that three federal government departments colluded with Petronas, the proponent, in order to suppress science and mislead ministers. The threat to the Skeena salmon is real, but the ministers were given a report that cooked the books. Will the Prime Minister investigate the integrity of the advice given about the threat to Flora Bank and Lelu Island? Were these permits obtained by fraud?

Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, every federal government and every prime minister, regardless of political stripe, has stood to defend the Canadian interests in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Trump administration, through a GOP budget bill, now proposes to reopen the issue with the threat of oil and gas development on the U.S. side of the shared territory of the Gwich'in peoples, where they depend on the porcupine caribou and the porcupine caribou depend on those calving grounds. Could the Minister of Environment tell us what steps the government is taking to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Mr. Speaker, with all this chatter about Davos, I wonder if everyone has forgotten that the previous Prime Minister used that foreign and lofty perch to cut the retirement benefits of Canadians. It may have had something to do with his earlier retirement. However, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries.Right now there is an abandoned derelict vessel of great concern locally. I think that Canadians across this country are concerned about derelict vessels. The Kathryn Spirit was abandoned by its Mexican owners and no one is making sure that the toxic material within does not leak into Lac Saint-Louis. Could the Minister of Fisheries give us an update please.

Madam Speaker, just as the world realizes that we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, the Trump administration has its sights set on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Something about those words should have given Trump a hint that we are not supposed to drill there. It is the place that is essential for the porcupine caribou's birthing and calving grounds. It is essential for the Gwich'in people on both sides of our border. What has the Government of Canada done to stand in the way of Donald Trump and his blind rush to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly welcome news more than a year ago when the current government announced that we would have a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. For too long, Canadians have been horrified by human rights abuses at the hands of Canadian mining companies and their actions overseas that bring shame to this country.The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was supposed to be a model for the world. It is a year later. Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am grieved by the disrespect that occurred during this question period. It should not go unmarked that I have not ever seen, and I do not know if in the annals of this House any Speaker has ever seen, the disrespect shown by members of the Conservative Party, rising in unison against a ruling of the Speaker. It was unconscionable, undemocratic, and unparliamentary, and they should apologize as a group. The violations of the rules include interrupting a Speaker when speaking, standing when the Speaker is speaking, challenging a ruling of the Speaker, and doing so in a way that brings disrespect and dishonour to this place.

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order to point to the rules that say that no member shall speak disrespectfully of other members in this place. I believe the entire membership of the electoral reform committee was disrespected by the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the first time I have risen on this point of order, but it is the first time I have risen on a point of order from my new vantage point in the House. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is completely correct with respect to his point of order on decorum. Under Standing Order 16, none of the members in this place are to speak when another member is speaking, interrupt him or her or speak disrespectfully. As impossible as it is for me to believe it to be the case, my vantage point in this corner of the House subjects me to more noise than when I was in the other corner of the House, and I cannot hear people speaking. I am ashamed of my colleagues who cannot control themselves and perform in a way that would make their constituents proud. Think of your constituents before you shout with derision at our Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order that relates to our Standing Orders, particularly Standing Orders 16 and 18, which taken together mean we should not be interrupting each other in this place, nor speaking disrespectfully of each other. I noted today that we did have a duck question, and I know that sometimes ministers do duck questions. I also know that there are many canards on all sides of this place and sometimes, as today, the atmosphere becomes foul.I just wanted to suggest that when it is not our—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the question of climate change. We have just come through the COP23 discussions in Bonn. Canada did very well. There was leadership, but we still ended up with quite mediocre results and a lot of hopes are being pinned on the upcoming climate leaders summit in Paris being hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron. I understand the Prime Minister has been taken by official business out of the country a lot lately, but I wonder what his views are, especially with the upcoming opportunity in chairing the G7. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the climate leaders summit?

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, this place happily passed Bill S-203 at second reading. It started in the Senate with Liberal Senator Wilfred Moore and then went to Senator Murray Sinclair. It is not yet before the Standing Committee on Fisheries. We need it to be there. In this place, we need to let Canadians know, before the next election, that we will not tolerate the keeping of whales and dolphins, sentient beings, in conditions that amount to torture. Does the Prime Minister stand with us? Could we get this passed before the next election?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I want to start by quoting this from yesterday's unanimous decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal: ...the declaration of invalidity on Carter does not require that the applicant be terminally ill.... The decision itself is clear. No words in it suggest otherwise.... The interpretation urged on us by [the Government of] Canada is not sustainable. In light of this, would the government be willing to entertain the amendments now before this place at report stage to ensure that Bill C-14 is compliant with the charter?

Mr. Speaker, we were all moved enormously and inspired by the words of Malala Yousafzai in this place just hours ago. In her words, will the Prime Minister make girls' education the central theme of his upcoming G7 presidency? Will he use the influence of Canada to help fill the global education funding gap? Will Canada offer to host the upcoming replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education? Will Canada prioritize 12 years of school for every refugee child?

Mr. Speaker, the warnings of climate scientists are becoming increasingly urgent and worrying. The most recent, days ago, was that the world was watching the weakening of the Gulf Stream ocean currents, with potentially catastrophic impacts. The scientists are warning that we must reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than our current commitments. If we fail to do so, if we blow through our carbon budget, we will pay dearly. This is a budget we cannot afford to ignore. It is incompatible with completing Kinder Morgan. Could the government show us the numbers of how we build a pipeline and meet our climate targets?

Mr. Speaker, buying the 65-year old Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan shows the kind of brilliant business acumen of buying up all of Blockbuster's assets while Netflix takes off. I am wondering when we will see the contract of sale. We know there are apparently 121 pages of fine legalese that could help us stop the sale before its closing in August. When will the contract be made public?

Mr. Speaker, all that remains to be done now is the rubber stamp of the Investment Canada Act for one of Canada's largest construction companies, Aecon, to be sold to a state-owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China, the China Communications Construction Company, CCCI. This company has a very troubling human rights, environmental, and safety record, yet it has not come before this House. We are not hearing about it. Could the Prime Minister assure this place that this sale will be put through a thorough review before Investment Canada rubber-stamps it?

Mr. Speaker, the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, have legislated mandates to expand oil and gas activity in the offshore. They have never had any role in environmental assessment. If they did, it would be a conflict of interest. Now it appears that the Liberals are following through on Stephen Harper's plans to put these boards involved in environmental assessment where they should not be.Can the Minister of Environment assure this House that she will keep the offshore boards out of environmental assessment?

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question asked yesterday of the Minister of National Defence by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is about the Shawnigan Lake quarry, which has been shown to violate its permits. It was approved for contaminated-soil disposal, but downstream, where 12,000 residents of Vancouver Island depend on it for drinking water, there are carcinogens: toluene, chromium, and aluminum. The source, unfortunately, is that DND is using this facility for the disposal of contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt. Will the minister immediately end shipments of contaminated soil to this quarry?

