So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/30/24 10:02:59 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on National Defence entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Communications Security Establishment, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 under Department of National Defence, Vote 1 under Military Grievances External Review Committee, Vote 1 under Military Police Complaints Commission, Vote 1 under Office of the Intelligence Commissioner”.

69 words

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

May/2/24 11:36:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on Monday. He and I, and my hon. colleague here, belong to a group called IPAC. It is an international group, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and it appears we have attracted some unwanted attention. Last Wednesday, the member and I were on a call with IPAC in London and were advised of this form of cyber-attack. I am at an age and stage when I do not pretend to understand exactly what they were talking about, but I am given to understand that a group called APT31, or Advanced Persistent Threat 31, was conducting cyber-attacks against some colleagues here and indeed around the world. The only reason we found out about it was that the FBI was conducting a surveillance operation a couple of years ago, and we were caught up in that surveillance operation. That was a couple of years ago, so the question becomes this: Why did we not know about it? IPAC contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and asked why we did not know about it. The U.S. Department of Justice did notify the relevant nations, sovereignty to sovereignty. IPAC then compared the FBI list with its own list, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, myself and my colleague here were on that list. The question becomes this: How come we did not know about it? Since then, we have been advised that the FBI did notify the Canada Security Establishment, or CSE, and CSE, in turn, notified Parliament, or the IT service that runs Parliament. A security check was run in a timely fashion, and the good news is that the system we have here was not breached. In that respect, it worked. However, at that point, a decision was made to not notify the affected members of Parliament and the affected senators; I think there are about 13 of us in total. That is a bit more problematic, so this is why I support the member's privilege question because I do think this needs to be investigated. I am given to understand that there are literally hundreds of thousands of attacks on our IT system on a daily basis, literally a massive volume, and it becomes difficult to know, when attacks are unsuccessful, when and how and if members should be notified because our inboxes could be literally filled on a daily basis with notifications of attacks. On the other hand, if I, as a member who is interested in security matters and defence matters, have an unusual volume of attacks or if other members, for other reasons, have unusual volumes or patterns of attacks, then that seems to be quite relevant to the interests of those individual members. The reason I am supporting the hon. member's question of privilege is that we need to start to review these protocols, and do it sooner rather than later. I want to make the point that this is not a government issue; this is a Parliament issue. The government did its job, so to speak, in that CSE reported it to our security services and the people who run them. However, I believe that PROC needs to look at this. It needs to review the sequence of events to make sure that, as I am describing it to the House, they were correct; to examine the decisions that were made when the information became available to Canadian authorities; and to review whether this is the kind of information that should be shared with members and, if so, in what format, how frequently, etc. I do not think we can take this very lightly. The analogy I have drawn in the past has been that it is like somebody looking at one's mail in the post office. I think we would all be pretty upset with somebody examining our mail. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that, but it gives the sense in which the emails that are coming into our offices need to have security not only for ourselves but also for our correspondents and our constituents. These are significant volumes of emails. I just want to raise what I believe is a question of privilege. I hope the Speaker finds it to be a question of privilege and asks the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move the relevant motion. As I said, this is a significant issue. The chamber needs to deal with it in a timely sort of way; I hope PROC ultimately does as well.

782 words

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

Mar/21/24 12:52:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on Jenni Byrne's proactive non-disclosure. I would like the member to talk about the short-term memory loss of the Conservative Party. Members will recollect that about this time last year, in April, May, June, Ottawa was covered in smoke. There is a clear cause for that. The member knows that in Halifax there have been hurricanes; in Fort McMurray, fires; in British Columbia, flooding; all of which has one cause, all of which need to be addressed. The Conservatives seem to have short-term memory loss on all of those issues. I would interested in the member talking about the point of this.

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

Mar/19/24 4:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech, which had the added bonus of agitating the Conservatives. The simple question I have is on the PBO's economic analysis. Does he include the ever-increasing cost of insurance for floods and fire?

