Thank you. My goodness. Wow.
Ruby, if it's okay with you, perhaps I'll get you to write my householder next time, but I digress.
That's a new term. I've been here 16 years, and a “double redundancy” something is like the redundancy department of redundancy. It's great. It's like Monty Python all over again. Nevertheless, again I digress. Sorry.
I was talking about the myriad programs that we're trying to engage people with to try to make sure they get over this pandemic. I talked about the CRA and the CERB, and then we get to the student benefit. You're put in a situation, and this is not just a Liberal thing. I saw the Conservatives go through this in 2008, around the time of the recession that hit. I remember the term at the time was “shovel ready”, which is a phrase used in politics, but in an entirely different context.
Anyway, these projects were flying out the door. They wanted to get projects out quickly to get people working in society. The shutdown that was happening wasn't to the extent that we see now with the pandemic; nevertheless, there were things that were moving fast and furiously, to the point where sometimes mistakes were made, so we backed up a bit and tried to work it out.
Did we complain? Of course we complained. We were part of the official loyal opposition, so that's what we did and what you do. I'm not trying to belittle the arguments you bring forward to this campaign, other than to say that I don't necessarily agree with the motion. I do it for sincere reasons as a parliamentarian. I know at the time that things were done that we needed to go back and reassess. The key there is to reassess what you felt was done wrong so that it unfolds to reach your target audience. I'm sorry if I'm using a marketing analogy for governance, because they're two separate things, but when it comes to a target audience and delivering services to Canadians, the point is that you need to look at what was done and assess how to provide it better.
In my opinion, what was done when the Prime Minister appeared before committee, when the information was provided and certain cabinet confidences were not redacted, I thought was a sincere measure on behalf of the government to deal with the situation, because at the end of the day, we wanted kids to get their grants, deservingly so. I know this first-hand. I have a son who's in university, and without getting too much into detail, that probably would have been a program that would have benefited him. I say that, but it didn't work.
Like everybody else, I would like to take a look at something as unique as this program, a program that has all the sincere hallmarks of being a good thing for students to allow them to not only just get money. That's one part of it, but what's most important is that it teaches volunteerism, or at least it illustrates the benefits of volunteerism. It illustrates how, no matter what their age, they can provide a huge benefit to society, a massive one. However, in many instances, they don't know how to engage. This grant program helps them to do that, and that's what's so important about it. I know Mr. Johns talked about it earlier, and he had some valid points about it that I hope we can rectify in the future.
I just hope that it doesn't get caught up in a political spat, but it's a little late for that now, isn't it?
I would love to say I'm going to wrap up, but I just had some coffee while you were away on a break, so I'm raring to go again.
I listened very intently to what all the speakers before me were saying, but when I see something that was not delivered, rather than laying blame on a whole myriad of people, including bureaucrats and people who are not on the ballot, I look for improvements.
Now, am I naive? Absolutely. When I started in politics back in 2000, I remember that a wise person looked at me and said I was obviously a little naive when it comes to how Ottawa works. I said yes. Then he said I should stay that way. It might help us. I never forgot that.
In the midst of all that is going on that is typically political, there lies a nub of truth in which we can find common cause. If we don't, we may fall into a pattern by which we never discuss anything together. I only have to point south of the border to illustrate my point.
Trust me that this is not a lecture on my part. I know it sounds like it, but it's in earnest, because I've seen a very high level of debate go to a low level and back to a high level again. I hope that over the next few months, as we go post-pandemic—if I can use that term—the world is going to change. How is political discourse going to change? I'm looking at you on a screen. Some of you are halfway around the world from me, yet here we are at committee.
Mr. Johns just raised his hand. Mr. Johns may as well be in Australia and I may as well be in Iceland as far as our distance is concerned. However, the distance between us, Gord, is not just political; it's geographical.
I can honestly say that I hope metaphorically we're a lot closer when this is all said and done, because we're now into this new world. Someone who's been here.... I'm looking around and I don't know if anyone's been here longer than I have, but it's going to put us into a situation in which we're going to have to be careful and measured.
I'm not trying to get off the rail. I want to go back to the motion again.
On that note, I think we might be going off in several directions that are not focused and we're seeking sound bites. That's from me, who was in opposition for many years.
I think we have to come to grips with the fact that to get to the bottom of this, it's not just a government changing hands. It's also about improving on this program. Let's ask ourselves if this is a good program or not. That's fundamental to what we're arguing here.
Are any students watching this right now? There may be some, but not a lot. However, no matter who's watching or not, they could have benefited from this program.
I can honestly say that when this—