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 4 of 6.
“When a bill, for example Bill C-3 , goes to committee, it undergoes scrutiny. We hear testimony from expert witnesses, and we have debates. Really good work can happen at committee. One of the most important roles of members of the House is their service on standing committees. The Liberal government's wanting in this case to ignore the work of committee, the amendments to its legislation that get passed at committee, the improvements that get made, seeks to concentrate power in the executive, in the very few. I think if we asked most Canadians, they would want the majority of the work of the majority of members at committee to be reflected in the legislation, and not simply have the Prime Minister , by edict, ram things through the House.”
“One of the most important functions is not the sound bites we hear on the news in the evening, see on social media or hear on the radio from question period, but the work that members do in committee, which is incredibly valuable. The composition of committees represents the composition of the House. While there are members who are elected under the party banners of multiple parties that sit in the House, the parties do not have equal standing. That is how one party gets to form the government, by having the confidence of the House and most often having the most seats. The official opposition is second to that, and then there are additional opposition parties. There is a minimum standard for what constitutes party status. The composition of our committees reflects the composition of the chamber.”
“Madam Speaker, this is an important debate to have as we approach Remembrance Week and Remembrance Day. The discussion about Bill C-3 is a discussion about the value of Canadian citizenship: what that means, why it is valued, why it has lasting value, and the freedoms that Canadians enjoy and that Canadian citizenship affords. Whether it is freedom of speech, of religion, of mobility or of voting for and shaping government, these are important freedoms. In shaping government and in voting, Canadians have clear expectations of what happens in our parliamentary democracy. They send representatives to the House, 343 of us in the most recent election, and there is a well-established process we follow here. When a bill is introduced by the government, it requires approval at various stages.”
“Madam Speaker, as we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship, I am curious to know my colleague's thoughts on the message the government is sending to Canadians. One of the wonderful things about Canada is that we are a democracy where people get to vote for a representative to send them to Ottawa. When a majority of members vote and make a decision on a piece of legislation, what does it mean to Canadians and those aspiring to be Canadians when the government says that it is not so interested in what the majority of democratically elected representatives say and when the Liberals just want to impose their will against the decision of the majority of parliamentarians, who thoughtfully considered, reviewed and amended the legislation they put forward? I am very interested in the member's reflections on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can say that a lot of Canadians feel sick after the Liberals continue to inflict on them their out-of-control spending on consultants. Last year alone, over $20 billion was spent on well-connected Liberal insiders getting contracts. This year, I think the number is going to go as high as $25 billion. Instead of asking young people to make sacrifices, why will the Liberals not cut out their well-connected friends, put Canadians first and deliver a budget Canadians can actually afford?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister and the Liberals are asking Canadians to make sacrifices, and Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers, the Liberals' use of well-connected friends and high-priced consultants is driving costs up, as in the benefits delivery modernization programme, which the Auditor General says has ballooned by an additional $1.3 billion and could hit as high as $8 billion. Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. We are seeing layoffs from coast to coast to coast like we have never seen before. Why are Canadians being asked to make sacrifices while the Liberals continue to reward well-connected Liberal consultants?”
“While Liberals vote to protect powerful politicians, Conservatives will stand up for hard-working Canadian taxpayers. We will not back down. We will defend hard-working Canadian taxpayers. We are going to hold the Liberal Prime Minister accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, revelations at the ethics committee have exposed the Prime Minister 's company, Brookfield, as one of Canada's largest tax dodgers. Leading tax transparency experts show that Brookfield avoided an incredible $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes over just five years through the use of offshore tax havens. While chair of Brookfield, the Prime Minister set up three multi-billion dollar investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, shielding profits from Canadian taxes. Those are funds that could line the Prime Minister's pockets through future bonus payments. Canadians deserve to know that the Prime Minister is making decisions in the public interest, not in his own financial interest. That is why it was shocking that Liberals voted to try to shut down this investigation to improve transparency for Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a very important question that strikes to the heart of the matter: Canadians are the ones left blind while the Prime Minister continues to be aware of how he can benefit from the decisions he takes, how they will improve his financial standing and how he can make more money based on the decisions that he or his government takes while he is in office. That is why this review of the act is so necessary at this time.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I will send him a French version shortly. [ English ] This is very important. Let us talk about the actions of the Prime Minister . He has taken decisions, and he is able to take decisions. He holds the pen on laws. He is writing the budget. As he said during the election, he wrote the Liberals' platform, which formed the basis for the government's policies, all while still having control over those controlled assets, which were not yet in a blind trust. The standard needs to be very high for people who want to serve in Canada's highest office. Canadians expect that. We need this transparency and those controls in place. That is why we are looking to continue the study at the ethics committee with these very important witnesses, as in the amendment I moved.”
