Alex Ruff
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022. Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question.”
The complete record
Every one of 179 lines we hold for Alex Ruff, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Paragraph 200 states: The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership. Paragraph 202 of the report states: It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events.”
“The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states: Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so.”
“Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force. For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland , Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner , Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations , and even the Minister of Justice 's intervention on Bill C-22 . Why do we need lawful access in Canada?”
“Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her. We are here today to talk about Bill C-22 . I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15. Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year. Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a follow-up on the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North , who is sort of making the allegation that somehow Conservatives are holding up this important legislation. In fact, the reason we are in this position in the first place is that the Liberals introduced Bill C-2 , which had so many poison pills in it. It was an omnibus bill that did not address lawful access. It was just one minor part of that omnibus that had, as he addressed, some of the poison pills in it. The fact that this has taken so long is due to the Liberals' failure to communicate on this important issue properly. Does my hon. colleague agree with my assessment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I do take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice at her word. She is somebody I really enjoyed working with while we were on NSICOP. I know she firmly believes in the importance of the committee. I am not trying to take away from the incredible work that NSICOP has done over the last seven or eight years of its existence. My point is that we need that review now because the act can be improved upon. I think the committee's continued work and its ability to do even more things, not only to help the government but also to help Parliament and all Canadians, is extremely important. To her point on Bill C-22 , she has my personal commitment that I will do everything in my power to get it to committee and make sure that it gets the necessary scrutiny and review, something I believe in.”
“Finally, on resourcing, there is a lack of interpreters with the appropriate security clearance, and the size of the secretariat is a concern. There is a small and mighty team at NSICOP, composed of only 12 people. These all need to be looked at. This is just a short list of the high-level reasons why I think this long-overdue mandated review is needed now. All the government needs to do is move Motion No. 29, or something similar, to form the necessary committee now to get this necessary review under way. I am hoping the government will make that commitment tonight and let Parliament know when we can expect the review to start.”
“One is that the chair of that committee is elected, not appointed by the Prime Minister. The second is that the ISC has a vice-chair but we do not have one in Canada. Third, the ISC tables its reports directly to Parliament following a redaction process, whereas NSICOP conducts a very similar redaction process but then our reports are submitted to the Prime Minister, who then has 30 sitting days to table them in Parliament. In my opinion, a good example of this tabling that had an unnecessary delay was NSICOP's latest report on lawful access. This report was given to the Prime Minister on March 4 of last year, but it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15, something that is really relevant to the current debate on Bill C-22 this week.”
“Ian McCowan, the deputy secretary to the cabinet for governance at PCO at the time, provided the following response to my predecessor, the former MP for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the great Larry Miller: “Obviously something you'll have noted is that a five-year review is built in. I imagine there will be a regular review of the statute.” My point is that the reassurance of the Liberal government at the time when addressing these concerns brought up by MPs during the standing up of this committee was that there would be a mandated review. Again, that is a review that is long overdue. Number three is that NSICOP was built very much on the model of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the ISC, but not fully. There are a few key differences.”
“Ultimately, I am here tonight to ask once again when the Liberal government is going to initiate this long-overdue and mandated review. I will use the remainder of my time on why I believe this long-overdue review is necessary, with a focus specifically on the NSICOP Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of NSICOP for the last four years. Number one is that it is the law. It is written into statute. Number two is that I would note that when I reviewed the debate around Bill C-22 , which created NSICOP in the 42nd Parliament, there were many questions put to the Liberal minister of public safety at the time and to PCO officials, especially with respect to the perceived lack of independence of the committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I asked the government House leader to let the House and Canadians know when we could expect the long-overdue, three and a half years overdue, review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarian Act to be initiated. He stated at that time that he would “consider the matter and report to the House at the appropriate time.” Unfortunately, over two months have passed since I asked this question, and the House and Canadians have heard diddly-squat from the Liberal government with respect to the review that is already three and a half years overdue. Since asking the question, I even decided to help the government out by introducing Motion No. 29, which would initiate this review by forming a special joint committee of MPs and senators from all the recognized parties and Senate groups.”
