So V ote

Jun/3/24 5:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that a future Conservative government will respect the role of the provinces. However, I did hear him say one thing, and he is correct, which is that the Liberal Party and the member who just spoke want to do violence to the Constitution. That is how it was translated: violence to the Constitution. That will be the story in the next election. It is going to be the fact that the Liberal Party wants to trample on the rights of the provinces and usurp the role of the provinces. Shame on him for even suggesting that.

103 words

Jun/3/24 5:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is simply preposterous. In fact, what I think I heard the member do just now is actually suggest there be constitutional reform to make health care the purview of the federal government instead of the provinces. Now that is a huge step. It is pretty clear and acknowledged across the country, and if one asks the provinces, they will acknowledge it, that health care is a provincial responsibility. Yes, there is a choice Canadians will have to make. In fact, we have asked the Liberal government time and time again to let Canadians make that choice now and to let us have a carbon tax election now. It refuses to do so. Why? Its members are afraid of losing. We, as Conservatives, can do much better on the health care front than these Liberals have done over the past failed nine years.

145 words

Reform

Jun/3/24 5:17:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan. I would like to get back to the basics on the bill before us, which is on a national pharmacare program. Before we can even consider a program like this, I believe Canadians need to place all of this into context within the fiscal mess that has been created by the Liberal government going forward. As members know, we are facing a fiscal wall. We are leaving behind, for future generations to pay back, a massive national debt. In fact, over the last nine years, this Prime Minister and his Liberal government have amassed more indebtedness than all previous Canadian governments combined since Confederation. That is one piece of the context. What about the ongoing deficits being run by this Liberal government? There is no end to them. In fact, time and time again, the finance minister has been asked to at least give us a timeline when we will return to balance, when Canada will begin again to live within its means and not spend more money than is being brought in by taxes. Each time, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister has said nothing. She will not respond to that question, because the answer is that there is no plan. How can we, as a nation, justify billion-dollar program after billion-dollar program without having a plan to bring our fiscal mess back into order? The only way to do that is to come back into balanced budgets, which has not happened. There is also the challenge of increasing taxes on Canadians. Carbon taxes, which have been the subject of much debate in the House, keep going up and up. Fuel taxes are going up and up. In fact, it was not long ago when my colleague for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was at committee, and they were grilling the Minister of Small Business. The minister had asserted that she had reduced taxes on small businesses. The simple question that my colleague asked was which tax the minister had reduced on small business. And the answer was, well, humming and hawing. Finally the minister turned to her officials and said that perhaps her officials could answer that question. The officials looked dumbfounded, because they did not have an answer either. The truth is, taxes have not been reduced on small businesses. Across the board, taxes have been raised on Canadians. Now, within that context, this Liberal government wants to introduce another billion-dollar spending program. The Liberals could have come to us and said, “Listen, the recent budget shows that we will be returning to balance within the next, say, five years, and within that context we'd like to bring forward a program that is going to help those who have no pharmacare coverage.” However, that is not what they did. This government came forward and said that it was going to spend another $40 billion, $50 billion additional, that it would go into deficit by another $40 billion, and that it would throw in this program that would put Canada in the hole for years to come. However, who has to pay all of that back? I heard some heckling over here in the corner because they do not like to hear the truth, but it will be future generations of Canadians, with interest thereon. So that is the context in which this whole pharmacare discussion needs to take place. This is not a pharmacare plan. Like so many others, this is an empty promise that will leave Canadians deeply disappointed and angry. Let us remember it was the current Prime Minister who promised affordable housing back when he was first elected in 2015. Instead, what we have is a doubling of housing prices, rents, down payments, interest rates and mortgage payments, and another broken promise. Oh yes, the carbon tax would not cost Canadians anything and we now know from the PBO that in fact that is not true. The Prime Minister promised taxes would go down. He promised safe streets and instead we have chaos, crime and drugs on our streets and social disorder. With so many broken promises, we could go on and on. We could spend hours talking about broken promises, but the pharmacare plan is destined to be just another one of those broken promises. Now, there is another problem. By its own definition, the pharmacare plan is intended to be a single-payer plan. That means the Government of Canada pays and it is universal, so, of course, the fear is for the 97% of Canadians who already have some kind of coverage, typically through their union plan or company plan, or they may have bought coverage. They would now lose that coverage because the pharmacare plan that is being proposed by the current Liberal government is a very narrow one. It would cover a very small number of medicines when, in fact, most plans across Canada are expansive. Now, it looks like the government wants to insert itself and introduce a plan that would actually cannibalize many of the other plans across Canada. There has been no consultation with the insurance industry and there has been no consultation with the provinces. Let us remember that health care is the purview of the provinces and yet we have the government starting to step into dental care and pharmacare. That is on top of all the billions and billions of dollars in health care transfers every single year. Somehow, the provinces have not been consulted adequately. We know that some provinces are already providing additional pharmacare support and some provincial leaders are saying, “Listen, instead, give us the cash because we are already providing these services.” Others are saying, “Listen, we have a long list of priorities for our health care system and that is not the top priority. We have a number of other priorities.” For example, how about that mental health funding that was supposed to come to the provinces? It has never happened. Oh, what about that palliative care funding that the Prime Minister promised to the provinces years ago? What happened to that? It is gone. Therefore, the lack of consultation with the provinces and repeated stepping into areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces is, I believe, leading us down this road where, without a fiscal plan that will lead us back to budget balance, we continue to heap more spending onto the taxpayer and that is unsustainable. This pharmacare program is a big program, like so many other programs that the current government tries to introduce and implement. In fact, it was the member for Kingston and the Islands who said that this program is big and complex. Well, if it is big and complex, there is one guarantee: The current Liberal government will not be able to manage it effectively. We think of all the scandals, the spending scandals, GC Strategies, the ArriveCAN scandal and the TMX pipeline that went seven times over budget after the Liberal government purchased that pipeline. This is the question that Canadians have to ask themselves: Do we trust the current Liberal government and the Prime Minister to manage a pharmacare program that is billions of dollars in the coming years? Do we trust them to manage this program efficiently and effectively? I believe the answer from Canadians would be a resounding no.