Mr. Speaker, as many members here know, today we are commemorating the 25th anniversary of the horrors of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Many Canadian military who served in Rwanda, particularly in the second phase of the mission where it was not a failure but where they did really solid work, go unrecognized on the Veterans Affairs website, unrecognized on the DND website and still have not had the opportunity that some parliamentarians have had to go back to Rwanda. They need a medal for that second phase of service as other governments have done for their veterans who experienced the unbearable.

Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians believed the Liberal election promises last year. I myself did. I believed the Liberal campaign promises that the National Energy Board process was so badly broken that no pipeline could be approved as a result of that process. No magical process has intervened, no testing of the evidence, there are no facts to justify this decision, and we know that dilbit cannot be cleaned after being spilled.Will the Prime Minister reconsider and suspend yesterday's decision to find the facts and the evidence that will show that approving Kinder Morgan is not justified?

Mr. Speaker, I have not many words to add. We have to thank all the team here on Parliament Hill. The only group that has been forgotten are the wonderful people who serve us in the cafeterias and the dining room, who get laid off right now and are rehired when we get back, so special thoughts for them, for all our security guards, the translators, the table officers, your team, Mr. Speaker, and each and every member of the House. My best wishes for the holidays! Merry Christmas!Merry Christmas. For some of us, we await the arrival of the birth of our Lord and Saviour. For others, we just celebrate a great time among family and friends. For my dear friends of the Jewish community, it is a bit delayed now, but happy Hanukkah.To everyone in the Conservative caucus who earlier raised Festivus, I do not want anyone left out, so Festivus for the rest of us. Merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, far from being a gift-wrapped package for the new government, in the words of Professor Gus Van Harten, CETA was in fact a ticking time bomb. People who know this file knew that the Europeans were not really happy with this deal. To defuse the ticking time bomb, the new government has a unique opportunity. Fashion this deal in the interests of Europeans and Canadians, remove the offensive investor-state provisions, and get to a deal on the real issue, which is trade.Will the Prime Minister consider removing the investor-state provisions from CETA?

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Canada has led in UN negotiations to ban biological weapons, ban chemical weapons, ban cluster munitions, and ban landmines. Just last week the organizational meetings began for the next frontier: to ban nuclear weapons. But Canada was not there, while 101 other countries were. I would like to ask if the hon. Prime Minister can assure this House that Canada will play a leading role once again to band with the world to end the threat of nuclear war.

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House can see from the questions from the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the New Democrats, and now from me that there is an extraordinary broad consensus on this side of the House that Canadian families and individuals living with autism really do need more than what they have so far. I would ask the Prime Minister if his next answer could contain some hope for those families that help is on the way and that the Canadian autism partnership will find support from the current government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell members of the House that our country is in the midst of a climate emergency. We see flooding throughout Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, killer wind storms in British Columbia in the winter and forest fires in the summer. What we do not need is to weaken the already inadequate plan that we have from the federal government.I would like assurances that Canada will stand firm on its equivalency agreement for vehicle emission standards with the State of California no matter what the White House does.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we know, we are debating in this place changing the Standing Orders, but I would like to refer, for my point of order, to our existing rules, Standing Orders 16(2) and 18. The combined effect of these two Standing Orders is that interrupting members or speaking disrespectfully of them violates the rules of this place.The amount of heckling, which I know many members say they would like to curtail, is getting completely out of hand from my little corner. The Liberals no longer heckle, but the Conservatives and the New Democrats are heckling fiercely, and it is a violation of this place.

Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-38 in 2012, we have been labouring under a broken environmental assessment process. Today we have a landmark report from the expert panel on EA, headed by our former commissioner for the environment. It makes a bold recommendation: get rid of the NEB's Environmental Assessment Agency, have a single authority, give it quasi-judicial powers.For the Prime Minister, how quickly can we expect this great recommendation to be legislated?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.I would have risen if I could have at the moment this event occurred, but under our standing rules, there are no points of order during Question Period. Under our standing rules, we are not to interrupt members when they are speaking. We are not to heckle. We are not to create a din. Just as a point of reference for you, Mr. Speaker, at the point that you were trying to bring the House to order, when the Minister of Finance was speaking, with the volume at my desk at full, as high as I could listen to it, as far as our technology would take it, I was unable to hear the minister over the heckling. That is just unacceptable, and I wish that we would find a way. We have the Standing Orders. It is disrespectful to this institution, to democracy itself and to our constituents that we allow this sort of bad behaviour to continue at high volume.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation of liquified natural gas poses very specific and different risks from any other substance. In countries around the world there are regulations to deal with this threat that have exclusion zones around tankers.As the British Columbia government is pushing for LNG, we desperately need regulations to ensure the safety of transport. I would ask the hon. Minister of Transport where that matter stands within his department and when we can see exclusion zones.

Mr. Speaker, the urgent warnings from climate scientists are increasingly punctuated by extreme weather events, whether forest fires, floods, hurricanes or tornadoes. However, the government is prepared to spend far more on pipelines than on climate action. It is as though we really believe in reconciliation for indigenous people but first we need to build a few more residential schools.Will the government instruct the National Energy Board to include climate impacts of the pipeline we now own, as it did for private sector energy east?

Mr. Speaker, we have alarming news from the front lines of the climate emergency. The dispatches are deeply worrying. The defences are falling against what protected our Arctic and kept it cold. The polar vortex is eroding, and like an advancing army, the warm air from the south has occupied our Arctic, driving temperatures up 25° Celsius above normal in a sunless winter. No sun has warmed that ground for months, yet the Arctic is in a heat wave. The time for complacency, pat answers, and fossil fuel appeasement is over.When will the government increase our targets and our ambitions to meet this accelerating threat?

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of claims made, even here today in the House, about the jobs that would be created by Kinder Morgan, but there is no evidence to back up those claims. There is no evidence because the National Energy Board refused to hear the evidence of Unifor. The largest union in the oil sands, Unifor went before the NEB to point out that building Kinder Morgan will cost Canadian jobs. The NEB refused to hear that evidence. Could the Prime Minister tell us on what independent study is he basing the claim that Kinder Morgan creates more jobs than it kills?