“Mr. Speaker, when NSICOP studied this bill, one of the recommendations the committee discovered was that there should be a national authority established and identified for lawful access and intercept initiatives across Canada because obviously, we have multiple police jurisdictions, CSIS and different organizations. Is the member aware of anywhere in the legislation where that requirement is identified, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to build upon what he mentioned in his speech about his own experience as a public prosecutor, specifically around this data bit. On the NSICOP committee, we found that without a general requirement for these CSPs to retain metadata, i.e., the address book, for a specific time, when a warrant is then sought, there is a possibility that that data is no longer available, which makes it very difficult with some of these very heinous crimes to put the alleged perpetrators away. I do not want to get into the challenges of the bill as much as the requirement that we, as a Parliament, need to address this important piece of public safety here in Canada.”
“I assure the minister that I want the government to do more. Finally, in recommendation six, NSICOP talks about a compensation model, if we are going to force CSPs to comply—”
“Mr. Speaker, I have four points that I am looking for reassurance on from the minister. Number one, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did a whole report on lawful access. Of its findings, finding one found that the security and intelligence organizations in Canada do not systematically track the challenges they have with lawful access. Is there anything in this bill that would deal with that and the reporting aspects? Number two, can the minister reassure Canadians, because, as per the NSICOP report, nobody wants a back door to this bill, that the bill would in no way enable a back door into encrypted communications here in Canada? Number three, referring to finding seven, I see nothing in this bill that would address the intelligence and evidence dilemma. This is something we still need to fix.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague about the frustration, which I know I am feeling, and people in my riding are feeling it too, about this increase in bureaucracy and it not resulting in more houses being built. I would ask my neighbour, because my colleague is my neighbour to the north, if he is seeing the same real-world consequences, especially for our youth. This lack of housing for the next generation sees youth having to move out of our respective ridings, or at least my riding, to go to the major cities to find a place, and even there they cannot find a place to live that they can afford. Is the member seeing the same sort of challenges with youth not having a place to live and that then dwindling the workforce in his riding?”
“On behalf of all the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I wish Tom, Mabel, Andy and Terry the best of luck and may the cards fall in their favour. Go, team Tara!”
“Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the best of the best cribbage players from across Ontario descended upon the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 614, Scarborough Centennial, to duel it out for the Ontario championship and a spot at nationals. I am proud, although not surprised, to inform the House that the winning team and provincial cribbage champions are from my home branch, Branch 383, Tara. I give a huge congratulations to my parents Tom and Mabel Ruff, my brother Andy Ruff and long-time family friend Terry Galbraith on their masterful performance, with a record of 15-3, that crowned them Ontario champions. Now heading to Windsor, Nova Scotia, to Hants County Legion Branch 009 for the Dominion Cribbage Championships on April 24 to 26, I trust the member for Kings—Hants will be there to welcome all the participants.”
“As I said, if this bill does get sent to committee, amendments can be made that will make the bill even stronger in terms of addressing this important issue not only in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but across Canada in all our waters, whether they be lakes, oceans, etc.”
“As our Conservative Party of Canada policy declaration clearly states, the government has an obligation to “establish and enforce safety standards for local and foreign vessels which operate in Canadian Waters for the well-being of workers as well as the environment.” It also states that, “The Conservative Party stand[s] by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.” I believe the intent of the member proposing Bill C-244 is absolutely in the right direction to address derelict and abandoned vessels. I am not sure as drafted it will achieve this, but I look forward to hearing the continued debate.”
“There is heightened anxiety over water safety and environmental contamination, and tension has also increased due to the limited dock access. The residents feel that they have no federal mechanisms available to trigger these vessel removals. There is overlap that creates confusion between the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and DFO, and residents really feel that the federal response is reactive instead of proactive, allowing this environmental harm to repeat. In conclusion, I just want to offer that Bill C-244 's goal of reducing barriers must also apply to federal operations. It must shift from a reactive cleanup to proactive prevention. The polluter, not the public, must pay. Communities like Stokes Bay in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound deserve federal systems that work the first time.”