1252 words

Jun/3/24 1:04:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to that answer, I could not hear what my colleague was saying. The member for Kingston and the Islands, and many others, such as the member for—

34 words

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

Jun/3/24 1:01:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech and his quite accurate suggestion that there is a massive trust deficit in Canada today. Canadians do not trust their federal government, because of the many broken promises our country has been littered with. Could my colleague touch on a few more of those proof points that show why Canadians are now so skeptical about the Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, being able to actually deliver a pharmacare program in the first place?

86 words

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

May/27/24 6:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a thoughtful speech. He referred to this tawdry situation as being unprecedented, and he is so right. It is unprecedented in Canadian history that a Speaker would face a prima facie case of privilege in the House not once, not twice, but three times in a short period of months. Given the fact that there have been so many Speakers in the past who, in many cases, have served for many years who have never had this kind of a case brought forward, is it not shocking that we find this to be the third time it has taken place with the current occupant of the chair? Is it not shocking that the Liberal government, the Liberal members of the House and their NDP coalition partners would not call the Speaker on this and finally agree to fire him?

144 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

May/22/24 11:35:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, he said that he loves capitalism. I believe those were his exact words. He loves capitalism, yet he knows that the Liberal Party has veered sharply to the left, so far to the left now that I think it can be accurately said that the Liberal Party is a party of socialists. He knows, and he knows very well, that socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. When one looks at the Liberal government's record of allowing large companies to merge, of huge subsidies of billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, this guy asks us to believe that he is a capitalist. If he is such a capitalist, why is he in a party like the Liberal Party, which has now gone socialist big time?

133 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

May/21/24 6:39:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every time our Liberal friends across the way get up, they tell us how good Canadians have it. In fact, just a moment ago the member from Kingston and the Islands got up, telling us Canadians have never had it so good, and to look at inflation, it is only 2.7%. Perhaps my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon could explain how harmful the reckless spending of the Liberal government has been, and how that spending has stoked the inflationary fires in Canada.

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

May/6/24 12:18:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There appears to be so little interest in this budget on the Liberal side of the House that we do not have quorum.

