44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not allowed to, even inaccurately, refer to the presence or absence of members. I do not think she was actually here for the whole debate, but regardless, she is not supposed to claim she was here, if I understand the rules around presence and absence.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I had a lot to say about the previous speech on royal titles, but I will focus on the subject matter of the speech that was just given.
In terms of this issue of carbon taxes being a market mechanism or whether it is a market thing or not, I think the important point is that of course they involve the possibility of incentives and training and they recognize those realities, but fundamentally they are taxes that require Canadians to pay more. They are intentionally driving up the price of gas and the commodities that have gas as an input, making those things more expensive in an effort to incentivize changes in behaviour. The fact that the carbon tax increases prices for Canadians is not a bug; that is actually the intention of the policy.
I wonder if the member would just acknowledge that in his and the NDP's support of this policy, they are seeking to promote the increase in gas prices, that they want higher gas prices and that this is why they support a carbon tax.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is not a feminist policy. It would increase taxes on women as well as on men, and it would subsidize particular choices and not others. It would create a fiscal pressure by subsidizing people who use particular kinds of child care arrangements, and it would offer no support to shift workers, those who choose to stay at home for periods of time with their children, those who are relying on grandparents or those who are making other kinds of choices. I think a genuinely feminist policy would not say there is one way to do child care; it would say that we should be giving more money and more resources back to parents and back to families, and supporting them in making their own choices, especially in this time when we are seeing more demand for flexible work, more work from home, more web-based work and more alternatives.
Why does the Bloc not support choice in child care that would give the broadest range of options to all families and that would let women, without the fiscal pressure to make one kind of choice or another, have the resources to make the kinds of choices they want with their own families?
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at a basic level, I struggle to understand the fairness of taxing all families and subsidizing some child care choices and not others. People make a variety of choices, and they have a variety of approaches to child care. Some of those reflect their circumstances, the kinds of jobs they have, their choices about the division of labour and these sorts of things. How is it fair that a family that does not use or is not able to access state day care should have to subsidize somebody else who made a different choice? Why do we not simply give support equally to all families and allow them to make their own choices and use those resources to facilitate those choices?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:00:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am speaking tonight about the inconsistencies between the government's claims about the Trudeau Foundation and the actual facts of what has happened in terms of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation.
There are a couple of key points that are, I think, not disputed. The Trudeau Foundation was founded with a $125-million grant from the Government of Canada. It is not a normal charity. It has a close relationship with government. It is considered a government institution in various statutes, which brings it under the Federal Accountability Act, access to information and privacy laws, etc. It is defined as a public institution.
The Trudeau Foundation also has a close relationship with the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister continues to be listed as a member of the foundation. Inevitably, the member opposite will get up and say that the Prime Minister has not been involved for years. Well, he is still listed in the annual report. Pre-emptively, let me say that the member should read the annual report and he will see that the Prime Minister is still listed as a member of the Trudeau Foundation.
The Trudeau Foundation's governance involves a certain number of members, and members of the board of directors as well being appointed by the Trudeau family and a certain number being appointed directly by the Minister of Industry, as well as a number of other members. Therefore, the structure has a privileged role in decision-making for the government as well as for the Trudeau family. That is not in dispute. That is in the governing documents of the Trudeau Foundation.
The Prime Minister has said he built a wall between himself and the foundation when we know, and I raised this in my previous question, that the Trudeau Foundation hosted a meeting in the Prime Minister's own office, which was attended by five deputy ministers. This is quite significant. It suggests that there was not a wall built at all. We have clearly this close relationship between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's family, the government and the Trudeau Foundation.
Then there are attempts at foreign interference that are going through the Trudeau Foundation and foreign donations coming into the Trudeau Foundation spiking significantly after the current government took office. The Trudeau Foundation member was saying in one case that they had returned a donation that they had not returned. There were mass resignations of the board, etc. This raises significant questions about foreign interference and about the government's and the Trudeau Foundation's vulnerability to foreign interference, even while the government members continue to say that there is nothing much to see here.
Then we have this situation where all of the people the government has been able to find to investigate foreign interference have been people who have been involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Just today at committee, we had David Johnston appearing. In multiple cases the government members have said that they need someone to investigate foreign interference and the only people they have found to be available have been people at the Trudeau Foundation. I would put to the government that we are not such a small country that the only people available to investigate foreign interference are those connected to the Trudeau Foundation.
It is clearly far too convenient for the government because it has not built a wall between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau Foundation meetings, at least one that we know of, occur in the Prime Minister's office. Despite whatever bluster we hear, it is in the annual report that the Prime Minister continues to be a member of the Trudeau Foundation. The Minister of Industry as well as the Trudeau family have the power to appoint boards of directors and the Trudeau Foundation was clearly a target for foreign interference.
Will the government put aside the bluster about claiming things that are verifiably not true? Will it acknowledge there is a problem here and recognize the importance of having somebody who is not a member of the Trudeau Foundation providing an independent investigation oversight on the issue of foreign interference as well as what happened at the Trudeau Foundation?
710 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:08:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just again commend to this hon. member the reading of the annual report of the Trudeau Foundation, which will testify to all the points I have made with respect to the organization's structure and the continuing membership of the Prime Minister on the foundation.
I would put to the member, as well, that, yes, the Prime Minister's Office is a four-storey building. We are not talking about a small cubicle, but we are also not talking about a massive office complex. It does send a clear message when an organization like the Trudeau Foundation is able to meet right inside the Prime Minister's Office. It is not as if any advocacy organization, any charity or even any Crown corporation can be in a meeting at will in that office.
This is the Prime Minister's family foundation. He remains a member of it. It was subject to efforts of foreign interference. The board of directors all resigned, yet the government continually goes to this foundation for people to investigate the foreign interference. That is the problem.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
