Richard Bragdon

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“I share the concern that this buying process could be abused. We need checks and balances to protect tax dollars and hold the government accountable. The House does not have enough oversight right now. We must make sure safeguards are put in place.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I share my colleague’s concerns. Regarding the procurement process, we want to make sure that checks and balances are put in place that protect taxpayer dollars and hold the government to account. I share the member’s concern that there is the potential for this to be abused, and it does not have adequate oversight and accountability from this body, from the House. We have to make sure that safeguards are put in place.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“Canadians want to invest in our armed forces quickly and properly. Because this involves a lot of money, Parliament must oversee it with honesty and openness.”

“Mr. Speaker, I give my deepest respects to the service member, who paid a huge price in service, and to his family. Canadians are looking for the best way to invest in our armed forces to give them the adequate supports that they need and make sure it is timely. Canadians also want, and are demanding, that this be done with integrity. They want it done in a way that is transparent, open, with proper accountability and checks and balances in place. This is a huge amount of money, and rightly so, but it needs to be done properly, with the oversight of Parliament.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Our military needs the best equipment and supplies, and we support spending more money on defense. But the government must put real rules in place so this money buys actual equipment instead of being lost to bureaucracy. The government also cannot claim it is boosting defense when it plans to cut the military's operating budget by 10%.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for sharing her time. It is an honour to rise in the people’s house once again, to speak in regard to Bill C-40. I would like to commence my remarks by recognizing and giving honour to those to whom honour is due. Our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families who have been affected and devastated by the tragedy that has taken place at CFB Wainwright. I want to offer, to them and the Canadian Armed Forces from coast to coast to coast, our thoughts, prayers and sympathies to the families that have been affected and are going through loss at this time. Upon further reflection in regard to that, thinking of our brave men and women in uniform, past and present, and as we approach Remembrance Day coming up, it would only be correct for me to once again recognize that we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid to those who paid the ultimate price, and to their families, who suffer so much along with them, providing such tremendous support and hope to Canadians. We are enjoying freedoms because they paid the price, they made sacrifices and their loved ones allowed them to serve. They have served in so many ways that we cannot begin to adequately express. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac, we thank all of them for their service and sacrifice. We give honour to them today. We recognize that the Canadian Armed Forces deserve the best of the best, and they deserve our best. They have an expectation of government, and rightly so, that if they are going to make sacrifices and go to serve a cause greater than themselves, they need the best equipment and supplies and the weaponry that they need to do combat in the 21st century. Part of that is making sure that we give them all the tools that they need to succeed. While I was thinking about this, I was reflecting upon how many times our brave men and women have punched above their weight in service to our country. The Canadian Armed Forces have done incredible feats throughout history. Whether it was at Vimy Ridge, where heroism was on full display; at Juno Beach when our troops, our brave young soldiers, stormed the beaches; the liberation of the Netherlands in the Second World War; the Korean War; those who served valiantly and bravely in the Persian Gulf War, or those who served more recently in Afghanistan and throughout various peacekeeping missions around the world, one thing that is clear is that their service, abilities and capabilities as fighting men and women are quite unparalleled in any other fighting force around the world. They are to be commended. They have always punched above their weight. To this day, they continue to excel and give their utmost in service to our country. That is why it is so important to get this type of bill right. That is why, when we invest in our brave men and women, we want to make sure we do it right, with the level of investment that it requires and deserves, but also with integrity around that investment to ensure that it is done properly and in the way it should be done. Too many times, we have gotten the defence spending aspect wrong in this country. It has not been the priority it should have been. This goes back throughout our history. Our brave men and women deserve much more. The government has committed to spending more on national defence, which we in the official opposition support. It is important that we make sure the safeguards are put in place, so