44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I found it very shocking that the member, when referring to women who stay home with their children, said they are not working. In fact, that is probably, as a mother, one of the hardest jobs I have had. I just want to remind the member that most unpaid care work is done by women.
Getting back to respecting women, I would also like to remind the member that 98% of early childhood educators are women and they are not earning a livable wage, which is one of the very reasons we have the child care desert that the members keep talking about. When we talk to Conservatives about putting in a plan for workers that pays livable wages and that invests in robust, public not-for-profit care where workers get benefits, wages and retirement, they seem to overlook that question.
Does the member support livable wages and a workforce strategy that pays livable wages, benefits and retirement for early childhood educators, yes or no?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously I support livable wages. I also support an economy where people can afford to live without having to be massively topped up and subsidized by the government. People should be able to have paycheques that actually reward them for the work they are doing.
I also said in my speech, though, that mothers or stay-at-home fathers, and it does not matter which one, are working 24-7 parenting. Whether it is the mother or the father, it is a 24-7 job. I know that my kids, when they wake up with a fever or something like that, are not calling for dad; they are calling for mom. Moms are on call 24-7. It is the hardest but most rewarding job there can be on this earth, and the government fails to recognize that.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my question is very brief.
I know the member represents a large rural constituency, as do I, his in Saskatchewan and mine in Alberta. I wonder if the member could reflect a bit further on how rural is left out of the entire conversation when it comes to this bill and the overall approach by the government on a whole host of issues but specifically when it comes to child care.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. If we look at a lot of the day care spaces that are the beneficiaries of this program, they are largely in urban centres. Because the majority of private facilities are in rural communities, quite often it is the small-town co-operative that is left out. People are relying on grandma and relying on their aunts and uncles or friends down the road to take care of their kids for them, and this bill does not recognize that.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is 11:30 at night, and it has been a long week here so far, but I am proud to join the discussion and debate tonight on child care affordability in our country.
One of the most difficult things we do at times is humanize ourselves and, more importantly, humanize the debates we are having here about improvements, and helping Canadians and families. I do not have any children. Tonight, as we have this conversation about Bill C-35, I am thinking of my nieces and nephews Kane, Johnny, Hailey and little Evy. The best part is the title that I have is “Unckie Dunkie”. I am going to have to tell the Table here how to spell that for Hansard afterward for the record. I have the best job in the world. If we go to a family function or event, I feed the kids candy and Coca-Cola, or whatever they want. I fire them up on sugar and I get to leave at the end of the night, and my sisters, stepsisters and siblings have to put up with getting them to sleep. Therefore, I have to say I am a bit biased. I have a very good role as “Unckie Dunkie”.
I want to contribute to what has been talked a lot about here tonight, and over the course of the past few weeks, when it comes to the Liberal and NDP plan on child care.
One of the things I have said many times, on many pieces of legislation, is that the Liberals are the best in the communications business when it comes to making flashy announcements. I have always said they get an A for announcement and an F for follow-through on the realization of what they are talking about. This conversation on child care is another perfect illustration of that. Here is the problem. If we were to listen to Liberal and NDP speakers, they would make it seem that the framework for this legislation and the money allocated to it is available to every single parent and child in this country when that is not the case.
We can look at a recent headline across the country on CTV News within the last month, entitled, “New report finds child-care spots available for only 29 per cent of those who need it”. The CBC highlighted, through that same report, another important angle, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador only has enough registered spaces for 14% of children.
We, as Conservatives, have been highlighting that this is not the be-all and end-all solution to child care affordability, because the number of families that are going to be able to tap into this program is very limited. The desert of child care spaces available in this country is very large and is frankly growing. Many advocates are saying that the problem, under the Liberals over the course of the last eight years, is getting worse, not better, when it comes to spaces and affordability for far too many families.
The other thing I want to contribute, which is a regular thing when it comes to Liberal legislation we see in the House, is that I would call this a bit of a Seinfeld bill. The issue and title of the bill are perhaps worthwhile, but not its content. The Liberals and NDP would make us think that if it did not pass immediately without debate, if we pass it no further, if we do take the time at committee and in the House to share our stories and perspectives, that the financial deals with the provinces are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case whatsoever. Those deals were signed separately.
