- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/6/24 3:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I actually do not mind addressing the House on this particular issue, but I thought I would start off in the same manner in which the former leader of the Conservative Party, today's opposition House leader, did. I can understand why he wanted to talk about the economy, interest rates, inflation rates and concerns that he had with the government on those issues. Before he actually got to the motion itself, he spent probably about 50% of his time talking about that issue.
I like to think that the member has some valid points in some of the things that he was saying in terms of concerns that Canadians have in regard to some of those key indicators, and that is why I thought that maybe, given that the former leader of the Conservative Party started the debate talking about the economy, I would participate by sharing some thoughts, some actual facts, on that issue.
Yesterday was actually a very good day in Canada. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada actually reduced interest rates. We are the first country in the G7 to actually see a reduction in the interest rate. That is good news, and I want to reinforce that to members opposite. This will be the first reduction in four years, and we have to put it into the context of what is happening around the world.
When we take a look at interest rates and inflation rates around the world, Canada is doing relatively well, especially if we compare our economy, interest rates and inflation rates to other G7 and G20 countries. Canada is doing quite well, and yesterday, with the announcement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we actually saw a decrease. Canada is the first country in the G7 to do so.
I address that point to my friend, the Conservative House leader, who started off by talking about concerns regarding interest rates. I thought that was some good news, and I wanted to share that with the member opposite.
Now let us talk about the motion that we have today. If we take a look at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, better known as SDTC, which has been referred to throughout the day, I believe it is important that we highlight the fact that SDTC has been around for over 20 years. That is a very important fact. Next to that, we need to recognize that it is actually an arm's-length foundation, meaning that it has a very independent nature.
When we think of the board that members continuously make reference to, the Government of Canada does not appoint all the board members. We are not solely appointing the entirety of the board members to SDTC, and I think that is another very important thing to realize.
When we think in terms of what SDTC has done over the last 20 years, it is important that we reflect on the hundreds of projects that have been initiated, and as a direct result of that initiation, Canada has done relatively well on a number of fronts. When I think of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over the years, I think of quality air, clean water, enriched soil and the type of technology that needs to be developed in order to provide that quality, as well as to look at environmental initiatives that will have an impact not only here in Canada, but around the world.
As an arm's-length foundation, many of the investments have allowed Canadian companies not only to create jobs in Canada, not only to ensure that we have a healthier environment, but also to lead the world in many areas, and so we are contributing to technological advancements around the world through SDTC.
When we think of how the government provides funds to support Canadian companies that have the potential to be world leaders in technology, as a political entity, the Liberal Party has valued and recognized the importance of the government being involved indirectly, which is why it is in support of the foundation. The foundation, as I pointed out, was created 20 years ago. Obviously, it has survived a good number of years, even under Stephen Harper. We recognize the fact that the foundation continued to receive support. I suspect, with the millions of dollars that it has received over the years, that many of those Canadian-based companies, and the fine work they have done in terms of the advancement of technology, have contributed in many different ways, not only here, but abroad.
If we look at some of the companies that have benefited by it, three things come to my mind. I think of water, whether it is water treatment or whatever it might be. I think of energy with Manitoba and Quebec, two provinces that have so much development in hydro. There is so much potential in that industry and Canada, on many fronts, leads the way, because, in good part, of agencies such as SDTC, along with other levels of government and their investments or the national government's investments. When I think of water, energy and agriculture, all one really needs to do is take a look at the last few years to see how those three items come to the top of mind for me personally and why I believe it was important that the government take action on the issue.
Let us put it in perspective in terms of what has actually taken place. There were concerns raised a couple years back in regards to how SDTC was being governed, and employees and others had legitimate concerns. That was brought to the attention of the government. The government intentionally chose to look into the matter with not one, but two internal-type reviews, one being an external third party from within the department. An assessment was done and that report came out last fall. The government was concerned about the report and ultimately froze the new funding going to SDTC. The report, at least in part, caused the Auditor General of Canada to take note and to look into the matter. As a direct result of that, what we saw was the report that was just released earlier this week.