Mr. Speaker, here is a scenario. If the CETA agreement were in force and a controversial Ajax mine in Kamloops, British Columbia were turned down by the British Columbia government, the Polish mining company would have the right to bring an arbitration case against Canada. On the other hand, were a Canadian company to have a grievance with Poland, it is not at all clear that it could sue, because Wallonia has won opt-out provisions for every European nation. Will the Prime Minister commit that Parliament will have adequate time to research, study, and understand CETA before we vote on it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend.I met the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland 11 years ago.I was not in politics yet. I was executive director of the Sierra Club Canada when I first sat down at a table opposite the current interim leader of the Conservative Party. She was then-minister of environment. It is a tribute to her personal characteristics of fairness, kindness and just plain likable that I could not help liking her as we discussed the Kyoto protocol.I have searched my memory banks and I cannot remember a single time in the last 11 years when I have not thought well of her as a person, even if we disagreed. We share many things, including a love of dogs and hiking in the wilderness, and we also shared much when she was minister of health. I want to pause for that period and thank her once again.She played a key role in ensuring the quick passage of Bill C-442 on Lyme disease. We are now working together on the national framework that will be implemented under that bill.However, it took the minister of health deciding that a private member's bill from an opposition party leader would be okay to support. To have it pass unanimously in the House of Commons and the Senate is not about all the independent decision-making of all the MPs. Honestly, if the minister of health had not supported that bill, it would have died right there. I want to thank her once again for supporting remedies for the people across this country suffering from Lyme disease. I also want to pay personal tribute to the fact that under her leadership and in the government of Stephen Harper, the strongest legislation ever, taking big pharma to task, Vanessa's Law, was passed. That is solid and it is a tribute I want to pay publicly.Last, as another woman in politics, leading a teeny-weeny party over here in the corner, everything she has ever done as interim leader of the official opposition has demonstrated that women can do everything just as well as a man. I saw her earlier today, standing at the podium in the foyer. I do not know how she stands in those shoes. I do not understand how anyone can walk in those shoes. They are phenomenal high heels. They are very gorgeous. It reminded me so much of what was often said of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, that she danced just as well as he did but backwards and in high heels. Hats off to the leader of the official opposition. We will miss you.

Mr. Speaker, as all members in this place know, the IPCC report was a very stern warning that the planet is on a course to disaster.However, a more recent report published in Nature Communications says that Canada's status is about the worst in the world. We rank with China and Russia, and if all countries followed our lead, we would go to a 5.1 degrees Celsius global average temperature increase.When will the government commit to a path that leads to 1.5 degrees, the Paris target?

Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency have all urged governments around the world to do two things, at a minimum: to put in place a carbon price and to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies.I wonder if the Prime Minister could update us on where we are. We know progress is being made on the carbon price. Where are we on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies?

Mr. Speaker, as millions of tons of grain sit on prairie farms and in grain elevators, on our coast of British Columbia, we have freighters and container ships waiting to pick up that grain at the Port of Vancouver backed up and using the waters of the Salish Sea as a free parking lot. In between, we have CN Rail, which has empty railcars but laid off 1,000 workers last year, as if it is a surprise to it, again, that we have grain to be shipped.Can the hon. Minister of Transport assure us that he can get CN to do the job and deliver the grain?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise this point of order earlier. I did not mean to interrupt the Thursday question.The level of heckling in this place, and I have mentioned this before, has become unbearable. I am not able to hear the Minister of Environment's answers, even though I have an earpiece. I have a lot of criticisms of aspects of the government's climate plan too, but I would ask my friends on the Conservative benches to please show some restraint so we can hear the answers in this place.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it pertains to a critical threat to the survival of VIA Rail and our coast to coast service.The previous minister of transportation convened a panel, chaired by former cabinet minister David Emerson, and it has now reported. Shockingly, it recommends that the Liberal government kill passenger rail service between Toronto and Vancouver. This transcontinental train, the Canadian, is an essential part of Sir John A. Macdonald's national dream.Could the minister confirm that the government will protect VIA Rail, and restore and invest in our trans-Canada rail service?

Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the federal election campaign, 14 permits were issued by Fisheries Canada and Transport Canada to allow the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. on the Peace River. It is highly controversial and manifestly opposed. Its sole purpose is to provide electricity for LNG development. The joint panel found it directly offends Treaty 8 treaty rights.Will the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs commit to no further permits being issued while the issues for indigenous people remain outstanding?

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question asked yesterday of the Minister of National Defence by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is about the Shawnigan Lake quarry, which has been shown to violate its permits. It was approved for contaminated-soil disposal, but downstream, where 12,000 residents of Vancouver Island depend on it for drinking water, there are carcinogens: toluene, chromium, and aluminum. The source, unfortunately, is that DND is using this facility for the disposal of contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt. Will the minister immediately end shipments of contaminated soil to this quarry?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it pertains to a critical threat to the survival of VIA Rail and our coast to coast service.The previous minister of transportation convened a panel, chaired by former cabinet minister David Emerson, and it has now reported. Shockingly, it recommends that the Liberal government kill passenger rail service between Toronto and Vancouver. This transcontinental train, the Canadian, is an essential part of Sir John A. Macdonald's national dream.Could the minister confirm that the government will protect VIA Rail, and restore and invest in our trans-Canada rail service?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have found the heckling so bad in this corner that I even feel intimidated to raise the point that we are violating Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18. People are yelling so loudly that I have trouble hearing the answers even with my earpiece. I know raising this makes me unpopular with those who yell, but I hope Canadians will know that some of us in this place value decorum and are actually embarrassed by the conduct of our fellows.I plead with members to read the Standing Orders and follow them.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware what I am alleging is indeed shocking, but it appears that three federal government departments colluded with Petronas, the proponent, in order to suppress science and mislead ministers. The threat to the Skeena salmon is real, but the ministers were given a report that cooked the books. Will the Prime Minister investigate the integrity of the advice given about the threat to Flora Bank and Lelu Island? Were these permits obtained by fraud?

Mr. Speaker, as all members in this place know, the IPCC report was a very stern warning that the planet is on a course to disaster.However, a more recent report published in Nature Communications says that Canada's status is about the worst in the world. We rank with China and Russia, and if all countries followed our lead, we would go to a 5.1 degrees Celsius global average temperature increase.When will the government commit to a path that leads to 1.5 degrees, the Paris target?

Madam Speaker, just as the world realizes that we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, the Trump administration has its sights set on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Something about those words should have given Trump a hint that we are not supposed to drill there. It is the place that is essential for the porcupine caribou's birthing and calving grounds. It is essential for the Gwich'in people on both sides of our border. What has the Government of Canada done to stand in the way of Donald Trump and his blind rush to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 omnibus budget bill, the infamous Bill C-38, repealed environmental assessment and put in place a bogus, weak Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, so-called, which has allowed the National Energy Board to make a mockery of real EA. I was shocked to find in this budget, at page 166, four years of funding specifically referenced to keeping the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 alive. Does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change intend to entrench Bill C-38, or do the right thing and get rid of it?

Mr. Speaker, three years ago in this place, we passed something called Lindsey's law, an act to create a DNA database for missing persons. It is named Lindsey's law out of respect for a missing person. Her name is Lindsey Nicholls. Her mom is a friend of mine. She is a constituent. Judy Peterson fought like a tiger to get something that would allow law enforcement to compare the DNA at crime scenes with missing persons. That bill was passed, but it was delayed and would not come into effect until 2017. Now Judy Peterson has been told that there is an additional year's delay. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us if he can stop there being a delay and bring it into force?

Mr. Speaker, my constituents—indeed, all British Columbians—are irate at the money-laundering scandal that went on in B.C. with government-owned casinos. A billion dollars a year was laundered through those casinos from drug profits, illicit gambling and extortion, and it fuelled directly the housing crisis and the opioid crisis.What did the RCMP know? Why did it turn a blind eye? Are we looking into it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the question of climate change. We have just come through the COP23 discussions in Bonn. Canada did very well. There was leadership, but we still ended up with quite mediocre results and a lot of hopes are being pinned on the upcoming climate leaders summit in Paris being hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron. I understand the Prime Minister has been taken by official business out of the country a lot lately, but I wonder what his views are, especially with the upcoming opportunity in chairing the G7. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the climate leaders summit?