that the money being pledged, and the spending that is going to happen, actually gets to the brave men and women who are wearing the uniform. It must get to the right equipment at the right time, expeditiously, and not be siphoned off through reams of more layers of bureaucracy, or be unaccounted for or not answerable to those who represent the people of Canada, namely the Parliament of Canada. Proper oversight and proper safeguards should be put in place. By doing that, we would be giving honour to the Canadian taxpayer, but also to the brave men and women who serve in our forces. The Canadian Armed Forces need equipment. They need it delivered. They need it on time, but they do not need another layer of bureaucracy. The Canadian Coast Guard, for example, most recently has been allocated under National Defence. Recently, at the government operations committee, I asked the defence officials who were representing it there whether the Coast Guard was still more or less a civilian operation or if it was being militarized. Are the ships being equipped with defences? Are they doing defence exercises? Are they being prepared and equipped, if they are part of National Defence, and is the spending that has been allocated under the Canadian Coast Guard for years now being attributed toward NATO required spending? I asked simply, in that committee, whether they are being equipped. The answer was that no, there are no defence mechanisms being put on the vessels. They said at that time that they were still continuing to do fish-counting operations and surveillance on the waters for fish, civilian and operational purposes, but really there was not a whole lot that would fall under the mandate of Canadian National Defence. As such, Canadians do rightly have questions, when we say we spent this much more under National Defence, whether it really is going to National Defence and equipment upgrades or it is going to reallocation through a budgetary mechanism. By reassigning certain departments, what was once under Fisheries and Oceans is now accounted for under National Defence. It helps augment the numbers quickly, but does it achieve the objective of providing the equipment that we need, the training that is needed and the resources that are needed to defend our nation and our waters? These are questions that Canadians legitimately have. There are reports of a proposed 10% cut in the Canadian Armed Forces operating budget. When we are talking about cutting 10% while saying we are going to augment and meet our NATO obligations, Canadians are right to ask how we square that circle. How does it come together that we are going to cut 10% out of operating budgets but somehow augment tremendously our level of spending on national defence? Canadians are right to ask how that goes together. I grew up in a little place called Hartfield, New Brunswick, and there, still to this point, two plus two equals four, but I am coming to learn in the House that this is not always the case. Sometimes two plus two equals 104 or 305 billion. I do not know. I cannot keep up with the figures that keep coming out of this place as relates to the finances of the nation. That is why we as the official opposition have an obligation to make sure, when it comes to procurement, that it is done properly, that it is prioritized, that the needs of the brave men and women in our armed forces are of the utmost priority and that what is needed is prioritized. If that is equipment, the forces get the equipment that they need. If they need more weaponry, they are going to get that weaponry. If they need better protective equipment, they get that. That should be the utmost priority, and contracts should not be awarded to friends and associates, those who are well connected in high places. They really should be going to those who are most qualified. I will end with this. There is a quick story that I am brought back to, and I hope I can squeeze it in. It is a story of a young man who was in a position of authority in a country that was not his own. He heard about his hometown, which was in a state of ill repair. The defences had fallen and the walls had collapsed, and this young man, whose name was Nehemiah, was quite distressed over the condition of the wall that surrounded the city where he grew up. He sought permission to come up with a strategy. He went back, and of course, it was dilapidated. It was in rough shape, and they did not know what could be done. The critics came, and they said that they could never do it for this reason; it would never get done for that reason; it was going to be faulty, and it was not going to be right. However, here is the good news: That young man came up with a strategy. He said that they were going to do something. Yes, there were threats that were emerging, and yes, it looked overwhelming to rebuild the defence of the city the way it should be, but they were going to put a brick in one hand and a sword in the other and build and defend at the same time. That is what the government needs to do, both build and defend. Let us do it together.”

In response to a question from Kevin Waugh

“Government programs make people too dependent on the state. The best social program is a good job. Right now, bad policies are pushing up to 42% of our manufacturers to consider moving their money to other countries. The government needs to focus on creating jobs and making Canada a good place to invest.”

