SoVote

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/8/24 12:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about $46 billion in our national debt servicing. This money is going to service a record debt. The Prime Minister has doubled the national debt. I am just wondering if the member has any hope that this debt will be paid off within his lifetime or the lifetime of his grandchildren.

56 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/8/24 12:58:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard to predict the timeline, but I have a great deal of hope about the critical steps that a Conservative government would take to fix the budget, and that includes establishing a dollar-for-dollar rule. This is common sense, that if a government is going to spend a dollar on something new, it should be able to explain where that dollar is coming from. Those NDP-Liberal coalition partners are keen to announce all kinds of new spending initiatives, but they never explain where the money is going to come from. Clearly, in all of these new spending proposals, and, in many cases, I do not think they are serious about doing them, they promise new spending that will kick in at some distant point in the future. In every case, where the money is actually spent, it is digging us further into deep debt. Beyond that, we have this flow of wasteful spending, the middle-man consultants, the management consultants who have done so well under the government. If we instituted a dollar-for-dollar rule, this will get us back on track to understand that if we are going to spend a dollar on something, it has to come from somewhere.

208 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Apr/8/24 1:00:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to reflect on this. We cannot let him off the hook. I know that when the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni was on OGGO and when I served on it, we got into this stuff. The truth is that the Conservative government also has a long and storied history with the Deloittes of the world, the PricewaterhouseCoopers and all of these others. I am keenly interested in this. Does the hon. member believe in the value of public sector workers doing public sector jobs with public sector accountability and, if what I am hearing is correct, is it his position today in the House and in this debate that a Conservative policy would be to eliminate the bloat of the parasitic private sector consultancy class, yes or no?

133 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/8/24 1:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, very clearly, under the NDP-Liberal government, contracting out is out of control. There has been a ballooning of external contracting, as well as significant growth in the public service. Do I think it is never reasonable to contract out? No, I do not think that. I think there are cases where contracting out is legitimate. However, we have seen an excessive use of management consulting and the use of unethical companies like McKinsey. There are contracts to contract, to subcontract and so on. I think our position is a reasonable and balanced one, which is that we need to have proper accountability and spending controls. The NDP is very disingenuous. It continually votes confidence and supply to its Liberal partners to allow them to pursue the same policies the member claims to denounce. If the member wants to actually see any kind of reform, if he wants to see us move away from the kind of excessive contracting out and the waste we have seen under the Liberal government, I would challenge him to put his money where his mouth is and to vote no confidence in the government.

192 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/8/24 1:02:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate, as it is now on something that speaks to the heart of, the critical aspect of, what this place represents. In particular we are talking about somebody who came to committee and misrepresented at best, or outright lied, as is mentioned in the motion. My question for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is very straightforward. I am curious whether he could reflect on how important it is that the principles of parliamentary privilege and supremacy are carefully stewarded to ensure that this sort of running roughshod over the public purse and over the rights of Canadians can be kept under control. Ultimately this, among many other issues, has eroded the trust in our institutions. The erosion of trust has been led by a Prime Minister and government that seem to care little about governing and more about politics, pressers, photo ops, and their agenda that does not necessarily result in actionable items.

170 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/8/24 1:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. We are seeing democratic decline in this country and a lack of respect for our democratic institutions. The Prime Minister recently announced that the government is spending millions of dollars to look at the link between democratic decline and climate change. If he wants to learn more about democratic decline, my suggestion is that he just buy a large mirror, though he probably already has a few of those. He can learn a lot about democratic decline if he just buys a large mirror.

