SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/28/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/28/23 12:00:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government has a habit of prioritizing the interests of its well-connected friends by giving money to consultants that could be better spent on helping and supporting Canadians. For a number of months, Conservatives have been highlighting the government's approach to McKinsey, in particular. McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton, someone who at least the Prime Minister and the finance minister said were friends of the Prime Minister. Dominic Barton said, no, they are not friends, that he barely knows these people. However, the finance minister spoke about how closely connected he was with the Prime Minister and that he was someone who was very accessible and could be reached on the phone at any time, and so forth. We have some contradiction there about who were or were not friends. In any event, Dominic Barton, this person who worked closely and was closely associated with the Prime Minister and finance minister, was leading McKinsey and since the government has taken office, McKinsey has gotten over $100 million in contracts from the government, over $100 million, which is a massive increase. We have seen, by the way, substantial increases in spending on the public service, but, at the same time, massive increases in spending on outsourcing. There is the expenditure issue there, the fiscal propriety question of all the money that was spent on McKinsey, big questions about what it actually did after giving money to this external management consultant that was run by Dominic Barton. There is also this question of who McKinsey is. What are the ethics of this company? What are the values this company upholds and represents? It claims to be a values-driven company, so-called. This is a company that fuelled the opioid crisis in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. It fuelled it by advising Purdue Pharma on how to turbocharge opioid sales. It advised it to do things like pay bonuses to pharmacists in cases where there were overdoses. It advised it to develop a system of circumventing traditional pharmacies through mail-in pharmacies. This is the kind of company that McKinsey is. McKinsey did a report for the Saudi government on what Twitter accounts were most vocal in criticism of the Saudi government. That report was subsequently used for the harassment and repression of dissidents. This is a company, frankly, that has been implicated in corruption and scandal all over the world, at least in dealing closely with governments or individuals that were highly compromised. It was hired here in Canada to provide advice on immigration. It was hired in the U.S. as well to provide advice on immigration. Apparently, in both cases, it provided what the governments wanted, even though that advice was contradictory. In Canada, it said to massively increase immigration as it is a great economic opportunity. In the United States, it advised the Trump administration to cut spending on food for immigrant detainees. This is the kind of company that McKinsey is, run by Dominic Barton, who the Prime Minister and the finance minister suggested was a friend, but he said he was not a friend, in his view. His company benefited significantly. What I find particularly striking now is the revelation that the government is actually planning on joining B.C.'s class action lawsuit against McKinsey. The government has indicated that it plans on joining B.C.'s class action lawsuit against McKinsey precisely because of its role in the opioid crisis. The government has, across departments, hired McKinsey to do over 100 million dollars' worth of work for it, but there is a tacit acknowledgement of the ethics problems because now, at this stage, after doing nothing for a long time, following pressure from the Conservative leader, it finally said it would join this lawsuit again McKinsey. Which is it? Will the government recognize that it should stop dealing with McKinsey and that it should stop spending all this money on outside consultants?

664 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 12:04:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting to do a late show with the member opposite given the twist he puts on things. He is like a hound out here sniffing for scandals of any sort. Whether he finds something genuine or not, he is quick to jump to his feet, try to make connections here in there and try to make something look as bad as possible. When the member was talking about McKinsey, he was saying how bad it is and that the Government of Canada should not be supporting McKinsey after having contracted with it. However, in the same four minutes, he said that not only is Canada doing this, but the United States has contracts with it. He changes the issue: In one situation McKinsey is emphasizing a certain direction, and in Canada it is emphasizing another direction. The point is that McKinsey has contracts with many countries in the world. When we think of the reason for the contracts, I am not too sure if the member is not in favour of the government contracting out to consultants in order to provide the independent input that is often needed to establish good government policy. Throughout the pandemic, a great deal of money was spent, and we had already increased the size of the public service. There were great demands on the public service at the time. There is a need for governments there. That should not surprise anybody, because at the end of the day, governments of all different levels and of all political stripes do participate in the contracting out of contracts. That is done for a multitude of different reasons. We can look at the other issue the member tries to say is bad, and that is the so-called relationship. He constantly wants to bring up Mr. Barton and give the false impression that the Prime Minister and Mr. Barton are the best of buddies and good friends. We know that is not the case. We do know that. Whether it is Mr. Barton or others who are affiliated with McKinsey, we are very much aware of it, so trying to make some of these connections just does not fly. At the end of the day, I think the member needs to move on to some other subject matter and maybe give this one a bit of a rest. Yes, we have concerns with McKinsey and the Province of B.C. The member has made reference to that. Ottawa is always doing its due diligence in making sure that the best interests of Canadians are, in fact, being served, and we will continue to do so. However, let us not fool anyone here. At the end of the day, as Stephen Harper did and as other governments have done in the past, going to and using outside consultants is done on a regular basis, as I indicated, whether it is by different levels of government or different political parties. I think the member needs to take the fishing rod out of this particular hole and look for another hole to dip it into.