“Madam Speaker, I too share the member's lack of confidence in his ability to use Google, but I do not have that information in front of me. What I would say, though, is that the Conflict of Interest Act needs to be updated to make sure that the Prime Minister and party leaders in the House of Commons be required to divest their assets and to place them— An hon. member: Including your leader. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Order. Michael Barrett: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I was not projecting. I said that the Prime Minister and leaders of all parties in the House of Commons should be required to divest their assets, because Canadians want transparency. They need to renew their confidence in public institutions after 10 years of it having been broken by the Liberals.”
“and Chief Executive Officer of Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.; and (b) it be an instruction that the committee report back to the House by Friday, November 28, 2025. The amendment is seconded by the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River , which is ably represented by the member.”
“Amendment I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Monday, September 22, 2025, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, with a view to assessing whether the scope of the review of the Conflict of Interest Act proposed by the committee should be amended in order to address better the concerns posed by the unprecedented extent of the Prime Minister's corporate and shareholding interests, provided that, for the purposes of this order of reference, (a) the following be ordered to appear as witnesses, separately, for at least two hours each, at dates and times to be fixed by the Chair of the Committee, but no later than Friday, November 21, 2025: (i) Michael Sabia, Clerk of the Privy Council and an administrator of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, (ii) Marc-Andre Blanchard, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister and an administrator of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, (iii) Bruce Flatt, Chief Executive Officer of Brookfield Corporation and the Prime Minister's immediate successor as Chair of the Board of Directors of Brookfield Asset Management Inc., and (iv) Connor Teskey, President of Brookfield Asset Management Inc.”
“However, I think we would find, if we looked at the performance of the investments made by the Prime Minister that he set up immediately before taking office and then placed into the trust to be managed by someone else, that the only people who are blind to the full composition of the trust are Canadians. The Prime Minister knows what went in and what is going to come out and, based on the decisions he makes, the value is going to increase. His decisions are only to be stopped, if at all, by his two employees. These are the things we need to study. We need to get better visibility on who is managing it and how it is being managed. For these reasons, and others that I cannot get into at great length at this moment but would like to see the committee examine, I am going to move an amendment to the motion.”
“They should be paying taxes as everyone else does, not using the accounting tricks the wealthy rely on to avoid paying their fair share. We expect, at a minimum, that the Prime Minister is going to pay his fair share of taxes. Therefore, we expect we are going to be able to get some transparency through the reporting process. Right now, we do not get that. Should “divest” mean that one instead sells those controlled assets, not one's real estate, not one's home, and then has the investing process carried out by a manager who would operate blind with a direction from the Prime Minister? We heard from the current Ethics Commissioner that when funds go into a blind trust, there is not a lot of turnover, churn or trading that takes place, and they often come back out the other side in the same form. The composition of the trust is the same.”
“This is what the committee is considering, of course. (1530) The question of whether or not, as the act defines it, divesting funds is sufficient is also very important. We had another witness at committee, a former chief of staff to former prime minister Harper, who agreed with the suggestion that divestiture should mean it is actually divested, not placed into a blind trust, but sold. There are conflicts that continue to exist with the current Prime Minister . He set up all kinds of funds when he worked at Brookfield and has invested in those funds, but the pieces of those funds are not clear to the public. It is very opaque. Does he continue to hold, through that blind trust, investments in tax havens? We do not know. Should a prime minister have investments in tax havens? I would say no.”
