44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 29, 2023 02:00PM
- Nov/29/23 4:28:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 4(5) of the Public Service Employment Act and Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Marie-Chantal Girard to the position of president of the Public Service Commission of Canada for a term of seven years.
I request that the nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 4:29:11 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 response to 14 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 4:42:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will get the chance shortly to provide my comments with regard to the issue that the member is raising.
However, my question to him is specifically with respect to a strategy that has been developed by the Conservative Party of Canada, where it uses concurrence reports to prevent government legislation from being debated. We saw that extensively on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement where the Conservatives ultimately ended up unanimously voting no to a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. They used the same tactic where they would bring in concurrence reports in order to prevent government legislation from being debated and ultimately voted on unless there is time allocation. Why is the Conservative Party taking this day to once again use a stalling tactic to prevent government legislation from being debated?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:04:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-9
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on farms. Members might not be necessarily surprised. After all, I come from the Prairies, and I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived on Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. While in Alberta, I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I have grown a great appreciation for farms. How could one live on the Prairies for 60 years and not appreciate the value of our farms? I am going to get into some details on that, relatively shortly.
I really want to focus on why this is. I put it in the form of a question to the member who brought forward the motion.
Liberals in general are open to talking about the farming community. We understand the appreciation of agriculture and the importance it has not only to Canada but also to the world. Canada, in many ways, does help to feed the entire world. The types of products we produce on the Prairies and throughout Canada are second to none. No other country in the world has the diversity of product, not to mention the quality of product. Therefore, I understand and appreciate, as my colleagues do, the importance of our agricultural communities, our rural communities and the farmer.
I say that because I wanted to focus some attention on the behaviour of the Conservative Party today and the disturbing pattern we are witnessing day after day. I suspect that most members who came into the chamber today did not want or expect the Conservatives to move yet another motion for concurrence in a committee report. That is what this is: a motion for concurrence. The motion is that we, in essence, talk about farmers, agriculture, and the industry as a whole that feeds off of it.
Let us not forget that there was another very important issue we were supposed to be debating today. It was, in fact, Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is all about weapons of mass destruction. Canada plays a very important leadership role around the world, and one of the areas in which we play that role is the area of weapons of mass destruction.
I remember the day Lloyd Axworthy brought the land mine issue to Ottawa. We had a worldwide ban and a convention came out of it. Bill S-9 deals with the chemical weapons convention, the listing of chemicals, and it would reinforce that particular aspect of Canada's role. Fortunately, it was brought in through the Senate because of the legislative agenda we are trying to get through.
Even in some of the comments I heard from across the way in the previous two speeches, the members talked about the importance of affordability. Tomorrow and the following day, we will be talking about the fall economic statement because we understand the issues that are so critically important to Canadians.
I want to tell my friends across the way that using motions for concurrence in committee reports takes away from the government's ability to get its legislation through. It is interesting. When I posed the question to the mover of the motion, his response was that it is up to the government to get things through. The government is trying to get things through. We were planning on bringing forward Bill S-9 today in the hope that we would be able to get that legislation passed because I do not think anyone will be opposing it.
Now, we are losing a day to pass that legislation, so if we want to deal with Bill S-9, we will have to call it to the chamber again. Opposition members will say, “Who cares? It's not our problem. It's the government's problem.” If we cannot bring in items such time allocation, how can the government possibly pass legislation when we have an opposition party that is preventing the government from doing just that?
We are talking about food for the world. I have heard members on the other side talk about trade many times. Members can think about Ukraine, the trade agreement Canada has with Ukraine, and the impact that has on food supply, processing foods and so forth.
The Conservative Party, all its members, voted against that important piece of legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The people of Canada understand and value the legislation, and they are not the only ones who want to see it pass. There is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada, the politicians in Ukraine and members from every other political party, except the Conservative Party.
The president of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war and signed an agreement. The legislation was brought forward, and the Conservatives filibustered. They used the same tactic they are using right now with a concurrence report. Bringing in concurrence report after concurrence report, is limiting the number of debate days the government will have. Is this an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent the Canada-Ukraine free trade debate from taking place at third reading?