32 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Apr/16/24 3:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today, the member for North Island—Powell River directed a comment at us here in the back benches, and she directed it to me as well. She used the term “shut up.” She is a member who generally conducts herself in a very civil manner, but today she used the term “shut up” in a manner that is unbecoming of a parliamentarian. It is you, Mr. Speaker, who ensures civility in the House. You are the one who corrects us when we use language that is unbecoming. She actually repeated the remark. When I asked her, “Did you tell us to shut up?”, she said, “Yes, shut up.” That is behaviour unbecoming of a parliamentarian, so I would ask you to ask her to apologize for that remark and to withdraw it unconditionally.

154 words

Mar/19/24 8:54:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I too want to join with my colleagues in recounting my fond memories of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. I am going to focus my speech on his colossal trade achievements on behalf of Canadians. One has to understand that, as is true for so many other Canadians, my life has been profoundly impacted by the life of Brian Mulroney. I grew up in Vancouver and, as a young child, at nine years of age, I already knew that perhaps, one day, I would make a life in politics. Little did I know that I would end up in this place. However, my member of Parliament, back in those years, in south Vancouver, was a fellow by the name of John Fraser. He was elected in 1972, became fisheries minister under Brian Mulroney and then, yes, became the Speaker of the House of Commons. He basically sat in the chair the current Speaker is sitting in today. I used to admire John Fraser from a distance. He was now a cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, and I often thought that it would be wonderful to represent the constituents of my community in Ottawa someday and help shape the future of my dear country. I went through university. I graduated with a law degree, and my wife and I moved out to the beautiful city of Abbotsford, which is still my home today. Very quickly, these aspirations of being a member of Parliament disappeared, because my wife and I had four daughters. A member of Parliament is away from his or her family for long periods of time, 40%, 50%, 60% of the year. That is not good for raising a family, so I put those ambitions on the back burner. I got involved in local politics. In 1983, in Abbotsford, our MP at the time was Alex Patterson. He announced that he was retiring. There was a lot of excitement in Abbotsford, because Canada needed change. Brian Mulroney represented that change. We had a nomination contest, a very big one, with 12 different candidates vying to be the Conservative candidate in the upcoming federal election. My candidate, a man by the name of Ross Belsher, won that nomination; he went on to win the election and serve in the Mulroney government for two majority terms. He later became a good friend. Four years later, I had the chance to manage the campaign of the other MP representing the western part of Abbotsford, a man by the name of Bob Wenman. I was able to manage his campaign successfully. He also served two terms in that Mulroney majority government. I now had experience and was following the various issues that were playing out here in our capital city. I took note of the fact that Mr. Mulroney had a resolute character, where he identified the most important issues that needed to be addressed in Canada. One was Canada's competitiveness within the world economy. Mr. Mulroney proceeded to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. One has to understand that, back then, this was not necessarily universally popular. In fact, the naysayers came out. They said we were going to hollow out our economy, that Canada was going to lose its universal health care system and the Canada pension plan. Canada as we knew it would be gone; however, as we know, Brian Mulroney prevailed. He understood what was at stake. He spent the political capital that he had, and he prevailed. Canadians today are thankful that he did. By the way, all the fears of the naysayers were put to rest, because none of those fears ever materialized. Today we still rely on the successor to NAFTA as the most important economic agreement Canada has in the world. The reason I recount this is that when I was supporting the different candidates to be part of the Mulroney government as Brian Mulroney implemented his grand vision, a more robust and outward-looking vision for our country, little did I know back then that someday his work would intersect with mine in the House. Years later I was in fact elected to the House, and in 2011, I had the privilege and honour of serving as Canada's trade minister as the Harper government rolled out the most ambitious trade agenda our country had ever seen. We negotiated a trade agreement with the 27 countries of the European Union, the largest consumer market in the world. We negotiated trade agreements with some of our most trusted Asia-Pacific partners in the TPP. We negotiated trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Peru, and numerous investment agreements. The bottom line is this: The tone that had been set by Brian Mulroney and the work he had done in achieving the momentous and historic free trade agreement with the United States, and then later bringing Mexico into our North American partnership, would pay huge dividends as Canada continued to look outward at all those opportunities Canadians could have as we engaged in the global marketplace. He was a visionary, and I am so grateful I had the opportunity to benefit from his work. Today we benefit from the elimination of trade barriers, tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers, as we look outward. Canada today benefits from a comparative advantage as we do business around the world. Today Canadian companies have opportunities they would have never had if were not for Brian Mulroney. Let me close by saying that Brian Mulroney intuitively understood that he would be setting the stage for our country. He set the stage for subsequent governments to expand on the golden opportunities that he so deftly and courageously negotiated. Today our prosperity depends on freer and fairer trade with the world. We who followed Prime Minister Mulroney rode on the shoulders of a giant, a political giant and an economic giant. More than that, it can truly be said of him that Canada has lost one of its great Canadians. We all owe him and his family a debt of gratitude. To Mila, Caroline, Ben, Mark, Nicolas, their spouses and children I say thank you for sharing their husband, father and grandfather with us. Rest in peace, Prime Minister Mulroney.