“The intent here should be that we protect Canadians from public office holders, from ministers, in this case the Prime Minister, and his being involved in discussions and taking decisions that would improve his finances and that he could financially benefit from. However, the people who administer that also work for him. It is the Clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. We had the former clerk of the Privy Council testify at committee. The challenge I would raise today is that for the former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, it was when Mr. Wernick was the clerk that the five occurrences in which the Conflict of Interest Act was broken by the prime minister took place. What was the efficacy of this system? I would say it did not work; it was very poor. Is this something that needs to be changed?”
“How is that process being used to enhance and protect the confidence that Canadians are supposed to be able to have in their executive and in elected officials? Right now, with those conflicts of interest, there are screens in place, which means that there are issues that are not to be raised at the cabinet table when the Prime Minister is in the room. There are 103 issues. Based on his work as chair at Brookfield, they touch on things that we would expect are important for the Prime Minister to be at the table for: telecommunications, infrastructure, military. I would say that the screen, this protection, is not for the Prime Minister but for Canadians.”
“With members of opposition parties carrying a majority of votes on this committee, it presents an opportunity for this standing committee to examine, challenge and test the rules and legislation as they pertain to issues that strike at the heart of what has undermined Canadians' confidence in our democratic institutions over the last few years. We have seen the Conflict of Interest Act, a law, not being well respected by the Liberal government over the past 10 years, with members of the current cabinet found to have broken that law and former prime minister Trudeau found to have broken that law five times. This is a concern for Canadians. Now we are reviewing this act in the context of a Prime Minister who has 103 potential conflicts that have to be managed. What does that mean and what does that look like?”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion that has been brought forward by my hon. colleague for Barrie South—Innisfil, who serves as the chair on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, is important. Having served on this committee over the past few Parliaments, I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Barrie South—Innisfil and to see him bring the serious approach that is necessary when we are dealing with matters that fall under the purview of this committee. This is a prime example of the important work that this committee can do.”
“However, the bottom line and the fact of the matter is that, like in the earlier case, should they not respect the authority and the privileges of the highest court in the land, they will find themselves in contempt. (1225) This is an opportunity, with the motion that I am prepared to move, should you, Mr. Speaker, find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, to take the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee responsible for it, and the commissioner could explain how we found ourselves here today. The bottom line is that no one should get a free pass.”
“We have seen recently, though we are in early days in a new Parliament, that the Prime Minister's Office did not respond in good faith to the document production order passed by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics by the deadline prescribed by the committee. We keep hearing that there is a new government, but it seems like a case of history repeating itself. I mentioned that we are early in the current Parliament, so our effort at the committee was to extend to the Prime Minister and to his department, the PCO, the opportunity to come good on the document production order at committee by next week.”
“Rules are not suggestions, especially not in the ethics business. It may well be that this was an innocent misunderstanding, or maybe it was a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the authority of the House. We do not know. Since the commissioner cannot address the House, we should afford him the opportunity to speak to the issue at committee to account for himself and his office before judgment is pronounced. We have to be vigilant in defending the rights of the House, and that is why, though some found it uncomfortable, we called the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar for defying an order of the House and why we called to the bar Mr. Firth for his unacceptable conduct before a standing committee of the House.”
“When Parliament was prorogued this past January, the House was seized with the prima facie questions of privilege concerning the committee shenanigans of Steven Anderson and Lauren Chen. Members will also recall the now-famous scandal of the other Randy. It is distressing that this has spread from the executive to the public service and now to members of the public. What I am worried about is that we might now be seeing it with officers of Parliament, officers of the House, joining the ranks of the people who failed to appreciate the authority of the House of Commons, which is the beating heart of Canada's democracy. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the question amounts to a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.”
