Michael Barrett
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as Canada prepares to celebrate its 159th birthday, we have every reason to be proud of the country we call home. In Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, that story is written into our landscape. The Rideau Canal helped build a young nation. The Thousand Islands became one of Canada's great treasures.”
“Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Seniors Month, I was pleased to join with MPP Steve Clark to host our first annual Seniors Expo. This week at New Hope Church in Brockville, in partnership with Senior Support Services Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, we welcomed more than 160 seniors and dozens of exhibitors.”
“It was a wonderful way to bring our community together, share helpful resources that support seniors and their families, and recognize the incredible contributions of our seniors. I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who built our country and built our community. Happy Seniors Month.”
“The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability.”
“Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here?”
The complete record
Every one of 258 lines we hold for Michael Barrett, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Speaker, to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, who said on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, in another situation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation: ...the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course.”
“member for Saskatoon South , could not be debated and would be rendered “pending” following the second reading of Bill C-19 , a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill because: The House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision. (1240) In June 2024, the Chair again fashioned a similar procedure, which would have seen the vote at third reading of another private member's bill, Bill C-323 , held in abeyance, if necessary, until the budget implementation bill, Bill C-59 , had completed its course through Parliament. This approach to placing pieces of legislation on hold after a similar bill has made progress is not a brand new practice. I would refer you, Mr.”
“While we are happy to see a good idea get adopted, often it gets thrown into an omnibus budget implementation bill, or buried, some might say. I would refer the House, for example, to the following rulings: Mr. Speaker Rota, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates; the Deputy Speaker on May 11, 2022, at page 5123 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on June 6, 2022, at page 6140 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates; the Speaker's immediate predecessor on November 29, 2023, at page 19211 of the Debates, and again on December 12, 2023, at page 19978; and finally, the then Deputy Speaker on June 7, 2024, at page 24627 of the Debates. In the May 2022 ruling, the Chair held that Bill C-250 , the private member's bill proposed by our colleague, the hon.”
“Indeed, Bill C-12 is effectively a copy and paste of 11 of the 16 parts of Bill C-2, plus one of its two schedules, as the member enumerated in her argument. Setting aside the marketing-oriented short titles of the two bills, Bill C-12 is composed of 136 of the 197 clauses found in Bill C-2 , or 69% of its clauses, adjusted only insofar as necessary to reflect the passage of time between the introduction of the two bills. As such, if the House is called upon to vote on Bill C-2, it would be called upon to vote again for second reading of many legislative measures it has already approved, but it might yield a different result. The Chair has had multiple opportunities during the previous two Parliaments to rule on these issues, after many Conservative private members' bills have been poached by the government as its own legislation.”
“Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill, for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process, then the other similar or identical bill may not be proceeded with. In the present case, Bill C-12 would be what is described as the “first bill” in Janse and LeBlanc's explanation, because it had been adopted at second reading back on October 23, 2025, while Bill C-2 would be the “other bill” described in that passage and therefore cannot now proceed. Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 are, in my view, very similar in substance.”
“I share the member's view that Bill C-2 , in its current form, cannot proceed further in the House by virtue of the same question rule. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, explains this practice at paragraphs 12.89 and 12.90: A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. Thus, if a bill or motion is rejected or adopted, it cannot be revived in the same session.... This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session. This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session.”