1044 words

Feb/15/24 12:52:11 p.m.
Watch

On the same point, Madam Speaker, I would ask that you get clarity on this and come back to the House. I do not believe the terms “unelected” and “unaccountable” are offensive. They are appropriate, because they reflect the fact that the Senate is not elected. If it is a matter of naming senators, that may be a different issue, but using terms that most of us would acknowledge accurately reflect what the Senate represents is fair, especially in this chamber, where we are supposed to be free to express our thoughts and feelings about the issues of the day.

104 words

Feb/15/24 11:06:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, where we did excellent work in coming up with a recommendation, which unfortunately the government did not choose to follow in its entirety. We had called for an indefinite pause. Unfortunately, the government felt an arbitrary three years was sufficient. To answer his question, I have great concern the government's promises to deliver improved palliative care supports to the provinces and to deliver improved mental health supports to them have not been fulfilled. Now people are asking for death because they are not getting those supports. That truly is sad.

112 words

Feb/15/24 11:05:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that individual would actually promote assisted death for children. Let us not forget this. The suggestion is not only that this would be assisted death for mature minors. There is the suggestion that parents would not have the final say over whether their children would be euthanized. This is appalling. Is this the state of our country, where we have parties in the House of Commons actually promoting the deaths of children when in fact they can be helped and treated? We can do better as a country; I know we can.

98 words

Feb/15/24 11:02:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me first of all thank that member for bringing such a thoughtful approach to our work at the committee and now here in the House. I agree with him that we should have an indefinite pause on this expansion, but with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, I think it would be wrong to presume what the court might read into any additional changes that might happen. We do know that the federal government refused to appeal lower court decisions, like the EF decision in Alberta and the Truchon case in Quebec, to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is where this type of final decision should rest. I expect fully that eventually a case will make its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada will opine whether the Carter decision should go beyond just the incurable, intolerable illnesses where death was reasonably foreseeable and should in fact include vulnerable populations like the mentally ill.