Does the Conservative Party not understand that there is legislation, such as the fall economic statement, that needs to be debated in the chamber? If they continue to bring in concurrence reports, they will continue to take time away from debating the legislative agenda. Many, including myself, want to see a number of pieces of legislation debated.
This is not to take away from the issues the member is raising today concerning farmers and our agricultural community. As I said at the beginning, I am a very strong advocate for those two communities. I have given many speeches in the House, as I know my colleagues appreciate. Every week, when we are in session and in caucus, the rural agenda is there and being talked about. We understand and appreciate the needs of our rural communities, our farmers and our smaller municipalities, as well as how vital they are to Canadian society.
Why did the Conservative Party do this? We will have another opposition day next week. We have maybe 12 more sitting days before the break. How many of those days will we be dealing with the fall economic statement? We have an opposition day next week. The number of days is shrinking, and if the intent of the Conservative Party is to prevent the Canada-Ukraine deal from getting to third reading and passing, I say shame on them.
That is not the only legislation, but there is a lot of focus on it. The Conservatives wonder why we bring it up time and time again, and it is because we do not trust the Conservative Party. It has gone so far to the right. We see that attitude in the leader of the official opposition taking his party to a place where it votes in ways that are very hard to understand for one reason.
We already heard two members stand up to speak to this issue, and they strictly talked about the carbon tax, as they referred to it, or the price on pollution. The Conservatives are using that as an excuse for everything they are doing in the chamber. It is reckless. That is what we are witnessing. We have a leader of the official opposition who is not in tune with what Canadians are asking legislators to do here in Ottawa.
It is only a question of time before Canadians actually realize the destructive behaviour of the Conservative Party today. That is why I think it is important, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to amplify it and to ensure that Canadians know and understand what is in fact taking place, and that there are important things that need to be passed here.
The report talks about infrastructure. Recommendation 1 is to associate infrastructure with trade. It highlights infrastructure and trade. No government has spent more and committed more on infrastructure in the last 50 or 60 years than the current Liberal government has, because we understand and appreciate the importance of having a healthy infrastructure so we can get our product to market, whether a local market or an international market. It is one thing to talk about it, but it is another thing to see the action. With the Liberal government, we have seen action supporting investment in Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.
The Conservatives say “access” and “making sure”. Over the summer, a number of months ago, the former minister of transport was in CentrePort in Winnipeg, just outside my riding. It is a huge park, thousands of acres, strategically located near rail lines and a first-class long-haul trucking industry, the biggest in the province, possibly the biggest in the Prairies. There is an airport literally a couple of miles away. There is a great deal of focus on infrastructure and how we can get products to market. We see the agricultural community coming into CentrePort in a very real and tangible way.
It is not that we do not want to have those types of discussions. That is why we have standing committees. The New Democratic member stood up and said that it was nice we were having a debate on agriculture in the chamber today. I would like to think that we have debates and discussions on agriculture on an ongoing basis, whether they are budget debates, throne speech debates or the numerous private members' bill debates that take place.
One of the reasons we have standing committees is so we can actually look at and take a deeper dive into an issue. That enables, I believe, reports like the one we have today. With those reports, Canadians can get a better understanding of where the House of Commons or the collective parliamentarians would like to see the government of the day take some form of direction. That is what I like about the system.
What I do not like is when reports are consistently used as a mechanism, through concurrence, to prevent debates from taking place on government legislation. That is very problematic. The Conservatives will say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward the legislation. We are bringing forward the legislation; it is the opposition that is preventing the legislation from being debated. It is the opposition that is choosing the tools it has in order to filibuster legislation.
Some members across the way are laughing. Our Ukrainian heritage community is not laughing; it is upset because it sees the games the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. That needs to change. I cited just one piece of legislation, but there are numerous ones. Even during the pandemic, with regard to financial supports to Canadians, we saw the Conservatives using concurrence as a way to prevent government legislation from moving forward. They used an excessive number of concurrence reports. They have the standard line: “This is an important issue; why would we not want to be able to debate the issue?" They make it sound as if the government were not being sensitive to the issue.
