SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Mar/19/24 1:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, in fact, on behalf of all the people of my great province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What is not a pleasure is what Justin Trudeau has done—

54 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Luc Thériault

Mar/19/24 6:07:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after these speeches, it seems to me that the amendment of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway is even more necessary. After 6.5 million deaths worldwide and 45,000 deaths across Canada, we must avoid partisan perspectives at all costs. Throughout the work that was done by the Standing Committee on Health during the management of the pandemic, my colleagues—some of whom are here in the House—were able to see that the Bloc Québécois was always trying to find solutions, to elevate the debate, to set partisanship aside, not just to find out who was at fault. The Bloc Québécois tried to find solutions, to ensure that we are all responsible for what happens and to make sure that it never happens like that again. In that sense, I do not understand why the members opposite are resistant to an independent public inquiry. First, I would like to remind them that there was a bit of a ruckus on Wellington Street at one point. There was a bit of a crisis of confidence. Public health is mass medicine, and the patient must be willing to participate if it is to work. As soon as the patient loses confidence in the measures being taken to remedy the situation, we are not in the right place and we are in trouble. If, in order to restore confidence, there had to be an objective, independent review, totally free of the interests of the executive, it seems to me that this would go a long way to reaching all those who are experiencing a crisis of confidence in our institutions. In that sense, I totally agree with what my NDP colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said. The Bloc Québécois worked in committee to replace clause 3, as my colleague's amendment proposes. At the outset, when we received the bill, we did not really understand why people disliked it so much. I felt it bothered everyone, both the members opposite and those on this side of the House. Obviously, setting up an advisory committee made no sense to us. There are so many advisory committees. However, a crisis of this magnitude deserves an independent public inquiry so that the commissioners can get to the bottom of this. Now, we thought the Conservatives were on our side. It would have been interesting if the Conservative Party had joined forces with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP given that there is a minority government in place. We could have replaced this first part of the bill. However, that did not happen. I should note that when we received the bill, our Conservative friends were not as high in the polls. I do not want to say anything else about partisanship, because my comments could be described as partisan. It seems that once people realize they are likely to end up on the other side, they are reluctant to let go and leave it to others, who are impervious to their influence, to set the record straight. In all honesty, our Conservative friends do not care much about facts. That said, the Bloc Québécois will certainly be voting against the bill as it stands. We had a number of concerns about the prevention plan. It seems to me that it goes without saying that we need a prevention plan. In fact, tools exist for that. All we need is competent people, resources that will not be squandered and cuts that are not made in the wrong place. What happened? We have some answers. We have the Auditor General's report and the results of a few small investigations. We have some answers. However, one question begs an answer above all others. Keep in mind what the government did a month before Parliament shut down. It sent 19 tonnes of personal protective equipment to China even though it was sorely lacking here, and even though the national stockpile was exhausted. If that is not a mistake, I do not know what is. However, what interests me is not who made the mistake. What interests me is why it was made. I do not care about the “who” of the matter, but the “how”. At some point, an independent public inquiry is what we need to identify why and how it happened, and make sure these kinds of things never happen again. What happened with the internationally touted Global Public Health Intelligence Network? These are the people we expect to raise the red flag when various pandemics and epidemics break out around the world. In an interdependent world like ours, where borders are becoming increasingly porous, it makes perfect sense to have a state service like that identify dangers based on scientific observation. I remember the first meetings we had with public health officials, where we were told that there was little chance of it leaving mainland China and coming here. There was little chance, they said, and we had no reason to contradict them. I remember in the early days we had debates about whether it was an epidemic or a pandemic. It did not take long before it became a pandemic, it became global and it became a nightmare. When I say that it became a nightmare, my heart aches for all those who experienced it first-hand, who lost loved ones, who were forced into lockdown, who had their lives restricted with repeated lockdowns in order to protect health care systems that were not robust enough to continue functioning. It affected every aspect of our society. Another thing that comes to mind is the chaotic management of the borders. Quarantines and borders are a federal responsibility. Why did the mayor of Montreal have to go to Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to try and pass on information so that people would have what they needed to deal with this pandemic? It was ridiculous. In short, we will never accept this bill without this amendment. We also think that the federal government needs to stay in its lane. I think it has a lot of work to do in its own areas of jurisdiction to be able to better manage any future pandemics.