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, a major report on the safety failures of the pipeline safety system in this country was released by Équiterre. It is a very disturbing record, and it is getting worse.Fifty-five percent of the oil pipeline incidents in Quebec since 2008 occurred in 2017, most of them involving the Trans-Northern pipeline.Will the government launch an independent investigation into this unacceptable record of shoddy monitoring and weak enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, the transportation of liquified natural gas poses very specific and different risks from any other substance. In countries around the world there are regulations to deal with this threat that have exclusion zones around tankers.As the British Columbia government is pushing for LNG, we desperately need regulations to ensure the safety of transport. I would ask the hon. Minister of Transport where that matter stands within his department and when we can see exclusion zones.

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague because we have the same problem. Of course I am the only member of the Green Party, but the Green Party is a parliamentary party.We recognize that the motion before the committee at the moment recognizes that parties that do not sit on the committee as a caucus have some ability to participate, but we are not, at this point, informed as to what that ability would be. And, unfortunately, the discussion paper itself makes a large mistake in vocabulary in describing members of the Bloc and members of the Green Party as though we were independents, which we are not.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this being International Women's Day, it is also a deadline for the Minister of Health for comments on the federal framework on Lyme disease.This has been brought into play by the bill I submitted in the 41st Parliament, unanimously supported in the House and the Senate, and continues to be strongly supported by members on all sides of this House. Unfortunately, the draft framework is inadequate. It needs a serious overhaul.Could the Prime Minister assure us that the time, if it is necessary, will be taken to improve this framework?

Mr. Speaker, June 17 will be the world day to combat desertification. This is an area where Canada was once extremely helpful. We even hosted the fifth meeting of the treaty to combat desertification, having ratified it in 1995. It is a key instrument, not just for developing countries but for dealing with increasing drought within Canada. Shamefully, the previous government withdrew us in 2013. I want to know when Canada will be back. Could the Prime Minister tell us specifically if Canada can rejoin the convention?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.I would have risen if I could have at the moment this event occurred, but under our standing rules, there are no points of order during Question Period. Under our standing rules, we are not to interrupt members when they are speaking. We are not to heckle. We are not to create a din. Just as a point of reference for you, Mr. Speaker, at the point that you were trying to bring the House to order, when the Minister of Finance was speaking, with the volume at my desk at full, as high as I could listen to it, as far as our technology would take it, I was unable to hear the minister over the heckling. That is just unacceptable, and I wish that we would find a way. We have the Standing Orders. It is disrespectful to this institution, to democracy itself and to our constituents that we allow this sort of bad behaviour to continue at high volume.

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed in question period that occasionally I attempted to gesture to you. I would like to explain. The Standing Orders make it clear that we are not supposed to heckle in this place. It would be a fool's mission to try to get the volume down all the time. However, I do not recall the disrespect toward the Prime Minister and the front benches in the 41st Parliament that I am seeing in the 42nd Parliament. When I cannot hear the Prime Minister's answers, even with my earpiece in, I would ask the hon. members on the opposition benches to at least show the courtesy of not heckling so loudly that other members cannot hear the answers.

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order to point to the rules that say that no member shall speak disrespectfully of other members in this place. I believe the entire membership of the electoral reform committee was disrespected by the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians believed the Liberal election promises last year. I myself did. I believed the Liberal campaign promises that the National Energy Board process was so badly broken that no pipeline could be approved as a result of that process. No magical process has intervened, no testing of the evidence, there are no facts to justify this decision, and we know that dilbit cannot be cleaned after being spilled.Will the Prime Minister reconsider and suspend yesterday's decision to find the facts and the evidence that will show that approving Kinder Morgan is not justified?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in Paris and for attending the upcoming Earth Day signing at the United Nations. However, our current target does not reflect that leadership. Our current target does not meet the climate urgency and emergency situation we face. In fact, it is still the weakest target in the G7. It is still the target of the previous government. It is urgently required that we ratchet up our target.Will the Prime Minister please reassure Canadians that we plan to put in place a tougher target and soon? That would be leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize unreservedly, and to the hon. Leader of the Opposition as well.I would like to proceed to my question, if that is allowed.When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report came out, it said that we had nothing that would block us from protecting life on earth by achieving 1.5° Celsius. The only missing ingredient is political will. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Can Canada show that political will and go to COP24 committing that Canada will follow the pathway set out by the IPCC?

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not mind a brief commentary before my point of order, which will relate to Standing Orders 16 and 18, to congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on becoming the Leader of the Opposition.I do recall his time as Speaker, and I hope he will too as he helps this place restore respect for the rules regarding heckling. Goodness knows, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the new Leader of the Opposition, knows those rules inside and out. However, I hate to mention that in today's question period, the noise was all coming—not all, not entirely, but primarily—from the Conservative benches. I hope he will turn his attention to that.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Canada has led in UN negotiations to ban biological weapons, ban chemical weapons, ban cluster munitions, and ban landmines. Just last week the organizational meetings began for the next frontier: to ban nuclear weapons. But Canada was not there, while 101 other countries were. I would like to ask if the hon. Prime Minister can assure this House that Canada will play a leading role once again to band with the world to end the threat of nuclear war.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is this.On Sunday, December 2, the 24th Conference of the Parties on the climate convention will convene in Poland. The report of the IPCC on the imperative that the planet hold to 1.5°C and not above it in global average temperature is on that agenda.Will Canada commit to improving our plan, such that we are on a pathway to 1.5°C, and help lead the world there?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise this point of order earlier. I did not mean to interrupt the Thursday question.The level of heckling in this place, and I have mentioned this before, has become unbearable. I am not able to hear the Minister of Environment's answers, even though I have an earpiece. I have a lot of criticisms of aspects of the government's climate plan too, but I would ask my friends on the Conservative benches to please show some restraint so we can hear the answers in this place.

Mr. Speaker, since my election in 2011, nothing was more painful than watching the destruction of our environmental laws in 2012. I took heart in the Liberal promises to reverse those changes and restore environmental protection, particularly in the mandate letter to the Minister of Transport, which reads that he would “review the previous government's changes to the...Navigable Waters Protection Act” and “restore lost protections”, but it now appears increasingly clear that this is not the plan. A schedule of named waterways was left intact.Will the Minister of Transport honour his mandate letter and restore lost protections?

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell members of the House that our country is in the midst of a climate emergency. We see flooding throughout Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, killer wind storms in British Columbia in the winter and forest fires in the summer. What we do not need is to weaken the already inadequate plan that we have from the federal government.I would like assurances that Canada will stand firm on its equivalency agreement for vehicle emission standards with the State of California no matter what the White House does.