“In summary then of the local impacts, cottage bookings ended up being cancelled; tourism declined; boaters and swimmers avoided the federally operated harbours after the contamination; local businesses, guides and operators lost income during peak season; wildlife and nearshore habitat concerns increased; municipal staff were forced to take on responsibilities despite this being a federal jurisdiction; and there was widespread communication frustration over these unclear federal responsibilities. The most common question I get is this: Who is responsible and why was it not removed after the first spill? It is impacting transient boating traffic and marine tourism and creating lost revenue for local small businesses and operators, with long-term risks to property values, insurability and economic reputations.”
“This dock congestion has been described as an eyesore, which harms tourism, recreation and businesses in the local community. Basically, here is what the residents are saying: “Someone needs to do something. This cannot keep happening.” Many noted that this vessel, which has fortunately been removed, had even sunk five years previous to the incident in 2024, so this has been an ongoing concern.”
“Here is the challenge for the constituents and what the community is reporting. They stated that they reported the second sinking in real time with photos. They asked why the vessel was allowed to remain after the first sinking and questioned the lack of clear accountability. A local business owner emphasized that the community's sheltered, marked harbour is having trouble now being used by transient boaters seeking refuge during storms, when these vessels are left at the docks. Historically, this harbour, in particular in Stokes Bay, has a shared responsibility between the indigenous commercial fishers and recreational boaters. However, multiple fishing tugs have now been occupying the dock, three unmoved for years, which again limit access for everybody.”
“Even more recently, in March 2025, at another location in Howdenvale, a fishing boat was reported sinking at, again, a federal government dock, releasing diesel fuel into the water. Local residents indicated the vessel had been neglected for many years by its owner. Fortunately, the diesel pollution was contained through a joint effort by the boat owner, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Nawash, one of the first nations in my riding, fisheries assessment program team. The vessel was then pulled ashore, ending the immediate environmental risk. (1305) Again, this incident demonstrates that hazardous or neglected vessels are not isolated to just one area in my community, and that similar issues are unfortunately occurring across multiple federally operated docks in my riding.”
“The Coast Guard deployed containment booms and conducted a helicopter overflight to monitor the spill. The vessel was seen afloat on September 14. The contaminants were contained with provincial assistance. Despite the federal response, the vessel was then refloated but, again, left at the dock. That same vessel sank again in the same location a couple months later. The Coast Guard was again deployed with environmental response equipment. The vessel was refloated, towed to Southampton, just outside my riding, and dry docked, but the recovery had to remove approximately 25,000 litres of pollutants from the water. The Ontario Provincial Police reported no evidence of criminal activity related to the sinking. However, community frustration increased due to the inaction between the first sinking and the second sinking.”
“The act also establishes significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment, and supports a national inventory of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels to monitor and manage the issue. Overall, the act does hold the owner responsible for vessel-related hazards. I know I can speak on behalf of Conservatives. We supported the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act in the 42nd Parliament, and we emphasize the belief that individuals should be responsible for their actions and their property. I want to lay out in my speech why this is so important for my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. In the community of Stokes Bay, I have been dealing with this issue for a couple of years now. We have had a fishing vessel sink at a government dock. Unfortunately, it released diesel and pollutants into the harbour.”
“I am hoping that the drafter, the member who has put the bill forward, could maybe provide some clarity with regard to this, even during debate today, or that, should the bill get to committee, this could be addressed with an amendment. I would note that the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, enacted in 2019 under the Canada oceans protection plan, is designed to prevent vessel abandonment and hold owners accountable for the environmental and safety risks posed by their vessels. Under that act, it is illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters or on federal property. Owners are responsible for the costs to remove and repair, and for mitigation. The Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada have the authority to order owners to take action. If owners fail to comply, the government can intervene and recover those costs.”
