44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/21/23 4:45:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These will be tabled in an electronic format.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 4:53:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to apologize to you if I did indeed do that.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:06:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today, which is signed by roughly 300 Canadians who are calling for a harmonized approach to free parking for the disabled community in Canada. Specifically, they ask the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to make parking free for all accessible parking pass holders nationally.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:17:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like the House to join me in thanking the incredible pages we have. This is potentially the last day of this cohort, and we will see new pages come in the fall. Through you, Madam Speaker, to all the pages who make this place work behind the scenes and here, we thank them for the incredible work they have done over the last year.
The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1487, 1488, 1490 to 1494, 1501 to 1505, 1508, 1511 to 1515 and 1521.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:19:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 505, originally tabled on June 13, 2022, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1484, 1486, 1489, 1498, 1500, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1516 to 1520 and 1522 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:19:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:19:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:33:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at least we always know when a Conservative is wrapping up their speech. It is a good cue.
I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He has been very critical of the government, the government's responses to COVID and the various measures that have been put in place. However, I want to read what one of his predecessors, a previous leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, said. Brian Mulroney said that the Prime Minister and the premiers “conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world” in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called “the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with in Canada in 156 years.” The Conservatives are laughing at Mulroney. With respect to NAFTA, Mulroney said he saw first-hand how the Prime Minister made “big decisions at crucial moments” and won “a significant victory for Canada”.
How can the current leader of the Conservative Party differ so much from the leader of his party a few decades ago?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not recall hearing the Leader of the Opposition indicate he was sharing his time.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the last three decades, there have been 20 Conservative budgets introduced in the House. I am wondering if the member knows how many of those 20 Conservative budgets actually were balanced or ran a surplus.
I ask because when he discovers that the answer is only three, he must know that there is a reason for that.
Why is it that between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, of the 20 budgets that were introduced in the House, only three ran a surplus or were balanced? Why is that?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion that has been put before the House.
I will start by saying that I am concerned about the rhetoric in the preamble. However, the motion and the result clause is fairly short. It talks about a balanced budget and committing to a balanced budget immediately.
I found this very interesting because I asked the member for Bay of Quinte how many times Conservatives introduced balanced budgets in the House, and I even gave him the answer. It was three times in the last 30 years that Conservatives have introduced balanced budgets in the House, under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. There was a grand total of 20 budgets introduced, and three were balanced.
Do members know when they came? The first came in 2006-07. This was on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus, which was a $13-billion surplus. Stephen Harper axed that the next year, and in 2007-08, the surplus was only $9.6 billion. After that, he started to run deficits immediately. He blew away that surplus that Paul Martin had left for him and started running deficits immediately. Then, of course, there is the famous balancing of the budget in 2014-15, when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and sold off GM shares at bargain prices just so that he get himself in a position on paper that he was bringing in a surplus because he felt he needed to do that to solidify his base that was demanding it.
However, rather than dwell on the fact that Conservatives have done this historically, at least in recent history, I think we have to ask ourselves something: Why do governments run deficits?
There are two reasons. A government can run a deficit, one, because it is expecting the taxpayer to pay more to make up that deficit and plans to charge or tax them more or, two, because it is investing. The whole idea behind investing is assuming that a government will get something in return for that investment. When governments are running deficits to invest in Canadians, they are doing it with the expectation that something is going to come out on other end to grow our economy. When we grow our economy, people are better off and there is more wealth in our economy.
What about population growth? We are growing at historic rates. We are just past 40 million people in Canada. When we continue to grow in such a fashion, we need to make new investments, and we are seeing it on the other side through the growth, which is why Canada is continually rated to have one of the best credit ratings in the developed world. That is why we have such a low debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what people really need to focus on. However, I know that it is not intuitive for people to want to focus on that, especially when Canadians are managing a household budget, and they cannot look at it the same way, but the reality is that we have to look at our debt in relation to our GDP.
As our GDP continues to grow, if we are spending less than that growth, we have a net benefit at the end of the day, which is essentially what we see when we bring forward these budgets that are investing in Canadians. Quite frankly, that is something that Brian Mulroney understood. It is something that Stephen Harper understood, and it is something that former Liberals, such as Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, understood.
They understood that, if we invest in Canadians and actually use the money to invest in Canadians when running those deficits, we will get to a place eventually where Paul Martin got to, which was a $13-billion surplus, and a surplus the year after that as well. We will get to those places naturally. The point is that we can get to that place by investing in Canadians because we see the economic growth, see the opportunities, see people being better off and see the debt-to-GDP ratio. We see the debt specifically as it relates per capita to the lowest among the G7, as we are hearing.