When the report was released, the government, as it has in the past, consistently acknowledged that we have independent offices of the House of Commons to support members and to ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and accountability. Through that report, we get a much clearer sense of the serious issues that had to be addressed. We are taking actions based on many of the report's recommendations. The government respects the recommendations and continues to follow them and the thoughts flowing out of that report.
Some tangible actions have already been taken. There is no longer a board and we have put into place a transitionary board with retired deputy ministers; I believe there are three retired deputy ministers. We are looking at how ensure that there is ongoing governance that will reinstate public confidence in a program that, generally speaking, has delivered for Canadians. We recognize that there have been some issues. We are not denying that. That is why we are dealing with the governance issue today and it is now being transferred over into the jurisdiction of the NRC.
We are taking it away from a foundation-type of board model, which is arm's-length from the government, and we are putting it into a Crown corporation, where there is the opportunity to ensure more direct accountability. I see that as a very strong, tangible action. When we first heard about the issue, the minister took action to ensure that we could find out more information as to what was taking place. For the Conservatives opposite to try to give an impression that the government has not been taking action, I think, is somewhat misleading.
At the end of the day, when a government spends a great deal of money, sometimes money is spent in an inappropriate fashion. When that takes place, I would suggest that it is important to watch the actions of the government to ensure public confidence, transparency and integrity of the system, a higher sense of oversight and a better sense of accountability. Changing that governance, ultimately, is going to ensure all of that.
The NRC has done some wonderful things in Canada. It has an infrastructure that is already in place. I suspect that many individuals from SDTC will have the opportunity to continue, to ensure that those jobs are in fact being taken into consideration. Think about the programs that are out there. I do not know all of the Canadian-based companies that have received support, but there are quite a few of them and many of them are ongoing. We are talking about hundreds over the years, so it is important that we continue with the program itself. This is where it will be interesting to hear from members of the Conservative Party in terms of where they see the program or the initiative.
Stephen Harper supported it, but we know that there has been a hard right turn within the Conservative Party. Just like Erin O'Toole supported a price on pollution, today's Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. Do they support having greener grants and support programs? Is that part of the motivation? They have not been clear on that issue.
Instead of having a substantive debate in regard to the benefits that have been realized, whether it is the jobs, the economics or the environment and the world-leading technology that is being developed, the Conservatives' sole focus is to try to shift the blame and say that the government has not been responding to the issues as they have been coming up, and then they try to label our government as corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth on this issue.
It is interesting, when we do a comparison. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we had the ETS scandal, and I made reference to it earlier. A number of people across the way had that shell shock-type of look, or one of a deer caught in the headlights. Maybe they should look it up. That was a technology service contract and, indirectly, the Conservative leader himself would have been somewhat associated with it, at least for a portion of his time with the Stephen Harper government. That was a $400-million contract.
If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should take a look at the allegations that were being made back then. Now contrast how the Conservative Party approached that mega-scandal with what they are saying today. We can see that it is quite different. Today's Conservative Party looks at things in a very different light. What we see is a Conservative Party that really has one or two issues that they want to focus on, and if we try to change that focus, the Conservatives get upset.
Conservatives want to focus on personalizing politics. They want to divide Canadians. They want to try to give the impression that Canada is broken, and that the institution of Parliament is not working. On the one hand, that is the type of messaging that we see time and time again. Character assassination is on the top of that list. The Conservatives are trying to feed the far right, and get them upset, angry and motivated to do the things that we are seeing today, which is somewhat disappointing in many ways.
On the other hand, the Conservatives go around, spreading misinformation on issues, such as the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would suggest that the issue we have before us today is an issue the Liberal government is taking seriously. It has demonstrated that by the actions that we have taken to date.
We are going to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency on the issue. We are going to ensure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers are protected, so the program will lead to ongoing clean energy and worldwide recognition of the advancements that Canada is making on technology.
2056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:33:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think it is important throughout this debate, because it is going to be a very emotional debate, no doubt, to remember that it is inappropriate for any member on any side to impute the motives of another member. Making a statement that one member is in favour or suggesting in any fashion that they are in favour of children being killed is inappropriate and unparliamentary. I would suggest it does nothing to maintain decorum. I say that for what it is worth. It is something that needs to be taken into consideration throughout the day.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to follow up on the last question and answer it because I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. The overriding thing has got to be the issue of trade agreements in principle and how it is that Canada has been a major benefactor through world trade.