“(1220) Sir John Bourinot put it more pointedly in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada , fourth edition, at page 203: “Each house is bound by every consideration of self-interest and justice to observe strictly its rules and standing orders, and to rebuke every attempt to evade or infringe them.” We have seen a troubling pattern in recent years: The government, including the public service, feels at liberty to defy the authority of the House of Commons, especially when it comes to document production orders, but this pattern of disrespect has been spreading. It is a contagion, and it has gone beyond the executive in recent years. We all recall the scene at the bar last year when Mr. Kristian Firth was admonished for trifling with the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.”
“Speaker Fraser, at page 18105 of the Debates, endorsed the opinion that “the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular.” The Chair then added, for his own part: The statutory laws which have been agreed to by Members of this House do serve a purpose and are meant to be respected.... The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected.”
“These observations were made, I should note, 20 years ago next month. In any event, the Committee went on to conclude, at paragraph 38, “The Committee wishes to place on the record its concern that the procedures and processes under the Code need to be much more...scrupulously followed to ensure this kind of experience is not repeated. The risks to Members, and the very integrity of the Code, demand nothing less.” The concern today is about forms, and I appreciate that this might superficially seem to be a minor matter. The fact is that when the House adopts its rules and orders, it reasonably expects compliance. In a ruling delivered on April 19, 1993, Mr.”
“We are concerned about an apparent absence of rigour in the Office in the development of proper processes. This has resulted in the lack of attention to detail and the requirements of due process in this case. It appears to us that the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is not sufficiently familiar with the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, nor is the Office meticulous in ensuring that these provisions are observed in both their letter and their spirit. Within the Office, there appears to be an unacceptable confusion or blurring of the distinctions between the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which...[was the predecessor of the current Conflict of Interest Act] and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.”
“Speaker Milliken found, as stated at page 8473 of the Debates, a prima facie case of privilege in relation to the then ethics commissioner’s media interviews disclosing an investigation he was undertaking about a member, in apparent disregard of the Code’s requirements to provide the subject of an investigation with reasonable written notice and to conduct an investigation in private. In the procedure and House affairs committee’s subsequent assessment of the case, in the committee's 51st report, tabled in November 2005, we might read, at paragraph 14: ...members of the Committee are very disturbed at what was heard about the operation of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, and, in particular, the handling of complaints and investigations.”
“In publishing these new forms outside the procedures laid down by the House, the commissioner has, I respectfully submit, disobeyed the lawful orders of the House and defied its authority. These actions, as Bosc and Gagnon observe at pages 81 and 82, are considered to be contempts of Parliament. As the United Kingdom’s leading procedural authority, Erskine May, in the 25th edition, points out, at paragraph 15.7, “Contempts can be committed by disobedience to general rules”. Questions of privilege concerning officers of Parliament, even the Ethics Commissioner, are not unprecedented. For example, on October 6, 2005, Mr.”
“The Committee also recommends adding a provision requiring guidelines and forms to remain confidential until reported to the House. (1215) The House concurred in these recommendations and others on June 11, 2007, and that has been the rule of the House ever since. Our Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is, formally, appendix 1 to the Standing Orders of the House. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition explains, at page 226, “The establishment of the Code is a manifestation of the House's right to regulate its internal affairs and to discipline its Members for misconduct.” That is, of course, an extension of the House’s collective privileges.”
“The procedure and House affairs committee explained this in June 2007, at paragraphs 29 and 30 of its 54th report: 29. Section 30 of the Code requires the Commissioner to submit “any proposed rules for the administration of this Code” to the Committee. Following approval by the Committee and the House, the rules may come into effect. It has never been entirely clear what documents were intended to be covered by this provision. The Committee recommends amending the section to refer to “procedural and interpretative guidelines and all forms relating to the Code.” It is intended that this change will provide more guidance to the Commissioner, as well as codifying the current expectation that forms should be approved. 30.”
“I recognize that it might seem odd to be upset or rising today about the forms the commissioner draws up to administer the conflict of interest code, but the fact of the matter is that the House has laid down a very specific and precise procedure in this regard. Section 30 of the code specifies: (1) The commissioner shall submit any proposed procedural and interpretative guidelines and all forms relating to the code to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for approval.... (2) Any guidelines and forms approved by the committee shall be reported to the House and shall come into effect when the report is concurred in by the House.... (3) Until the guidelines and forms are reported to the House, they shall remain confidential. This was a deliberate policy choice made by the House. This is worth underlining.”