“Mr. Speaker, although the business of the House will continue in a mere moment's time, the whole House knows that Bill C-2 was a significant overreach. If passed in its current form, Bill C-2 would require law-abiding Canadians to lose important liberties to pay for the Liberals' failures on borders and immigration. The government, realizing the passage of Bill C-2 would be neither swift nor assured, went back to the drawing board and repackaged the less contentious aspects into new legislation, Bill C-12 , the Bill C-2 redo. However, the government has since publicly indicated that the orphaned portions of Bill C-2 not only remain Liberal policy but also continue to be part of its parliamentary agenda, as is.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the continued placement of Bill C-2 , the so-called strong borders act, on the Order Paper. As you and the whole House well know, Bill C-2 was a significant overreach. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, with all those words and all the billions they spend, the Liberals, still, are not getting homes built. The government's own housing agency, the CMHC, is blowing the whistle. Construction of new homes will drop by as much as 18% with all the “catalyzing” the Liberals are doing. Canadians know that another Liberal bureaucracy is not the answer. That is why, today, we approach the Liberals and extend our hand in the spirit of collaboration with real solutions that would help address the problems Canadians see and the end of the dream of home ownership. Will the Liberals slash development charges or cut them in half, take the tax off new homes and work with us today?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal government policy is crushing the dream of home ownership for Canadians, but it does not need to be that way. We have the land, the resources and the skilled workers to address this problem, but a staggering 87% of Canadians are concerned about housing in Canada, and nine in 10 of those people are young Canadians. The Liberals have an opportunity to work with Conservatives to take a real team Canada approach. Will they work with us to take the tax off new homes and slash development charges by half to restore the dream of home ownership for young Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on this. He talks about decorum in the chamber but is widely known as one of the biggest disruptors. He heckles and uses unparliamentary language, all while hoping that because he sits far enough away from the Speaker, he will not be called out on his terrible behaviour. It is shocking to see him do this today. It is no surprise that he was on the receiving end of a code of conduct complaint and violation when he was a municipal councillor, which he talked a lot about. He wants more rules here, but he does not seem to want to follow them. Does he have any comments about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments with respect to virtual participation in the chamber. I just cannot reconcile why this continues to this day. I wonder if the member could share with us if he knows if this continues in any other Parliament similar to ours. My understanding is that it does not. I fully agree that the tradition of pairing in the House should be fully used. Certainly, there is no reason for members to join in debate from their car in a gas station parking lot or from the bedroom in their hotel. It does not raise decorum in here, and neither do the heckles of the members opposite who would rather work from home.”
“Madam Speaker, let me say it a little louder for the minister: We are talking about it, about unjustified tariffs coming from the Trump administration. What we want from the minister and from the government is a plan that actually supports Canadian auto manufacturing. The Liberals' plan is going to help with only one Canadian production line. We want to take the tax off all Canadian-made autos. Why do the Liberals want to subsidize President Trump's manufacturing strategy instead of supporting the hard-working men and women in Ontario's manufacturing?”
“Madam Speaker, President Trump slapped unjustified tariffs on Canadian autos, and thousands of Ontarians were put out of work as a result. Canadians need a plan that supports Canadian manufacturing and Canadian jobs. Only one Canadian vehicle qualifies for the Liberal EV subsidy, and that does not meet the moment. Will the government work with Conservatives, adopt our plan and take the tax off Canadian-made autos to support Canadian auto manufacturing?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said, “A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself, has few options.” He is right, and Canadians are looking for the Prime Minister's words to match his actions. Tomorrow, Conservatives are going to introduce a motion to pass the Canadian sovereignty act. It would cut taxes, and it would let investors invest and builders build. The question is very simple: At this critical time for our country, will the government say yes, and will it support the Canadian sovereignty act?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Standing Order 18 is of interest with respect to the government House leader 's calling me the Death Valley well digger, what I would say is that I will stop digging if they stop burying stuff.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have seen the depths of the corruption from the Liberals and these ministers, including those who sit in the front bench today, who have been found to have broken Canada's ethics laws. The Prime Minister is the one who has the market cornered on shadow lobbying, and now it looks very much as though he is inviting more of his Bay Street buddies to have the inside track and have Bay Street pay for access so that his government can fast-track their projects. Canadians are lined up at food banks, and Liberal insiders are lined up at the Prime Minister 's front door. Why will he not—”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister and his government are looking to stack the Major Projects Office with corporate insiders and then have corporations send money to the Major Projects Office, Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. The firms paying those so-called top-ups to government employees are the same ones that are going to benefit from fast-track decisions made by the Major Projects Office. Why is it that the only pipeline the government is getting built is one that funnels cash from Bay Street to the Prime Minister 's Major Projects Office?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my hon. colleague's thoughts about the offering from the government. It is a failure to rein in deficit spending; it blew the doors off that. There is no plan to reduce that inflationary spending now, with expenses on debt outstripping what we are spending on health care in this country at a time when we are facing a health care human resource shortage across the country. There is no plan to get rid of government taxes that raise the price of food and food production, like the industrial carbon tax. I am interested in the member's comments regarding what he would propose as an alternative to help make life more affordable for Canadians, who are lined up at food banks in record numbers.”
“The committee should continue examining fixes to the act to restore public trust. That is what we are going to look to do.”
“Madam Speaker, Conservatives support the main report from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, but want to highlight two concerns in our dissenting report. The first is that Mr. Flatt and Mr. Teskey refused to appear. They stayed outside Canada to avoid testifying, even though the House could still order them to appear when they return. The second is that we have deep concerns about the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest. He has massive Brookfield holdings with future bonus pay, possibly in the tens of millions of dollars, and they are not properly managed under the current rules. Administrators of the screen were not even aware that the Prime Minister had met with the COO of Brookfield or that 95% of Brookfield companies are not covered by the screen.”