44 words

Feb/28/24 2:05:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Alexei Navalny was killed on February 16 by Vladimir Putin. Putin ordered him killed in the same manner a mafia don orders a hit. Navalny's only crime was to challenge Putin's illegitimate claim to power and his illegal war on Ukraine. Alexei Navalny was a brave man. He knew the risks of challenging a murderous mafia thug. In fact, he anticipated his murder in a documentary entitled Navalny. Vladimir Kara-Murza shares the same courage. He too has challenged the murderous thug. It may be hoped that he may not be murdered, but weak, pathetic people such as Vladimir Putin cannot let courageous people live. While we mourn Alexei Navalny, let us hope that Vladimir Kara-Murza will not suffer the same fate.

127 words

Feb/15/24 4:02:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make the point that we are a well-resourced family living in an affluent community with access to the best, and I am perfectly cognizant that thousands, and literally millions, of Canadians are not. In that case, they would not be able to explore all of the other options that well-resourced families can. I take the member's point entirely, and arguably, again, that is a good reason this should not be accessible for people with mental illness under the present circumstances.

89 words

Feb/15/24 3:59:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not live in a world of expertise. I live in a world of family experience. The distinction between a mental illness and neurodegenerative disease is one that my colleague, who will be speaking next, would probably be able to answer much better than me. I do think that members need to be cognizant of the transference from physical infirmities, pathologies and access to medical assistance in dying, to a diagnosed mental illness, pure and simple. There is a red line there. That is what we are dealing with today: what is on the other side of that red line. I take his question as a good question. My colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River could maybe answer it much better than I.

127 words

Feb/15/24 3:57:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing. Really, only families who have gone through this actually understand the reality of the situation. One of the frustrations we run into is that Nathan is an adult. The family is cut out. Family cannot tell the physician, if the physician does not want to listen, about what they are observing. They are only getting one side of the story, which is another problem. If it was up to me, we would not be dealing with this three-year postponement. It would be otherwise. My view is that we can never write a protocol that covers all contingencies. We can never assure ourselves that a physician could not be persuaded to do whatever needs to be done. It is a decision that people will never recover from.

