44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
- May/31/23 2:34:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Dan Stanton, a former CSIS counter-intelligence officer, testified in committee. He said that a public inquiry into foreign interference is necessary. He, like many Canadians, is wondering what is going on. He said very clearly that there are safeguards that can be put in place to protect sensitive information. I agree with Mr. Stanton.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing? Will he listen to Canadians, listen to this House and listen to a former CSIS counter-intelligence officer and vote in favour of our motion calling for a public inquiry?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 2:34:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will do one better than a former CSIS agent. Current leadership across our intelligence agencies and across the public service continues to say that the best way to move forward is not with a public inquiry, which would have to happen behind closed doors. Many who testified at committees expressed that perspective. To remove it from the political realm, we asked an unimpeachable man of integrity, a former governor general selected by Stephen Harper, to look into these matters deeply and to make a determination as to whether a public inquiry was the right mechanism. He said—
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 2:42:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are entitled to the facts. That is why we want a public inquiry.
We know that Beijing gave $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. We know that when the scandal broke, he named Mr. Rosenberg to look into it. Rosenberg is with the Trudeau Foundation. When the scandal exploded further, he named Mr. Johnston, also a member of the Trudeau Foundation. What did he do? He named another judge from the Trudeau Foundation to look into the conflict of interest.
Is the Prime Minister afraid of a public inquiry because he has run out of members of the Trudeau Foundation to run it?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her speech.
I have enjoyed working with her and also other colleagues in committee as we go through this process. I could not agree with my colleague more. Quebec is the model that we looked to in being able to create a system that would include all the provinces and territories, and that is why we embarked on this with so much consultation with Quebec. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed really fruitful conversations with the centre of excellence for early childhood development in Sainte-Justine.
We know that a public system is the right system. It is a high-quality system, yet my colleagues in the CPC keep insisting on private care. I would like to know the member's thoughts on why a public system is the right system for our children.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think there is a lot to unpack. In Quebec, there are still 70,000 kids on a wait-list. I think it is great to look to Quebec because, as I say, it is the DeLorean. We can go back to the future and learn from it.
In terms of the private sector turning a profit, I find it interesting. If we have women entrepreneurs who are just putting money back into the system, is that not what the public system is doing?
How is Quebec closing this gap of 70,000 without accessing that? How is it addressing the labour shortage?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say that Quebec has always been a victim of its own success. The number of spaces has always been an issue. There are more than 200,000 spots, yet we still come up short.
There are also certain concerns. For parents, it is important to have a space in a public child care centre precisely so they do not have to go to the private sector, where the regulations and objectives are completely different. We need to strengthen the public network by creating spaces. I think it is a decent challenge, and the model is a success.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for her comments tonight. However, I would encourage her to actually read what is available in the public data record on agreements online. Her own province, in 2022, created 1,800 new spaces and 409 new licensed child care spaces in 41 communities. What was a child care desert continues to be an issue, but without this work, without these agreements, those spaces would not have existed. Even more so, by the end of 2023, there will be 4,000 new spaces in 31 urban and rural communities.
The member talked about inclusion. The Conservatives seem to be redefining “inclusion”, but inclusion is very clear. It is about who receives care: those with vulnerabilities, children with disabilities and so on. However, should taxpayer dollars be paying for private entrepreneurship? I do not think so from the public purse. I would like to know, if those issues are addressed, as I have clearly explained, will the Conservatives support Bill C-35?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not think the hon. member was listening to my speech. I was actually talking about how we add to the supply, and that adding is always better than subtracting.
If I heard correctly, I am pretty sure that the member from Vancouver said that she is against giving public money to companies. Does that mean she is against the billions given to Volkswagen? Do I understand that correctly, or is it just for those that the member from the NDP agrees with?
When we are talking about this child care issue, we want to see more spaces rather than fewer. That means more choice for parents because more selection and more choice equals a better product, service and price.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:09:31 a.m.
- Watch
You are filibustering on public accounts.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