Bill C-35 is a vague framework, and like many pieces of legislation, it does not get into the details, but rather kicks things over to the minister in charge of the file to make decisions outside the House, and through regulation afterward.
The interesting thing is this. I have to commend my colleague, who is over my shoulder right now, which is perfect, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who has been a fantastic voice for our caucus and our party on this. I want to talk about some of the things we tried to do to strengthen the quality, accountability and transparency of the bill to get the true record of what the Liberals and NDP claim they will be doing in the coming years.
We tried to pass amendments on two things, the wait-lists, and the labour rates and number of staffing in child care across the country. If this is going to address spaces, and not create major wait-lists to tap into the program, the government should table a report every year with respect to what the wait-lists are. It refused. The Liberals and the NDP voted that down.
When we said there should be an annual report on the labour force around child care, getting people into those jobs, into those positions, into those new spaces being created to see if the Liberals are following through with what they said they would do, they voted that down as well. That tells us everything we need to know about what this legislation and the plan will do for the overwhelming majority of Canadian families, who are not eligible or able to tap into this.
If there was not going to be a wait-list, if the wait-list was going to be decreasing and solving all the problems, if there was going to be a massive change and surge in labour to address those challenges, one would think the Liberals and NDP would be confident, saying they would absolutely love a report every year. This would show how they are doing better and making improvements. The fact that they voted it down, the fact that they denied that accountability and transparency, tells Canadians everything they need to know about what this plan would do.
I have to say, along the lines of the NDP, what will happen. I was a member of the public accounts committee, a great committee that reads through Auditor General reports. Time and time again, Liberal and NDP members are trying to explain that “A” for announcement, this amazing announcement they have about spending record amounts of money, adding to the deficit, adding more spending. Every time someone criticizes a program, they say not to worry, they have x number of dollars more. The Auditor General is concluding from her independent office that time and time again, the announcement and the follow-through are two completely different things.
As Conservatives, we will continue to fight for Canadians and families to address the root causes, doing more than what is being done here. The principle of affordable child care has been mentioned a few times here tonight. I believe it is a reasonable principle that everybody in this House shares. What Conservatives are fighting for and speaking about is that, in this legislation, in this framework and in the plan that the Liberals and NDP have, there is a lack of flexibility and choice.
I talked about personalizing this debate. I have talked about my nieces and nephews, and my nephew Kane. My sister Jill and her husband, Cody, were very blessed. As Kane grew up and was going into child care before starting school, there was Cassandra Tibben, a neighbour of Jill and Cody's just north of Iroquois, who did an incredible job in her few years with Kane. She was a home care provider just a couple of hundred feet from their place. Jill is a nurse, and Cody works in construction. Cassandra offered that service close to home with flexible hours, and it was a connection in a small town like Iroquois, like in South Dundas and like in eastern Ontario. Under the framework and program that the Liberals have put the funding envelope in, that type of home care is not eligible.
I am thinking tonight of some communities in northern Ontario. I am thinking of Blind River, Wawa, Kapuskasing and Hearst, where there would be some not-for-profit spaces. However, for a shift worker who is 45 minutes out of those towns and looking for home care, the framework that the Liberals and NDP are proposing is very rigid. It leaves out many providers and the finances of many providers, even getting assistance through this, and it leaves a lot of families with no option and no hope through this existing framework.
I am very proud of the work the Conservative caucus has been doing in talking not only about affordability but also choice for parents. Parents need that flexibility. Shift workers, people in rural areas and parents with children with disabilities need more flexibility than what is being offered. We will continue to fight in this House, in committee and across the country to let families know that every single time, these big, flashy Liberal announcements do not follow through with results. Conservatives are results-oriented, and we will keep holding the government to account for its continued failures. Child care, I am sure, through the Auditor General and through the public accounts process, will be the same; it will be another part where the rhetoric does not match the reality.
1571 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to personalize a little, and I can too. Last Friday, I was walking through Milton and knocking on doors. In between doors, I talked to Teddy, who was pushing his son in a little stroller. Teddy's son was driving the stroller, actually. I asked how his family was doing. I said I knew there are tough financial times right now and asked if everybody was doing well. He said the big thing is that his family is saving $500 or $600 a month on child care. The Conservatives have repeatedly called this program a failure, saying that investing in a child care program for Canadians is a failure.
