So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 2:37:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the out-of-touch Prime Minister might be able to take a $230,000 taxpayer-funded vacation to some fancy island, but that is not an option for most Canadians. In fact, most Canadians just simply want to be able to get in a car and drive a few kilometres to enjoy a national park or the mountains for the day, but even that is out of reach for so many of them because of the Liberal government's out-of-touch policies that are driving up the cost of everything. On Monday, the House will have the opportunity to vote on a very common-sense motion that would take the federal tax off fuel. It would make life affordable for Canadians and allow them to enjoy their summer. Will the Prime Minister vote with us so that Canadians can afford a simple road trip, or will he force them to stay at home while he enjoys his luxury vacation?

162 words

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 2:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the hunger and homelessness that it is causing so many Canadians across this country. Many Canadians just simply look forward to a small summer vacation, a road trip perhaps. It is normally a time when they can camp in the mountains, go to a national park or visit loved ones, but this year, many Canadians cannot afford this simple delight because the government has made life too expensive. On Monday, the House will have the opportunity to vote on a common-sense motion to save Canadians 35¢ per litre on gas. Will the Prime Minister vote with us, the common-sense Conservatives, so that Canadians can afford a simple vacation, or will he force them to stay home?

131 words

Trip

May/30/24 10:34:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would offer to respond to that, actually. There was no effort made to reach out to my office to clarify what I had said that day and whether or not the blues had been changed. In fact they were changed without my knowledge and then published in the Hansard record, which was signed off by your office, all without my knowing about it. It was only after the change that I, on my initiative, reached out to your office in order to seek clarification and understand the procedure better.

97 words

May/28/24 11:37:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders outlined by Bosc and Gagnon, on page 323, it says: When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House. Any act of partisanship is far too many, and he has done five.

74 words

May/28/24 11:36:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would call relevance on that question. I think you, Madam Speaker, probably should have called that for me, but I will do the job.

27 words

May/28/24 11:35:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bigger question here is how Canadians can maintain confidence when half of that is true and half of that is not. There was a mix of truth and mistruth in that statement. In this place, we have a responsibility to hold the government accountable. That is our job as the official opposition. For us to move a question of privilege with regard to the Speaker of this place functioning in a highly partisan manner five times in the last few months is absolutely not just our prerogative as the official opposition, it is our duty to the Canadian people. I will make no apologies for that.

109 words

May/28/24 11:33:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member addressed exactly the problem with this place. It is the fact that Liberal members do not see anything wrong with the Speaker functioning in a partisan capacity five times in the last few months. One might be forgivable, two possibly, but not five times. For the hon. member to say that standing up for democracy and wanting to protect the institution of Parliament is “desperate”, to use his word, makes me question his commitment to democracy and the very foundations of Canada and what our forefathers fought for.