“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague was absolutely right about what he said the government has done. The Liberals say they are helping people by continuing these grand programs and growing the level of dependency upon an ever-expanding government. We on this side of the House believe that the best program in the world and the best social program in the world is a job, a job that can help pay the bills, put food on tables and give people a good paycheque. It is time we get back to that philosophy and say what can we do as a government for the people of Canada, and create an atmosphere where the rest of the world wants to come and put their capital, rather than the current approach which has driven up to 42% of Canadian manufacturers to consider taking their wealth elsewhere and invest it in our neighbouring jurisdiction rather than here. We can blame everyone else, but the bottom line is that this problem has grown right here at home. We need to address those problems here at home and start fixing the house from within.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Serge Cormier

“The government hurts Canadians by keeping taxes high and spending too much. Between 2015 and 2024, more than $1 trillion in investment left Canada. We need to lower taxes and bring investment back so we can create good-paying jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, I will say this. It is interesting that in the estimation of the government, there are no new programs, no new taxes and no new levels of spending that will ever harm a Canadian or their future. Instead of lightening the load and the burden on Canadians, the government has created a further load on the backs of Canadians by keeping taxes high and continuously spending without ever doing things to attract capital investment into our country and produce real jobs and real wealth. In fact, according to RBC, the Royal Bank of Canada, between 2015 and 2024, more than $1 trillion in net capital investment fled this country for other jurisdictions. That was terrible policy, overspending and a lack of really addressing the real problem of attracting real dollars into our economy to produce good-paying jobs. That is what we need to do.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 22 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“I want the House to pass our motion to lower fuel costs. High fuel prices make food and heating too expensive for Canadians, especially in Atlantic Canada. Our plan cuts taxes on diesel, speeds up permits for fuel projects, and increases Canadian fuel production.”