522 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/28/23 12:08:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think my friend across the way really understood the question. Aside from dipping fishing rods in different holes, the question was about McKinsey getting over $100 million in contracts from the government. The member says that I try to make things look as bad as possible. Respectfully, it is not very difficult in this case. This is a company that literally advised on how to turbocharge opioid sales. It paid over half a billion dollars in compensation for its involvement in the opioid crisis. The question is quite simple: Why did the government give over $100 million in contracts to this Liberal-connected firm with such an obviously shady track record? Why?

117 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 12:09:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the member is wrong to try to give the false impression that it is a Liberal-friendly firm. The company the member is referencing has had dealings with Conservative-minded governments. This is about the idea that governments of all political stripes, at different levels, recognize the value of using consultants. It has been very effective in many different ways. With regard to the specifics of the negatives the member has highlighted, I can assure the member that the government takes them very serious and will ensure that due diligence is done when contracting out. There is a process in place.

106 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Apr/28/23 12:10:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am here late into the night because when I asked the government why it has not followed through with its promise to convert the Canada caregiver tax credit to a refundable benefit, it responded with answers that were not even related to the tax credit. Its members talked about health care transfers and paid workers. This worried me, because it appeared the government did not know about its promise to support unpaid caregivers, so let me remind it. The mandate letter the Prime Minister gave the finance minister back in 2021 tasked her with converting the Canada caregiver credit to a refundable tax-free benefit that would put money back in the pockets of unpaid caregivers. The current health care crisis puts growing pressure on families to care for their loved ones, and those caregivers are incurring extra costs, yet those costs cannot be recouped with the current non-refundable benefit if one is not earning enough income or does not owe taxes. This is gender discrimination. The important job of caring for aging parents, grandparents and children is most often done by women, and that work is unpaid. The government can support caregivers by immediately making the Canada caregiver credit a refundable tax benefit to put money back into people's pockets. In addition to that, the House of Commons finance committee included this measure in its list of recommendations to the government ahead of the current budget, yet still no action has been taken. I ask again: Why is the government delaying this benefit for those who care for our loved ones?

267 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 12:12:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to recognize the very important role that caregivers have been providing, especially during the pandemic. There is a great reliance, and we recognize that, at the end of the day, whether it is seniors, individuals on sick leave or children, in many situations the caregivers provide an absolute necessary service for the betterment of the lives of those individuals they are providing care for. There are different ways in which the government can actually provide support. I appreciate what the member is asking. She referenced a mandate letter. I am not too sure about the election promise, but maybe she could expand on that particular aspect in her follow-up question. However, what I do know is that the government has been spending a great deal of money over the last number of years in the whole area of supports for seniors, supports for health care and looking at ways in which we can enhance wages. In fact, this is a little off topic, but today, in the province of Manitoba, through national initiatives of supporting child care, there is going to be an increase for child care workers, who are predominantly women. I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6%, which is going to be taking effect, I believe, on July 1. Recognizing that there are many areas in which government can invest in or should be looking at investing in, I would suggest the member look at how we can support caregivers. The Department of Health, with the money transfers that we have made, has also made it very clear in terms of provincial and territorial governments needing to come to the table and be more supportive of our providers. The interest is there. We are almost halfway through a mandate where we can likely revisit this issue. The member made reference to the mandate letters, and I suspect it is one of those issues in which we hope to be able to make some progress in. As I said, how can one not recognize the valuable contributions that caregivers provide to individuals, and through that, to our communities as a whole? In looking at ways in which we can provide that support in a timely fashion, there are all sorts of considerations that have to be taken into account. I wish I could provide more specific details to the member at this point, but that is the best I can come up with right now.

