44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, they say it is a marathon, not a race. Tonight, I think we got halfway through the marathon. Tomorrow could be a really monumental day for skilled trades across Canada. If the bill is passed in the House, it will go to the Senate. People will be one step closer to building Canada, the economy, and quite frankly, their own careers.
First and foremost, Bill C-241 is a common bill for the common people. It makes common sense, something that does not happen a lot in this House.
I want to thank God because without him, this opportunity would never have existed. I thank him so much for this opportunity.
I want to give my thanks to the Bloc Québécois for their amazing remarks this evening and to the member for Windsor West for really understanding this bill and what it can do for skilled trades across Canada. My thanks to those members.
I want to thank Tommy Helgun from the carpenters union, who was down from Windsor. Truthfully, he is one of the curators of this bill. He was here this evening. I got a chance to speak to him before this. I really want to say thanks to him and Karl Lovett from the IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; really, really awesome. Nancy Yan helped me get to this spot as well; she knows who she is. I thank all the various trades across Canada that I have spoken to over the last year or so while scripting and tweaking this bill, ensuring that it is actually doing the work that it is designed to do. To each and every one of them, I send my thanks.
I am not one who says anything other than let us get the darn job done and fast forward this as much as we possibly can.
This afternoon, I had a chance to speak with our leader. I filled him in. I really want to give my thanks to the leader of the official opposition for being very influential on this bill. I know that back when he was the shadow minister for finance, I went to him for his thoughts. He said to make darn sure that it is a tax deduction and there is no limit on this, so that folks, workers and skilled trades across Canada do not have a limit on how many hours they should be working per year.
I guess the question in the House now is: Why does the Liberal Party not support skilled trades? I do not understand, to save my soul, why it would not support them, but apparently it does not. Tomorrow is a fresh, new day.
It has only ever been and will only ever be about the people. One can have the greatest widget in the world, but one will not build or sell it unless one is surrounded by the greatest people. Our skilled trades are exactly who will build this amazing country called Canada. Equally, however, they need our support.
I truly do not care who gets the credit. If the government wants to take my bill, Bill C-241, and put in the legislation tomorrow, I am good with that as long as our skilled trades get the support they deserve and need.
Again, it is a marathon; it is not a race. My phone is on, and my door is open. If the government will reach out to me and have a conversation about how to enhance this, perhaps in the Senate when it goes there tomorrow thanks to the amazing Bloc and NDP support, I am all ears. Let us just support our skilled trades.
In closing, I will say this one more time: It has only ever been about the people. Unless we support the ones who fix our bridges, build our roads and keep our electrical system going, we have nothing.
657 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:49:04 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:49:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded division, please.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:50:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the government's relationship with McKinsey in a follow-up to a question I had asked. This has been an important issue for me and an important issue for the opposition.
Why is it important? Well, there are a number of reasons. First, the government has spent over $100 million on contracts for McKinsey, work that public servants have told the media that, in many cases, could have been done inside the public service.
More broadly, we are seeing a significant increase in spending on outside consultants by the government at the same time as we are seeing growth in the public service. The government is spending more inside the public service, and it is spending more to contract out activities as well, so there is a basic fiscal probity question at play here, but there are also some other issues that I think are very important as we look at the government's relationship with McKinsey.
One is that Dominic Barton, the managing partner of McKinsey, was leading the Prime Minister's growth council, having special access through that growth council to ministers and the government at the same time that McKinsey was pitching services for sale to the government. We know from emails that a Mr. Pickersgill, who was working for McKinsey, was supplying analysts for the growth council at the same time as he was sending emails to the government requesting work. We have seen those emails, so, very clearly, there are questions of conflict of interest.
There are other issues of conflict of interest. The fact that the Minister of Defence, yesterday, at the operations committee, was asked if it is acceptable for McKinsey to do work for the Canadian Department of Defence at the same time as it is potentially working for other departments of defence for hostile actors around the world and learning things from our Department of Defence that it may be using in those other interactions.
The Minister of National Defence did not know, or was not willing or able to tell the committee, which other departments of defence around the world McKinsey was working for, but we were told by the deputy minister not to worry because the information and the issues that McKinsey are working on are not that secret. Really, they are just talking about operational structural details, which it is not getting access to national security. They are just operational aspects of the work of government and so forth.