94 words

Partisan

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/28/24 11:27:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in this place to address a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the Speaker's public display of partisanship. Of course, we know that the Speaker of this place occupies a position of trust. We know that within that position of trust, he is supposed to function in an impartial manner. He is supposed to apply the rules in this place equally to all members of all parties. When he functions in a partisan capacity, however, he then betrays the trust those who occupy a seat within the House of Commons. He goes beyond the scope of his role and actually uses it then for the benefit of his political party, in this case the Liberal Party of Canada. The events that I am talking about are several in nature, but the latest one was “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]”, said the announcement. This was a fundraiser that was hosted just across the river in Quebec, or deemed to be hosted just across the river in Quebec, and this invitation was sent out, drawing attention to the Speaker as the keynote. However, this is not the first time. This is the latest event that brings us to the House, calling for the Speaker's resignation or calling for a vote to remove him. Before this, there was a cocktail fundraiser dinner that was hosted just a couple of months ago where, again, he was used as the keynote of this address or this function, and, of course, as Speaker, he was promoted, again in a partisan fashion, and used as an individual who could help elicit funds for the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is not all. There is a third one that I would like to draw the House's attention to, which is that the Speaker actually, in his full outfit, jet setted to Washington and addressed the audience that he was given there. He talked about his time as a young Liberal, and in a very partisan fashion, in his address to the audience that was in front of him. That is his third strike. However, there are two more that I would like to draw the House's attention to, for a total of five within just the last few months of him being Speaker. In this place, there was an interaction that took place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. The Prime Minister exchanged words, or used words to accuse the official opposition of being a “spineless” leader. In retort, the Leader of the Opposition responded with words that were similar. The Speaker of the House said nothing to the Prime Minister, but then went on to kick out the member of the official opposition, again pointing to a partisan decision. There is a fifth incident that I would like to draw attention to; that is that I myself was removed from this place. I was removed from this place because I used these words toward the Speaker. I said that he was, “acting in a disgraceful manner.” I was asked by the Speaker of the House to withdraw my words, which I rose from my seat and I said, “I withdraw”. However, the Speaker went on to kick me out of the House, not just for a little while but actually for the remainder of the day, therefore robbing the constituents of Lethbridge from having a vote in this place. It is the practice of the House, and it is in fact according to the Standing Orders, that should a member stand in her place and withdraw those words, she should be allowed to stay. However, the Speaker, functioning in a partisan capacity, removed me. If those blues are looked at, it is very clear that I said, “I withdraw”. It is in the official record of the House. If the audio is listened to, Madam Speaker, you can hear me say those words “I withdraw”. It is clear within the audio record of the House. However, when it came to the Hansard, which is signed off by the Speaker's office, those words, “I withdraw”, were conveniently removed. Therefore, there is already another question of privilege before this place, which is to say, why were those words removed? Why did the Speaker's office sign off on official Hansard records that removed my withdrawal? In this place, the Speaker must function in a trusted capacity. He must respect the members of this place. He must never be partisan in nature, nor should records ever be officially changed based on what is convenient for him. Based on his conduct over these five incidents, we are asking for his resignation and if not, then we would like to remove him through a vote.

819 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/27/24 6:24:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sobriety that I stand and address the House today. I am rising on a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the conduct of the main Speaker of this place. We have yet another display of public partisanship that has been put out there for folks across the country to witness, which is that the Speaker of this place is actually featured as the main guest at a Liberal fundraiser. We know that the individual who occupies the chair has been given a trusted position. He has been elected by those in this place to make sure that the rules here are adhered to in a non-partisan and an equally applied fashion. This individual has been put in that spot, yes, through an election in this place; however, just as importantly, there is a historical precedent that also needs to be taken into account. Based on that historical precedent and based on what we call the green book in this place, which are the Standing Orders that govern it, the Speaker is called upon not only to function in an impartial manner and but also to avoid any instance of even appearing not to be impartial. The fact that the Speaker was stated to be the focus of this fundraising event, making him the main draw of fundraising dollars for the Liberal Party of Canada, is actually incomprehensible to some extent. However, it is the Liberal government in power, and this is certainly not the first breach. It is disheartening, for sure, but it is also altogether disgusting, actually, to see this individual function in that capacity, when he has been given such trust by this place. In Canada, we believe that no one is above the law. Likewise, in the House, no one should be treated as though they are above the rules and practices of this place, especially the Speaker. The Speaker is the individual who applies the rules of the House. Therefore, the Speaker should be modelling those rules for other individuals who occupy a seat in this place. When he fails to do so and, instead, actually exploits his position, it is called an abuse of power. We have to call him to account on that. As Conservatives, we are standing today, and I know that we have the support of the Bloc and, I am hoping, the NDP, to hold the Speaker to account with regard to his actions and call him to a higher standard. Members will recall that this is actually not the first time we have had to do this; there have been a number of other times. Let us explore the most recent one, shall we? We know that the Liberal Party of Canada was advertising something they called “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker].” The promotional material for this event used very partisan and even inflammatory language toward the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it into the House record, so we all know what I am talking about. The invitation said: “Join us for an event in your community - you don't want to miss it! “It's an exciting opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians - because a better future starts with you. “While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and moving forward with our bold plan to grow an economy that works for everyone, protect our environment, keep our communities safe, and so much more. “Especially in a minority Parliament, we can never take our progress for granted. Together, with your hope and hard work, we can keep Canada moving forward.” This was a direct attack on the Leader of the Opposition and a celebration of the Liberal Party of Canada. Could it be more partisan? It was the Speaker of this place who was put as the lead, in terms of the promotional material that was put out there. This is an individual who has been trusted to guide this place and to make sure that we are adhering to the rules; however, he himself cannot do so. Again, I will highlight the fact that this is not the first time. Interestingly, since Conservatives raised this concern, the invitation has been taken down. It can no longer be found, because the Liberals must conduct themselves in the way they always do. That is, they deny it until they can no longer do so. They then try to cover it up and pretend it did not happen. However, it did happen, and it is not the first time. Another time, just a couple of months ago, the Speaker was at another fundraising event. It was a cocktail fundraiser. It was a dinner that time—