417 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Apr/28/23 12:16:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the response tonight and even the fact that there was not a representative from the minister's office dealing with it just magnifies the gender discrimination that comes along with anything that has to do with care, the very gendered reality of care in this country that really underpins the entire economy. I would just say back to the member that we know that people died in long-term care homes because their family members and that unpaid work could not bring them water. This is a serious issue that deserves serious attention. Unpaid caregivers are saving this country $25 billion a year.

108 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 12:17:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal government is very much aware of the critical role that unpaid caregivers have provided. I would not want the member to give a false impression that the government is not looking into all different options. At the end of the day, we talked about looking at long-term standard policies and how the federal government is going to be able to improve upon some of the things that we had seen during the pandemic. For those who were providing care, in particular to loved ones, or those who had been volunteering, it is important that we recognize them. I think that we have. I am sure the member would like to see more immediate action taken. Unfortunately, at times, we have to work within what we have been provided. I am hoping that we will be able to move forward on this issue. I assure the member that we are genuinely concerned about ensuring that our loved ones are getting the care they need. We recognize there are many care providers who need to be looked at, in terms of how it is we can support them.

191 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Apr/28/23 12:18:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I begin my comments by recognizing Canadians struggling with high food, fuel and tax bills from a broken federal government. During question period in the House, I made a direct request to the Prime Minister and his socialist coalition: give Canadians a tax break. Cancel the carbon taxes. The carbon tax is not an environmental policy, regardless of what the NDP-Liberal coalition falsely claims. The carbon tax is a tax policy. As a tax policy, the carbon tax is making life unaffordable for Canadians. While the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is not prepared to be honest with Canadians about the fact that the carbon tax is making life unaffordable for average Canadians, moments later during the same question period came this astonishing admission of failure from the Minister of Agriculture. She said and I quote, from the March 30 Hansard, “Canada's...official food policy...is designed to...support the creation of more food banks.” She even bragged that this was Canada's first official food policy. Food banks are policy failures. It is an admission of failure. The need for food banks, thanks to rising Liberal carbon taxes, is not something to be proud of. No Canadian in a country as rich and blessed in natural resources as we are should have to rely on food banks to meet their daily nutritional requirements. Food insecurity in Canada is a direct result of carbon tax policy, a bad tax policy that is intended to change the behaviour of residents who have no alternative when it comes to how they heat their homes or how they get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates, but to justify the carbon tax, the Prime Minister falsely claims that carbon tax opponents do not care about the environment. This is a bit rich coming from someone who bills working Canadians $6,000 a night to stay in fancy European hotels. Just how out of touch is this Prime Minister with the struggles of ordinary Canadians? Canadian taxpayers paid $160,000 just for security and staff for his most recent Caribbean vacation with billionaire and family friend Peter Green. Green has also made a large donation to the now discredited Pierre Elliott Trudeau family foundation that is mixed up in the Communist China election interference scandal, but $160,000 is cheap compared to the $247,000 taxpayers were forced to shell out for an earlier Caribbean vacation at the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas. This Prime Minister is out of touch with just how destructive his policies are to average Canadians. When the Liberal Party in general and the Prime Minister in particular talk about the environment, or man-made global warming, the Prime Minister uses a propaganda technique called paltering. Paltering is the use of truthful facts to deceive. It might not feel like lying but it is. An example of paltering is, well, we know that climate is changing. That is fact. That is then followed up with some form of deception like climate alarmism. Climate alarmism, which is used by some climate extremists to justify carbon tax policy, omits the fact that climate science is still developing. Climate models are being made to say what they do not say: truth and deception. Using climate alarmism to deceive is the default excuse for every government failure, including the need for food banks as a substitute for real food security for Canadians. This is all being done to justify higher and higher carbon taxes. Paltering is being used by the government to try to sell rightfully skeptical Canadians not only on the policy for carbon taxes but a need for carbon taxes to keep increasing at a higher and higher rate.