I can tell the member first-hand that this is not a question for Teddy's family. Canadians are provided with the kind of support that they are demanding from us. It is saving families a lot of money. It might not be reaching every single family in Canada yet, but it is a great start, and Teddy's family is very grateful.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Teddy is an example of where somebody is tapping into the program. If they have access to it, if they already have a space, they are able and they are eligible for it, but for every one Teddy, there are probably two or three more, right in Milton, who are not able to go into that program, who are not realizing those savings, who are not seeing those spaces, who are not seeing that increase.
Again, what the member, the Liberals and NDP fail to realize is that for every Teddy, there are multiple other Teddys who are not able to tap into this program. Their child care fees are not being reduced, and instead their taxes are going up, their financial situation, if it is their house price, their mortgage, their rent or trying to save for a down payment on a home, that has all doubled. There are many families being left behind.
It is nowhere near as universal as the Liberals and NDP claim and want us to believe.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in Quebec, we have experience with day cares that are public and accessible to families who have less money. Is the system perfect and are there always enough day care spaces for everyone? The answer is, of course not. Is that a reason to do nothing and to leave it all up to private, for-profit day cares that cost a fortune? The answer, again, is no.
The framework must be set up, and then workers and space need to be found to create spaces for our families' children. That is how we can get ahead and make some progress.
The Conservatives talk to us about choice, but, right now, the only choice people have if they cannot access a day care that is not expensive but affordable is to stay at home because it costs more to pay for a private day care than it does to go to work, because work does not bring in enough money. That is not a real choice; it is a lack of choice.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the choice is to do the right thing and provide the flexibility for parents to do what it is best in their family situation.
That would mean expanding the opportunity and the eligibility for assistance beyond not-for-profit and public centres, offering home care as an option that is in people's homes, a couple of blocks away, in their neighbourhood. It means providing the choice and that funding to go towards people who are shift workers in health care and factories, in rural and urban areas alike.
The problem, time and time again, and I agree with the NDP that doing something is one thing, but they are not doing enough. They are not providing the flexibility or the choice for parents to actually make a difference, using those tools and those options that work for best for their choice, not what the Liberals and NDP tell them are the best.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the member's interventions, and now I do not know that I can ever not call him “Unckie Dunkie” for the rest of his life.
What the member does so well is articulate and elevate the voices of his constituents. Are there are other stories that he would like to share with the House that really highlight the gaps that have not been closed by these Liberals and the NDP?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to. I want to add, in the name of personalization, one of my best friends, Emily Strader, a childhood friend is actually an ECE, working in Ottawa, in child care, and enjoys what she does.
I had many conversations with her and her colleagues at work about the day to day, trying to do what they can to address the massive wait-lists that they have and the frustration they have in this program.
Time and time again, they do not see the announcement, and the flashiness of what is being said, and the actual follow-through. Time and time again, it comes up short. We are seeing way too many women and men working in child care leave, because there is a broken system.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill that seeks to create some permanence around the progress that has been made in respect of funding child care in Canada. I want to talk first about the policy, and then I want to talk a little bit about the politics of it.
We have heard a lot of stories here in the chamber tonight. I could add personal anecdotes about the challenges of child care. I will not, because I think we have heard many, and I think we all know that these experiences are common enough that Canadians can appreciate just how stressful it is for families, both in terms of financial stress and just the stress of having child care fall through. We had our kids in home day cares and then we had our kids in centre day cares. Especially when they were in home day cares, if the child care provider at home got sick, that would often mean scrambling the night before, or the morning of, to try to find replacement care. I think that one of the advantages of investing in not-for-profit centre spaces is that they do provide a degree of reliability that one cannot always get when it is one person in their home trying to provide care. It is still a valuable service, and I was grateful to be able to avail myself of that as a parent, and my wife was grateful, but we have also really appreciated the reliability that has come with transitioning to centre-based care.