836 words

May/27/24 11:24:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-356

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a great deal of latitude in terms of how we address different speeches in this House. The issue at hand right now is housing, Bill C-356, a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The member is currently talking about provincial politics. That does not seem to fit within the scope of this bill. Furthermore, she is talking about some far alt-right conspiracy theory. Again, I am not sure how that fits within the scope of this bill. I would ask you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, that would be most appropriate for this.

110 words

May/9/24 8:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I am not sure what fictitious world the hon. member comes from. In Canada, we very much rely on natural gas to heat our homes, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. We rely on using transportation in order to get our goods to market, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. Farmers do tremendous good to actually take carbon from the environment and use it to produce food, and yet they are penalized with a carbon tax. Further to that, grocery stores have a carbon tax applied to them just for simply hosting the goods that we need to purchase. Then all of that lands on the backs of Canadians. A carbon tax is an absolute farce.

129 words

May/9/24 8:11:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this way of thinking put forward by the Liberal government is absurd. We have folks across Canada, about 96% of them, who are dependent on natural gas for heating, which is not exactly an option in this country. I come from Alberta, and we need to heat our homes in the winter. I think most other places, if not all other places in this country, need to heat their homes in the middle of winter. I think that is just a basic necessity of human life. Further to that, I come from a riding that is largely rural. Getting on a city bus or transit train is not really an option, so they depend on being able to drive a vehicle in order to provide for themselves or to get from point A to point B. Further to that, the transportation of goods in this nation is reliant on transportation units, such as semis and trains. If we continue to attach a carbon tax to these necessities, these things that are just a part of our way of life, it is not going to bring down carbon emissions; it has been in place for eight years now. It clearly—

202 words

May/9/24 8:10:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just compared the carbon tax to advertising against cigarettes. In the same way advertising against cigarettes helped bring down the usage rate, I believe the argument she is making is that a carbon tax would also bring down the usage rate of fuels. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

53 words

May/9/24 8:09:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member across from me is laughing at that. The mental health of Canadians and the economic well-being of Canadians are not laughing matters. I wish the Liberals would treat this with some sobriety.

43 words

May/9/24 8:08:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to comment with regards to the mental health of Canadians. There is plenty of evidence to show that mental health is directly affiliated with an individual's economic well-being. When they cannot pay their mortgage, when they cannot pay their rent, and they are lining up at a food bank in order to survive, when they are sending their kids to school without getting the proper nutrition in the morning, yes, that does weigh on them. I am so sorry, you are laughing—