On the other hand, the minister was unwilling to provide basic information about these contracts to the committee unredacted. What we heard from the Minister of National Defence and her department was effectively that the information is not so secret that we need to worry about what McKinsey may be learning and using in its engagements with other hostile powers, but at the same time, the information is so secret that it could not even be shared with members of a parliamentary committee, despite the order to produce that content.
A final issue I will raise tonight is the fact that McKinsey worked for Purdue Pharma and gave them advice specifically on how to supercharge opioid sales. That is not an issue of something happening beyond our borders. The opioid crisis has affected so many Canadians. I think that every family has, in some way, been touched by the opioid crisis.
McKinsey specifically advised Purdue Pharma on how to turbocharge its sales engine. That advice included, for instance, how to circumvent traditional pharmacies by operating mail-in pharmacies to circumvent the controls that were being put in place in traditional pharmacies. That advice included paying bonuses for overdoses that occurred. This was advice that McKinsey provided to Purdue Pharma at the same time that McKinsey was working for the Government of Canada, and at the same time that Dominic Barton was leading McKinsey and leading the Prime Minister's growth council.
Why is the government willing to do business with McKinsey? Why is it comfortable with the risks this poses in fundamental ethics, the opioid crisis issues, as well as the conflict of interest issues?
We have repeatedly raised the broader question of all the money that is being spent on these outside consultants. The government's relation with McKinsey stinks, and it needs to be addressed.
729 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:54:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to spar with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is definitely one of my favourite members to talk to in the House.
Let me start by referencing one of the things that the hon. member said in questioning our minister. He said, “The Prime Minister is a very close personal friend of Dominic Barton, who is the managing partner of McKinsey.” As we know, Dominic Barton has not been the managing partner of McKinsey for the last five years and he is not a very close personal friend to the Prime Minister.
In fact, when we had Dominic Barton before our committee, I had a chance to ask Mr. Barton some questions. I asked if he was one of the Prime Minister's five best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 10 best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 25 best friends. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister was one of his 50 best friends. He said no.
I asked if he had the Prime Minister's phone number. He said no. I asked if he ever had dinner with the Prime Minister. He said no. I asked if the Prime Minister's wife and his wife ever socialized. He said no. I asked if he considered the Prime Minister to be a friend. He said no. I asked if he ever worked out with the Prime Minister. He said no. One of the things I do with my friends is work out. We play tennis, we swim and we run. In any case, I do not think that Dominic Barton is a close personal friend to the Prime Minister.
Another thing that has been referenced again today is that, “Dominic Barton was running a government advisory body while at the same time his company was collecting over $100 million in contracts on the side.” That is also not true. Almost all of the contracts that went to McKinsey, and we are talking about $115 million in contracts, of which about $104 million from our department, Public Services and Procurement Canada, came after Dominic Barton was no longer the managing partner at McKinsey.
Whatever shares he had with McKinsey were divested the moment he left McKinsey. He clarified at committee, and my dear friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was at committee, that he had zero financial interest left in McKinsey and did not have any financial interest at the time that 99% of these agreements were actually entered into with the government.
What we are seeing are two very important issues. There is the question of whether we should be reducing the amount of outsourcing in the federal public service. As we know, federal public servants themselves determine when outsourcing is needed, such as when there is a surge capacity required or when there is work that is outside the core mandate of the federal civil service.
However, that does not mean we should not look and see if we need policies that will further reduce the number of times we outsource, because of course there is an added cost when we outsource. The minister has been tasked, along with the president of the Treasury Board, to look into this specific question.
My hon. friend and I share a very strong commitment to human rights-related foreign policy. One of the things we should be looking at, which we are looking at and I hope the OGGO committee will focus on, is what changes to the integrity regime should disqualify companies from bidding on business from the Government of Canada.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that this has become entangled in a question about McKinsey. There has been a political narrative some people have tried to build that somehow McKinsey is close, personal friends with the government and getting contracts in an untoward manner, which is not the case.
We have unfortunately moved away from the large policy questions we should be focused on, which I think Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members could perhaps all agree on. Let us get to an OGGO report and let us stop having meetings about McKinsey.
720 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:58:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the all-important question of whether the Prime Minister and Dominic Barton ever worked out together, I think this is a bit of an exercise in absurdity.