1057 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Mar/19/24 9:37:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is a privilege to rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Canada's 18th Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. At the outset, I would like to extend my condolences to his wife, Mila, as well as to his children, his grandchildren and the entire Mulroney family. Although I did not have the privilege of personally knowing Brian Mulroney, I have always admired and appreciated the tremendous statesmanship and leadership he provided during the nine years he served as our prime minister. To understand the many achievements and accomplishments of Brian Mulroney, it is important to understand that, when he was elected in 1984 with the second largest majority government in Canadian history, save for John Diefenbaker's landslide win in 1958, he inherited very difficult circumstances. They were difficult economic circumstances, with double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and interest rates that were north of 20%. It was also a difficult fiscal situation, with the fiscal cupboard being bare. Notwithstanding those challenges, he got to work to implement many bold policies, some of which were controversial, many of which were transformational and, with the benefit of history, have proven to have been for the benefit of Canada on the whole. It should be further noted that, when Brian Mulroney was first elected, the unity of the country was very much imperiled. There was great division across the land. It was Brian Mulroney who spoke about bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold with honour and enthusiasm. Although he, in the end, did not succeed, he must be credited for the tremendous leadership and courage he demonstrated, at considerable political cost to himself and his party, but it was for the betterment of strengthening the unity of Canada. That was his objective, and he brought Canadians together. He brought Albertans and Quebeckers together in 1984, and again in 1988, when he made history by being the only Conservative to win a back-to-back majority government, save for Sir John A. Macdonald. When Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984, speaking as an Alberta MP, Alberta was reeling. Alberta had been devastated as a result of the national energy program, which had devastated Alberta's economy and had driven many Albertans to unemployment and bankruptcy. Brian Mulroney recognized the difficulty Alberta faced, and his government moved expeditiously, in difficult circumstances, to abolish the national energy program, as well as the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the PGRT, which was a punitive tax. However, it was not just in the context of energy policy that Alberta benefited from Brian Mulroney. His government also abolished the Foreign Investment Review Agency, a board whose decisions often imperiled the flow of investment to Alberta and the west. Brian Mulroney negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which was a win for Canada, but which was very much in Alberta's economic interest. Indeed, free trade continues to be in Alberta's economic interest. While Brian Mulroney was not always popular in Alberta, he demonstrated, or history has demonstrated, rather, that Brian Mulroney consistently had Albertans' backs. He delivered for Alberta. While much has been spoken this evening about some of his obvious important achievements, including negotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the acid rain treaty with the United States, standing up to apartheid and strengthening our most important bilateral relationship, that being with the United States, there are other areas he deserves great credit for that he often has not received credit for. One example is that it was the Mulroney government that restored fiscal responsibility to Ottawa. When Brian Mulroney was elected, he inherited a deficit that, in today's terms, would be approaching $100 billion. That is a large deficit even by the current Liberal government's standards. It has exceeded deficits on that scale, but I digress. The Mulroney government faced a bloated federal government and program spending that was being increased on an unsustainable basis annually. Does that sound familiar? The Mulroney government responded by initiating policies to reduce the size and scope of government to get spending under control. Indeed, on an incremental and responsible but significant basis, annual program spending growth was substantially reduced in the neighbourhood of 70%. Consequently, what was a very large operating deficit turned into an operating surplus. In short, the Mulroney government fixed Canada's budget. It is true that Jean Chrétien did inherit a deficit from the Mulroney government, but it was because of the costs associated with servicing that debt, debt that had been accumulated by the previous Trudeau government and not the Conservative Mulroney government. Of course, Brian Mulroney's government deserves significant credit for contributing in a major way to building Canada's modern economy through the policy of free trade, yes, but also through a series of free market policies, including a comprehensive program around privatization, deregulation and tax reform. Together, these policies contributed over the long term to growth and prosperity and to the enhancement of Canada's competitiveness. I could go on with a long list of the many other achievements of Brian Mulroney and his government over nine years, but time does not allow it. However, what these achievements I have highlighted and my colleagues have highlighted over this evening demonstrate is that Brian Mulroney was a transformative prime minister. He was a consequential prime minister. He will go down as one Canada's greatest prime ministers, and Canada is better off because of his leadership.

923 words