Mr. Speaker, today, October 3, is the NEB deadline for comments on the list of issues in the redo of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline review. As an intervenor in the initial failed and flawed process, I have written the National Energy Board asking that it include the upstream and downstream climate impacts of the proposed pipeline, just as it did in the case of the private sector's energy east. It certainly seems fair that it be held to the same standard. Does the Prime Minister not agree?

Mr. Speaker, we have alarming news from the front lines of the climate emergency. The dispatches are deeply worrying. The defences are falling against what protected our Arctic and kept it cold. The polar vortex is eroding, and like an advancing army, the warm air from the south has occupied our Arctic, driving temperatures up 25° Celsius above normal in a sunless winter. No sun has warmed that ground for months, yet the Arctic is in a heat wave. The time for complacency, pat answers, and fossil fuel appeasement is over.When will the government increase our targets and our ambitions to meet this accelerating threat?

Mr. Speaker, “Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform”. That is from the Liberal platform. It is very clear, and it was repeated with clarity in the Speech from the Throne, and the mandate to us as members of the special committee said we were replacing first past the post.If it was an essential precondition to follow on this promise that there be some sort of nationally proven majority, that there be some consensus discerned through vague surveys, why was that never mentioned in any promise or any mandate?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am grieved by the disrespect that occurred during this question period. It should not go unmarked that I have not ever seen, and I do not know if in the annals of this House any Speaker has ever seen, the disrespect shown by members of the Conservative Party, rising in unison against a ruling of the Speaker. It was unconscionable, undemocratic, and unparliamentary, and they should apologize as a group. The violations of the rules include interrupting a Speaker when speaking, standing when the Speaker is speaking, challenging a ruling of the Speaker, and doing so in a way that brings disrespect and dishonour to this place.

Mr. Speaker, it is tricky to do this, but I cannot ask my question until I express what I think is in all of our hearts. Best wishes to the Minister of Fisheries as he faces his new health challenges.In my remaining eight seconds, will the Minister of Health consider working with the health accords with the provinces to pursue all medically necessary autism spectrum disorder treatments, including applied behaviour analysis, as part of a medicare approved treatment?

Mr. Speaker, buying the 65-year old Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan shows the kind of brilliant business acumen of buying up all of Blockbuster's assets while Netflix takes off. I am wondering when we will see the contract of sale. We know there are apparently 121 pages of fine legalese that could help us stop the sale before its closing in August. When will the contract be made public?

Mr. Speaker, I have not many words to add. We have to thank all the team here on Parliament Hill. The only group that has been forgotten are the wonderful people who serve us in the cafeterias and the dining room, who get laid off right now and are rehired when we get back, so special thoughts for them, for all our security guards, the translators, the table officers, your team, Mr. Speaker, and each and every member of the House. My best wishes for the holidays! Merry Christmas!Merry Christmas. For some of us, we await the arrival of the birth of our Lord and Saviour. For others, we just celebrate a great time among family and friends. For my dear friends of the Jewish community, it is a bit delayed now, but happy Hanukkah.To everyone in the Conservative caucus who earlier raised Festivus, I do not want anyone left out, so Festivus for the rest of us. Merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, Rails to Relevance is an annual project of Claremont high school, bringing bright young kids from this great public high school to Ottawa by rail—by VIA Rail. The Canadian Transportation Act review by the Hon. David Emerson recommended that Canada cease to have a national passenger rail service. Can the Minister of Transport reassure this House that Canada is committed to national passenger rail, and will invest in and modernize a national VIA Rail service?

Mr. Speaker, it is my great hope that we could leave this place with glad tidings. I hear news that the Government of Canada, after decades of inaction, is finally prepared to ban the use, import, and export of asbestos. I hope this is true. I ask the Prime Minister if this can be confirmed, and whether Canada will also take action to list asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention so that developing countries can have prior informed consent.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to say a few words on this truly moving occasion, because the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity is not only a colleague, but a dear, close friend.I was privileged to work with the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity in the 41st Parliament. I remain personally grateful for many kindnesses, not least of which was the use of a couch during the 62 hours of the filibuster over the Canada Post lockout. I had a very nice nap in her office, and no one else noticed that I looked like I might be needing one. There were many acts of kindness, but what sticks with me so much is that at the time, she was so busy. We have heard from other members—accurately, generously, and graciously—what kind of job she did and what kind of person she is. As busy as she was, she never adopted the mantel of, “I am busy and important. Who are you?” I am not naming anyone in particular, but we all know people who when they get to an elevated position are suddenly like that. That never happened with the hon. member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. She never failed to have time for colleagues and time for friends. When the cancer came back, and all of us who know and love her were wrenched by it, she was consistently courageous. She reassured us that she was okay, and she showed up day after day, even at times when I really wished she could go home and have a rest.There have been many good things pointed out about the hon. member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. I was particularly moved by the remarks by the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Those of us who say goodbye to her today do so with tears in our eyes and love in our hearts, because this is a member who will continue to make a difference at home. The reasons she is stepping down now are entirely just and proper. As loved as she is in her riding, she is walking away from a job she loves for the best possible reason: being a good mom.Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. All of us in the House are proud of the progressive role Canada played in concluding the agreement in Paris last year. The Paris agreement will be open for signing at the United Nations headquarters this spring on Earth Day.My question to the Prime Minister is twofold. Will he personally accept the invitation of the Secretary-General to be there to sign the agreement, and more importantly, will he bring with him Canada's new, more robust target to meet the objectives of the agreement?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada lost, yet again, in a challenge we made in Federal Court against a secret chapter 11 tribunal that had overturned a very fair, full, and robust review of the Digby Neck quarry. The company, Bilcon, went from losing to the Nova Scotia Conservative government to the federal Conservative government. It went for $570 million. It looks like it is now going to get it.Will the Prime Minister agree that it is time to work with the United States in these renegotiations and get chapter 11 out of NAFTA?

Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, every federal government and every prime minister, regardless of political stripe, has stood to defend the Canadian interests in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Trump administration, through a GOP budget bill, now proposes to reopen the issue with the threat of oil and gas development on the U.S. side of the shared territory of the Gwich'in peoples, where they depend on the porcupine caribou and the porcupine caribou depend on those calving grounds. Could the Minister of Environment tell us what steps the government is taking to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for what I think are quite heroic efforts to put in place a system to welcome Syrian refugees. However, that system remains imperfect. At this point, the system is not responsive to specific situations, such as political dissidents within Syria who are personally at risk and who may need fast-tracking to get to safety. I would ask the minister if his department, and he personally, would consider amending the situation, changing departmental policy, so that specific dissidents can get to Canada and to safety more quickly.

Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the federal election campaign, 14 permits were issued by Fisheries Canada and Transport Canada to allow the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. on the Peace River. It is highly controversial and manifestly opposed. Its sole purpose is to provide electricity for LNG development. The joint panel found it directly offends Treaty 8 treaty rights.Will the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs commit to no further permits being issued while the issues for indigenous people remain outstanding?