Why is it that we need public investment in child care? Again, I think we have personalized the issue well enough. The fact of the matter is that, for a lot of parents, what they earn when they go to work is not enough to be able to pay a child care rate that is sufficient to pay people what they need in order to be able to make a living as an early child care educator. It is a classic case of market failure. If it were not, then at some point over the last 40, 50 or 60 years, we would have seen very successful businesses crop up to meet demand, but demand is not being met. It has been chronically unmet because there is a structural problem in the child care market, which is that too many parents cannot make enough money going to work to be able to pay fees that provide enough salary to attract, train and retain qualified early child care educators. That is really why it has been so important for so long for government to get involved.
Of course, provincial governments across the country have gotten involved in various ways. Quebec is, I think, the best example of organized publicly funded care. It is still not perfect, but it is certainly the best that is available in Canada. I come from a province, Manitoba, that has had a lot of investment over the years by NDP governments, frankly, in child care, and we enjoy the second-lowest child care rates in the country. We are one of very few provinces to have a pension plan available for early childhood educators. That was true even before this latest round of bilateral deals, which is not, by any stretch, to say that Manitoba is some kind of child care paradise. It is hard to find a space. It is still a big expense for families. It is hard to attract and retain workers in the field. All those problems still persist, despite being in a province that, on the numbers, is functioning relatively better than some other places in the country in terms of affordability and accessibility.
We need public investment in child care because the market is not satisfying persistent, long-standing demand. Not only that, but that demand for child care comes with a number of other problems for the larger economy, and that is why I heard some members earlier tonight reference studies that have been done. I have read similar studies. They show the economic activity generated by allowing those parents who want to go into the workforce to do so, by governments investing in child care, making more spaces available and making them more accessible by making them more affordable. Women, predominantly, without any kind of government subsidy for the rate they pay, cannot make enough at work to justify paying child care costs and still have something left over at the end of the day.
The amount of extra economic activity that generates would more than pay for the program. It is an important part of satisfying the demands we constantly hear from employers who are saying they need access to more workers. This is how we do it.
One of the ways we do it is by ensuring that the parents who do want to work can go ahead, get a job and know they will be able to get a spot at a rate that empowers them to go to work, take home enough of their paycheque after child care fees, and know it is worthwhile for them to do that.
It is not that these recent deals are a panacea. They do not fix all the problems. It is just a good start to something the government should have been doing decades ago.
I remember when I first ran for office in 2015. I was very proud to run on the idea of a national child care strategy. I watched as Conservatives dismissed the idea out of hand. They said it was not the business of government to be supporting child care or funding child care. Liberals, frankly, ran against it too. They said the provinces would never agree. It was just a pipe dream, it was silly NDP thinking. I am glad to see the thinking around that has changed.
I know we are debating this particular legislation and not just resting on our laurels with the bilateral deals that were signed because of the supply and confidence agreement that the NDP has with the government. It is a CASA item. There is a reason it is there.
It is because we did not want this to be a five-year experiment that would get truncated. We wanted this to be the first five years of an ongoing commitment to building up a child care system that adequately provides for the Canadian workforce so everyone who wants to go out, get a job and provide for their family, but needs child care to be able to do it, will be able to access a space. We are not there yet. We are not even close to there yet.
I know Conservatives would like to say that somehow the New Democrats are pretending that everybody has a spot now. It could not be further from the truth. We are very aware of the problems. Incidentally, I do not know how Conservatives could be blaming this legislation for the current state of affairs. It has not even passed yet. The bilateral deals were only signed about 12 months ago.
The idea that somehow this approach is to blame for the shortage of child care spaces is just a farce for anyone who is paying attention. This approach has not got off the ground yet. I do not want to just see this get off the ground as some kind of five-year trial period, and then the federal government wipes its hands and walks away.
What I want, and why this legislation is so important, is to see this as the first five years of an indefinite program that continues to deliver spaces for Canadian workers on an ongoing basis, not just for the workers' sake, but also for the employers' sake and for the sake of their families.
Yes, there is still a shortage of space. There will continue to be a shortage of spaces for a long time because we cannot just snap our fingers and create a child care system overnight, just as we cannot snap our fingers and create enough housing overnight to meet the demand that is out there.
It is why it is so important that we not waste time debating the value of having a strategy at all and jump full on into talking about what kind of strategy we should have. It is fair game for the Conservatives to disagree with certain elements of the strategy.