I ask my Conservative friends across the way, if the issues were as important, from a Conservative perspective, as they try to imply to Canadians, why are they not using them as opposition day motions? They have plenty of opposition days when they get the entire day to be able to debate the issues they want to debate, just like yesterday, when they chose to debate the Senate and the behaviour of the Senate.
It is rooted in the price on pollution, I must say, because the Conservative Party of today is very much infiltrated by individuals who are truly climate deniers. Maybe not all members of the Conservative caucus are; I suspect not. However, I do believe there is a preoccupation within the leader of the Conservative's party, which is, in fact, climate denial. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of getting rid of the price on pollution. Think about it in terms of this particular report. In the report, members are saying that the price on pollution is scaring farmers away and that they are going to shut down and go elsewhere with their produce.
During the last break week, I had the opportunity to go just north of Portage la Prairie to Roquette, a world-class pea processing facility. Did members know that the largest pea processing plant in the world is in the province of Manitoba? I can say that I am quite proud of that particular fact. The facility creates all sorts of opportunities for the farmers in the area. I am told it even has to bring in some yellow peas from other jurisdictions because it cannot keep up with the demand. The demand is going to continue to grow. The facility is actually diversifying, which is great news. It reinforces that the world is looking at Canada as a place to be able to invest in, and that includes our agricultural community. The role of the farmer is just as real today as it was in any day in the past. The innovators in our environment are often farmers. We do not give our farmers enough credit. Quite frankly, what I do not like is when they are used as a political tool. I was in opposition when the Conservatives got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Suffice to say, I really and truly believe that the Conservative Party needs to get its ship in order, whether with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or stopping the filibustering and the preventing of legislation from being able to pass. There is a minority government; that means there is an expectation that opposition members would also behave. There is nothing wrong with criticizing. I was in opposition for 20-plus years, so I understand that role. There is also a role in terms of being a little bit more creative in one's opposition.
2351 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:25:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish a happy birthday, and many more, to Heather in Regina.
I believe that farmers, in many ways, lead in terms of innovations and making sure we have wonderful, successful farming in rural communities into the future. I applaud them to the nth degree for that.
The issue I have is that the Conservative Party wants to chip away here and chip away there. Ultimately, let there be no doubt, what it really wants is to get rid of the price on pollution. Conservatives have said that and have been very clear on the point. It is kind of a dumb idea, I would suggest, but they are determined to put it into place.
I have to defend the constituents I represent who actually get more money from the rebate than they pay. Eighty per cent get a larger rebate portion.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:28:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during the worldwide pandemic, the Government of Canada literally supported small businesses in virtually every sector to ensure their survival during a very difficult time. How we ensure that we can minimize the amount of hurt to small businesses is an ongoing issue.
To pick up on what the member first spoke about in regard to how important the diversification of our agricultural community is, it is really important to the government. That is one of the reasons why we invest so much in our regional development agencies, knowing full well that they are in a great position to identify where we can expand and make sure diversification takes place. More processing is really important. I like to think of the pea processing facility just north of Portage Avenue as a good example of the diversification taking place. I think there are so many other examples that one could give, but the bottom line is that the government, virtually from day one, in 2015, until the present day with the fall economic statement, is there to support our farmers and our agricultural communities.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:30:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that international workers play a critical role here in Canada in many different sectors of our society. It is also important that the federal government continue to work with provincial governments in particular and with departments of labour and other non-profit agencies to ensure the rights of these international workers and ensure they are not being exploited as much as possible moving forward.
With regard to the member's policy announcement and the position of the NDP that international foreign workers or international students would be given automatic permanent residency status, that is not what we are saying as a party.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:31:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I highly recommend that the member talk to the Minister of Immigration and share with him his thoughts.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:32:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question. At the end of the day, the more value we can add into our products, the better. It means more jobs. It means more money.
That is one of the reasons I am a very strong advocate of trade agreements. Canada is a trading nation. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and this government. It is nice that the Conservative Party, almost for all of the trade agreements, has been supportive of us signing them. There is one exception, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I am hoping we will see a somersault flip-flop and Conservatives will come back and support it at third reading. I think a number of Conservative members would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party change his mind and support that trade agreement. I hope he does.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 5:34:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, absolutely it is an important issue. That is one of the reasons we brought forward the fall economic statement, which, by the way, we will start debating tomorrow.