94 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/8/24 1:04:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to stand on behalf of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot and enter into debate on the important subjects that come before this place. For those people who are watching and are wondering what a debate on privilege is, let me unpack that for a quick moment. “Privilege” is a word that is often used in society, but it has a unique meaning in this place. It ensures that, ultimately, Canadians have the full and supreme power to control the affairs of the nation, including the government. The reason it is called “privilege” is that each member of Parliament, when they are given a mandate by the people, is endowed with the authority to make decisions. It is this body of 338 members of Parliament, individuals who represent every square inch of the incredible country we have from coast to coast, that is the only true representative entity in the nation and that has the ultimate authority to determine the future of our nation. The reason a privilege debate is so very important is that it speaks to the very heart of ensuring that the rights of members of Parliament to represent their constituents, Canadians, are not infringed upon. It comes back to the fundamental tenet of parliamentary supremacy, which is something that is unique to the Westminster system and something that I would suggest sets us apart in terms of the power we have. In fact, looking around this place, we see the history that lends itself to this being the supreme law-making agency of the land. There are things like the mace; although there is a ceremonial purpose when it is walked into the House in a parade, a lot of people may look at it and say, “What is the big deal about that?”. It is the transference of the authority of the Crown to the democratically elected government of the people. There is the fact that we are given the opportunity to speak to motions, the fact that members cannot be silenced, the fact that there are votes when there is a conflict as to who can be heard, and the fact that confidence motions exist. All of these things speak to the privileges that members of Parliament have in this place. For those people who are watching and wondering what the big deal is about a privilege motion, it speaks to the very heart of what our democracy is, which is ultimately that the people, Canadians, are the ones who get to choose a path forward. That is why, when it comes to the issue at hand, I will dig into some of the details as to the astounding revelations that have come out of some of the committee meetings. Whether it be the relationship that this place can and should have with committees, or whether it be the host of other concerns we have that are related to the motion on the question of privilege before us, it ultimately comes down to a defence of democracy and our democratic institutions. If we do not have that, we risk losing our democracy. My fear is that over the last number of years, we have seen a continual erosion of that. I think that most Canadians would give a tremendous amount of latitude for the first few weeks of COVID. Nobody around the world knew what was going on, and certainly that can be litigated. However, the government brought forward an omnibus spending and taxation bill. The fundamental tenet of the idea of privilege, of Parliament's being the ultimate decision-maker for the land, is that taxation and spending are the prerogative of this place. Yet it was the Prime Minister, exceptional circumstances or not. Not even during wartime, when the world was at war two times over, did the government bring forward motions that would have given unlimited taxation and spending authority. However, there has been the roughshod attitude that the current government seems to care little about our history and our institutions but rather is far more interested in pursuing its political agenda in the pursuit of power. It is not the pursuit of power that a government should be interested in; it is the pursuit to serve Canadians. We have seen the balance that should exist in this place turned absolutely on its head. We have heard about it from my colleagues in the Conservative Party who spoke today and prior to the last constituency break. They have emphasized how there has been a democratic decline. The Liberals are quick to say it is due to factors outside their control. The New Democrats are quick to say it is factors outside their control. However, ultimately, it needs to come down to an empowering of the citizenry of our country, and that is safeguarded through what we call privileges in the House. If we lose those things, if we see those things eroded, then we face a grave challenge to being able to do the solemn duty that has been entrusted to all of us as members of Parliament, at a time when there has been a substantial erosion of regular Canadians' being able to trust that their government has their best interest in mind. I hear about this all the time, whether I am travelling across my constituency or visiting communities in other parts of the country, whether I am in airports or other places, when I have a chance to visit with amazing, regular Canadians, not the academic class of people who have a whole host of letters behind their name. Regular Canadians wonder what the deal is. They wonder whether they can trust. I will get to the substance of the motion in just a moment. It used to be that although someone might not have liked the Prime Minister, they still respected the office. Increasingly today there are many Canadians who have simply lost respect for the office of the Prime Minister and so many of our democratic institutions, like our justice system. I could give numerous examples of how the justice system is failing Canadians. When the justice system fails Canadians, for which the laws are passed by this place as the ultimate arbiter of the land because we have a principle of parliamentary supremacy safeguarded by parliamentary privilege, it is incumbent upon us to take action. However, we see increasingly that the Liberal government is unwilling to do so. “Privilege” is not a flippant term that can simply be glossed over, saying it is not a big deal or that it is the responsibility of committees. It comes down to the very fundamental ideas of what our democratic institutions are and what they should be. I hope that sooner rather than later there will be a Conservative government, led by the member for Carleton, to do hard work of restoring the trust in our institutions that has been broken. We can do that. It is going to take tough work. The member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, often says that it is time for the government to focus on doing a few things well, as opposed to doing everything poorly. That is the place we are at. Nothing seems to be going well in this country. The solution that the Liberals seem to be so quick to propose is that they will simply spend more money. We saw that during COVID and with a host of other issues, a laundry list of things. They seem to be quick to spend more money, and they say that is the answer, yet it is Canadians who are then suffering. It is Canadians who are seeing the impacts. The Liberals want to deal with an issue they find is very important: the environment and climate change. What do they do instead of actually proposing solutions? They simply punish Canadians. It is that flippant attitude that is causing the erosion of trust in our democratic institutions. We are debating a question of privilege that is about something that is hard to believe. It almost sounds comical. It is something someone would read about in the synopsis of a Saturday night political drama. Two individuals in a firm received what we think was a $20-million contract. It might have been more; there is not good documentation to prove exactly what the number was. The individuals were called to testify before a parliamentary committee, but their testimony was lacking in facts, to put it lightly. What we can see in the motion is a clear disregard for fundamental tenets. As a member of the ethics committee and as a person who cares deeply about the institutions and infrastructure of our government, I have seen the flippant nature of the Liberals, who are being propped up by their partners in the NDP. They approach these things with little care about the impact they have on the trust in our institutions. We saw that with an app that was supposed to cost several hundred thousand dollars but that ended up costing more than $60 million. We do not even know what the full cost of it was. This is the sort of stuff one would read about in a Hollywood political soap opera or drama. However, it is being played out in reality, in the House of Commons in our country. The Liberals have responded to this by saying, “Yes, maybe something went wrong, but it wasn't us.” When it comes to questions surrounding committees, they say it is because committees have become dysfunctional. It has nothing to do with a scandal. It has nothing to do with mismanagement. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is the job of MPs to actually get answers. It has nothing to do with the fact that committees have a core and fundamental purpose that is guaranteed through the processes that have been laid out in the Parliament of Canada Act and in the Standing Orders to study specific things. They do not take any of that seriously. They say, “Oh well, it's simply partisanship.” However, I have noticed something, which is an observation that I offer to all Canadians who are watching this important debate. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, among other members of the Liberal cabinet and members of the NDP leadership, are really good at this. However, it seems as though there is a dramatic decline in the number of NDP members in the House currently, so I wonder what that will look like after the next election. However, when it comes to the fundamental tenet of working for the best interest of Canadians, the only time we hear the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the NDP-Liberal coalition talk about team Canada is when it has been coupled with failure. It is tragic, quite frankly. Housing is a little separate from the issue at hand but still closely related. If we take housing, we see that the Liberals take housing seriously all of a sudden. They forget that they have been in power for close to a decade, that housing costs have doubled under their leadership and that the inflationary crisis that has led to the diminishment of the purchasing power of Canadians is a result of their mismanagement of the economy. However, they are now saying, “You know what, it requires a team Canada approach.” In terms of the vernacular, I do not disagree, but the challenge is that it is only when the Liberals have failed and Canadians are feeling the consequences of that failure that the Liberals say a team Canada approach is needed. What is the consequence of that? They have weaponized that very phrase, and what it should mean for Canadians, to accomplish their political objective: to retain power at all costs. It is absolutely shameful. The erosion of trust in our democratic institutions is hurting our country, the building in which we stand and everything that it represents, and every aspect of what government should stand for. Therefore, it is time that this country have a government that is willing to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work of governing and prioritize not photo ops but the administration and management of government. We see practical solutions being proposed, often by the member for Carleton and the incredible team of Conservatives that we have in the House right now. I often speak to candidates who are looking forward to running in the next election. There was an opportunity to run in a carbon tax election confidence vote, when all other parties showed exactly where they stood. They are in favour of bankrupting Canadians and having an extremist ideological agenda as opposed to letting Canadians actually make a choice. However, we see an incredible team that is bringing pragmatic practical solutions forward and that is willing to roll up its sleeves and get that work done, because we have seen the antithesis of that under the Liberals, and it is hurting the very institutions that we need to work so hard to steward and defend. It is a couple of weeks ago now, because of the Easter break, that my colleague for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes moved this privilege motion, after the Speaker's finding. However, we have a clear opportunity here. I would note that I support that; I have some concerns about the amendment that was moved by the member for Kingston and the Islands, because it seems that instead of actually getting to the root of the issue, in an unsurprising manner, the Liberals would simply rather study it some more. They would reduce the urgency with which Conservatives, certainly, take this fundamental issue, where our democracy is at stake. As the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said after moving this motion, calling somebody to the bar to demand accountability is “Using an extraordinary remedy to an extraordinary problem”. It would basically signal or flag to the nation that we take seriously the job we have to do here and that one does not run roughshod over democracy. Now, it is unfortunate that there seem to be backbenchers from both the Liberal and NDP parties, and, I would suggest, often the Bloc Québécois, who do not take this as seriously as they should. However, it is that running roughshod over democracy that is so troubling and speaks to the urgency of the issue before us. Again, it was an $80,000 original price tag on this app. I think there is a lot of discussion that needs to happen about how the Liberals ran roughshod over the fundamental rights of Canadians. This app that the Liberals said was so important when they mandated it sent tens of thousands of people into quarantine. It restricted the constitutional ability of Canadians to not only enter the country but also, by virtue of this, exit the country. There are a host of things they never seemed to have concern for, such as the implications of the policy decisions they made. They will say, and I can hear it now, that it was because of extraordinary circumstances. However, that does not excuse the need to take great care and steward the administration of government and the freedoms that we have. My colleague, the shadow minister for ethics, outlined very clearly the long history over the course of close to 160 years of our parliamentary system. It is not quite there but is getting close. Of course, there is further reference to the opening words of the British North America Act, or the Constitution Act, 1867. It even mentions how it would be a government in a similar format, and I am paraphrasing here, to that of the United Kingdom. In his remarks, he referenced some of the precedent from long before the foundation of our country to ensure that the privileges and, ultimately, the democratic rights of Canadians are protected. We see how, over the course of the committee testimony, GC Strategies, specifically, was misleading in its name. A lot of people would look at its website and think that it must be the Government of Canada. I would not blame them. The Government of Canada is GC. In fact, the emails of all MPs have “GC” in them, so it is misleading at best. Then there are a whole bunch of little things, such as the unnamed public servants who gave glowing recommendations about the services that can be provided; they are not willing to say who gave those. It turns out that this is not actually part of the procurement process. There is the fact that, the other day, it was revealed in testimony that KPMG was told to go and talk to GC Strategies in order to get a contract. It is the pinnacle of absurdity, yet it seems to be the culture we find ourselves in under the Liberal Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition, which continues to vote confidence and back him and that corruption up in this place. I would simply highlight a couple of—