For my part, I think it is really important to emphasize non-profit care. Why is that? It is because what I do not want to take hold is the corporate model of child care. There are a few reasons for that.
One is that I think we will get better value for money if we are not already starting out from the point of view that 10% or more of the public dollars that we spend on child care are going to have to go to paying corporate profits. When we look at the corporate track record in long-term care and we compare it to non-profit long-term care, what we see is an appreciable difference in the nature of the care provided. We get better care at non-profit, long-term care centres.
I believe that the same incentive structure that is there for for-profit, long-term care centres to cut corners will also exist for for-profit child care centres to cut corners, and that is why it is important that we put an emphasis on not-for-profit care.
I have more to say, but unfortunately my time is up. Hopefully I will get to more of this in the question and comment portion.
1635 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on part of the member's concerns. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party, given its track record, has no intention of supporting the type of program we have negotiated with our provinces. That is the primary reason we see Bill C-35. It is because I do not believe the Conservatives can be trusted on the issue.
Does the member have any thoughts on the importance of this child care issue? How important is it that the agreements continue on into the years ahead?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I certainly share that concern. As members have referenced already, we saw in 2006 that when the Conservatives had the opportunity to upend child care agreements that had been signed with the provinces, they did not hesitate for a moment; they went ahead and ripped those up. Then they instituted the $100 a month for parents, which presumably was the model they endorsed to create the kind of choice they are talking about tonight. However, we saw that this was not sufficient, and that was at a time when $100 a month went a lot further than it does now. That was not conducive to creating the kind of child care system we need in order to meet demand.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to point out for the member's riding that 76% of children are in a child care desert in Manitoba.
I just got an email, and it says, “Dear Michelle, it's 11:45. I'm sitting watching CPAC live, as you are there yourself. Please mention and ask about ECE workers that are still out of work due to vaccine mandates and would like to get back to work.”
My question to my hon. colleague is from Bonnie Bon, who is watching at home. Will he help ensure this?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that the vaccine mandates that put ECE workers out of work in Ontario were done by the Conservative government of Doug Ford. I would encourage her to contact her colleagues in the Conservative government there to talk about what kind of redress might be available for ECE workers who had to leave their job as a result of Conservative-imposed vaccine mandates in Ontario.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at a basic level, I struggle to understand the fairness of taxing all families and subsidizing some child care choices and not others. People make a variety of choices, and they have a variety of approaches to child care. Some of those reflect their circumstances, the kinds of jobs they have, their choices about the division of labour and these sorts of things. How is it fair that a family that does not use or is not able to access state day care should have to subsidize somebody else who made a different choice? Why do we not simply give support equally to all families and allow them to make their own choices and use those resources to facilitate those choices?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are two things I would say.
One is that the Harper government did do that with $100 a month, but it did not create the kinds of spaces that are required to meet demand, both for the sake of Canadian working families and for employers who want to see more workers available in the labour market.
I would add that one of the biggest beneficiaries of the child care program is actually employers. The New Democrats have been arguing for some time that Canada should not have a bottom-of-the-barrel corporate tax rate of 15%. We are quite open to the idea of having a higher corporate tax rate and ensuring that it is the employers who will be benefiting from having more workers available in the economy who are helping to pay for these child care investments.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:00:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am speaking tonight about the inconsistencies between the government's claims about the Trudeau Foundation and the actual facts of what has happened in terms of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation.
There are a couple of key points that are, I think, not disputed. The Trudeau Foundation was founded with a $125-million grant from the Government of Canada. It is not a normal charity. It has a close relationship with government. It is considered a government institution in various statutes, which brings it under the Federal Accountability Act, access to information and privacy laws, etc. It is defined as a public institution.
The Trudeau Foundation also has a close relationship with the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister continues to be listed as a member of the foundation. Inevitably, the member opposite will get up and say that the Prime Minister has not been involved for years. Well, he is still listed in the annual report. Pre-emptively, let me say that the member should read the annual report and he will see that the Prime Minister is still listed as a member of the Trudeau Foundation.
The Trudeau Foundation's governance involves a certain number of members, and members of the board of directors as well being appointed by the Trudeau family and a certain number being appointed directly by the Minister of Industry, as well as a number of other members. Therefore, the structure has a privileged role in decision-making for the government as well as for the Trudeau family. That is not in dispute. That is in the governing documents of the Trudeau Foundation.