Some try to minimize this particular bill, saying the chemical weapons convention is not important, but Canada does have an important role to play on this in the world, a leadership role. At the end of the day, it would have been nice to have that debate today and ultimately see that bill pass, but the agenda of the Conservatives seems to be to prevent legislation from passing and to bring in concurrence reports. They are targeting the Canada-Ukraine deal. They do not want to see that thing pass, and I say shame on them.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:21:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite will take an issue, whatever that issue might be, will associate it with the Prime Minister or the government and then will add onto the end of it “scandal”. The member is very consistent in doing that. It does not matter to what degree it is factual. He insists on always putting in the word “scandal” and then trying to associate it with the government.
I am not saying there are no wrongdoings. In fact, when the member asked the question and the minister responded, here is what the minister indicated:
...what I am happy to explain to the House is how seriously our government takes allegations of inappropriate behaviour with taxpayers' money and contracting or subcontracting. We are obviously very pleased that the committee is looking into this matter. We are pleased that the Auditor General is also seized with this question.
We are also pleased that the Canada Border Services Agency, when these issues came to light, took the appropriate action with internal reviews and, as was appropriate, referred any and all of these circumstances to the appropriate authorities.
As the minister clearly indicated, we take the allegations very seriously, and the government is determined to support the work on the matter, whether by the Auditor General or the standing committee. At some point in time, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, we will see allegations substantiated or will get to the bottom of the issue. The government is committed to addressing it.
I do not know by whom, but I was provided a letter that I thought was kind of interesting. It was dated in October. I do not know whether it was the member himself, but somebody asked for the RCMP to come before one of the standing committees. I think it was addressed to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The member looks a little puzzled, so I am not too sure if he is aware of it. Maybe the document is in another committee. I am not 100% sure, but the bottom line is that the letter, signed off by the RCMP, indicates what the RCMP understood:
...the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) has adopted a motion calling for the appearance of, among others, Sergeant Kim Chamberland in respect of “reports that the RCMP is investigating allegations of misconduct by three companies involved in the development of the ArriveCAN app.”
Contrary to public reporting, the RCMP is not investigating the ArriveCAN matter.
The letter goes on and states, in essence, that the RCMP does not think that person would be able to contribute positively or in any way to the committee. I do not know how that was ultimately resolved. I just came by this particular letter and am curious to know whether the member is aware of the facts with respect to it. Suffice it to say, just as I started my comments, I note that the government is being very diligent in going through the process and ensuring that tax dollars are protected.
523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:30:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the Government of Canada and the minister in question have made it very clear that we take the allegations very seriously. We are very much concerned whenever tax dollars are being inappropriately expended. At the end of the day, these are tax dollars, which are very important dollars, and the government is determined to get to the bottom of this. We will, and there will be a consequence.
Billions and billions of dollars are spent every year by government, whether directly by government or indirectly through agencies. The government does the best it can to ensure there is a high sense of accountability for civil servants. A number of allegations have been made. We will get to the bottom of them and there will be consequences.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:35:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made earlier by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
I feel that it is important to reiterate and stick to the facts of this case. First, the minister took immediate action to initiate a fact-finding exercise through an impartial third party. That exercise found no clear evidence of deliberate unethical behaviour. There were, however, several incidences in which the organization was not in full compliance with its contribution agreement.
Second, to address the inconsistency, including the conflict of interest, the organization has been asked to comply with several corrective measures by December 31. Out of an abundance of caution, financing for all new projects has been temporarily frozen until these measures are in place. SDTC has committed to implementing the corrective measures requested by us on an expedited timeline. Everyone involved is eager to get back to supporting Canadian business.
Third, we now have in place an independent legal review by the firm McCarthy Tétrault to examine human resource allegations brought forward by current and former employees of the organization. SDTC has agreed to allow these employees to speak freely without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements.
Fourth, although I know the party opposite likes to take credit for the AG's decision to conduct an audit since the allegations came to light, we have been in dialogue with the office of the Auditor General on this matter. We welcome the Auditor General's decision to conduct the audit. We will await her report on this matter, which will inform whether further action is necessary.