We are very much a trading nation. For us to be able to hit the potential that Canada has in the future, we are very much dependant on international trade. All one needs to do is to take a look at any province, territory or community and the impact that international trade has had on every one of us in Canada. It affects us all. When we talk about good-quality, middle-class jobs, these are the ways in which we are going to be able to get many of those middle-class jobs.
This government has been focused on that virtually from day one, the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That has been a priority of this government. How can one make it a priority and not deal with the issue of trade? That is the reason, and I put this forward in the form of a question earlier, there is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and the government.
Contrary to how the member tried to respond in his question, one cannot change history. That is the reality. The reason why we have recognized the value of international trade and how that helps all of us is that we have seen the results of it, the growth in the economy. Prepandemic, we had already exceeded over a million additional jobs. That was prepandemic, based on the type of economic polices that were being developed and implemented here in Canada. It was having a positive impact.
The original Ukraine agreement was one of the first ones that was signed off on. I believe it was the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who went to Ukraine and signed off on it. A few years later, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister met and had a discussion about how important it was that we modernize that particular agreement. There were a number of things they felt could be done to improve the agreement.
There were sound negotiations, which I made reference to earlier. We are very fortunate because of the number of trade agreements and memoranda of understanding we have been able to put into place. We have an incredible team of negotiators who negotiate on Canada's behalf. I would ultimately argue that they are second to no other team in the world. They have been at it, and we have accomplished so many agreements.
Members ask about this or that region, what is taking place in this or that region or how we feel as the House of Commons. I suspect that, whether or not it is in debates after previous agreements, the experiences and the discussions that take place with the many different stakeholders, whether municipalities, provinces, indigenous people or many other stakeholders, leading into the negotiations, give a very good sense of what would work well for us as a nation.
Ultimately, one could say that the proof is in the pudding. Look at the number of agreements that Canada now has with other countries. No other country has the same sort of access as Canada does around the world, even the United States, with those formal agreements. We have been aggressive in recognizing the importance of achieving these agreements because all of us benefit through them.
I define the benefits as raising the standard of living for Canadians and creating thousands of good-quality middle-class jobs, which provide the type of revenue that supports the government in bringing forward good government programs. This is where the focus of the government has been.
We look at the agreement being debated today, and I am sensitive to what is being said with respect to the input before signing. Why are we now being asked to either agree or not agree with it by way of a question?
I think it is important to recognize the process by which the negotiations take place. The Prime Minister cannot take a document, sit down with the President of Ukraine and say that this is the agreement per our negotiators and the feedback we have received from literally hundreds if not thousands of stakeholders, who are now signing off on it, much like we would not expect the Ukrainian Parliament to try to change the agreement itself. That is how it has worked for a while now, and it has been very successful.
Members have made reference to wanting to see a bit of a change. Let us put that in a different perspective. I could be wrong on this, but if memory serves me correctly, this could be the first time in modern history where a trade agreement is being achieved when one of the countries is at war. Ukraine has a lot of things on its plate right now, yet as a country, it recognizes just how important it is to look at securing the modernization of a trade agreement.
It says a lot when a country at war is looking to Canada, which has been a dear friend to Ukraine, saying how important it is that we have a modern trade agreement. That was a president to a prime minister. It was signed off last month, in September. Given all the other issues we are facing, how often do I stand in the chamber to talk about the impacts of inflation, how it is hurting Canadians, the issue of interest rates and so many other issues? As a government, we recognize how important it is that we continue to push on the file between Canada and Ukraine in a tangible way. If we put it in the perspective of Ukraine being at war, given our previous negotiations and achievements through trade agreements, in particular the Ukraine trade agreement, I think there is a valid argument to be made that there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing this legislation to, at the very least, go to committee.