“I do have some concerns, though, with the bill as drafted, specifically about the transfer of ownership amendment, because it uses broad and open-ended language in stating, “if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent”. This would create legal uncertainty and potentially unfairly impact individuals accused of reckless vessel ownership transfers. Where my concerns lie is with regard to how a seller could guarantee or truthfully know the purchaser's intent and means. How would DFO and/or the courts deal with the ambiguities, litigation costs and burden of proof issues?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer my intervention on Bill C-244 , an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The bill proposes to strengthen Canada's ability to address abandoned, derelict and hazardous vessels; close the gaps in the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by expanding liability for owners who cause or allow vessels to become hazards; clarifies that it is illegal not only to dispose of pollutants but also to allow someone else to do so; tightens rules on the transfer of ownership, preventing owners from offloading vessels into vehicles or onto individuals who cannot maintain or safely dispose of them; reduces long-term marine environmental risks, oil leaks, contamination and wrecked debris; protects public, environmental and navigational safety; ensures owners can be held liable where they are reckless in transferring a vessel to an unqualified buyer; and encourages proactive prevention, consistent enforcement and polluter pays principles.”
“Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to acknowledge my hon. colleague's concerns and frustrations over the way the bill has gotten here. The fact is that the Liberal government refused to make this a priority last fall. The position Parliament is now facing with the lack of debate is because of the partisan factors in place, which I acknowledge. However, I want to ask the member more about why the bill is so important. Over the last decade, crime has gone through the roof across this country and in my own riding, especially among repeat violent offenders. Bail reform is needed because of past Liberal bills that weakened our justice system and bail regime. Is the member hearing about these challenges with repeat violent offenders in her own riding, from law enforcement and constituents?”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada to, first, publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and transnational repression abroad; second, continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for the Communist officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations; and, finally, take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.”
“Madam Speaker, this is my third Parliament. I know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North has been here for many more and has spoken to many of these reforms countless times, but there has been no action taken by Parliament. Does he think we should put something into the Standing Orders beyond just debating this at the start of each Parliament within a certain number of days? Should we create a method whereby it has to come to a vote or there has to be a way to implement these changes that are being recommended during the debates?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on a theme that just came out of the last question from the Liberal side. My colleague spoke about it in her speech. The fact is, this was not part of the federal budget. The budget was just tabled a few months ago, and now all of a sudden the Liberals are finding another $12 billion to give this sort of short-term relief, or band-aid solution, to an underlying issue around food inflation. She talked about the two-tier system for seniors the Liberals have created. Does she have any understanding, from dialogue she has had with the Liberal government over the last few years, of why this is the approach it is choosing instead of actually coming up with long-term, sustainable solutions to address food inflation and costs in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask for a little indulgence first. I want to inform the House and all Canadians that Canada's most famous weather prognosticator for 70 years, Wiarton Willie, predicted an early spring this morning. I want to thank my colleague for sharing the personal stories of victims across Canada, but also in his riding, who have been victimized as a result of the Liberal soft-on-bail regime over the last decade. I do want to recognize that this bill would fix certain things and that our party has committed to working with the government. Unfortunately, the government has put in a poison pill. Does the member think that when this bill gets to committee the government will listen to the other parties, including the Conservative side, to split the bill so that we can address those shortfalls in the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, in accordance with the NSICOP act, could the government House leader please provide the date the Prime Minister intends to initiate this long overdue review of the act? I would note that the law states the act and the review were to commence no later than October 6, 2022. Finally, could the minister please inform the House as to which committee he envisions referring this overdue review to?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a phenomenally informative speech. I learned a ton just listening to it, especially on the good parts of the bill about needed reforms within our justice system to ensure that victims have public safety. Our shadow minister has made a recommendation to split the bill into two. Let us take the good parts that we have consensus on across all parties so the bill can get to the justice committee and can be studied properly and passed, and take out the contentious issues that are going to slow down the bill's passage and create issues. Does the hon. member agree that this is a good way to actually get public safety addressed for victims here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side. Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 . Could the member comment on this important solution?”