135 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Feb/15/24 3:46:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Here we are down to the last minute. Liberals will be supporting this bill, not because we think it is a great bill, but because it postpones this decision for three years. It puts it down the road to another Parliament. I am not quite as confident as the previous speaker, my honourable friend, that there will be a government of his persuasion at that time, but, nevertheless, it is a decision that will have to be dealt with by another Parliament, which is quite regrettable under the circumstances. The ostensible reason we are supporting the bill is because the medical system is not ready. The hospitals are not ready, and the health care systems are not ready. My view is that they will never be ready, that no one can be ready for this kind of thing. I take the view that doctors have misplaced faith in the ability of politicians and legislators to achieve a state of readiness and legislative harmony. I also take the view that legislators and politicians have an elevated view of doctors' ability to manage the requests in this kind of system. The reason for that is, basically, 25 years of walking a path with one of my sons. I am blessed to have five children and five grandchildren, which are the reward for the five children in the first place. They are delightful to both Carolyn and me. One of the boys has schizophrenia. We started on that journey when he was about 14 or 15. He was, shall we say, acting out. It took us three years to get a diagnosis, which was pretty tough on the family. It was not optimal to go home from this place and there would be a police car parked in the driveway. We had quite a number of incidents. It took us about three or four years to get a proper diagnosis. I want to emphasize that we live in the greater Toronto area, one of the most, if not the most, prosperous areas in the country. We have access to the best doctors and are a well-resourced family, but we were flummoxed as to what to do. Nathan had a psychotic break. He is a bright lad and was in university, but, consistent with the literature, he had a psychotic break in his first year. Then we went into this deep, dark hole of the mental health system in the best-resourced area in all of the country. Nathan spent time at CAMH and quickly figured out how to scam the system and how get out onto Spadina Avenue to get what he thought he needed. He also figured out how to play the emergency system. All anyone has to say is that they are thinking about suicide. “Suicidal ideation” is the phrase. That gets people into the system. When they think they need access to medications and cannot get them, particularly street medications or drugs, that is a good way to get in. They can get meals and people caring for them, a clean bed, all that sort of stuff, and the family starts to walk this journey. It is not a pretty journey because the nurses are harassed, overworked and exhausted, and the doctors are not too far behind. There are medications that kind of calm people down, but, frankly, do not actually deal with the problem. It takes people a while for their bodies to adjust to the medications. Nathan had some resistance to finally being in that agreed upon regime. Then there was a period of time when he was fine, or as fine as he could be, given he had voices in his head all the time. We went from CAMH to Whitby Psych. Again, great people and a great facility, with overworked people who are trying their best but, frankly, have limited tools. We went from there to Scarborough Health Network, the third-largest medical facility in Ontario. Again really good people, but the system and the state of medication has limited ability to deal with a person like Nathan, who kind of goes in and goes out. Nathan has been irremediable four or five times in the past 25 years, and at any one time, he frankly would have figured out how to shop the doctor. That is what we fear based on our experience. I perfectly understand when medical systems say they are not ready, they have to write their protocols. Protocols are subject to interpretation, and the interpretations by physicians can be pretty extensive in their variations. Nathan, being a bright lad, he would figure that out pretty quickly. Then some doctors are more enthusiastic about this procedure than are others, and he would have that figured out pretty quickly. If he was determined, and he is irremediable and this is a condition that causes a lot of suffering, he would have figured it out. That would have left us pretty bereft as a family, with a lot of guilt. At this point, I have to say there are two saints in our family: Nathan's mother, my wife; and his stepmother. But for them, I do not think he would be here today. I want to go back to the point that we are a well-resourced family. We live in one of the most affluent areas of Canada. We have access to the best and we have two saints in the family, one of whom is a physician, and that is probably why he is still with us. My concern is that, whether it is this bill, whether it is three years from now or whenever it is, the protocols may be be written and the protocols may or may not be subject to interpretation that would allow some people who have irremediable conditions to leave. I am sorry we are here. This is one of the more critical decisions of legislators. It is one of the more critical decisions of the health care system writ large. The problem is that the consequences are irreversible. Within our family experience, there are several points along the way where that kind of irreversible decision could have been made, it is entirely plausible, and we would be in an entirely different situation than we are today as a family. I am thankful for the House's time and attention. I regret to be in the situation where we are dealing with this legislation, which I think is just a postponement, but I will support the legislation because that is what is on the table.

1118 words

Feb/1/24 11:34:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I admire the way in which the hon. member presented his case. He is really quite concerned about the effect of climate change on the country. If, in fact, he thinks that the revenues from oil sands are, shall we say, problematic, is it his position that the transfer payments that go to Quebec under the revenues of the federal government should be reduced accordingly so that the position the hon. member is taking would have some consistency?

80 words

Jan/30/24 6:14:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, we are out of time but you are not going to pull the trap door. Thanks. The hon. member raises an interesting issue, and this is where the $10-a-day day care comes in. This is largely a program that is funded by the Government of Canada for, in our case, the Government of Ontario. The provision of the quality of the day care worker and the wages he or she receives and the quality of the workplace are largely dependent upon the Province of Ontario.

89 words

Jan/30/24 6:12:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, generally my colleagues do not describe my speeches as boring in public. They may privately say that my speeches are boring. I feel badly for the hon. gentleman, who missed the central point of the speech. The central point of the speech is that the metrics of the country are very good. Would he prefer, in Nova Scotia, to have 10% unemployment, or would he prefer to have 4% unemployment? Would he prefer to be dealing with the challenges of his constituents with 4% unemployment or 10% unemployment? I regret that the hon. member finds my remarks boring, but maybe, if he had paid a little bit more attention, he would have been able to articulate the central dilemma I was speaking to.