“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people’s House and share some thoughts on the motion that we brought forward and are asking this House to consider, which is our plan for emergency relief for all Canadians, in particular those who are feeling the effects, Canadians from coast to coast to coast, of the devastating hike in fuel costs and the cost of diesel and all types of fuels. Sometimes what happens is there is a disconnect, which people pick up on from coast to coast, between those in this House and people’s lived reality back home. Their concern is whether anyone here in Ottawa, in the nation’s capital, is really listening to them and what they are going through. I want to tell members how real this is. It is hitting home for Canadians from coast to coast, and it is important that government responds with the urgency the situation demands. First off, here are some relevant statistics for us to consider: 5.6% of Canadian households are considered energy poor, 12% of Atlantic Canadian households, on average, are energy poor, and what New Brunswick is spending on gasoline has increased 85% between the years 2021 and 2023. Can members imagine how much it is going up again right now under current prices? My province of New Brunswick has the largest increase in Canada. Of New Brunswick families, 22% have experienced food insecurity. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it is 23%. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, it is 21%. A week’s worth of diesel on a lobster boat or crab vessel can now cost upward of $6,000. That is coming right out of the back pockets of the producers and fish harvesters on our waters. Our current prices are affecting some of the large farms, which are having to spend as much as $5,000 per day in fuel costs alone. There is no way those costs are not going to be transmitted back to every Canadian from coast to coast through the increased cost of food and groceries on the shelf. Why is that? It is because input costs are soaring. Our plan is a practical plan that addresses one of the root causes of the soaring costs and prices, which is the cost of fuel. Diesel fuel affects every Canadian who buys, purchases and receives the goods off our shelves that are trucked or shipped. In Atlantic Canada, everything we get on our shelves, as in most of Canada, has arrived by means of transport. Thankfully, we have great transport drivers and an amazing transportation sector, but their costs are going through the roof. If it comes by ship, those costs are only going up. We have to address this, and we have laid out a concrete plan to do so. What does our plan do? It provides for emergency prepermitting and tax relief for the construction of diesel infrastructure, such as refineries, pipelines, rail and storage. It also eliminates all taxes on diesel consumption until at least Canada Day of next year, 2027. It permanently eliminates taxes on diesel production, and it calls on the government to set the goal of boosting Canadian diesel production to one million barrels per day. These are practical steps that the government can take right away that would provide immediate relief for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I could not help but be drawn to a story as I was reflecting on and preparing for the remarks I would give today. It is an ancient story of a wise young man who was put in a position of great responsibility. This young man was entrusted with coming up with a plan. How did he get that position for the nation that he was second in command over? It was because the ruler at that time was facing a great dilemma. He was disturbed by some things that he was seeing and sensing, but he did not know the path forward and was seeking wisdom and insight. He brought in all the normal people he would confer and consult with. They would just further diagnose, leave perplexed and really not provide clarity, certainty or practical answers for this ruler’s dilemma. There was a young man named Joseph who had amazing insight into the dilemma they were facing. In fact, he understood and was able to interpret the instinct and feeling the ruler had. What was that? He said that they were in a time of great blessing and great favour, that they were having bountiful crops, that their GDP was tremendous and that they were producing great wealth. He said they needed to, for the next seven years, take a portion of that and set it aside and plan for the future perils they were going to face, because it looked like, from what he was understanding, there would be seven years of prosperity followed by seven years of famine. He said they had to understand and enact the principle of using their years of favour and years of plenty to set aside some wealth so they could combat the years of famine and years of peril. I cannot help but think of a tremendous parallel to where we are today. The country has been blessed with amazing resources and incredible goods under our feet, in our soil, on our lands and in our people, yet we have not properly allocated those resources, properly unleashed and utilized those resources, and planned for the future out of those resources. In fact, we have done the opposite. For 10 or 11 years straight, we talked about dirty oil, dirty gas and keeping it in the ground, and said we were going to burn the planet, we were not going to utilize it, we were going to shut it down and we were getting away from it. Instead of using what could bring us the most wealth and potential and prepare us for the headwinds that we are currently facing, we shut it down, turned it off and spoke ill of it. Now that we are in the time of peril, challenge and uncertainty, we have instant fans of oil and gas on the other side. That is wonderful. I am thankful for the backflip to reality and the inverted suplex of policy. I think it is wonderful that they have seen the light and are now going to say that we need pipelines, that we need to develop oil and gas and that they are champions of energy from coast to coast. It is refreshing and it is wonderful, and I am thrilled and enthralled at the enlightenment that has come, but Canadians also recognize that it is the same government that has had this opportunity since 2015 and chose the exact opposite approach. Instead of storing up in the years of plenty, the Liberals spent the cupboards bare, rammed up debt and increased our deficits at astronomical rates. Now, after the fact, 11 or 12 years later, they are stepping in and saying that we have to do this, but there are still no real shovels in the ground. There are lots of grand proclamations and many great announcements about many projects. In fact, I think that no less than 500 have been announced, but I do not believe there has yet been one approval of the 500 that have been announced. I think Canadians are saying that we need action and need it now and we need relief now. As much as the announcement sounds great, we have to move beyond the announcement and beyond the diagnosis and somehow get to a place of practical solutions and real relief for our people. The lesson that we hear from Joseph and this wonderful story is to use the years of plenty to fight the years of peril. We must plan now for the times when we are going to be under duress, release the potential that is within our own economy and get off the backs of our own people so they can do what they do best, which is work, produce, innovate, grow, dream and develop. We must stop standing in their way and release the pressure that is on their backs. When we do that, we unleash the potential that is Canada. The time for action is now, and the Liberals can take that wonderful first step. They have already inverted themselves beautifully, saying that they are for oil and gas and the development of those resources. Let us take that to the next step and provide real tax relief on the fuels that Canadians consume by supporting our motion.”