“Mr. Speaker, the forestry sector is incredibly important to this country and to my family. My dad worked in the business for his career and provided for our family. That should be an opportunity for generations to come. The government needs to continue to make sure it is challenging any illegal trade actions or illegal tariffs against our softwood lumber sector.”
“Some of those things include nation-building projects, such as getting a pipeline built from east to west in this country and making sure that, when they are not feeling well, or so that they do not feel unwell, Canadians can see a doctor.”
“Mr. Speaker, the preliminary figures show that the Liberal government is saddling every Canadian family with $20,000 in debt. With thousands of dollars per year in reduced spending power for Canadians, with rising inflation and increased taxes, this creates negative pressure at a time when we are seeing food prices rise 40% faster in Canada than in the United States. That is why it is so important to cap the deficit spending every year, set real priorities that address the concerns that Canadians have today and be very disciplined in what the government is seeking to do. If the Liberals want to be good at everything, they are going to be good at nothing. We need to get good at delivering on the priorities that Canadians have outlined for us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to give credit when something goes poorly and take credit when something goes well. In this case, as all hon. members are, I will be transparently honest. In terms of the good ideas I have brought forward today, these propositions, I am incredibly proud to say that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot , the leader of Canada's Conservative Party, platformed them, put them forward and offered them in a letter to the Prime Minister with respect to, for example, the size of the deficit or solutions for health care credential recognition. Therefore, we are going to continue offering those concrete solutions, and we look forward to constructive discussions with the government to implement them.”
“Dozens of jobs at Douglas Barwick have been lost because of steel tariffs. Let us have those conversations. We need that collaboration. We need a government that is working with the opposition to adopt some of the priorities we have put forward. The people in my community, like Canadians from coast to coast to coast, need a government that cares. I am offering that. I have offered that in my seven years of service, and I will continue to do that, as will my Conservative colleagues. I look forward to members' questions.”
“Is every dollar spent on consultants a waste? I would not say every dollar is, but I would say it is more than $1 billion, more than$10 billion. That is what the government needs to look at. It was exposed and laid bare with the arrive scam and with fraud in indigenous procurement, with companies claiming to have indigenous status or eligibility when they did not. That is one concrete example. My goodness, $20 billion would go a long way to solving much of what ails our country and could be used to support our community. We need constructive conversations. We need a government that cares about our trading relationship. My community has two international bridges to the United States, our largest trading partner. More than 100 jobs from Invista, in Maitland, Ontario are going across those bridges down to Texas.”
“It is coming from the pockets of Canadians. We would say that some of that should stay in their pockets. Now, how do we do that? We encouraged the government to cap the deficit and to do more on cutting taxes. Again, we are not just opposing legislation put forward by the government on reduction of taxes, on making sure that we are able to work as one Canadian economy. I voted for that. I would not just blindly oppose what the government puts forward, but I do look for those constructive conversations on such things as capping the deficit and cutting taxes. Where can the government save money? As soon as we talk about saving money, the cries go up that it is going to mean cuts to important services for Canadians. Let us look at such things as the more than $20 billion a year that is being spent on consultants.”
“There is more that we all have in common in this country than we would disagree on, so why not have those consultations? Why not take a look at the proposal the Leader of the Opposition put forward in the election on credential recognition, on having one system across Canada for personal support workers, RPNs, RNs, NPs and MDs in which their recognition, licensure and credentials are recognized across the board. Let us straighten that out. It should be the same for folks coming from abroad who want to bring their skills, talents and credentials to Canada to help solve our health care human resource challenge. That is one example of many in which we can offer constructive solutions to the government and look for it to collaborate with us on that. Every dollar the government spends comes from somewhere.”
“The amount that we are spending on servicing the debt is more than we are spending on health care, which is something I hear about in my community often. What is the federal government doing in terms of resolving the health care human resource challenge we have? How much money is it allocating in health transfers to the provinces? What specific measures is it taking to solve the lack of access to a doctor or other health care professional? (1230) It is important, as the official opposition, that we oppose; it is our role, and it is an imperative in our system. However, we must also propose. I encourage the government, as it seeks passage of legislation, to meaningfully consult with the opposition. There is a lot that ties us together.”