What we know, factually, is that Dominic Barton has basically told the committee, “This Prime Minister guy, we are not friends. We barely know each other. I did not recognize him in an elevator once.” The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said precisely the opposite over and over again.
In fact, there are various clips I have shared, and others have shared, where the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have spoken very specifically about how accessible Dominic Barton is and about how they have a connection. In fact, to the issue of who has whose phone number, the Deputy Prime Minister said, at the time that Dominic Barton was appointed ambassador, that we need an ambassador who can call the Prime Minister at any time on the phone. This is a connection that Dominic Barton has with the Prime Minister that has been built up over time.
Who is telling the truth, the government or Dominic Barton? It is clear that there is a cushy relationship, that McKinsey has, through “pro bono” work, sought to integrate itself into government and use that integration to push its business forward. That is the problem. Over $100 million of contracts have come out of this close integration of relationships and it needs to be scrutinized.
251 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 6:59:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my hon. friend about whether working out is a way to bond or not. I invite him to come run with me; if you want to join, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have you and the hon. member for Winnipeg North as well.
In the end result, the committee should be focused on the big picture questions of whether we should outsource as much as we do and whether the integrity regime needs to be changed. The question of whether McKinsey got contracts is not the issue. Moreover, if it indeed got contracts in the way my hon. colleague is suggesting, it has done a terrible job because it has way fewer contracts than comparable companies do. Almost all of them are from after Dominic Barton left. The issue is not whether our federal public service has appropriately given contracts to McKinsey. It is a question of the large policy issues.
I share the hon. member's objective. Hopefully, we can co-operate in getting to a better place.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians who want the truth about the extent of the Communist interference in our elections. The truth is out there. It is not even that far: It lies just across Wellington Street in the Prime Minister's Office. That is why Conservatives are asking for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to appear before committee. It is also why the Liberals are filibustering. We want the truth, and the Liberals are desperate to prevent it from coming out.
The facts, as they stand, are damning. The Liberal Party was warned about the Communists funnelling cash to candidates, but the Prime Minister's Office was informed of CSIS's concerns about the member for Don Valley North. The Prime Minister's refusal to answer is an answer in and of itself. The government knew and did nothing. The only matter left in question is why.
The best case scenario is that Liberals thought informing Canadians would make them look bad. Many of them still blame the RCMP for announcing an investigation into their finance minister during the 2006 election. It is a comforting fantasy Liberals tell themselves so that they do not have to admit that the Liberal government had funnelled money to ad agencies for little or no work, other than to pass the cash back to the Liberal Party. Of course, the Liberals do not want to admit that they put their partisan interests ahead of national interests. The worst case scenario is that they put the interests of an authoritarian Communist regime ahead of our national interests. The truth lies somewhere between the two.
Having the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify is both imperative and insufficient. We have seen from the Liberals' filibuster that they really do not want the whole truth revealed. We can only get at the truth with an independent public inquiry led by someone all parties agree to.
In a minute, the parliamentary secretary is going to rise and respond with a series of talking points prepared by the Prime Minister's Office. He will claim the government has launched multiple avenues of investigation to get at the truth. Only the Liberals are questioning the actions of CSIS, and just in case there was a risk that NSIRA could reveal any uncomfortable truths, the government ordered NSIRA to investigate the Canada Revenue Agency for alleged anti-Muslim bigotry. They did this based on documents the RCMP claims are fake.
Next, the parliamentary secretary will point to the Prime Minister's secret committee of parliamentarians. Unfortunately for the government, Global News has already reported on a redacted document produced by the secret committee. It confirms that the government was aware of the Communist funding and did nothing. The secret committee already reviewed the matter, reported to the Prime Minister that there was a Communist network funding Liberals and recommended he take actions. Those recommendations were ignored. Reports, warnings and red flashing lights were ignored.
Canadians want the truth, and we will not be ignored.
514 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:03:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to my friend across the way, speaking notes are not required here. I can assure the member that what I am sharing with her now is strictly what I personally believe. At the end of the day, we need to put things into the proper perspective.
Foreign interference in elections is not new. It has been happening for many years. In fact, it was first really brought to the attention of the government when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada and when the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was the minister responsible for democratic reform. Imagine the current leader and this information being brought to his attention. What did he actually do? The simple and factual answer is he did nothing. Stephen Harper and the government just ignored the issue completely.