The Prime Minister has said he built a wall between himself and the foundation when we know, and I raised this in my previous question, that the Trudeau Foundation hosted a meeting in the Prime Minister's own office, which was attended by five deputy ministers. This is quite significant. It suggests that there was not a wall built at all. We have clearly this close relationship between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's family, the government and the Trudeau Foundation.
Then there are attempts at foreign interference that are going through the Trudeau Foundation and foreign donations coming into the Trudeau Foundation spiking significantly after the current government took office. The Trudeau Foundation member was saying in one case that they had returned a donation that they had not returned. There were mass resignations of the board, etc. This raises significant questions about foreign interference and about the government's and the Trudeau Foundation's vulnerability to foreign interference, even while the government members continue to say that there is nothing much to see here.
Then we have this situation where all of the people the government has been able to find to investigate foreign interference have been people who have been involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Just today at committee, we had David Johnston appearing. In multiple cases the government members have said that they need someone to investigate foreign interference and the only people they have found to be available have been people at the Trudeau Foundation. I would put to the government that we are not such a small country that the only people available to investigate foreign interference are those connected to the Trudeau Foundation.
It is clearly far too convenient for the government because it has not built a wall between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau Foundation meetings, at least one that we know of, occur in the Prime Minister's office. Despite whatever bluster we hear, it is in the annual report that the Prime Minister continues to be a member of the Trudeau Foundation. The Minister of Industry as well as the Trudeau family have the power to appoint boards of directors and the Trudeau Foundation was clearly a target for foreign interference.
Will the government put aside the bluster about claiming things that are verifiably not true? Will it acknowledge there is a problem here and recognize the importance of having somebody who is not a member of the Trudeau Foundation providing an independent investigation oversight on the issue of foreign interference as well as what happened at the Trudeau Foundation?
710 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:04:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, try as often and as hard as the member opposite does on an ongoing basis, in terms of what I have suggested, on many occasions it is the whole concept of character assassination. They just do not want to let up on that particular issue. As much as the Conservatives want to continue their focus on that, on the personal stuff and the personal attacks, the Government of Canada and in particular the Prime Minister are committed to Canadians in terms of remaining focused on the needs of Canadians. We will continue to do that.
With respect to the Trudeau Foundation, the member knows full well, and he even implied it in his question, that the Prime Minister has had no communication and has not been involved with the Trudeau Foundation for well over a decade now. The member knows that.
The member talks about how the Trudeau Foundation had a meeting in the Prime Minister's office. I would suggest that he is trying to give a false impression. The member opposite is trying to give an impression that we have a little office, the office where the Prime Minister sits at a desk, and maybe there are a couple of other chairs around it and some other office furniture, and that this is where the Trudeau Foundation met. The PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, is an entire building. There are all forms of groups that meet with deputy ministers, and there are other types of meetings inside there. He tries to give the perception that we had the Trudeau Foundation going into this small little office of the Prime Minister, and that this is a conflict of interest because they met with deputy ministers. In fact, we are talking about a building, a building that has all forms of different meetings with all forms of different groups, both for-profit and non-profit. All sorts of stuff takes place in there.
The member then makes reference to David Johnston. David Johnston was a Conservative prime minister appointment, as the former governor general of Canada. David Johnston has the experience in terms of what he has been tasked to do on behalf of the people of Canada in doing an investigation and reporting to the House.
The Conservatives do not like what the former governor general is saying. The former governor general said that if someone wants to understand why there is no need for a public inquiry, they should take a look at the annex. The annex is top secret. It is something for which the hon. member's leader, the Conservative leader, would actually have to get a proper security clearance. He would know that. He was a federal minister at one time. By getting that, he would be able to see why it is that David Johnston ultimately said there was no need for a public inquiry.
The leader of the Conservative Party does not want that. He wants to continue to be ignorant of the facts. This way, he can do and say whatever it is he wants. He does not want to know the truth, nor does the Conservative Party appreciate, in any fashion, the reality of the situation in regard to the Trudeau Foundation, because it does not fit the narrative they are trying to give Canadians, which is nothing but misrepresentation.
562 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