“As I said, the efforts that people in my community have put forward have been laudable, and I am incredibly proud of the work they undertake, but what I hear consistently from them is that the cost of government so far outpaces what we are able to afford. Is that to say that everything government, or the current government, does is bad? Well, not everything is. There is the continuation of programs that have been developed in consultation with generations of Canadians that continue to be funded and that are important. Could we do better with the allocations that are being made? Yes, we could. While that is true of all governments, none being perfect, what we see in the current budget is an awful lot of debt and deficit spending that are really beyond the ability of Canadians to manage.”
“It is a collection of stories of families and of neighbours, people who are the true essence of this wonderful country, the greatest country in the world, Canada. Like so many other people, they have forged their livelihood, forged a living, forged a community and are raising a family, having broken the ground and fed the the nation and the world with the products they produce. It has never been for lack of ingenuity, effort or wherewithal that hard times have fallen on my community. Its people have an incredibly collaborative spirit, always looking to work together, and they are committed to lifting up the least among us. I truly think that the measure of a good, just and fair society is how we treat the least among us. How are we doing with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we take the time to discuss, to analyze and to review what the government's spending priorities are and that we put it in the context of what Canadians' priorities are. What does Canada need? There is an old saying, wishing someone a blessing that they might live in interesting times. Some say that it is perhaps a curse and not a blessing, but we certainly do live in interesting times. Having had the privilege, the honour and the duty to represent my community in this place for coming on seven years now, I have seen the effects of the changing global, national and regional dynamics on my community. The beautiful riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes comprises 13 municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not standing up; he is backing down, like he did on countertariffs and like he did on the legal challenge for illegal softwood lumber tariffs. It gets worse when it comes to the Prime Minister 's record on Brookfield. We learned that the Liberals gave $500 million to the European Space Agency last week. Guess who owns 50% of the agency's site where the funds are going. It is none other than the Prime Minister 's company, Brookfield. Again, he is seeing his own personal profits increase at the expense of Canadians: at the expense of Canadian investment and Canadian jobs. Why will the Prime Minister not put Canadians ahead of his own financial interests for once?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has backed down on countertariffs, he has backed down on the legal challenge against the softwood lumber tariffs and he is saying, “Who cares?” Canadians thought that he got nothing in his negotiations. It turns out that he just got nothing for Canadians. After his last trip to the White House, he got an $80-billion nuclear deal for his company Brookfield, which will see the Prime Minister's own personal investments increase in value. Why is the Prime Minister is trading our national interests for his own personal financial interests?”
“Mr. Speaker, it must be concerning for the minister that the Clerk of the Privy Council believed in the same conspiracy so much that he sold his shares in Brookfield knowing that he could not manage the conflict of interest in the role that he had, which is the same conflict that the Prime Minister has, and he is supposed to be managing the Prime Minister's conflicts. Every time Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister is making money. Even the chief operating officer of Brookfield itself admits this very thing. With 1,900 companies that Brookfield owns not being covered by the Prime Minister's ethics screen, why will he not just do the thing that Canadians need, give them the confidence they deserve and sell his shares in Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that every decision the Prime Minister makes is in the national interest and not in his own financial interest. Yesterday at committee, Brookfield confirmed that, every time Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister makes money, and that the 1,900 companies that Brookfield owns are not covered by the Prime Minister's ethics screen. Every time the Prime Minister goes down to the White House, he does not come back with a deal for Canadians, but the last time he went, he did get an $80-billion deal for Brookfield. Will the Prime Minister just give Canadians the confidence they deserve and sell his financial interest in Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing is making excuses for a Liberal appointee who raised his travel budget by 85% while Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. Under the Liberals' watch, food prices have risen 40% faster than in the United States. Why is it that every time the Liberals stand up, life gets harder for Canadians? Canadians cannot afford the Liberals. They cannot afford the Prime Minister , and they cannot afford higher taxes. Why are the Liberals doubling down on higher prices for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the current Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history, and everything the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Let us take a look at the Liberal-appointed president of the Nuclear Safety Commission, who is racking up massive expenses for international junkets like $14,000 to Paris. Meanwhile, the Liberals are raising taxes on fuel that are going to add 17¢ a litre, and their appointees are taking limo rides. Why do Liberals get limo rides while Canadians get higher taxes from the Prime Minister and the Liberals?”