Contrast this lack of action with what we have done. Virtually from day one, we have made changes. We can talk about the establishment of the parliamentary committee that joined the other four eyes of the Five Eyes countries to ensure members of Parliament on all sides of the House could hear the most secretive information our security agencies have. That was something we put in place months after taking the reins of power in Canada.
We have heard from numerous security agencies and civil servants about the issue of foreign election interference. Yesterday, I made reference to the ambassador of the United States to Canada. All of them have said that the allegations of foreign interference we hear about did not, and I underline the word “not”, impact the outcome of the last federal election.
This is an issue where partisan politics should be taken to the side, as election interference affects the fundamental principles of our democracy. I do not think any member in the chamber should be accused of not protecting Canada's interests on that file.
Not only have significant actions been taken by this government, many of which were initiated by this government, but we have had overtures of ensuring we will continue. The biggest one that comes to my mind is the special rapporteur. A Conservative Party-appointed Governor General, Mr. Johnston, is now charged with the responsibility of looking into the matter and reporting back on his recommendations, which could include a public inquiry in the future. Why do the Conservatives not have confidence in our civil service and in a former appointment made by Stephen Harper?
414 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:07:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary opened up with a whataboutism. He deflected, saying that foreign interference is not anything new.
David Johnston was one of Canada's best governor generals, and incredibly, the Prime Minister made David look even better in retrospect when compared to his predecessor. If one looks up eminent Canadian in the dictionary, one will see a picture of David Johnston, which is why it is all the more disappointing that he would take this position, given the real perception of conflicts of interest from his time with the Trudeau Foundation and his role leading the controversial Leaders' Debates Commission.
Should David Johnston return anything less than a recommendation for an open and transparent public independent inquiry led by someone agreed to by all parties, it will be completely reasonable for Canadians to ask if the fix was in. That would be an unfortunate eulogy for a distinguished career in public service. Canadians deserve better.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if we think about it, it is a threat to the Hon. David Johnston, someone who has been an incredible Canadian. The threat is that he had better come with a public inquiry recommendation or they are going to sandbag him at every opportunity. How disrespectful to a true Canadian, someone who has served our country in many different ways. It shows the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to be partisan on this issue.
Foreign interference is nothing new. Not only has it happened in Canada before, but it has happened to many of our allied countries. We have a government that has been aggressively pursuing the issue. We now have an appointment of a Canadian with exceptional credentials. I find it unfortunate that the Conservative Party would sandbag such an incredible individual.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:10:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to talk about the struggles that Canadians are facing with affordability.
We know that to be able to afford to feed their families, heat their homes and put gas in the car to get to work, Canadians need to have a job. We start out at a point where, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, four in 10 Canadians are actively afraid they are going to lose their job, and 50% of Canadians are on the brink of insolvency. After eight years of the Prime Minister, the average price of groceries for a family is up around 15% on a week-by-week basis. Canadians are spending thousands more on groceries this year than they did last year.
After eight years of the Prime Minister, there is no relief in sight. When Canadians look down the road and look at what is to come on the calendar, they see tax increases: tax increases on April 1, and more tax increases when the Liberals plan to triple their carbon tax on everything.
In my office, I regularly receive a particular type of correspondence from Canadians. Actually, at church two Sundays ago, Chuck wanted to share with me his natural gas bill. I just cannot believe the tax that he is paying on top of the tax that he is paying. He is wondering if it is legal that the government is charging tax on tax. What everyone is wondering, when they are looking at these bills that they are sending to my office, asking what we can do to help them, is how they are going to be able to get through another year.
We have presented the government with several options it could choose from that would help make life more affordable for Canadians. Scrapping the carbon tax on everything is the first and best way for the government to have a positive impact on the affordability crisis that is facing Canadians. The price of homes has doubled under the government. The Liberals will say that no one has spent more, but no one has spent more to achieve less than the Liberal government has. It is a devastating picture when we look at the impact of the policies of the Liberal government.
The prescription is clear: The government could cap new spending and it could cut taxes, starting with scrapping the carbon tax. That is what we are asking. That is what we are asking the government to do, and it is what Canadians are asking of it. Canadians need a break. It is time to bring those savings, that relief, that affordability home for Canadians. That is what Canada's Conservatives are offering, and that is the bare minimum that we expect from the Liberal government.
With that, I think my time has expired. I look forward to the response from the government.
