Ken Hardie

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on his new position. From my vantage point, it is always entertaining to see him present. I may not agree very much with what he says, but his presentation is very good to hear.

In the big picture there seems to be a contradiction on the Conservative side. On the one hand, the Conservatives say that putting a price on carbon will take money out of the pockets of people, people who cannot afford it and that improving the CPP will take money out of the pockets of those same people. On the other hand, we should leave the tax-free savings account at $10,000. That does not connect very well unfortunately. It would have been interesting to see how many people would have taken advantage of that huge lift in the tax-free savings account.

On top of that, household debt is high and 60% of Canadians in the private sector have no pension plan.

What does the member see the government facing in the future when all of the people who have not had the means, much less the choice, but certainly not the means to save as maybe the elite has for retirement, and simply cannot afford to live?

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are many wheels within wheels in this issue.

Part of what the member said involved the notion that what these women really want is to regain their homes, in their homeland. In considering the motions, etc., and all of the information from the United Nations, I am wondering if perhaps there is a strategy whereby, rather than bring them all the way over here and then perhaps one day try to replant them back in their homeland, we could find them a safe haven in Iraq. That could help to re-establish them more quickly and more effectively in their homeland, which is where they want to be.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for the comments on the trade agreement. I am not a member of the committee that has been studying it, so I am coming at this as an interested outsider.

What we may observe south of the 49th is that protectionist sentiment seems to be growing quite rapidly. In fact, we have witnessed the difficulties with things like the softwood lumber agreement, and diafiltered milk is another one that lurks in the corner.

Based on this and what committee members have heard and discussed, does the hon. member think that the workup we are doing right now on trade agreements, on facilitating trade, may in fact be spinning our wheels, given that the foundation upon which we were going forward seems to be shifting with the attitude presented by both of the leading contenders for the leadership of the United States?

[Food and Drugs Act, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, over and above that dangerous goods that might pass through Canada, I am wondering about goods that we would perhaps not allow into Canada and would rather not see traded, such as ivory, shark fins, and those sorts of things. Has there been any thought given or provisions in this legislation to prevent those types of goods from passing through, even if they are on their way through to a third country?

[Salaries Act, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I quite often enjoy that minister's, that member's, speeches. He shows a very good grasp of the issues. However, on this, I think he is out of focus.

He says that things can be adjusted simply through a cabinet shuffle. Now, in our B.C. caucus, we have two excellent ministers, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities and the Minister of National Defence. I would not want to see them in the opposite jobs. In fact, we are drawing on their expertise and their intelligence in their portfolios to do precisely the job that is needed.

What is really key here, and what I would like the member to respond to, is why a government should not treat the objectives of both those ministers as equally important.

[Salaries Act, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard in recent days a bit of anxiousness about introducing pay equity and the timetable for doing it. Now we know in the House and across Canada how long we would have to wait for pay equity for women if the Conservatives were still in power. It would not happen.

Unlike the opposition, Liberals believe that women, science, small business, tourism, sports, persons with disabilities, and francophones all deserve an equal spot at the table. The voices need to be equal. The effort is equal; the importance is equal; the pay should be equal.

Given that we believe that cabinet should be representative of all Canadians, which is exactly what we have done, why does the opposition House leader have a problem with this?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, because I had not been a regular consumer of question period before I came to this place, I have noticed as a new member that it seems we have set up a rather interesting and maybe tradition-laden practice of highly charged partisan questions along the lines of “When did you stop beating your dog?” being lobbed over the aisle to this side to people who do not know it is coming, and then people rising to give answers that may or usually may not answer the question to the satisfaction of the ordinary, right-thinking person who might have stumbled across the CPAC channel.

One thing we could explore, which I will ask the hon. member about, is whether we would actually get better and more useful exchanges in the House if opposition members supplied their questions for question period in advance so that the government would have an opportunity to come up with reasonable answers.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as a first step, the bill will move us a lot farther down the road than we have been. With the dynamics of our friends on the opposite side, better is always possible, which is the terms we have used, so we will work on that.

I wanted to specifically focus in on one thing and ask the hon. member about the value of having the work of this committee apply to the work in progress by the agencies, not after the fact, not just when something has come up, but the ability to see the moving parts and to perhaps intervene and comment at that time.

[Health, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Canadians only need to turn on the news to see the devastating effect that the misuse of fentanyl is having in our communities.

My home province of British Columbia has already declared a public health emergency after a dramatic increase in the number of overdose deaths from illicit drugs such as fentanyl, and 800 people are projected to die due to overdoses in B.C. by the end of the year.

This is an issue affecting all provinces and territories, and we need to act. Will the Minister of Health inform the House what our government is doing to combat the opioid crisis?

[Rick Hart, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this summer my community lost a champion with the untimely passing of Rick Hart on July 2.

Fleetwood is the geographic heart of my riding, and Rick was truly the heart of Fleetwood. As the neighbourhood association president, Rick worked tirelessly to preserve our past with parks and memorials. As the catalyst for our present, he helped bring about our marvellous sports and leisure facility, our library, and our community centre. As a visionary for Fleetwood's vibrant future, he worked with us, our city, and this government as we moved forward with Surrey's rapid transit expansion. He did a lot, and he was just getting started.

Rick's wife, Joy, said his favourite quote was “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

It was timely that just last May, Rick was honoured as Surrey's “Good Citizen of the Year”.

Please join me to salute “Mr. Fleetwood”, Rick Hart.