2902 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 1:21:56 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/8/24 1:22:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise only because I know a number of members have made reference to “GC” being the Government of Canada. I do not know to what degree that has been substantiated, and it is a bit of a concern. I do not want to—

49 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 1:22:15 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member was actually making a point about it not being the Government of Canada. I will let him pursue his speech. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

33 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/8/24 1:22:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whether intentionally or by accident, the member just proved the point. The fact is, we have an entity that received $20 million in funding on an app that was originally supposed to cost $80,000, and the company that was contracted is named GC Strategies. The confusion that it has endeavoured to throw at this seems intentional in what we see as an exponential explosion of contracting by the Liberal Party, which was backed by the NDP every step of the way. That is exactly the point. It manipulated the facts and the truth for its political agenda so it could get contracts or so, when somebody looked through a procurement list, they would see GC Strategies and maybe think that it must be another department under Treasury Board or something like that. That speaks to the exact point, I would suggest, that we need to be making here. I would reference as well that the Auditor General has done some incredible work in outlining some of the egregious accounting, to say the least, when it comes to this. That is only one more thing on the laundry list. It would be one thing if this were an exceptional circumstance under the Liberal Prime Minister, but the government seems to be quick to run roughshod over accountability, our institutions and, ultimately, over the privileges that are the fundamental backbone of preserving our democracy. Therefore, many Canadians are simply saying that they do not trust the Prime Minister or the government. It is not an exceptional circumstance. It seems that, every single day, there is a new scandal, a new controversy or something that the government has mismanaged that has led to corruption. One can only jump to this conclusion: It seems that this rot goes from the bottom all the way to the top, and change needs to happen. I will close with that.

316 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 1:24:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I take some exception to what the member is saying. When I think about the leader of the Conservative Party, I think it is “do as I say, not as I do.” When the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, there was a $400-million contract scandal with ETS. I am sure the member is aware of it. His leader was the parliamentary secretary at that time. When he is critical of the government and blaming ministers on this side, does he not realize that he is also reflecting on his own leader? What did the leader of the Conservative Party do back then on a $400-million scandal?

120 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/8/24 1:25:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals are quick to pivot, deflect and divert when it is under the member's leadership and his Prime Minister, supported by the NDP and the leader of the NDP, that we have seen a doubling of contracts going through the course of the government. This is exceptional in terms of the number in and of itself. What is also exceptional is the seemingly exponential increase in the cost of the simple expenditures of running government. I believe it is 43%, but do not quote me on the number. We are seeing an explosion in the ability for contractors to intentionally mislead, whether it is what the company does at a two-person firm run out of somebody's basement; what its name stands for, in terms of GC versus Government of Canada; or even the plethora of other contracts that the government seems to be quick to throw money at. They are throwing money out like one would not believe. We need accountability and answers, and it seems that the member and the Liberals refuse to even allow the conversation to happen. That is why—

195 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 1:26:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

9 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Apr/8/24 1:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to my Conservative colleague, in his remarks, he presented an incredibly myopic view of history. In my time in this place, one constant feature of the House of Commons has been both the Liberals and the Conservatives pointing the finger over who was worse in government. It is like an extreme parody of pot meet kettle in this place about who had the worst record with scandals. If we look at the Conservative record, the ETS scandal of $400 million was mentioned, but let us not forget the extreme outsourcing with the Phoenix pay system. If we remember, it was supposed to save the Canadian public $70 million and ended up costing over $2 billion. There are members of the Conservative caucus, who were present during the Harper government, who displayed such flagrant disregard for basic accounting principles that they do not have a leg to stand on. It is clear that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have equally dirty hands when it comes to outpricing to consultants and flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money. Given that the Liberals and Conservatives have both displayed such flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money, it is obviously a systemic issue. What proposals do the Conservatives have to fix a mess that both Liberals and Conservatives are equally guilty of making and have thus far been unable to fix?