There is one thing we should be concerned about, and I rightfully share it with so many other people. It is the debt level each household is experiencing right now in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves why. Why is that? Is there something unique about Canada and our spending habits that puts us in that position? It has a lot to do, I would suggest, with the age of our population.
In the G7, Canada has one of the youngest populations. These are people who are buying new homes and investing for the first time. These are people who do not have the retirement savings that other G7 countries have. Am I excusing anything? I am not. I am saying that we have to be mindful of this and we have to be vigilant in the approach and ensure Canadians do not put themselves into situations they do not want to be in.
I stress that there is a reason for the circumstances we are in, but regardless of all of this, Canada still puts itself in a position of being among the best in the G7, as it relates to the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio, and I think it is very important that, as we reflect on this, we consider that.
I have brought these up on a number of occasions recently, and I want to talk about them again. They are the recent comments made by former prime minister Brian Mulroney on the job this government has been doing. I mean no disrespect to any living Liberal prime ministers, but I have not even heard a former Liberal prime minister speak this highly of the current government.
Brian Mulroney said, “I have learned over the years that history is unconcerned with the trivia and the trash of rumours and gossip floating around Parliament Hill. History is only concerned with the big ticket items that have shaped the future of Canada”. The article continues, “He said [the current Prime Minister] and the premiers 'conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world' in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called 'the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with...in 156 years.'”
We have heard Conservatives tell us many times in the past how we failed the country on NAFTA, but here is what the architect of NAFTA, the Prime Minister who was the lead at the time and negotiated the original NAFTA deal, had to say about the job this government did. The article describes, “On NAFTA, Mulroney said that he saw first-hand how the current Prime Minister made 'big decisions at crucial moments' and won 'a significant victory for Canada'. He said, 'It's due to the leadership that we saw from the government of Canada'”. That is Brian Mulroney, a former Conservative prime minister, absolutely praising the work this government did in relation to keeping our economy in a good position when we had to renegotiate NAFTA.
I remember the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle at the time standing up in question period demanding the government capitulate to Donald Trump's demands, but we did not. The government stood firm. Our finance minister negotiated this, and we got a better deal at the end of the day. Brian Mulroney will even tell us that. Also, we can look at the various other things that have occurred.
I know that my time is running to an end. I think that once again we have an opposition motion in front of us that is troubling. I am getting tired of challenging the Conservatives day in and day out, but here we are. It is the last one. Hopefully when we return in the fall, we will have motions with perhaps a little more substantive measures to them than what we are seeing now.
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:19:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that homelessness did, and always has, existed in her riding. It is nothing new. Maybe she is just realizing it now, but I can assure her that homelessness in her riding is most likely something that is not unique.
What I would say is that we have an obligation to support Canadians in the best way that we can. We have seen the various different measures that have come forward, whether it is the grocery rebate, the housing top-up or child care. We have brought countless measures into this place to help Canadians.
I hope the member realizes that the Conservative motion put forward today calls on us to balance the budget, which means that a number of those measures would have to be eliminated. The Conservatives have yet to tell us which measures it would be. I certainly would like to know because I am sure that would impact those who are homeless in her community.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:21:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that had to do with the motion we are debating today. That sounded more like just a Bloc Québécois list of grievances that he wanted to express to the House.
We are committed to helping Canadians where they need those supports. That is why we have rolled out countless measures in the last number of months and years, and why we will continue to do that.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:22:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, came into the House and said that he had sent out fundraising emails about how he would filibuster forever or until he got what he wanted. Then he came in here and talked for about three and a half hours. That was it.
I have seen him filibuster for closer to 20 hours, since I have been in this House. To me, it just says that the member for Carleton is really losing steam. He does not have that spunk he used to have. This is really going to translate into how he is able to sympathize—
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 11:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/23 12:15:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to the member's original question that he is raising about the meeting that occurred some seven years ago that was organized by the Privy Council office in a building occupied by the Privy Council office.
The member knows this, yet persists in repeating his false narrative about some purported conspiracy theory that involves the Prime Minister. There were no political officials at the meeting in question, and the member knows this well.
Why do I say that the member knows this? It is because the issue was the subject of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on June 12. Perhaps that is why he is now taking a more light-hearted approach to the question. At the meeting, where several retired deputy ministers and some current deputy ministers appeared, individuals had no concrete recollection of the subject matter of the meeting.
In fact, let me reference what a current deputy minister said at the meeting. Mr. Graham Flack said that he now serves in a completely different role than in the year of the meeting in question, and indicated that he recalled something discussed about pluralism.