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour for me to rise today as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of this House of Commons.I am overwhelmed and grateful for my colleagues that there is an opportunity for the Green Party to mark the 150th sitting of the Parliament of Canada. I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. We all are very grateful for the perpetual generosity of indigenous peoples in our country to be willing to consider our meek efforts at reconciliation.I note that at 150 years old, our democracy here, the first meeting of Parliament on November 6, 1867, was a bit late. One hundred years earlier, the first parliamentary representative democracy in North America met in Nova Scotia. In 2008, Nova Scotians celebrated the 250th. Imagine that I can stand here today, on our 150th occasion, in the presence in the gallery of four extraordinary Canadians, each of who I hold in such respect and affection. That the Right. Hon. John Turner, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, and the Right Hon. Paul Martin would be here for this celebration, as well as our former Speakers, John Bosley and Peter Milliken, is an extraordinary moment.I want to reiterate how proud I am. I find it incredible that I have the privilege to participate, because it is indeed a privilege, not a right.Even as we look back at Halifax and the 250th anniversary, we are all pikers. The longest continuous participatory democracy on the planet is the 800-year-old Iroquois confederacy of the Haudenosaunee. We have learned parliamentary democracy. We have learned that Parliament comes from the word parler. We know we are here to speak with each other, work together, respect each other, and to work to earn the respect of our constituents who have sent us here not to blow our own horn, but to carry their cares and concerns to this place.I could not agree more with our right hon. Prime Minister that one of the greatest parliamentarians I have ever had the privilege to know and work with left us too soon when we lost Arnold Chan. It is his words I think of today, that call in his last speech, the last time he had the physical strength to stand in this place, for us to respect each other.I also ask us to look around. We are in this room, what a privilege, day in and day out, but how often do we look up, and I am afraid I am going to go in a Friendly Giant direction, look way up? There is a reason that this magnificent chamber dwarfs its occupants. This room is not about us as members of Parliament. This room is about democracy. It is about Canada. We are very tiny in this space because our role is to represent something far bigger than ourselves. We are here for Canada. We are here for a country in which we are blessed to live, know, and love. We are to cherish that democracy. This room dwarfs us for a reason.Thank you to all of my colleagues and thank you Canada. Congratulations and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly welcome news more than a year ago when the current government announced that we would have a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. For too long, Canadians have been horrified by human rights abuses at the hands of Canadian mining companies and their actions overseas that bring shame to this country.The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was supposed to be a model for the world. It is a year later. Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, this place happily passed Bill S-203 at second reading. It started in the Senate with Liberal Senator Wilfred Moore and then went to Senator Murray Sinclair. It is not yet before the Standing Committee on Fisheries. We need it to be there. In this place, we need to let Canadians know, before the next election, that we will not tolerate the keeping of whales and dolphins, sentient beings, in conditions that amount to torture. Does the Prime Minister stand with us? Could we get this passed before the next election?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm. He stated his position, and I completely agree with him.As members, we are all equals here in this place. Our constituents, the people who live in our ridings, are equals, and it is only fair that we all have the same rights and freedoms here in the House. We are treated differently only because of a law that was passed in 1963. I think that was the year that Parliament passed the law that granted money to parties with more than 12 members.In 1963, it was about giving parties with more than 12 members some money. Over time it has morphed, without any specific law ever passing, to say that members of legitimate elected parties, in my case a party that runs nationally, and in the case of the Bloc a party that runs very strongly in one province, should have, and would have in other parliaments within the commonwealth system, the same rights. For the matter, independents should have the same rights, as their voters have the same rights.In this case, we do not have those rights, because as we know, over the years we have adopted traditions in which parties with more than 12 members have more rights. It has not been reassessed since 1963. In the early 1990s, a former member of Parliament for Winnipeg—Transcona at the time, the hon. Bill Blaikie, made a brilliant argument as to why the NDP, with nine seats, should have the right to sit on committees. At the time, with all due respect to my colleague from the Bloc, that was objected to by the Bloc, because it had more than 12 members, and they were mad, because when they had fewer than 12, the NDP had not supported them. It would be wonderful to review what has happened by accretion, without any actual decision ever rendered in this place, and go back to the question of why members of Parliament who happen to be in parties with fewer than 12 members should have fewer rights. I set aside the issue of money. Why should we have fewer rights than any other MP?

Mr. Speaker, the urgent warnings from climate scientists are increasingly punctuated by extreme weather events, whether forest fires, floods, hurricanes or tornadoes. However, the government is prepared to spend far more on pipelines than on climate action. It is as though we really believe in reconciliation for indigenous people but first we need to build a few more residential schools.Will the government instruct the National Energy Board to include climate impacts of the pipeline we now own, as it did for private sector energy east?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of a series of very controversial order-in-council appointments in the dying days of the previous government, would the Prime Minister join with political scientists such as Carl Baar and Peter Russell and accept as a constitutional convention that it is illegitimate for a government to make order-in-council appointments that would not take effect until after an election? Would he agree that this travesty is an overreach?

Madam Speaker and friends, a month from today, the climate negotiations will begin in full at COP24. The agenda will be the IPCC report on 1.5° and a review of every government's actions and whether we are on track. We know that some countries have done a huge amount, but collectively, we are off course. We are headed for the risk of global extinction. This is not a joke. We are running out of time. We have one chance, and one chance only. Can Canada show leadership and go, accepting the target of 45% by 2030, or do we give up on our children?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend.I met the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland 11 years ago.I was not in politics yet. I was executive director of the Sierra Club Canada when I first sat down at a table opposite the current interim leader of the Conservative Party. She was then-minister of environment. It is a tribute to her personal characteristics of fairness, kindness and just plain likable that I could not help liking her as we discussed the Kyoto protocol.I have searched my memory banks and I cannot remember a single time in the last 11 years when I have not thought well of her as a person, even if we disagreed. We share many things, including a love of dogs and hiking in the wilderness, and we also shared much when she was minister of health. I want to pause for that period and thank her once again.She played a key role in ensuring the quick passage of Bill C-442 on Lyme disease. We are now working together on the national framework that will be implemented under that bill.However, it took the minister of health deciding that a private member's bill from an opposition party leader would be okay to support. To have it pass unanimously in the House of Commons and the Senate is not about all the independent decision-making of all the MPs. Honestly, if the minister of health had not supported that bill, it would have died right there. I want to thank her once again for supporting remedies for the people across this country suffering from Lyme disease. I also want to pay personal tribute to the fact that under her leadership and in the government of Stephen Harper, the strongest legislation ever, taking big pharma to task, Vanessa's Law, was passed. That is solid and it is a tribute I want to pay publicly.Last, as another woman in politics, leading a teeny-weeny party over here in the corner, everything she has ever done as interim leader of the official opposition has demonstrated that women can do everything just as well as a man. I saw her earlier today, standing at the podium in the foyer. I do not know how she stands in those shoes. I do not understand how anyone can walk in those shoes. They are phenomenal high heels. They are very gorgeous. It reminded me so much of what was often said of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, that she danced just as well as he did but backwards and in high heels. Hats off to the leader of the official opposition. We will miss you.