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“We need a government that gets real results for Canadians. Canada ranks last among peer countries for income per person. This government's policies have failed, hurting our industries, our workers, and the cost of living. It is time to pass this bill and get things done.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the beautiful province of Quebec. What we need now is a government that will actually do something. We need a government that gets real things done for Canadians. When we rank 38 out of 38 among OECD nations for GDP per capita, that is an indictment of the government’s policies, which have failed to deliver real results. Even though the pronouncements are grand, the results have been very much disastrous as it relates to competitiveness for our industries, for our workers and for affordability for Canadians from coast to coast. It is time to get results for them.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kody Blois

“The government only announces resource projects instead of actually building them. For ten years, the Liberals opposed oil and gas development. Now they claim to support it, but they need to prove it by actually building pipelines.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have a debate with fellow Maritimers in the House. I will say this. Once again, the projects the member just listed are projects that have been announced but have not yet been delivered. We need real results to start kicking into place. Let us not blame Canadians for being somewhat skeptical when they hear more proclamations from the government. Let us remember that this is the same government that for 10 years called some of our most valuable resources dirty oil and dirty gas and said we should keep it in the ground. It also said that anyone who advocated for those resources and the development of those resources was a planet burner. I am glad the Liberals have experienced an absolute backflip and inverted suplex on themselves and are now embracing our policies, at least verbally. However, now we need proof of that change and transformation with real action, the real construction of pipelines, and real development.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The government makes big announcements about building things but never gets anything built. Canadians need real jobs and lower living costs, not more empty promises. We should cut red tape, approve projects within six months, and scrap laws that stop energy and development projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the people’s House again and speak to this important piece of legislation that the government has brought forth. I would like to begin by reflecting on an old story that I have referenced before but that certainly applies yet again here in the House. There was a father who had two sons, and he challenged them to go to work in his vineyard. He said, “I need you to go out and work on the farm. I have some big tasks ahead.” He commissioned them to go into the field. The first son rose enthusiastically and made a grand proclamation and a great announcement: “That’s a wonderful idea. I’m going to do that right away. You can count on me. I’m going to do that. You don’t have to worry one bit.” He made the grand proclamation, but he did not end up in the field. Then there was the second son who was approached, and he said, “I can’t go. I’m sorry to disappoint you. I can’t go.” However, he got to thinking about it and feeling bad, and he said to himself, “I owe this to my dad. I’m going to go out and work in the field like he asked me to do.” Basically, the conclusion to that story is to ask which son was more pleasing to the father, who had asked them to go out into the vineyard. Well, obviously, it was the second son. Even though his initial response was disappointing and did not rise to the occasion as was expected, the results were outstanding because he went and did what needed to be done and got the job done, whereas the other son made a grand announcement and a tremendous proclamation, got the hopes up of everyone around, sounded like things were going to be wonderful, but the end result was that he did nothing and was a grand disappointment. I cannot help but see the correlation. Once again, we are having grand proclamations and excellent announcements: “Don’t you worry. No matter what problem faces this country, you hang on. There will be another announcement within five minutes, and it will be okay.” People will look, and they will ask, “Where is the result?” The answer is, “Oh, don’t you worry. We’re going to come and make another announcement.” There is another announcement, and yet a few months go by, and Canadians wait for the results and do not see any. “But don’t you worry. There’s another proclamation on its way.” They come, and their hearts are filled with anticipation. Much like cotton candy, the announcement provides an instant sugar high and makes us feel good and warm and fuzzy, but then comes the crash of no results and limited outcomes. What Canadians are looking for is tangible results and real outcomes, and I could not help but think about that story as I was preparing my remarks today. Look, these are challenging times, and we all admit that. We want what is best for Canadians, and we want Canada to move forward because Canada is a nation of incredible potential and overwhelmingly abundant blessings that we have both under our feet on our lands and in our people. We need to unleash and unlock that potential so Canada can live up to that potential and our people can enjoy the benefits of all those bountiful blessings that we have been given. Therefore, I challenge the government today. With this grand announcement, I hope there is a firm commitment to deliver real results for real Canadians. They are