“The two forms I cited were approved by the House on March 7, 2016. That was when it concurred in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which had been presented the same day. The differences between the forms as published on the commissioner’s website and what was approved by the House are not stylistic or cosmetic; they are, in fact, substantial. This is, of course, troubling, especially since the problem does not stop there. There is at least one more form, the “Disclosure Statement for Members and their Family Members”, on the commissioner’s website, which appears to be substantially different from what the House approved on January 27, 2009, when it concurred in the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled that same day.”
“From there, one could find that the form concerning members’ sponsored travel was also, suspiciously, dated October 2025. One may be wondering why that date would raise any suspicion. It is, of course, October 2025. It is because the House has laid down a very specific procedure to be followed in the proposal, consideration and approval of forms used to administer the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Part of that procedure involves the House approving the forms. That is done on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I certainly do not recall the House voting this month on any proposals by the Ethics Commissioner. In case it might have been some sort of stylistic formatting change, I obtained copies of what the House last approved and what it had actually approved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I gave the Speaker notice this morning about a question of privilege that I take no pleasure in raising today. It has come to my attention that an officer of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, appears to have exceeded the authority vested in him by the House. Yesterday afternoon, I had occasion to browse the website for the commissioner’s office, something that I do periodically as the official opposition shadow minister for ethics and accountable government. In doing so, I was looking at the forms that members of the House are expected and required to use. Specifically, I was looking at the one to report gifts or benefits. I noticed at the bottom that the form was dated October 2025. That struck me as odd, so I did some additional digging.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have time for the Liberals to play catch-up. What do we have since the Prime Minister 's last trip to the White House? We have 5,000 auto jobs lost. What other jobs do we have to sacrifice? A hundred jobs in Maitland have gone to the United States, as well as hundreds of forestry workers. Nine hundred jobs at Imperial Oil are not coming back. All the while, Canadians are suffering with an affordability crisis that has been fuelled by higher taxes under the Liberals and inflationary policies that have driven food prices up at the grocery store. The Prime Minister is telling young Canadians they need to make sacrifices. When is he going to deliver on his promise with a deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke his promise to negotiate a trade deal with the Americans, but what do Canadians have for all the Prime Minister's talk? Canadians have higher tariffs than before he was elected, thousands of job losses and concession after concession with nothing in return for Canadians. Now the U.S. president has terminated negotiations with Canada, but the Prime Minister said this morning that they are making great progress. In what world is the termination of negotiations great progress? When will the Prime Minister deliver the deal he promised?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's speech very clearly outlines what our concerns are and what our interest is in having the bill properly studied at committee. I have to ask the member how we got to this place. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have failed to prioritize and to take the proper action needed to redress the very deep issues within the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces that they have not only allowed to continue but in fact, through their actions, their complicity and the cover-ups, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, have also made worse for victims and for all members in uniform.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the minister that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. I would like to inform the minister that the Prime Minister has been all about concessions. The Liberals have backed down on the DST, backed down on softwood lumber, backed down on auto, backed down on investments and backed down when our workers needed them to stand up to Donald Trump, like the Prime Minister said he would. We have auto plant closures, steel plant closures and layoffs across the country. Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister is sending $1 trillion in investments to the Americans. When is he finally going to stand up for Canadian workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister took office, nearly $54 billion in investments has fled our country, yet the Prime Minister said that Canada will send the U.S., “$1 trillion in the next five years—if we get the agreement we expect to get”. It is Thanksgiving, and I will tell members what Canadians expect. They expect a Prime Minister who will stand up for investment in this country and who will stand up for Canadian jobs. When will the Prime Minister do that and finally stand up to the Americans, stand up to Donald Trump and stand up for Canadian workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 86,000 Canadians who lost their jobs, how is that going for them? I want to know. As Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, with $52 billion of net investment fleeing Canada, we want to know this: What is their plan? Canadians cannot feed their families with these empty promises. The Prime Minister promised that deal. Instead, he is down in Washington, gushing over Donald Trump as investment flees our country at a record pace. What are they doing for Canadians who are out of work?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a good deal for Canadians by July, but we have seen 86,000 Canadian workers lose their jobs. This includes 100 families in Maitland, as Invista sent its jobs down to the U.S. It includes 35 families in Brockville, as steel tariffs crush the operations at Douglas Barwick and put more jobs on the line. Canadians cannot feed their families on the empty promises they are hearing across the way today or from the Prime Minister . When will he deliver that good deal for Canadians he promised by July?”