I realize this is day one of the debate, but what concerns me is that the Conservatives' critic, in particular, has indicated that they want to have a more thorough debate, but there was no indication as to how long they would like to debate it. I am hoping that they, in particular, will not use House and procedural tactics to filibuster this legislation.
The stakeholders, whether in Ukraine or Canada, see the benefit of having this type of legislation pass. Personally, I would like to see it go to the Senate before Christmas because it still has to pass at the Senate, which is very much doable.
I want to emphasize this: We all talk about what is happening in Ukraine today, with the illegal invasion of Russia into its sovereign territory. Here we have an opportunity to make a very powerful statement by believing in our negotiators. Members have a copy of the agreement.
Even New Democrats voted in favour of the original Ukraine trade agreement. Collectively, as a House, we can send a very strong message to Europe and to Ukraine by saying that Canada is going to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. This trade agreement would empower more economic commerce between the two nations. It would enable a wider spectrum of services and goods. It would put into place dispute mechanisms.
Ukraine will prevail over Russia. When that happens, it is going to need and want to see its allied countries come to the table. Canada will be there. This is one of the ways we can be there in a real way. That is why I would suggest that we should deal with this legislation in the same format as we did for the first piece and allow it to pass relatively quickly.
1362 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 12:48:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, within the current legislation and regulations, when we think of visitor visas or temporary visas generally speaking, the civil servants have a system that includes things such as good character. The civil service is very much aware of the issues that are taking place in Iran.
Could the member provide her thoughts on how our current system seems to already accommodate and take into consideration what the first and only recommendation would do in limiting temporary visas to individuals who should not be coming to Canada?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-23 takes into consideration the calls to action on reconciliation. I believe it is number 79 that ensures there is representation from the indigenous community on the board. The member seems to have some concern about whether or not that representation is within the legislation, but my understanding of the legislation is that it is there. It also ensures indigenous consideration in decisions being made by the board.
Would the member not agree that in recognizing that this legislation, in principle, is good and sets the framework, many of the ideas and suggestions she might have as an opposition member could in fact have a positive outcome once the bill gets to the committee stage, where at the very least her questions could be answered more specifically?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:35:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, the legislation itself is, in a very real way, a reflection of what the provinces were looking at seeing some changes on. It also takes into consideration some of the things we witnessed through the pandemic; in other words, modernization to a certain extent and recognizing the importance of technological advances.
I understand that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation, which is a really good thing. Providing this opportunity is healthy for our judicial system, which is in fact independent, and there seems to be fairly good ground support to see this legislation pass.
Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the legislation itself?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:28:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, before question period, the member made reference to facial expressions and other things that may be lost in a virtual setting.
Would she not agree that those types of considerations would be taken into account in situations where they might be of concern to a defence lawyer or the Crown attorney?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one issue that the member did not really address was the CRTC. CRTC plays a very strong role in our society and it deals with a lot of the telecommunications that the member references. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how CRTC would be taken into consideration with respect to what he has proposed, especially if we take into consideration that it has already been given some instruction.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 12:09:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the things the government has been doing is looking at a number of different ways we can enhance things such as EI benefits for Canadians. We are also taking into consideration what the member raised today.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 5:37:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some thoughts on the importance of reconciliation.
In the legislation, from what I understand, there is consideration being given to the UNDRIP, which is an important aspect of the legislation. The member might want to provide some thoughts on that or just speak generally to reconciliation and how the government needs to continue its efforts in dealing with the environment on the issue of reconciliation.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 11:33:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the manner in which the member has raised the issue of Vladimir Kara-Murza as a noteworthy individual. We should be stating his name, perhaps even in a wonderful unanimous consent motion. Maybe the member could possibly give that some consideration.
I know how sensitive the NDP is on the environmental file. We were supposed to be debating Bill S-5 today. There were other opportunities in which this debate could have been facilitated. Could she comment on whether we are losing out because we are not debating this important legislation today?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/22 3:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update. On Monday, we will resume debate on Government Business No. 11 concerning the extension of sitting hours and commence third-reading debate on Bill C-8. It is also our intention to begin consideration at second reading of the budget bill on Tuesday and continue with this debate on Wednesday and Thursday.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