Mr. Speaker, referendum is indeed a noun and like all nouns it has a definition. This one is found in the Referendum Act of 1992, which makes it clear that we can only hold a referendum in Canada—unless we go through the process of changing that act—on a constitutional matter. Changing our voting system is not a constitutional question.I want to ask the Prime Minister if he agrees with me that it appears that our friends in the Conservative Party are not interested in a referendum or they would have looked at the act. They are interested in stopping Canadians from getting what we voted for as a majority, a fair voting system.

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's very disturbing announcement from the rose garden, the surrealistic orchestras striking up on the deck of the Titanic as Trump announced that the U.S. would leave the Paris agreement, which it cannot legally do for four years, it opens up a chasm where there will be insufficient action. There was already insufficient action in the commitments that had been made by all governments in order to meet the Paris accord.I wonder if the Minister of Environment can commit that Canada is prepared to do more, to look at our targets, to look at our developing country partnerships, and to work with subnational levels of government within the United States to keep moving to climate action.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.I had eight town halls recently in my riding and, not surprisingly, heard from many constituents on their concerns about the proposed tax changes. One young doctor made a point that I have not heard from others. If we look at the demographics of how many doctors are near retirement and how they have structured their income and practice around the tax laws as they have been for decades, his fear is that we might have an unintended consequence of tax changes in a doctor shortage, as many doctors near retirement might decide to retire early. Could we phase-in tax changes or grandfather certain professions?

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has clarified, for the second time, the Der Spiegel story and has clearly said that he never asked Chancellor Merkel to remove references to the Paris accord from the G20 summit declaration, let me flip it to the affirmative and ask the Prime Minister to confirm that Canada will stand with Germany and insist that commitment to the Paris accord be in the G20 final declaration.

Mr. Speaker, as many members here know, today we are commemorating the 25th anniversary of the horrors of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Many Canadian military who served in Rwanda, particularly in the second phase of the mission where it was not a failure but where they did really solid work, go unrecognized on the Veterans Affairs website, unrecognized on the DND website and still have not had the opportunity that some parliamentarians have had to go back to Rwanda. They need a medal for that second phase of service as other governments have done for their veterans who experienced the unbearable.

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House can see from the questions from the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the New Democrats, and now from me that there is an extraordinary broad consensus on this side of the House that Canadian families and individuals living with autism really do need more than what they have so far. I would ask the Prime Minister if his next answer could contain some hope for those families that help is on the way and that the Canadian autism partnership will find support from the current government.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of claims made, even here today in the House, about the jobs that would be created by Kinder Morgan, but there is no evidence to back up those claims. There is no evidence because the National Energy Board refused to hear the evidence of Unifor. The largest union in the oil sands, Unifor went before the NEB to point out that building Kinder Morgan will cost Canadian jobs. The NEB refused to hear that evidence. Could the Prime Minister tell us on what independent study is he basing the claim that Kinder Morgan creates more jobs than it kills?

Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-38 in 2012, we have been labouring under a broken environmental assessment process. Today we have a landmark report from the expert panel on EA, headed by our former commissioner for the environment. It makes a bold recommendation: get rid of the NEB's Environmental Assessment Agency, have a single authority, give it quasi-judicial powers.For the Prime Minister, how quickly can we expect this great recommendation to be legislated?

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I am quite surprised by the position the government is taking. Apparently, the Liberal caucus reached a decision that the law did not apply to it and because it made the decision, the law does not apply. I would be very interested if the hon. member could provide the legal rationale.As a member of this place who was part of the discussion and debate on the Reform Act to change the rules under the Parliament of Canada Act, I have consistently bemoaned, and I know it may or may not be a matter for the Speaker to look at this, the larger question of how much power leaders of organized parties that are recognized have over the conduct of their individual members. However, the principle of Westminster democracy in this place is that all members are equal and the Prime Minister is merely first among equals. I assumed, when we passed the Parliament of Canada Act and the amendments found in section 49, that the recognized parties would comply with the requirements of section 49 in the Parliament of Canada Act and that surely they applied to every party once the law was passed and in place. It is quite distressing to hear now from this member that the caucus decided for itself to ignore the requirements of the law and feels that it has met all the requirements by sending a letter to the Speaker that details the caucus's decision to ignore the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the first time I have risen on this point of order, but it is the first time I have risen on a point of order from my new vantage point in the House. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is completely correct with respect to his point of order on decorum. Under Standing Order 16, none of the members in this place are to speak when another member is speaking, interrupt him or her or speak disrespectfully. As impossible as it is for me to believe it to be the case, my vantage point in this corner of the House subjects me to more noise than when I was in the other corner of the House, and I cannot hear people speaking. I am ashamed of my colleagues who cannot control themselves and perform in a way that would make their constituents proud. Think of your constituents before you shout with derision at our Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. We are part of a very important agreement—and full credit to the federal government and the government of B.C.—as well as an indigenous partnership to protect an iconic species, the southern mountain caribou.I am afraid. I am hearing reports that the consultations of the B.C. government seem to be stirring up opposition to protecting the species instead of solidifying what is a groundbreaking model agreement. I wonder if the federal government is concerned, as I am, that we not let this deal get unstuck.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.For the recently announced public engagement and consultation process on electoral reform to have any legitimacy, I completely agree with the hon. minister that we must all, on all sides of this place, set partisanship aside.Therefore, can the Prime Minister give this place his word that the Liberal members of Parliament on that committee will be free to vote in the interest of Canadian democracy, and not merely for partisan advantage?

Mr. Speaker, with all this chatter about Davos, I wonder if everyone has forgotten that the previous Prime Minister used that foreign and lofty perch to cut the retirement benefits of Canadians. It may have had something to do with his earlier retirement. However, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries.Right now there is an abandoned derelict vessel of great concern locally. I think that Canadians across this country are concerned about derelict vessels. The Kathryn Spirit was abandoned by its Mexican owners and no one is making sure that the toxic material within does not leak into Lac Saint-Louis. Could the Minister of Fisheries give us an update please.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to rise today and join all my fellow MPs in paying tribute to our colleague, the distinguished member for Outremont.It is hard, as members would recognize, to play a sort of backup hitter at the very last of many fine speeches. However, I want to acknowledge something that was not specifically mentioned. The word “courage” was used. I would not attribute it to continuing to wear a beard, but it does have to with the face. I think it was the bravest thing I ever saw. We were all together in the leader's debate in Montreal. It was a tough thing to say that telling women what they can and cannot wear is not the proper role of federal leadership, and I want to thank the hon. member again for taking a strong stand on the very divisive niqab debate.It can be said of every member that their family is always there, working side by side with them. If I am not mistaken, the member for Outremont was first elected in 1994 to the Quebec National Assembly, and already that was a tough job. It is an enormous sacrifice for a family. If there is one thing that appeared to me quite clearly, it is the very strong bond between the member and his extraordinary wife, Catherine.Like the hon. member for Milton, I want to say how much I have enjoyed getting to know Catherine P. Mulcair, someone who has shown extraordinary presence in all situations at his side. It must be very handy for anyone leading a political party to be married to a psychologist, which I failed to do.I also want to say that the relationship informed a lot of of who the member is today. The most moving speech I ever heard my friend, the member for Outremont, give was on the occasion of remembrance of the Shoah. It was a very emotional recollection of going back to the very barn in the fields of France where his wife's mother hid throughout the Holocaust, descendants of Sephardic Jews hiding in a barn from the Nazi regime of Vichy, France. I do not think I have ever heard any words on the occasion of remembrance of the Shoah that were more keenly felt and brought us back to the individual cases and enormous horrors and evil of that period.With that, I join others here in thanking Catherine, Matt, Greg, the family as a whole, who have toiled alongside, in a very distinguished career, the hon. member for Outremont.I thank them and wish them all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we know, we are debating in this place changing the Standing Orders, but I would like to refer, for my point of order, to our existing rules, Standing Orders 16(2) and 18. The combined effect of these two Standing Orders is that interrupting members or speaking disrespectfully of them violates the rules of this place.The amount of heckling, which I know many members say they would like to curtail, is getting completely out of hand from my little corner. The Liberals no longer heckle, but the Conservatives and the New Democrats are heckling fiercely, and it is a violation of this place.