662 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/23 12:23:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member can be as critical as she likes, and she has been very critical in regard to the price on pollution. Many countries around the world have incorporated that as a policy in order to protect the environment. Here in Canada, what they will find is that 80% of the people who are paying into the price on pollution, as we all do, are receiving more money than they actually pay. That is something that was highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that they would get rid of the price on pollution, what they do not tell us is that they would also get rid of the rebate portion of the price on pollution. In Winnipeg North, the riding I represent, 80% of my constituents get a net gain from the price on pollution. They would literally be taking money out of their pockets. Now the Conservatives will say that if we look at this factor, this factor, this factor and that factor, there is a net cost. I would argue that if they take a look at the cost of no action and the impact that the environment is going to have on Canadians, there is going to be this factor, that factor and this factor and that is going to increase the costs. The bottom line is that x number of dollars are going into the collection of the price on pollution and x number of dollars are going out. Eighty per cent of my constituents are receiving more dollars coming in than they are paying out. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. In regard to the ongoing character assassination of political figures inside the chamber, it is interesting when the member makes reference to the Prime Minister when he goes overseas. I was around when former prime minister Harper was in India. He paid a million dollars to fly a car over to India so that he would have a car to drive around in. They have cars in India, but he wanted his car from Canada. Imagine paying a million dollars for that. If the member wants to talk about the Conservative Party's current leader, he spends thousands and thousands of dollars on his monthly water bills in the government-paid house when he is not that far from his own house. This is not to mention the thousands of dollars for cooking and the $100,000-plus in order to keep the premises clean. If she wants to throw rocks, I would suggest that the member not throw them in a glass house, because what she will often find is that even in the past leadership and the current leadership of the Conservative Party, there have been a number of things that the public would be somewhat concerned about. I can assure the member that as the Conservatives want to focus attention on being critical and on character assassination, what they will find is that the Government of Canada and in particular the Prime Minister will continue to focus their attention on Canadians and the needs of Canadians and those issues that are important. That is why members will see within this budget things like the grocery rebate. They will see things like the dental support program. They will see things that have not even been talked about that much, including things such as doubling of the credit for tradespeople who need to buy the type of equipment that they need and the tools that they need, from $500 to $1,000. There are so many good things out there and Canadians should be aware that as much as the Conservatives will continue to be critical from a personal point of view, we will continue to deliver for Canadians.

635 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Apr/28/23 12:26:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, paltering is used to deflect from food bank usage by promoting a grocery rebate that would not even begin to cover inflationary policy that is raising the cost of food and rebates on the carbon tax that do not cover the cost of the carbon tax. Not content to tax Canadians $40 a tonne, the carbon tax went up to $65 a tonne with the latest April Fool's Day increase. The real cost of rising carbon taxes is the need for more food banks, according to the Liberal minister of food insecurity. Conservatives believe we should protect our environment with technology, not taxes. We do not believe in punishing working people for heating their homes and driving to work. Food banks should not be a government food policy. It is time this out-of-touch Prime Minister and his costly coalition admit that carbon taxes are hurting Canadians.

151 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 12:27:47 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-46

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the grocery rebate. It is interesting. I do not know exactly where the Conservative Party is on it. We had Bill C-46, which passed the House, from what I understand, unanimously, implying that the Conservative Party actually supports the grocery rebate, but we hear some members who will be critical of the grocery rebate.

62 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Apr/28/23 12:28:49 a.m.
Watch

They should not have taken the money in the first place.

11 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/23 12:28:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member says that we should not have taken the money in the first place. I would argue that at the end of the day, when we look at the taxation policies from the very beginning where there was the 1% wealthiest in Canada having to pay a little extra in support of Canada's middle class, supporting seniors and supporting children, taking people out of poverty and providing things like the grocery rebate and the dental program have been of great value to Canadians and the people whom both she and I represent.

96 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/28/23 12:28:49 a.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)

43 words