“Madam Speaker, we are not going to join the finance minister in patting himself on the back while millions of Canadians are lined up at food banks. Let us talk about the economy. The GDP shrank in Q2. The finance minister should know that. We have not seen a budget from him, but we have seen all of the warning signals, and so has the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said it is “very alarming” what is happening and that “something's going to break”. It has already broken for Canadians. They cannot afford to feed themselves or their families. They are worried about the cold coming and not being able to heat their homes. It is the policies of the Liberal Prime Minister that are vaporizing any supposed savings they are going to have from tax cuts. Why will the—”
“Madam Speaker, I recently spoke with a young father in Spencerville. He has a trade, he has a job and he has a young family, but he still has to count on a productive deer hunt this fall in order to provide a high-protein diet for his family. Why? The inflationary policies of the Liberal Prime Minister continue to drive the prices of food at the grocery store higher and higher. Why can the Prime Minister not see that his policies are making things worse for Canadians who are just trying to get by?”
“Madam Speaker, people do not have to travel far in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to find them; they are everywhere. They work late nights and early mornings. They work on weekends and holidays. Many of them have been doing it for decades. We can find them at food banks and churches, farms, fairs and festivals, chambers, committees and boards. They are volunteers. We would be a shadow of the community we are today if it were not for their good works. They create wonderful experiences for residents and visitors, feed the hungry, minister to those in need and raise funds for worthy causes. Whether it is the thousands of mouths they feed, the hearts they touch, or the smiles they create, they do it because they love our community. We are better for their selflessness I want to thank all the volunteers in my community.”
“Mr. Speaker, please accept my apologies if I do not take the public safety minister at his word today and if, instead, we take him at his word from Monday, when he said that the program was a waste of money and was not going to keep Canadians safe. If it is such a good idea and it is not going to target people who are not breaking the law, why was he offering to bail his buddy out of jail? How could his friend be targeted unless, of course, the program was going to target licensed, law-abiding firearms owners? The OPP has said no, it will not participate. A Crown corporation, Canada Post, will not participate. It is $750 million that could hire cops to keep Canadians safe. That is not what they are focused on. Will the PM fire the minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a leaked audio recording, the Liberal public safety minister said that the Liberals' gun buyback program will not keep Canadians safe and is a waste of money. We agree on both counts, but he is pressing ahead, and he launched an assault on licensed law-abiding gun owners today. Gun crime is up 130% under the Liberals, the Liberal minister and the Prime Minister . The minister 's job is to keep Canadians safe, and he is saying himself that this $750-million program will not do that. Will the Prime Minister fire his minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, members should not take my word for it. As reported in The Globe and Mail, let us see what the commissioner has to say, “[The commissioner] has complained in the past that some lobbyists and their clients use caucus and cabinet retreats as an opportunity to mingle with politicians without declaring the conversations to her office.” This is happening at the same time as the Liberal Prime Minister has made sure that the Liberals' fundraising events are now, as a rule, closed to the media, closed to any scrutiny by the public. We are talking about the Prime Minister. We are talking about ministers. We want to know who was in the meeting, so we can find out who is going to get rich.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, the dream of home ownership has been pushed out of reach, with home ownership now costing 55% of Canadians' pre-tax income. Meanwhile, the Liberals are at secret cash for access fundraisers with developers, bankers and lobbyists, but their conversations have not been reported to the lobbying commissioner. Before these insider deals drive prices even higher, will Liberals tell us which members and which ministers attended?”