Mr. Speaker, the warnings of climate scientists are becoming increasingly urgent and worrying. The most recent, days ago, was that the world was watching the weakening of the Gulf Stream ocean currents, with potentially catastrophic impacts. The scientists are warning that we must reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than our current commitments. If we fail to do so, if we blow through our carbon budget, we will pay dearly. This is a budget we cannot afford to ignore. It is incompatible with completing Kinder Morgan. Could the government show us the numbers of how we build a pipeline and meet our climate targets?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the Prime Minister in the U.K. at the commonwealth summit giving a hint of what the leadership of Canada will look like in the G7 on climate, and also approaching the huge issue of ocean plastic pollution. There are eight million tonnes of plastics entering our oceans every single year. England, Scotland, and Taiwan have already taken action to ban single-service plastic items. Can Canada follow suit to show leadership before the G7?

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the committee report on electoral reform did not contain any dissent from the New Democrats or the Greens. We filed a supplemental report in support of the recommendations. In support of those recommendations, within the hour, I am certainly hoping that many MPs, in fact most of us, will vote to support the recommendation of the report so that we can continue to have a conversation. We have never had the conversation to find common ground. Common ground is within our reach if we agree to keep working toward it. Will the minister agree?

Mr. Speaker, among Arnold Chan's last words to the House were these: It is imperative that we stop treating climate change as solely an environmental issue but recognize it as an all-encompassing priority that we as a society and a government must confront with the utmost urgency. The environment commissioner's report yesterday made transparent what most of us know: that we are not there, that we are not acting with urgency, that we are not acting.Will the Prime Minister use this occasion to commit to a reset to actually reduce emissions with urgency?

Mr. Speaker, last night in this place, we had an extraordinary emergency debate on the subject of the IPCC report. That report tells us and all Canadians clearly that we are not doing enough; that the target we have adopted, which is sometimes loosely referred to as the Paris target, is inconsistent with holding the global average temperature increase to 1.5°; and that we need to do twice as much and do it faster. Our best opportunity is to move other governments by announcing a new target, one consistent with the IPCC, at COP24 in December.Will the Prime Minister commit to doing so?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.We know that since Bill C-38 in 2012, the National Energy Board, with no competence or experience in environmental assessment, is making a hash of the projects that it reviews. Two expert panels have now recommended taking the National Energy Board out of environmental assessment. I think the National Energy Board may be nailing the nails in its own coffin with the recent approval of a Spectra natural gas pipeline against the advice of Environment Canada's concern for endangered species. A similar mining project in the same region is getting different treatment through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Can the minister confirm that we will get the National Energy Board out of environmental assessments once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada apparently just bought a pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, which it bought for $550 million. There are 15 different court cases right now: indigenous rights cases, environmental group cases, and municipal cases. When the Federal Court of Appeal rules, if the court rules that the permits are invalid, what is the government's plan? Will it restart the environmental assessment process and restart consultations?

Mr. Speaker, here is a scenario. If the CETA agreement were in force and a controversial Ajax mine in Kamloops, British Columbia were turned down by the British Columbia government, the Polish mining company would have the right to bring an arbitration case against Canada. On the other hand, were a Canadian company to have a grievance with Poland, it is not at all clear that it could sue, because Wallonia has won opt-out provisions for every European nation. Will the Prime Minister commit that Parliament will have adequate time to research, study, and understand CETA before we vote on it?

Mr. Speaker, over 150,000 students demonstrated in Montreal last Friday.Thousands more walked in almost every town and city in Canada, with students saying that we were stealing their future and they wanted to take it back. One sign in Victoria, where hundreds and hundreds of kids were marching, said that the kids were the only adults in the room.When will the government get rid of the Harper target to extinction and bring in place a target that takes us to survival?

Mr. Speaker, all that remains to be done now is the rubber stamp of the Investment Canada Act for one of Canada's largest construction companies, Aecon, to be sold to a state-owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China, the China Communications Construction Company, CCCI. This company has a very troubling human rights, environmental, and safety record, yet it has not come before this House. We are not hearing about it. Could the Prime Minister assure this place that this sale will be put through a thorough review before Investment Canada rubber-stamps it?

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Coalition des citoyens de Lac-Mégantic are here in Ottawa today.In 2013, the member for Papineau signed their petition in support of the construction of a rail bypass in Lac-Mégantic. Today, they are sending a clear message to the Prime Minister. They are asking him to keep his election promise by announcing the construction of a rail bypass.My question is clear. Will—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on much the same point.I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. This is a problem, but I believe that there is a solution.

Mr. Speaker, far from being a gift-wrapped package for the new government, in the words of Professor Gus Van Harten, CETA was in fact a ticking time bomb. People who know this file knew that the Europeans were not really happy with this deal. To defuse the ticking time bomb, the new government has a unique opportunity. Fashion this deal in the interests of Europeans and Canadians, remove the offensive investor-state provisions, and get to a deal on the real issue, which is trade.Will the Prime Minister consider removing the investor-state provisions from CETA?

Mr. Speaker, this is not a novel point of order. It relates to Standing Order 16 and 18, but in particular to Standing Order 16, related to interrupting members when they speak, in this case, the Prime Minister. I can assure other members that I feel like screaming a good deal of the time when I listen to the Prime Minister, but I do not. It violates the rules of this place when I cannot hear the Prime Minister deliver a response. I do not recall, from this seat, having trouble hearing Stephen Harper. I do not think he spoke louder than the current Prime Minister. The noise from this quarter of Conservatives is unacceptable. It violates our rules.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, at every single law school in Canada, students volunteered, doing research to figure out how they could help refugees potentially affected by President Trump's attempt to stop their flight to safety. Now those same law students, starting at the University of Victoria, picked up on by the University of Toronto, the University of Alberta, and Dalhousie law school, have written the government to ask for the immediate suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement.Can the Prime Minister, as our Prime Minister and the minister responsible for youth, hear and heed their voices?