“On behalf of all the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I send my deepest condolences to the family, friends and communities grieving this heartbreaking loss. May Damon, Haley and Tyson rest in peace, and may their loved ones find strength and comfort in the days ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the victims of a tragic vehicle accident. On November 11, three high school students, Tyson Varley, Damon Davis and Haley Keffer, from John Diefenbaker Senior School in Hanover, aged 16 to 17, lost their lives in a devastating crash on the rural road between Hanover and Durham. A fourth student, Landon Preiss-Hillier, was critically injured and airlifted to the hospital. Damon loved to be loud and do things his way, but under that tough exterior was a little boy with a huge heart. Haley loved her dog Bella and her mismatched socks. Tyson was well known for his love of cars and tinkering with them. He knew well how to make and fix things. This unimaginable loss has shaken the entire community of Hanover and surrounding areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on the benefits of getting more Canadian liquefied natural gas and oil to foreign markets, not only to help combat climate change but also to give economic benefits to Canadians by growing our economy and getting these natural resources to market.”
“Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague weigh in on what he is hearing from his constituents with respect to the size of this year's deficit of more than $78 billion? I believe the debt is now at over $1.3 trillion. We are paying $55 billion a year in interest on the national debt alone, more money than we are giving to the provinces and territories for health care transfers. I am hearing this from my constituents on a daily basis. Is the member hearing similar comments from his constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a financial adviser, and he pointed out to me two of the best-performing stocks in the last year, especially since the Prime Minister took office. Number one is Dollarama. I think that speaks to the challenges Canadians are having. It had a 55% return. Number two is Brookfield, with a 54% return in the last year alone. Could the member expand on the struggles Canadians are facing, which speaks to why a specific dollar store is doing so well? Secondly, why is Brookfield doing so well?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member in his speech talked about support for the Canadian Armed Forces. I support that 100%. I voted against it because I do not have confidence in the government. However, what the member did not talk about was that there are clawbacks in the budget to Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly around the indexing of pensions and the way things are calculated. I know veterans on social media and groups that help reach out to veterans in need. There have been clawbacks. In the last 24 hours, one veteran was told he has to pay back $89,000 to CRA, while another veteran has to pay back $69,000. For six to nine years, VAC did not do any clawbacks. All of a sudden veterans are being told they need to fix this because this is wrong, and VAC is going after veterans right across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of petitioners who are concerned about the persecution of the Falun Gong in China. Specifically, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to proactively deploy all possible avenues to publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and end transnational repression abroad; to continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability against Chinese Communist Party officials and proxies responsible for those human rights violations; and, finally, to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to partly address the comment made by the parliamentary secretary . I do not think anybody is obstructing anything. I just think every member in this House should have the same amount of time to participate in debate and speak to a bill as the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary. That is fair to all members of Parliament. I appreciate the feedback from the Bloc Québécois member on this bill, especially the ideas for improvement when it comes to the reporting timelines. She makes a compelling case for why she thinks this bill and this requirement are needed. However, I would like her to comment, as she has been here for 10 years, on the sad state of affairs that we have a federal Liberal government that refuses to be accountable in the first place and does not just do the right thing.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition that is very similar to the one my hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning presented. It is from Canadians who are calling upon the Government of Canada to proactively deploy all possible avenues to publicly call out the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong in China and end transnational repression abroad; to continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability against the Chinese Communist Party officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations; and, finally, to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by this foreign repression.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for highlighting a concern that I think lots of Canadians have, and that is accountability measures and increasing bureaucracy. The Liberals, over the last decade, have demonstrated that, when they increase bureaucrats, there is actually poorer service delivery. In this case, I really believe in what the member spoke about in her speech. There is a lack of accountability. It is not going to change by creating more bureaucracy. It is actually a leadership failure by the current Liberal government. Could my hon. colleague comment on and re-emphasize her opinion on what this lack of accountability does under the current leadership of the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague from Winnipeg to try to answer a question that two of his other colleagues refused to answer or did not know the answer to. Does the member believe that the $100 million in the budget that is to go to Huawei, a company the Liberal government has banned from using our 5G services, is a smart use of Canadian taxpayer dollars?”