Finally, the decisions of the chair of SDTC's board and of its president to resign were personal ones. It is for us to follow due process and await the results of the AG's audit before making any pronouncements.
Taking a step back, in consideration of the facts of the matter, as I have laid them out, I am confident that we are on the right path. With the implementation of the corrective measures, the pending OAG audit, the HR review and the reinvigorated leadership at the organization, we can refocus efforts on supporting our Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector.
I take it very seriously when we talk about the Auditor General of Canada. The actions that the government has taken to date, I think, should provide a very high level of comfort to people who would be following this debate. The government is very much aware of it and is taking direct actions to resolve it.
I am a little bit disappointed in the member across the way. As with the member and his colleague just prior, who asked a totally different question in another area, again, there is the fascination that the Conservative Party has with words such as “corruption” and “scandal”. It continually wants to raise them. I understand why it likes those two words. I understand it a lot.
The bottom line is that the government of the day is very much aware of it and is indeed continuing to monitor. As I indicated in response to the previous question, it is in a position to look at the recommendations and to ultimately follow through when those recommendations are brought forward.
559 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:40:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I disagree. The member opposite in the Conservative Party will look at this whole issue as being one of a slush fund.
It is not the first time that they have used the words “slush fund”. We will remember that they also used the words “slush fund” for Canada's child care plan, which saw a massive reduction in child care costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as all provinces and territories signed on with the government.
We have a substantial fund here to support business. The Conservatives say that they support businesses. Often, I find that they will say one thing but their actions demonstrate something entirely different. I wish the Conservatives would get on board and support businesses and our business community.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:45:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is reinforce exactly what the minister said to the member not that long ago with respect to the CEBA loan deadline:
That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both balanced and fiscally responsible....
We know times are tough, which is why our government is also cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter. We will continue to listen to small businesses, and we will be there for all Canadians.
If I may, I would like to pick up on the issue of continuing to be there for small businesses, because I think it is important to recognize that the government, over the last number of years, even prepandemic, was there to support small businesses in different ways. One that stands out to me offhand is the small business tax reduction that was given, a substantial tax reduction in order to support small businesses. When we went into the pandemic, what we saw in a very real and tangible way was direct financial support put into the tills of small businesses and into the pockets of small business owners. We saw that in different forms, whether indirectly through wage subsidies for workers, or through rent support or the small business loans. We are talking about billions of dollars. We made it very clear at the beginning of the pandemic that the government would be there to support small businesses, because we recognize the valuable role they play in modern society here in Canada. They are the backbone of our economy, and the potential is absolutely overwhelming. That is why, from giving the tax break and the supports during the pandemic to being able to extend where we can in a fiscally responsible fashion, we are doing that.
I have had the opportunity to visit many small businesses, and one thing I am happy to see is the many programs we put into place to assist them. I constantly get reminded how the government supports have been there and have allowed a business, or even a community non-profit group, to be able to survive; it is because the government was there to have its back.
Nothing has really changed. We will continue to be there to support small businesses today and into the future. One needs to look at the fall economic statement, and there are a number of things we can do, whether directly or indirectly. I often say that one of the best things we can do indirectly is to ensure that there is disposable income for Canadians. We do that through different forms of rebates, such as the GST rebate, or through the enhancement of social programs to ensure that seniors or people with a disability have more disposable income. All of that indirectly allows people to support small businesses. In fact, on a personal note, I am sending out my next householder, encouraging people to get out there and use the small businesses in our community. I think we all have an important role.
549 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 7:50:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am personally very sympathetic to small businesses, which in many ways are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I have more than one family member very much engaged in small business. I believe my youngest brother had a CEBA loan, though I am not 100% sure of that. I understand how important those loans are.
I can assure the member that had the government not stepped up when it did, there would have been a huge number of bankruptcies. There would have been a lot more unemployment. It would have been so much more difficult for us to recover coming out of the pandemic. I say that only because I truly believe that as a government, we have been supporting small businesses.
The government has some limitations, and that is the reason the minister continues to work closely with our—
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