I know it must be difficult for the member to realize that this wild goose chase yielded no geese. The fact is simple, there were no geese to chase in the first place. The matter the member is raising amounts to nothing more than a flawed assumption about a meeting that occurred seven years ago, which nobody who attended seemed to recall anything of substance about.
Sometimes when one scrapes the bottom of the barrel, they have to realize that there is nothing to be found. I do credit the member for his obstinance to keep scraping away. There have been numerous meetings on this issue. Numerous witnesses have appeared, and the member has nothing of substance to show for it. The only conclusion to draw is that there is nothing untoward to be found.
There was a meeting seven years ago. There was an access to information request that stated something about the foundation in question. Only a genius could contrive a controversy where there is none, but perhaps not a genius. I will leave that to members to make their own determination on. To the extent of the logic that the member is making, any meeting that happens in the Justice Building, for example, on the parliamentary precinct, must have been attended by the Minister of Justice.
The member keeps scraping and scraping, and is left in the dark of the night with nothing to grasp at. I salute the member for his persistence on the matter.
446 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/23 12:18:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, a meeting happened in the PMO, but for some reason the opposition, and this member particularly, assume that just because a meeting happened in a building that is the Prime Minister's Office, he was there. It is a wild assumption to jump to the conclusion that the Prime Minister must have been there himself. It goes without saying, and I think all members know this, that we are really beating a dead horse, so I will leave that one.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/23 12:22:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, following the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, which examined the tragic events that occurred in Nova Scotia in 2020, the hon. member opposite has asked whether the government would commit to keeping open the RCMP training facility in Regina, also known as Depot.
The hon. member for Regina—Wascana has asked the question based on recommendation 56 of the report, which called for changes to the RCMP training standards, including reimagining the RCMP’s Depot training model. This would include the creation of a new training regime centred around a three-year degree-based model of police education that is more responsive to the needs of under-represented groups, research-based and accessible in different regions of Canada.
Any new training approaches or initiatives could take months or years to implement and would require multi-level government involvement agreements, consultation and direction prior to implementation. A collaborative approach between the federal, provincial, territorial partners and indigenous stakeholders will be vital to complete this work.
With these points in mind, please allow me to speak further about the recent and ongoing advances in the Depot's training approaches.
It is important to acknowledge that the RCMP training academy has been on Treaty 4 land since 1885. The training academy is funded to train 40 troops per year and graduates approximately 1,000 police officers per year in preparation for servicing communities from coast to coast to coast.
Many of the recommendations from the Mass Casualty Commission report that the specific training is consistent with the work that is already under way to modernize and enhance RCMP professionalization to meet expectations for accountability, transparency and excellence in policing.
Over the past three years, ongoing reviews have resulted in improvements to the Depot training curriculum in areas linked to anti-racism, intercultural competence, unconscious bias awareness, leadership conflict management and de-escalation skills.
In 2019, the RCMP management advisory board was engaged to provide advice and guidance on a variety of matters related to the RCMP. This was a critical step in continuing to support its modernization efforts. In 2020, the RCMP welcomed the management advisory board's recommendations related to cadet training at the Depot. As a result, steps are currently being taken to diversify Depot's instructor cadre and to modernize the content of the training program to ensure it is relevant and effective.
The Depot training program is also informed by long-standing partnerships with several prominent learning and research institutions across Canada and abroad. It leverages these relationships in an ongoing search for the best modern police training approaches, with a view to improving police responses to people in mental health crises, adding new reconciliation-based training and enhancing cultural competencies for police officers. The government is seriously and carefully reviewing the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission and its wide-ranging recommendations, including recommendation 56 to modernize the RCMP training and research.
The government is committed to improving the safety and well-being of Canadians by working with all partners to make necessary changes to the RCMP training approaches and standards. As we do this, the RCMP will continue its work to keep Canadians and communities safe.
536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/23 12:27:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that the government fully recognizes the importance of Depot to the RCMP as Canada's national police service, the province of Saskatchewan and the local community.
The evolution of the RCMP Depot training program in Regina reflects the impressive history of the RCMP's policing in Canada. From its early days as a training camp to its current status as a world-class training centre, the government has always been committed to providing RCMP members with the skills and knowledge they need to serve and protect Canadian communities with professionalism and integrity.
The RCMP will continue to modernize its police training services, as it has done for the past 150 years. This government is committed and will continue to ensure our national police force remains relevant and is consistently evolving in order to meet the current and future demands in the Canadian public.
Let me assure members that thanks to the continuous evolution of this strengthened RCMP police training regime, officers will be suitably trained throughout this process.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