487 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in tonight's debate about affordability as well as fiscal responsibility in Canada. I share the concern that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in this period of elevated global inflation and the fact that the high cost of food and housing, in particular, is having significant economic repercussions.
We have disagreed significantly on the cause of inflation, and that has led to significantly different policy outcomes. While the Conservatives have made proposals such as cutting seniors' pensions and reducing employment insurance, we have put forward an affordability plan with measures to support Canadians, such as increased retirement security as well as inexpensive access to child care and dental care.
Thankfully, we continue to see a gradual decrease in inflation, and the OECD predicts that we will return to target by 2024. Last June, inflation in Canada was at 8.1% and, as we heard earlier today, it is down to 5.2%. That is still much too high, but it is lower than what we are seeing in peer economies. For example, in Europe, inflation is at 8.5% and in the U.K. it is at 10.1%. In fact, Canada is facing global economic headwinds from a position of fundamental economic strength.
In the member's opening statement, he spoke of worrying about Canadians losing their jobs, while Canadians have actually created more than 800,000 new jobs since the pandemic. This represents a 126% recovery rate from jobs lost due to COVID, compared to just 114% in the United States. In fact, the unemployment rate in Canada remains at historic lows. Also, the International Monetary Fund projects that Canada will have the strongest annual growth in the G7 by the fourth quarter of this year.
Through the COVID-19 pandemic, our government provided over $119 billion of support, which benefited 8.9 million Canadians through the CERB and over 900,000 small business owners through the CEBA. This allowed our most vulnerable families to put food on the table, and it helped to keep small business owners from going bankrupt. It is always difficult to demonstrate counterfactual arguments or, in other words, what would have happened if we had not stepped up to support Canadians during the pandemic. However, it is fair to say that our recovery would have been significantly worse and that thousands of businesses, whose doors are still open, would not have survived.
The Conservatives have criticized us by saying that not all of these funds went to their intended recipients. However, the Conservatives also know that we are continuing to audit and cost-recover those specific cases. Further, it was actually the Conservatives who put forward and passed a motion to stop auditing businesses that claimed the wage subsidy.
As we prepare for budget 2023, I would like to reaffirm our government's continued commitment to prudent fiscal management. We continue to enjoy a AAA credit rating as well as the lowest deficit and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This allows us to continue to support our most vulnerable citizens who are struggling with elevated levels of inflation.
It includes $2.5 billion for 11 million Canadians with low and modest incomes through the special GST credit payment. It is spending that was supported by the Conservatives, including the member opposite. I thank the member opposite for his support because it benefited over 50% of seniors. We are also providing dental care for 230,000 children under the age of 12 and providing affordable child care so that working parents can re-enter the workforce more easily.
We will continue to invest in our economy to provide opportunities for middle-class Canadians, while making life more affordable and getting inflation under control.
634 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:18:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals checked with their friends around the world and they have decided that Canadians have never had it so good. With respect to the inflation rate at 8.5% in Europe or 10.1% in the U.K., as the parliamentary secretary offered, those numbers and those words do nothing to fill the bellies of hungry Canadians, who cannot afford to eat because they are being crushed by the inflationary policies that have come to pass after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister.
Canadians are looking for relief and the Liberals can offer it to them. Their carbon tax is not lowering emissions, but it is lowering Canadians' prosperity. I caution people against diminishing the concern that 40% of Canadians have about losing their job. “Lots of jobs were created”, the Liberals reply. The uncertainty, the concern and the inability to meet their financial commitments have Canadians up at night because they are concerned. They are looking for a government that is responsive to those fears and those concerns, and this carbon tax is not helping Canadians get ahead. It is not helping to provide a cleaner environment. The government needs to scrap its carbon tax.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:19:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that inflation and affordability are important issues for many Canadians, and that is why we are working hard to help Canadian families who need it the most. Our plan is simple. We are making life more affordable for Canadians while continuing to build an economy that works for everyone, and that includes the carbon price.
As the member knows, the climate incentive program and carbon pricing are making life more affordable for eight out ten families in his riding. If we cancelled it, it would make life less affordable. Why he would advocate to make life less affordable for Canadians at this time of elevated global inflation is beyond me, but I am sure we will have more opportunities to debate it.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 p.m. pursuant to an order made on Friday, March 10.
(The House adjourned at 7:20 p.m.)
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