228 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/8/24 1:28:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating that the member is talking about a myopic view of history. It is the member's leader and the members of the NDP who support, at every turn, the corruption of the Liberal Prime Minister and his cabinet, as well as the Liberal backbench. I find it a little rich. It is time for a government that is willing to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work of administering and stewarding what Canadians expect their government to do. I am happy to unpack the many practical ways that the member for Carleton has proposed. He has proposed a path forward to increased accountability with a dollar-for-dollar law in terms of spending and ensuring that the government spends within its means to make sure that we are doing what Canadians expect their government to do. I will not take any lessons; when I point fingers, I am pointing them at a coalition that has propped up one of the most corrupt governments, if not the most corrupt government, in Canadian history. It is time for a change, because that is what Canadians are demanding. They expect the government to work for them and that is certainly not what they are getting from the Liberals and the NDP.

215 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Apr/8/24 1:29:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's theatrics. He is borrowing an end flare of self-righteous rage and indignation. I also know this member from committee. Is it his position here today that, as a New Democrat at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and other committees that we are on, I am not actively working with them to help hold the Liberal government accountable? The member would know that at every step along the way, New Democrats are in a confidence-and-supply agreement. We hold the Liberals accountable in the House and at committees. Yes, there are about 26 points in which we are fighting and using our power to win for Canadians, things like dental care, pharmacare and yes, indeed, housing. We are going to win for workers. Those are set aside. I am taking this personally. To the hon. member, is it his position that at committee, as a New Democrat, I am not working as an opposition member? If that is the case, then he could see a new me at the next committee.

185 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/8/24 1:30:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to bring the message to his leader, that it is essential to actually do the work of an opposition party, whether it be in this place or in a committee. While we disagree on many things, I remember an earlier conversation I had with that member. He shared that at least he could respect Conservatives because he knew we stood for something, whereas he did not know what the Liberals stood for, ever. I would encourage the member to bring that message to the NDP leader. There is no question that the current leader of the NDP has run roughshod over democracy and has supported corruption in a way that makes him just as complicit as every single member of the Liberal Party. In the circumstances that we find ourselves in the House today, I hope the member will have the intestinal fortitude to vote “no confidence”, and let Canadians make the choice about who should be leading this country forward to do the tough work of actually leading a government that works for all Canadians.

185 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Apr/8/24 1:31:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to return a reply. Speaking of leaders, I want to see if the member has the intestinal fortitude to stand up today and to unequivocally denounce the crackpot, right-wing nut job Alex Jones and his ringing endorsement of the member's dear leader. In the House, the way in which the Conservative caucus kowtows to its leader would make Kim Jong Il blush. It would make the hardest of dictators blush, the way in which they set up their majesty, the hon. member of the opposition. Will he unequivocally denounce, today, the crackpot conspiracy theorist, mass shooter-denying Alex Jones in the House, or will they continue to cater to the most extreme factions of the right wing within their caucus?

128 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/8/24 1:32:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why are the NDP member and those within the Liberal Party so obsessed with American politics? They are obsessed with American politics, yet a former American presidential candidate spoke at the NDP member's last party convention. It was a failed presidential candidate who spoke at the NDP's convention. Absurdity comes out of their mouths, whether they are supporting a terrorist group like Hamas or being endorsed by Communists around the world. The Liberals are buddies with dictatorships, like the Communist dictatorship in Beijing with its pet nickname of “Little Potato” for the Prime Minister. We will denounce absurdity because that endorsement is an absurdity. The trifecta of the left in this country is that they are obsessed with American politics and they are trying to bring that sort of Americanization of our political discourse to Canada; it is an embarrassment. I would suggest that the Liberals should spend more time talking to Canadians. That is what I am doing, and that is what I know the member for Carleton is doing. It is Canadians who are giving a ringing endorsement to the change that is necessary to bring accountability and to bring home a Canada that actually works for the people of this nation.

210 words

Carleton

SoVote

House Hansard - 295