125 words

Jan/30/24 6:10:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, on the category of seniors, of which I am a proud member, I too share the concern of the hon. member. I take note of the irony that, when there was a boost for post-75 seniors, there was not a boost for those 65 to 75. The point being that, from a policy standpoint, the older one gets, the less able one is to adjust to economic uncertainty. I am sure that the hon. member would agree with me that our senior seniors are the people we should address first. I think the government has done an admirable job in that area.

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 267 - Dec/13/23

Jan/30/24 5:59:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the year of Our Lord 2024. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I hope members sort out among themselves just what the apology is for, given that memories seem to be somewhat short here. I am rather hoping that I can bring a bit more light than heat to this debate. I propose to divide my remarks into three parts. The first part is to actually refer to the fall economic statement. I know that is a novel idea. The second part is to canvass why Canadians are pessimistic about the economy. Then, in an aside, I will compare that to why Americans are pessimistic about their economy. With that, there is no doubt a disconnect between the economic metrics and how Canadians are feeling about their general state of welfare. If we open the fall economic statement, the first chart shows that Canada is number one in the G7 for real GDP growth. If I said that at the front door of some member of my constituency, they would probably close the door on me. Maybe they would be polite, and maybe they would not. Nevertheless, those are the facts. Our peer nations are not experiencing economic growth at the rate that Canada is experiencing economic growth, and I would contrast that to the concerns Canadians have about their economic welfare and ask them if they would prefer to be at the bottom of the G7 growth spectrum. The second chart has to do with foreign investment. It appears that foreign investors have a great deal of confidence in Canada's prospects, as we are third in the world, and probably second, since the United States necessarily attracts by far the most investment. The third chart is with respect to the budgetary balance projections for G7 nations. As Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, “Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.” The alternatives are Germany, Japan, the U.K., Italy, France and the U.S. We are number one in terms of budgetary projections. For all the harping, whining and complaining we hear in this chamber about the management of the fiscal framework, Canada is number one, and dramatically ahead of our neighbour to the south. The fourth chart is on consumer price inflation, which has fallen over the course of the last 12 months by about four points, a significant drop in inflation. Only economists could possibly be interested in some of these other charts. They are very difficult to convey to folks. I sometimes wonder why they put these charts into these economic statements, but they do. In real GDP growth in G7 economies from Q1 of 2022 to Q2 of 2023, Canada is again number one in economic growth. On employment and the change in employment, again, Canada is number one, way ahead of all the other nations. In fact, Japan and the U.K. have experienced negative employment growth since 2020. I appreciate that trying to convince people, based on charts, about Canada's management of the fiscal framework, the monetary policy and the economy generally is somewhat of a challenge, and I have probably already lost the chamber. Having said that, it is a necessary setting in order to address the concerns Canadians have about their own economic well-being. I would just make the point over again about whether Canadians would prefer this government and this Parliament to address their concerns from a different position in the charts I have just mentioned. Would they like to be last in economic growth? Would they like to have challenges with employment? This is the environment in which we operate, and I think it is a necessary corrective to some of the conversation I have heard today. If we ask what the concerns of Canadians are, economic uncertainty is their number one concern, along with income inequality, housing affordability, job market challenges, high household debts, climate change and environmental concerns, and global economic trends. I put the economic uncertainties in the context of global events. We have had a Ukrainian war, the Middle Eastern war and instability in Asia-Pacific. These concerns are of great significance to Canada, particularly as Canada is a trading nation; a great deal of our GDP depends on trade. We have yet to see how the rerouting of ships in the Suez Canal area is going to affect Canadian prospects; it is necessarily going to be an added cost to the cost of goods and services in this country. We have yet to see that play through, but it is a dispute that Canadians are internalizing and recognizing, and I expect that the result will be an increase in commodity prices. Income inequality is a serious concern, and I have to say that, over the course of this government, there have been a number of really innovative initiatives on addressing income inequality. The first, and one of the most significant in my riding, is the Canada child benefit. Because I have a relatively impoverished riding with quite a number of children, that means something in the order of $100 million a year into my riding alone. If it is not the number one riding in Canada, then I think it is one of the higher-ranked ridings for the receipt of the Canada child benefit. It is similar with the Canada workers benefit and the child care initiative. These are all concerns that have been internalized by Canadians and create anxiety, but the address by the government is well placed in terms of addressing issues of income inequality. Finally, before you open the trap door and make me disappear, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be interesting to compare what Americans' concerns are as opposed to ours. A number of the concerns are clearly shared: income inequality, stagnant wages, job insecurity and cost of living. One is student loan debt. We recollect that President Biden tried to do something about it, but Congress has defeated him on that. Furthermore, Americans are deeply disturbed by their health care costs, even with Obamacare. There is also political polarization and policy uncertainty. We cannot turn on a television without commentary on the almost intractable policy and partisan contrast. Those last three things are not challenges that this country faces thus far, thank goodness, but they do cause a level of anxiety. Moreover, we somewhat reflect the concerns of Americans here with respect to our own economic uncertainty. The reconciliation between the metrics of this economy and how people are feeling about their own personal economy is the challenge of this government and this Parliament, and it will continue to vex us all. The government has taken a number of initiatives, such as the housing initiatives, that can ameliorate the immediate effects. Therefore, I encourage colleagues to support this bill, recognizing fully that they are hearing the same thing that we are hearing at the door: Canadians are concerned about their own personal situation.