tired of announcements and proclamations and grand theatre and great speeches on big stages. What they want to know is, will this deliver the potential for me to find real work, make a decent paycheque, be able to put groceries on my table, help us make the mortgage payment, keep the vehicle payments up, help our kids get through school and have them actually dream of maybe someday owning a home of their own? If we do not deliver that, we are not living up to our promise and to the expectation that has been made of us by Canadians. I have been reflecting on this and looking at some of the announcements that have been made, and it was not long ago that there was yet another grand announcement: “We are forming a special projects office.” That sounds great. I love it. Over 500 announcements have been made and placed under the jurisdiction of the special projects office. However, I have to ask the House, how many have been approved? It is zero. We have had 500 announcements, many designations and grand proclamations and yet again the disappointment of no real deliverables. The time for deliverables has come. The time for results has come. We have to get to a place where we are doing real things. The good news is that our party has put forward some real, tangible solutions for some of the challenges facing Canada’s industry, workers and people. We are calling for projects to be expedited and to be approved within six months. We are calling for the repeal of job-killing laws and antidevelopment laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that impede Canada’s progress. We are also calling for a genuine one-project, one-review approach that would give proponents certainty instead of making them go through multiple layers of endless regulation and red tape. It is time to unlock our resources and unleash our potential, move beyond the announcement phase and get to the deliverables and results phase. We do that by streamlining. We do that by making sure that this gets done and does not turn into yet another grand announcement that gets our hopes up but does not deliver what Canadians need in this time of stress. We are fighting hard on this side of the House to save people and Canadians money, but also to have real projects and real jobs made available and done for Canadians. As we have seen, after a year and a half of announcements, we cannot point to concrete examples of things getting done. Nothing leads to more frustration than unmet expectations. When many expectations arise, when rhetoric soars in the moment and when we do not deliver on what we have promised to Canadians, they grow more suspect, more weary and more frustrated. Then they begin to look with a very jaundiced eye at anything that any parliamentarian or politician ever says. Why is that? It is because we have promised much and delivered little. We have to get to the place where we are delivering real, concrete results for Canadians, because this country has unbelievable, incredible potential. I want to conclude with one final analogy from an ancient story that came to me as I was preparing for today. It is a story of a lady who was in a desperate situation and did not know where to turn. She sought solutions from various places. She went to doctor after doctor and could find no help. In fact, she just got further diagnosed, with more diagnoses and more prognoses, and spent more of her hard-earned money, ending up with nothing left in her pocket while living with the consequences of false hopes and many broken promises. The good news is that this story did not end with her in a place of unmet expectation. The good news is that she pressed through the crowds and doubts, and she overcame the obstacles, as many Canadians are doing right now. She sought out a great physician and got her answer. Her answer came when she told her whole story. After she told her story and that great physician heard her story and gave her the answer, she went away whole. Canadians become whole when those who are elected to represent them take the time to hear their stories, and not just hear their stories, but take direct action to bring real solutions to their problems. It is time to get beyond the diagnoses in this country, get beyond the announcements, proclamations and false hopes, and deliver real results for real Canadians in real time.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 26 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“A mill in my hometown is shutting down, and hundreds of people are losing their jobs right before Christmas. I want the government to work with me to help these workers and protect their livelihoods.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The announced idling of the AV Nackawic mill is putting hundreds of hard-working Canadians out of a job heading into Christmas. This is not the first time my hometown has experienced this. My father worked at the same mill for over 50 years and experienced a closure in 2005. I am receiving calls from families wondering how they will make their house payments, keep their kids in sports or put food on the table. Will the government commit to working with me to do everything necessary to secure the livelihoods of my home community?”

“Our economy is shrinking and unemployment is high. I want the Prime Minister to defend his record.”

“Mr. Speaker, where are the results? New Brunswick families are feeling the effects of this Liberal recession every day. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. GDP has shrunk for three of the last four quarters, and unemployment is the second highest in the G7. If things are going to well, why will the Prime Minister not stand up and defend his record?”

• Echo ×104

  A repeated line

  “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

  Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →