44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/26/23 10:34:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear members opposite saying, “Oh, here we go.” That is because they realize some facts are about to be dropped on their imaginary next three hours.
The member opposite spoke about a boondoggle, yet the Conservative infrastructure plan consisted of fake lakes and fake photo ops. He referred to the Canada Infrastructure Bank as not getting anything done. I would like to ask him specifically about a project in his home province of Alberta, which is going to create 143,000 new irrigated acres—
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 10:35:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a project in Alberta that will create over 143,000 new acres of irrigated infrastructure to reduce floods. Does the member opposite believe that residents and farmers in Alberta should have their fields flooded, that they do not deserve infrastructure because the Conservatives would prefer to cancel it?
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:11:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this topic. I have to wonder, however, if the Conservatives made a very critical error in their strategy. It is interesting to me that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan actually used the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank to filibuster the legislation that was scheduled to be discussed today, which actually would allow and authorize the minister of industry, where he considers that investment could be injurious to national security, to review such things.
It is interesting that the Conservatives, who talk tough when it comes to national security, would have an opportunity to actually debate having legislation to keep Canadian national security interests at the forefront of what we do, which would modernize the legislation. What are the Conservatives doing instead? They are filibustering and blocking legislation. I think their strategy today is going to be very telling for Canadians: They do not actually care about national security interests in this country, because if they did—
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it seems I have hit a very specific nerve with the Conservative Party. It seems I am alluding to exactly what they are afraid of, which is that they are not serious when it comes to matters of national security. They are reckless when it comes to producing meaningful legislation that would actually keep Canadians safe.
They have just allowed Canadians to see very clearly their lack of seriousness when it comes to matters of national security. What I find even more interesting is the fact that they have chosen this topic; I had been looking forward to the day when we could discuss our plan for infrastructure rather than the Conservatives' reckless history.
The Conservatives have chosen to abandon principles that would ensure our national security legislation continues to be modernized. However, the fact that they then chose the topic of infrastructure tells me that whoever was in charge of this scheme here today did not actually do their homework. They are about to be quite embarrassed for however long this debate continues.
Let us start talking about infrastructure and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is what the Conservatives felt was going to be a winning issue for them. Let us talk about Conservative math for a second.
The Conservatives have talked here today. I have listened to them refer to things such as slush funds. Meanwhile, the Conservative infrastructure plan previously included gazebos, fake lakes and photo ops with fighter jets. Despite that, let us actually talk about the Conservative record on building infrastructure. The Conservatives had what they called P3 Canada, which was their infrastructure program. In 10 years, they had 25 projects which only totalled a $1.3-billion investment.
Let us compare that—
291 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will not be surprised that the Conservatives are going to try to interrupt my speech continually, because the facts matter and they do not want to be confused by them. They do not want Canadians to actually realize that their record on infrastructure is abysmal, so I am sure they are going to keep interrupting. That actually further proves my point that this strategic goal to block legislation dealing with national security is reckless.
They are reckless when it comes to national security, and then they choose a topic where their record is also reckless and abysmal. Of course they are going to keep interrupting, because their feelings are going to be hurt and they are probably embarrassed. They are probably going back to their House leader's team and asking why they did this today. They will ask why they chose this topic; it was so terrible, because the Liberal members were able to point out their record.
I am going to persist and continue to highlight to Canadians the recklessness of Conservative math.
Let us get back to that. The Conservatives had 10 years. How many projects did P3 Canada work on? It worked on 25 projects, with $1.3 billion. Let us compare that to just under five years with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, with 48 projects.
By the way, let me go back to that $1.3 billion that the Conservatives invested in 10 years. It was all taxpayer-funded money, all from Canadians. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, in under five years, had 48 projects and $10 billion of investment from the government. Do we know what that turned into? It turned into a $28-billion investment.
We heard at committee that investments such as this are transformational. In fact, I want to quote something we heard from a witness we had at committee. She spoke about this on her own podcast, called The Raitt Stuff, on “The Infrastructure Deficit - the role of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”.
This was on January 30. Who said this? It was the Hon. Lisa Raitt, a former Conservative minister. She was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and she said:
...unfortunately, [the bank] has been the topic of a lot of political discussion in the past number of years. It was not supported by the Conservative Party at various times in the last Parliament and in this Parliament as well. However, you’re doing a lot of work, you’re getting projects done and you are, I think, filling a need that has been shown to be necessary in order to get projects going here in Canada. So tell me what is going on in 2023 for the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the projects that you’re going to be looking at?
Conservative former ministers do not even support the Conservative position on this. As most Canadians know, Conservative math just does not add up. They are reckless. They spent more taxpayer money to get fewer projects done in double the amount of time. That is Conservative math for us.
I am going to talk about some of these projects that I have heard members here today refer to as “slush funds”. I find that pretty interesting. They said that only Liberal insiders are getting rich from the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
I want to speak about a project in Alberta: the Arrow Technology Group, an $8.1-million investment. This is building broadband in underserviced communities, including 20 indigenous and four rural communities.
Are the Conservatives suggesting that these underserviced indigenous communities are rich Liberal insiders benefiting from this bank, or is it that they just cannot wrap their heads around how to actually build infrastructure that matters? It matters for Canadians, indigenous communities and rural communities. It ensures that they are connected so that they have the ability to stay connected with loved ones and to create economic prosperity in these communities.
The fact that the Conservatives would insult indigenous and rural communities in Alberta by calling this, somehow, a slush fund is deplorable.
Let us also talk about Saskatoon and the $27.3 million to the English River First Nation for waste water treatment. This will be the first indigenous-owned waste water treatment plant. Is that more Liberal insiders getting rich, or is it real investment for indigenous communities so they have economic development in their communities and can ensure clean water?
The development of waste water treatment plants allows for economic development and growth in Saskatoon. Are the Conservatives suggesting that the jobs created from this infrastructure investment should be lost and that those families should be sent pink slips because Conservatives want to cancel this project? There are shovels in the ground. There are jobs in communities happening right now. Conservatives would see those employees fired and those shovels put away. It is completely reckless to destroy local economies and prevent local families from being able to provide for themselves because of Conservative ideology. The Conservatives do not believe that they should help build up Canada; they only want to tear it down.
Let us talk about the—
864 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:23:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the fact that Conservatives want to fire people in these communities is tearing down communities, tearing them apart and not building up economies for indigenous populations and for rural Canada.
I also want to talk about the Tshiuetin Railway project. This would be the first indigenous-owned railway in Canada. It is a “lifeline for northern communities”. This line will connect northeastern Quebec with western Labrador. This railway will deliver food, fuel, building supplies, vehicles and medication, and it is under construction. However, do members know what the Conservatives would do? They would rip that infrastructure out and cut off those communities. They would cut off the ability for food to be transported between northeastern Quebec and Labrador. They would limit communities' access to medication. Why would they do that? It is because they want to block national security legislation here today.
On the level of recklessness provided by the Conservatives on this topic, as I said, I am sure they will be sending messages to their House leader team asking, “Guys, why did we do this today? Why did we give the Liberals the opportunity to highlight just how little we want to invest in these communities that need it most? Why did we give them the opportunity to highlight our reckless record and to show we want to cancel projects delivering food and medication to communities?” I cannot believe that the Conservatives would open this door today to give us the opportunity to highlight to communities just how much they do not want to invest in communities and how they are willing to cut them off, even from things like food and medication. It is shocking to see this—
288 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I feel for you, but I can imagine right now that behind the scenes here, there are Conservative staffers texting and furiously saying, “Interrupt her speech, ruin those clips and do not let her keep going”, even though that is precisely why the Conservatives do not even interrupt with actual procedural issues and instead it is just debate. I laugh, because it is laughable, at the fact that the Conservatives would actually block the ability for legislation that takes into account national security issues to be modernized and that the Conservatives would choose a topic on which their record is so terrible. Therefore, I feel sorry for the staffers on the Conservative side today, furiously typing, like in that cat GIF that says, “Please interrupt her.” Canadians are going to be made aware of the Conservatives' terrible record on infrastructure.
I cannot help but take immense joy in being able to talk about this topic today, because we are able to talk about very real projects like the ones I have just mentioned. However, I am going to talk about another project that the Conservatives, if they had their way, would see cancelled. It is another Alberta project, one that was for a rail system to go from the Calgary airport to Banff National Park. What would this do? This would build enormous tourism opportunities for the community. How would Conservative members representing some of these ridings go to their communities and say that Conservatives would like to cancel the infrastructure that we are going to build that is going to help support tourism in their community, help create jobs and help create economic development in such a crucial area in their community? Who knows why? They do not really have a plan; it is just whatever reckless policies they come up with, and they do not think about the very real impacts.
I have also heard comments from members opposite saying there is no transparency and they do not know where the money is going for the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I have a quick tip: There is an entire website for the Canada Infrastructure Bank that details these projects. It even has photos, so if members opposite do not want to read the text, there are photos of the construction in progress and of the jobs being created, to show the very real impacts this program is having across the country.
In addition to this, there were numerous testimonies, including by a former Conservative member who is now the mayor of Brampton, Patrick Brown. He talks about the investments for buses in his community. In fact, it was a $400-million investment for 450 zero-emission buses. The mayor of Brampton said that this would not be possible without the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This was a game-changer and is going to help the residents of Brampton and the city reach their 80% GHG emissions reduction goals by 2050, which I believe is their timeline.
I want to know why Conservatives do not support municipalities when they are trying to address the challenges of climate change, when they want to deliver for their communities on things like reliable clean transit, and when municipalities want to create clean air for their residents. Why do Conservatives oppose that?
I know I am running out of time, which will be a great relief for the Conservatives and their staffers who are frantically trying to find points of order so Canadians do not have to hear the facts about how reckless the Conservatives are, how unserious they are when it comes to national security and how their record on infrastructure is actually kind of embarrassing. Why would they choose this topic, given their history?
The last point I want to talk about is the overall policies around the Canada Infrastructure Bank and why it exists. These projects are some of the hardest ones to get shovels in the ground for. This is not to replace traditional infrastructure programming. There is a role for both.
These projects require enormous investment and sometimes expertise that smaller rural communities may not have access to. They might be some of the hardest to actually get off the ground, so there is a role for both, but if the Canada Infrastructure Bank were cancelled, like the Conservatives are suggesting, it would mean broadband being ripped out of the ground, jobs lost and individuals fired. The Conservatives laugh at the idea of people being fired, because of their ideology when it comes to infrastructure, and the ideology they have is that they think people who pay property taxes should pay for all this infrastructure. They think families in smaller communities should bear the cost of this major infrastructure that has benefits to all Canadians.
We think Canada has a role to play in transformational infrastructure, and we think building infrastructure across this country creates good-paying jobs, economic opportunities, indigenous-owned opportunities and an ability to invest in clean projects that are going to transform our GHG emission reduction targets. It is shameful and it is reckless, but it is no surprise, with how terrible their record is, that the Conservatives are completely out of touch when it comes to the needs of Canadians. Canadians who pay property tax do not think municipalities should have to bear the brunt of all of this infrastructure, because the Government of Canada, the private sector and others have a role to play in building infrastructure right across this country.
Conservatives do not really have the innovative thought process to move forward on projects that actually matter and to get difficult projects built, because all they care about is flashy slogans. I think that today, the Conservatives are going to be really rethinking some of their strategy and will be having to pivot, but I look forward to talking about our infrastructure record time and time again, because when we compare it to that of the reckless Conservatives, we win every single time.
1006 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:34:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, I actually feel bad for Conservatives today, because the report the member is referring to and the recommendations made by Conservatives actually came out before we did an additional study on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The later study spoke about governance issues, changes that have been made and improvements on getting projects built. Therefore, if Conservatives are going to use lines that are sent to them, they might want to look at the updates in terms of what actually happened at committee, because we heard a lot about the governance changes. In fact, the Canada Infrastructure Bank admitted that it was slow to start, but now that it is going, it is roaring ahead, delivering real results for Canadian communities.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:36:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is we can do both. Canada can be bold when it comes to addressing the infrastructure gaps in this country. We have committed, for example, to long-term, sustainable, permanent transit funding to do just what the member opposite has said: to ensure that provinces, territories and municipalities can do long-term planning. However, the role of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is to ensure that the most difficult projects get through the door and get shovels in the ground.
I take some exception to the member opposite suggesting that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is allowing Liberal friends to get rich. Would he say that the school buses for Quebec are somehow making people rich? Is it not enriching communities to ensure there are zero-emission buses? Quebec has been a leader when it comes to the clean economy. Why would it be opposed to allowing school buses to be green so kids have cleaner air in the province of Quebec?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by no means am I suggesting that the Liberal infrastructure plan is only good because it is better than the Conservative's plan. I am suggesting that I cannot believe the Conservatives would block the ability to modernize legislation to deal with national security matters and have picked the topic of infrastructure, where their record is so abysmal.
I take the member opposite's comments to heart in the sense that hard projects are difficult to get through the door. That being said, there have been a number of governance changes at the Canada Infrastructure Bank and a number of improvements have been made, and some very real, tangible projects are happening. I mentioned the Alberta broadband project with the Arrow Technology Group. Twenty indigenous communities and four rural communities that are under-serviced in broadband will be connected.
There is always room to do more, but there are very real projects improving communities right across this country happening as we speak.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was a regional councillor under the Harper government, and one of the reasons I ran for federal office was the lack of investments in our communities and the lack of partnerships at the federal level to invest in our communities. If our communities are not able to produce economically, the country suffers.
The federal government has a role in building out our communities in a sustainable way. What the Conservatives would like to do is just download these costs to property taxpayers. I saw it time and time again, and it is why I am so passionate about this subject. We all have a role to play in building up our communities.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:42:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite was probably not listening to the countless examples of projects that the investments in the Infrastructure Bank are delivering on.
What we have heard time and time again from communities is that, yes, we need traditional infrastructure programs to deal with the needs communities are facing right now, but in addition to that, we need big, bold ideas, which is what the Canada Infrastructure Bank represents, to build projects that, frankly, sometimes municipalities and communities cannot do on their own.
As I said before, communities deserve to have the federal government involved in ensuring they are built up, that investments are made and that we are working to provide expertise to ensure that some of these more challenging projects get built. However, this is in addition to traditional infrastructure projects that municipalities continue to say they want and support.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the Conservatives would actually use an issue that was settled years ago. I reconfirm that the RCMP commissioner stated he was “very comfortable” with the decision being made.
While speaking about committee, I find it ironic that the Conservatives are trying to use a closed case to block the investigation of five Conservative members on a lavish trip to London paid for by individuals who want to ensure that pollution is free again.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:57:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Conservatives had 26 opportunities to bring in the RCMP and bring forward a motion.
What I find interesting is, why are the Conservatives hiding the investigation or the study that members would like to have in regard to their lavish travel to London paid by lobbyists who would like to make pollution free again? There was $1,800 worth of champagne, at a Savoy restaurant, $1,000 for a three-course lunch, and $1,200 at an oyster bar. Perhaps the Conservatives should realize the hypocrisy in terms of their cover-up.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the champagne Conservatives should take a long, hard look in the mirror when they are using a situation that the Commissioner himself has said is closed. It is a way to obstruct committee from looking into the spending on a lavish trip for five Conservative members paid for by lobbyists who want to make pollution free again.
We want to look into the porterhouse steaks that were consumed, the chateaubriand, the Scottish smoked salmon and $1,800 worth of champagne. The Conservatives have a lot to hide it seems.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 3:01:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives are trying to pivot once again from the fact that those champagne Conservatives are trying to obstruct committee from looking into lobbyists paying for a lavish trip to London, England for five Conservative members, while they dined on a $1,200 oyster bar and $1,000 for a three-course lunch. The Conservatives seem to want to distract and hide from the scandals coming from their champagne taste.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:46:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the debate brought forth by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
As my hon. colleague knows, she spoke about the decisions around bail reform and how transfers occur, as well as decisions about individuals who are in custody and how the Correctional Services of Canada handles each prisoner in the program they are under. The CSC's mandate is to help maintain the safety and security of our communities by managing correctional institutions and offenders in their care.
It is important to acknowledge that operational decisions are not taken by elected officials. In fact, our job as members of the House is to continue to push for best practices and increased transparency in our criminal justice system. While elected officials do not make these decisions on individual offenders, it is important for us as legislators and for the public at large to know why such decisions are made and what we can do to ensure victims of crime feel their voices are heard throughout the criminal justice process.
That is why, earlier this summer, the former minister of public safety issued new ministerial directives to specifically deal with the notification of victims' families. This new directive, as I have said, will help to ensure that CSC takes a trauma-informed approach when considering victims in the case of transfers of prisoners or security reclassifications. These enhanced engagement opportunities also allow for victims to share important input throughout the offender's sentence. This means that the needs of victims and their families will be taken into account, and CSC will place an extra emphasis on the need to not retraumatize those who are most vulnerable.
In addition, I am encouraged that the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has shown willingness to listen to Canadians' concerns and order additional reviews, especially in cases where there are high profile cases that Canadians are concerned about.
In addition, CSC has implemented the recommendation from a recent review committee to strengthen victim notification and engagement, and has put in place a committee dedicated to furthering this work. CSC continues to take its responsibility to protect Canadian communities seriously, and we all agree that offenders whose crimes continue to cause pain and anger across the country deserve severe consequences.
385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the duty of any government is to keep citizens safe, and this is why, at the public safety committee, we passed a motion to initiate a study on the rights of victims of crime, specifically around security reclassification within the Correctional Service of Canada. This study will invite the commissioner of CSC, the deputy minister of public safety, officials from the department of justice and public safety, as well as the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.
It is important that Canadians have these conversations. It is important that we listen to victims of crime, and it is important that we continue to pass legislation that will keep communities safe.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