92 words

May/9/24 7:57:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge and, of course, representing those across the nation as well. I have the privilege of speaking to the budget implementation act concerning the 2024 Liberal budget, which was put forward on April 16. These are some headlines that came out in newspapers across the country following the dropping of the budget: “Liberal hike to job-killing capital gains tax is inexcusable”; “Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen the brain drain”; “David Dodge wasn't wrong, this federal budget is 'one of the worst in decades'”. Here is the next one: “The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend”. Another one is, “Canada's budget 2024: More spending, higher capital gains taxes, and bigger deficits”. This one mentions that the federal budget is “the worst in decades”. These are the types of headlines that came out following the Liberal budget, and they are not wrong. I am not sure if members have heard of an oil salesman. It is a term that originated in the 1900s from an infamous imposter who sold snake oil as a miracle medicine. It turns out that this snake oil was just a concoction of mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper and turpentine, but he would go around and he would claim that it had magical healing properties, so people would spend a whole lot of money on it in hopes that it would deliver the results that were promised to them. Eventually, this con artist was found out, was exposed for what he was doing, and he actually became a very powerful symbol used throughout the land to warn against false advertising. When I look at the Liberals' budget of 2024, I see a snake-oil salesman, a commitment to doing something but actually achieving the opposite, and a commitment to helping Canadians but actually thwarting their success, which is why we get the types of headlines that I just read into the record. On April 16, the Liberals announced that they would be strapping an additional $14 billion in new deficit spending to the backs of Canadians. This makes it the ninth year in a row that the Prime Minister has run deficits, while claiming that the budget would balance itself. We all know that is ridiculous; budgets do not balance themselves. He also said that we would change the economy from the heart out. We also know that this is ridiculous. Hard-working people change the economy in a positive way. A blind or ignorant prime minister changes the economy in a negative way, and unfortunately, what we see is a whole bunch of negative. The Prime Minister continues to promise that Canadians are better off with his budget, but at the end of the day, we know that families are actually worse off. In fact, the National Post just came out with an article this week, saying that if the economy had stayed where it was in 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we would all be earning $4,200 more per year, which means that under the Liberal government, every single Canadian is $4,200 per year worse off. In other words, the Liberal government is not actually helping Canadians; the Liberal government is hurting Canadians to the tune of $4,200 per year. That is alarming. That is a lot of money. That is a good chunk toward the down payment of a house. That is a good chunk towards maybe a new vehicle, maybe toward putting one's child in sports or just being able to pay household bills and to make ends meet. This year, Canadians will have to pay over $54 billion just to cover the interest that has been incurred because of the government's out-of-control spending. That is a whole lot of money, $54 billion, and we lose sight of what exactly that means, so let me spell that out. That is more than what the government collects in GST paid toward just the interest payment. That is double what this government has committed to our Canadian Armed Forces, the men and women who serve this country, who unfortunately are going without proper food, care and equipment because the government refuses to fund them adequately. Meanwhile, double the amount that is spent for the Canadian Armed Forces is being paid just to substantiate our interest payments. Further to that, it is the same amount as what this government transfers to provinces for health care. Imagine the hospitals we could build. Imagine the doctors that could be hired. Imagine the types of care that Canadians could enjoy if we did not have to put that money toward just maintaining our debt. This is the result of a government without vision for its people. It lands us in this place where things are broken. People are desperate. I hosted a town hall just over a week ago, and the room was filled. People were eager to come and share their concerns with me. Overwhelmingly, the things they talked about were housing, the cost of groceries, fuel and other essentials in life. They were desperate for me to offer them hope and, unfortunately, under the current government, I could not do that. All I could do was ask them to hold on for the day that a new government is coming. The way that the Liberal government has ruled and the decisions that it has made, as can be seen in the 2024 budget, simply bring us down. People in my riding have been sending me their carbon tax bills. One shows that the cost of the carbon tax bill for a household is $4 more than their actual consumption. They are spending more on the tax than they are on the consumption. Another shows that this family is spending $18 more on the carbon tax than they are on their consumption. Another bill was double. Their actual gas cost was $33.11, and their carbon tax cost was $63.41. They are paying double on the tax versus consumption. There was another bill where they actually only spent $20 on consumption, and they spent $34 on their tax. There is a business that is spending $600 more every single month just to cover their tax. Imagine that. Another business is spending nearly $1,000 more every single month just to cover the carbon tax. Imagine the impact that it would have for Canadian families if the punitive carbon tax were to be scrapped. We know the Liberal government is not accomplishing any of its environmental objectives. It has failed on every single one of them, so we know the carbon tax is not about that. There is no metric to point at to show success. We are led to believe that it is for no other reason than simply to be punitive in nature. The government has accomplished its goal. Canadians are paying far more for the carbon tax than they are for the actual consumption of natural gas. Canadians are punished. Well done, Liberals. At the end of the day, it means that Canadians are paying that carbon tax not just on their natural gas bills, but also on the fuel they put in their vehicles, the home heating, as well as the groceries and the necessities they require for their households. Folks are struggling. Two million people are lining up at food banks. In my riding, food bank use has increased by 75%. That is a problem. The government could do something about that, should it wish to. However, the 2024 budget shows that it does not. It is the same failed policies that have led this government for the last nine years. Unfortunately, Canadians are caught in the middle of that. Conservatives will do better. That is our commitment to Canadians. We look forward to forming government very shortly.