166 words

Feb/15/24 10:52:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it should have never come to this. Had the government properly consulted with Canadians, this expansion of MAID would never have seen the light of day. Instead, what we now have is MAID in Canada, a triumph of ideology over common sense. The Liberal government's recent decision to further delay, but not cancel, the expansion of MAID to the mentally ill reflects an unserious approach to this all-important life-and-death issue. MAID was originally designed for those whose physical illness was incurable and caused intolerable pain, and where death was reasonably foreseeable. However, the Liberals soon eliminated the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable and then went far beyond that by quickly agreeing to a demand from the unelected Senate to expand assisted suicide to include those suffering from mental illness. The government has signalled a willingness to go even further by including children in its deadly scheme. As we predicted back in 2016, when the Prime Minister introduced medically assisted death to Canadians, our country is now hurtling down a steep and slippery slope. Despite the accusations of fearmongering and exaggerating that have been levelled at us, history has proven that Conservative MPs were right. Over eight short years, our country has moved from banning assisted suicide to having the most permissive and dangerous regime in the world. The statistics are staggering. Last year, over 13,000 Canadian deaths were attributable to MAID, a 31% increase over the year before. That is without MAID being made available for mental illness. MAID is now the fourth leading cause of death in the country. When compared to other jurisdictions where MAID is available, like California, Canada's assisted suicide deaths far exceed those of other jurisdictions. That should really concern us, as it reflects a reckless implementation of MAID. Imagine how many more thousands of deaths will be added every single year, should the Liberal plan to include the mentally disordered come into force. Of increasing concern are the growing number of cases in which MAID has been improperly approved and administered outside of what the criminal law currently allows. Here are just a few of them: There is a Hamilton man who would rather die than struggle with poverty, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator Reporter; the Cape Breton woman who sought MAID over lengthy workers' compensation delays; the Ontario quadriplegic mother who applied for MAID over a lack of access to disability supports; the former paralympian who told MPs that the veterans affairs department offered her assisted death instead of help; and the Winnipeg woman who chose to die through MAID because of her futile struggle for home care. There is the case of Donna Duncan from my own city of Abbotsford, who was euthanized because mental health support was not available when she needed it the most. Indeed, she received MAID without her daughters, Christie and Alicia, knowing about it until after the fact. They had no chance to say goodbye to their mother. Then there is Kathrin Mentler, who lives with chronic depression and suicidality. Feeling particularly vulnerable, she went to Vancouver General Hospital looking for psychiatric help for feelings of hopelessness she could not shake. Instead, a clinician told her there would be a long wait to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is broken. That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?” There is the case of Sophia, who suffered from severe sensitivity to smoke and chemicals, triggering rashes, difficulty breathing and blinding headaches. She died by MAID after a frantic effort by friends, supporters and even her doctors to get her safe and affordable housing in Toronto. She begged officials for assistance in finding a home away from the smoke and chemicals wafting through her apartment. “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass,” she said in a video filmed eight days before her death. Canadians are dying unnecessarily and under circumstances that scream out for reconsideration of how far Canadians are prepared to go in euthanizing their fellow citizens. It has become stunningly clear how little the government consulted on MAID expansion. Mental health professionals are only now becoming aware of the government's plans to euthanize persons suffering from mental disorders. Psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical counsellors and suicide prevention experts overwhelmingly oppose this expansion, and only recently has the government begun to consult with indigenous communities, our fellow Canadians who are at the greatest risk from an expansive application of MAID. The provinces and territories, as has already been mentioned, have sent a joint letter to the government, saying that they are not ready for MAID expansion. Indeed, they have called not just for a delay but for an indefinite suspension of the government's plans. Ordinary Canadians, of course, have repeatedly said they do not favour expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. What is worse is that this expansion is taking place at a time when Canada faces compounding national crises in mental health, palliative care, opioid addiction, affordability and homelessness. The skyrocketing cost of living has only exacerbated these profound social challenges. The government's reckless approach to MAID also flies in the face of Parliament's stated commitment to suicide prevention, including the recently activated 988 suicide helpline, which is thanks to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. How can members claim to support suicide prevention efforts, when at the same time they are promoting state-facilitated suicide? Clearly, the government's contradictory approach has been one in which blind ideology has trumped common sense and reason. More troubling is that the message to our most vulnerable Canadians, the mentally disordered, the opioid addicted, the homeless and hungry, and the veterans, is that their government would rather euthanize them than provide them with the mental health and social supports they need to live productive, meaningful lives. The utilitarian implications of the government's approach are deeply disturbing and profoundly wrong on so many levels. By any other definition, expanding MAID to include the most vulnerable is nihilism hiding behind the fig leaf of compassion. In a briefing recently, Liberal government officials indicated that they are still hell-bent on expanding MAID to the mentally ill. It is just that their masters, namely the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues across the floor, do not want to face the voters' wrath for placing their corrosive ideology above the interests and welfare of the most vulnerable among us. That is why they, the Liberals, have kicked the ball down the road to avoid the political consequences. We can and should do better. What is really required and what Canadians are demanding of the Prime Minister and his justice minister is that they put a full stop to this madness now. There being no national consensus on MAID expansion, completely rescinding this policy is the only reasonable and responsible thing to do.

1165 words

Feb/15/24 10:52:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

23 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Feb/15/24 10:15:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am here today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, dozens of whom have signed this petition. They draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Liberal government has attempted to ban and to seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians. The targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime, and the very same Liberal government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the government to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms.

109 words