1181 words

Context: House Hansard - 255 - Nov/24/23

Dec/13/23 4:08:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, five reports: the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group on the Council of State Governments' Midwestern Legislative Conference in Wichita, Kansas, from July 10 to 13, 2022; the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group on the Council of State Governments East's 61st annual meeting, in Manchester, New Hampshire, from August 14 to 17, 2022; the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group's on its bilateral visit with the United States Senate in Washington, D.C., from May 15 to 16; the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group's on the annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association in Boulder, Colorado, from June 26 to 28; and finally, the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group on the Council of State Governments' Midwestern Legislative Conference in Detroit, Michigan, from July 9 to 12. While I am on my feet, I want to thank the members for this work. In many instances, these meetings took place during members' vacation time. I want to thank them for attending to this most important relationship. I also want to acknowledge and thank senators Klobuchar and Crapo for their generous and warm welcome to our delegation while in Washington.

229 words

Nov/24/23 12:13:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on National Defence: the sixth report, entitled “Canadian Armed Forces Health Care and Transition Services”, and the seventh report, entitled “Public Procurement of the CP-140 Aurora Replacement”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

71 words

Cp
Aurora

Nov/21/23 1:06:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also want to call on the expertise of the hon. member with respect to competition in the airlines. We have seen WestJet pull back. We have seen Porter expand. We see the Billy Bishop airport wishing to expand and being able to accept jets. We have seen quite a number of new airlines start up in the last little while. It seems to run contrary to the narrative that we hear. Therefore, I would be interested in the member's observations.

84 words

Nov/21/23 1:04:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the ease with which passengers are getting through security, particularly at Pearson airport. I had the experience on the break week of travelling to Washington and, frankly, the experience was as it should be. I would like to think it would have something to do with my colleague and his group's advocacy. I would be interested in his comments on the security situation there, and indeed at the Ottawa airport, for those who have a NEXUS card.

93 words

Nov/21/23 12:53:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate those folks who made it to 70 years. That is quite impressive. The hon. member has a contradiction in his question. Here is legislation that would deal with the so-called bungling, which I disagree with profoundly, and he is going to vote against it. He apparently prefers that the current state of affairs in Canada's airports continues. I assume that he, as I do, consumes a lot of travelling services and knows that the state of Canada's airports is not the best. Here he has a chance to do something about it and he is blowing it.

107 words