1352 words

May/9/24 3:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, multiple articles, including one on the front page of the National Post, as I just showed the House, were published using an official statement provided by the Speaker's official spokesperson, which means it required his sign-off. This is particularly concerning to me and to Canadians when the matter is before the Speaker for a decision to be made. When the Speaker was asked to provide comment to CTV News on May 1 concerning why he kicked out the leader of the official opposition, he rightly governed himself in that moment and he said, “It would be unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House”. However, that same day, the Speaker's official spokesperson released a statement concerning my question of privilege. It is curious to me, then, that the Speaker would deem it appropriate to comment on one matter before the House but not another. In many ways, mine is more severe, because mine is an official question of privilege requiring adjudication, while the matter the Speaker refrained from speaking to actually did not require a ruling at all. On the front page of the National Post of May 2, the day after I moved my question of privilege, the following statement was issued by the Speaker's office, again signed off by the Speaker. It says, “The blues are unofficial and it is not unusual for changes to be made during the editing and revision process. Sometimes comments are left out when there is a lot of noise, and it is not clear what was said”. This is from the Speaker's office spokesperson, Mathieu Gravel. In the Speaker's own words, and I will repeat them, he said it is “unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House,” yet his office released an official statement. The question I leave with the Speaker for consideration today is this: Why was an official statement concerning my question of privilege issued to the media? I look forward to receiving an answer when the Speaker makes his official ruling concerning my question of privilege.

362 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

May/9/24 3:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to add to the question of privilege I raised on May 1, concerning the removal of my words from the Hansard. The question I submit to you today is the following: Is it appropriate for the Speaker of this place, the House of Commons, or those authorized to speak on his behalf, to comment publicly on a question of privilege that is before him for adjudication? I would like to explain why I put forward this question. It has come to my attention that the office of the Speaker did, in fact, comment to the media regarding my question of privilege. In fact, multiple articles, including one I have here on the front page of the National Post—

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 306 - May/1/24

May/8/24 2:23:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not worth the cost; neither is the CBC. Under the leadership of the CEO, Catherine Tait, viewership, trust and revenue are all down. Despite this abysmal performance, the Liberal government has rewarded Ms. Tait by extending her contract and granting another $60,000 bonus. That is more than most Canadians make in an entire year. Another $15 million was handed over to the executives as more bonus money. After this, the CEO had the nerve to come to committee and claim that the CBC is chronically underfunded. She then announced that she would be cutting 800 jobs. Then, just weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that he would be giving $140 million more to the same failed institution. This means that now the CEO can continue to give herself and the top executives big fat bonuses. Greed and incompetence are exactly what is dragging this organization down. Common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to instruct the CBC to stop awarding themselves big fat bonuses.

173 words