“As the Silver Cross mother, Nancy Payne carries the weight of the personal loss of her son Randy, as well as the grief of so many Canadian families who have lost their loved ones in service of freedom and Canadian values. We cannot forget that. We must never forget them. We will remember them.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year the Silver Cross mother is Nancy Payne from Lansdowne, Ontario. On Remembrance Day, Nancy will lay a wreath at the National War Memorial in our nation's capital, representing the mothers and families who have lost a daughter or son in military service to Canada. Nancy's son, Corporal Randy Payne, served proudly with the Canadian Army as a military police officer. He was killed in action on April 22, 2006, while serving in a close protection unit in Afghanistan. Through Nancy, we honour not only Randy's sacrifice but also the legacy of all who have served and fallen in defence of Canada. The fallen and their families have given so much to our country, and we are forever in their debt.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard this same tune from the Liberals before, and the result is that 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks. Their industrial carbon tax is another example of driving up costs for everyday Canadians. They are paying more, and they are getting less. We want to know why the Liberals continue with these taxes, like their food packaging tax. We know they love consultants. Deloitte is saying it is raising the price of produce by 30%. Will the Prime Minister , while he still has a chance, commit to having an affordable budget for the affordable lives of Canadians instead of having a costly election?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Liberal government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians through higher taxes and higher inflation. Today, at four o'clock, we are going to find out just how much more the Liberals are going to take out of the pockets of Canadians. Canadians could be paying $300 to $400 more in grocery costs because of the food packaging tax. Canadians are looking for an affordable budget for an affordable life, so will the Prime Minister scrap his food packaging tax instead of trying to engineer a costly election with his costly budget?”
“If the Liberals are just going to do whatever they want to do at the end of the day, then why the pageantry of the more than two dozen standing committees? That is not what this place is for.”
“Madam Speaker, this was why they went to fight: for a future they could not have imagined. There were literal children who were lying about their age so they could go fight for an idea that they had only just come to understand as they were coming of age as adults. They believed in what we have had the blessing and the benefit to enjoy since then: parliamentary democracy. I will note that committees do not serve in an advisory role to the executive, to the Prime Minister , that he should dismiss out of hand simply because he can. I would say that, responsibly and ethically, he ought not and cannot dismiss it, because this place has been structured in such a way that we send bills to committee. They are referred to a committee by the House.”
“Madam Speaker, of course the parliamentary secretary is ignoring his own actions and his government's own actions. Let us follow his argument all the way through. The NDP asked to be given official party status to make sure they get the same rights. However, that is not how it works. It is a question of numbers and how many members they sent to the House. The Liberal government has said that. We are sure that over the last 10 years of their government, the Liberals have said that committees are important and are the master of their own destiny, and that the House will respect what committees have to say. What has been the change? The change is that the Liberals do not have a majority, and they do not want to respect what happened at committee.”
“However, it is a big responsibility; I reflect on that too. While we make a decision as a House on what to do next with Bill C-3 , I would just ask members to consider our parliamentary democracy, our traditions, how we came to be here, the defence and the protection of those freedoms, and of course why the process that was undertaken at committee is so important.”
“I know there are other members on both sides of the House who served in uniform, and I thank them for their service. I know what it takes of an individual, and I know what it takes of the family. People do not have to have been deployed to have sacrificed. People do not have to have put on the uniform to know, recognize and appreciate that sacrifice. That is what I want members to reflect on as they take decisions as we go forward in Parliament: what is in the best interests of Canada; what protects the value of our citizenship, of our passport; and what promotes that democracy, our parliamentary democracy, and respects the vote of the people who participated, who exercised their franchise as a Canadian in the last election. We are here to represent everyone, and it is an incredible honour. It is a privilege.”
“It started with the Fenian raids, the defence of Canada against U.S.-based militants. I can only imagine that with less than three minutes left in my speech, members would not think I would be starting in 1866. It was consistent through the world wars and through the Korean War, the Congo wars, Cyprus, other UN engagements, and Afghanistan most recently, where 159 Canadian men and women, in the lifetime of all of us, died with the Canadian flag on their shoulder, along with seven Canadian civilians. I will note that in Afghanistan, the Brockville Rifles, my local regiment in Brockville, was awarded battle honours for that, in the defence and the promotion of the rights and values we have here at home. That is what I am reflecting on this week, as well as my service as a regular member of Canada's army.”
“The effect of looking to override and undermine the work of committee is that it erodes public trust, something that has fallen to all-time lows in recent years. I would say, what is more, that it undermines good governance and presupposes that the executive, cabinet, in presenting legislation, had all the answers and that the view of members at committee, their witnesses and the committee debates are not important or relevant. (1050) How did we get to where we can have our parliamentary democracy? What did we do to earn it? It was bought and paid for with blood and sweat. Thousands of people died, and we stand on their shoulders today, on the shoulders of the more than 118,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders who died in the defence and the promotion of democracy, in conflicts since before our country was Canada.”