Adam Chambers
Simcoe North, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents, recreational users, camp owners and indigenous communities surrounding Lake Couchiching who are concerned about an aerodrome being placed on the water, on the lake. It is a very busy lake.”
“We need a tax reform package to lower taxes, business and personal, and significantly reduce complexity. On regulation, we need service standards for permitting. We need to pre-approve projects in areas of the country, which means they can be done faster.”
““This has made it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystallize at once,” said the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers.”
“In fact, according to Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub, all of this is a bit of silly semantics: “The real questions are: how much does the economy suck, how long has it sucked, why does it suck, and what are the different ideas to stop it from sucking.” We have a productivity crisis in this country, and everybody knows it.”
“We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt. (1755) Now I would like to turn, for the reminder of my comments, to a specific risk that I think is growing and that the government should be paying more attention to.”
“We borrow mostly on the short end of the curve, so what happens is that this debt has to be rolled over every two or three years. That is like signing up for only a one- or two-year mortgage on a house. One would have to go to the bank, and guess what happens. Their interest rate gets reset every single time.”
The complete record
Every one of 208 lines we hold for Adam Chambers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“They are frustrated because they learn that, while they are working hard to pay their taxes, the government is unable to collect millions and indeed billions of dollars each year that corporations owe the government. That is the real basis for this idea that has come to the floor of the House and was proposed as a private member's bill. I would say that I learned my lesson in the last Parliament. I believed that I had a wonderful idea to increase the penalties for money-laundering offences, but I did not have as much time to work with all members of the chamber to make sure that it was in a position to receive broad-based support and pass. (1730) This time, I wanted to do my homework. I consulted with my own team, my own colleagues, who encouraged me to continue.”
“Given the opportunity, in drawing that high lottery number to bring forward a private member's bill, I thought that we should change the law, change the privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act and require the government to disclose this information. After all, I think it is a matter of public interest when large debts that are owed by corporations are written off by the government. In fact, just a few years ago, 10 corporations had a total of $1.1 billion written off. A lot of people work hard every day. They pay their taxes honestly. They fret about filing their taxes on time and they worry that they might have made a mistake. They do so honestly and in good faith, because they know that paying taxes helps pay for this wonderful, beautiful country that we have and all the social services that we all enjoy.”
“For corporations, not individual taxpayers, that have their debts waived, those amounts and the identities of those corporations would be published in a corporate registry. That would enhance the level of transparency that taxpayers receive from our tax-collecting authorities. This bill is here before our chamber because we noticed in the public accounts large amounts, year after year, being written off. Members of Parliament from multiple parties, including the government side, probed the government for additional information. We were met with not great answers, a lack of transparency, and a suggestion that we, as parliamentarians, could not receive this information because of the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act.”
“I would like to thank all of my colleagues from all sides of the House in getting the bill to this stage, which included sending the bill to committee, a lengthy committee study, some thoughtful amendments from all parties at the committee table and bringing it back to the House. It is my hope and sincere pleasure to see this bill carry forward here this evening. I want to thank individual members, and I will return to this later. To put aside the partisan politics, we tangle in the chamber from time to time on some very controversial issues but, with respect to greater transparency for taxpayers, this is an issue that I think we will see unites all members of the chamber, no matter their political affiliation. Bill C-230 would create a registry for the government to disclose every time it writes off a large debt.”
“Bill C-230. Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to be here tonight with all of my friends from all sides of the House. It is an important day for taxpayers. It is an important day when one is a member of Parliament and has the honour and the opportunity to bring forward legislation that makes amendments to the statutes of Canada. It is a lottery system. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to be chosen early in that lottery. I wanted to pick an idea that I believed would have widespread support in the chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently recalled MPs from a trip, a delegation, to Taiwan. He has been sitting on, for over a year, an updated and finalized trade co-operation framework arrangement with Taiwan. It is just awaiting his signature. Also, Taiwan has been patiently waiting for additional flights to operate to Canada, only to see the government recently fast-track and announce new flights with China. What does it say to our democratic allies around the world when the Liberal government stonewalls Taiwan in favour of getting closer to an autocratic Beijing?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of many Canadians who are expressing concern about a proposed over-the-horizon radar field that is set to be put in Clearview Township, which is very close to Simcoe North. The petitioners ask the government to stop building the over-the-horizon radar site on the already purchased property; prevent future acquisition of prime farmland and the building of any other over-the-horizon radar sites on this prime farmland in Clearview Township; and finally, register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of all the travel, the meetings and the MOUs if there is nothing tangible to show for it? The Europeans have repeatedly asked for Canadian liquefied natural gas. They probably would like to invest in a port or a pipeline to get Canadian energy to Europe. We do not need speeches, we do not need MOUs, we do not need summits and we do not need a government-run hedge fund. We need investable projects to get Canada's energy to the world. Will the minister announce on which date Canadian LNG will make it to the shores of Europe?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a new week in Ottawa, but the Prime Minister is on international travel back in Europe again, although we already have a free trade deal with Europe. However, there is one thing our allies have been asking us for, and that is Canadian liquefied natural gas. One would go to Europe to make a big announcement, so will the minister confirm that the Prime Minister is indeed in Europe to announce on what date our allies can—”
“Ethics, honesty and integrity defined him. His faith was his foundation and his principles were his guide. Phil leaves behind a profound legacy, cherished by his wife, Susan, his stepchildren and grandson. True leadership is found in the quiet, steady dignity of public service to one's community. I thank Phil for his service. May he rest in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and pillar of our community, Phil DeBruyne, who passed away on April 13 at the age of 71. Phil's career was a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice and integrity. He found a passion for policing in high school, graduated from Georgian College and began policing on the front lines at age 20 in 1974. He eventually became an instructor at the Ontario Police College, where he stayed until 2009. Phil returned to school to complete his studies in undergraduate and master's programs, while always maintaining a connection to teaching and policing. He contributed his expertise to the Penetanguishene Police Service Board and South Simcoe Police Service, as well as many local charitable causes. Phil was polite, kind and generous. He cherished his family and his community.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as it always is, on behalf of the wonderful individuals and parishioners of St. Margaret's Parish in Midland, Ontario, many of whom I hold dearly. These petitioners are concerned with the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying illness is mental illness. They are encouraging the government and Canadians to support those living with mental illness with supports as opposed to offering them MAID and encourage all legislators in the House and the government to support Bill C-218 .”
“Mr. Speaker, Mexico and the United States have been having ongoing formal discussions, and it looks like they are having additional discussions scheduled in May. Once again, it appears, just like it was in 2019, Mexico is much further ahead in its negotiations with the United States. We can discuss and resolve our trade irritants and disputes at the table, but we have to be at the table. On behalf of the millions of Canadians who rely on trade with the U.S., when can they expect formal negotiations to begin?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that Mexico is anticipating a deal on autos, steel and aluminum. In fact, it appears that Mexico and the U.S. have been at the negotiating table, having ongoing formal and substantive discussions. Here, there are reports that there have been no substantial or ongoing formal discussions between Canada and the United States since October. Why is it that Mexico seems to be at the table with the United States, and Canada is on the outside looking in?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition, with respect to a number of residents who are concerned by the government's cuts to the VHF weather broadcast. These individuals recognize that the VHF weather broadcast provides real-time weather updates in remote and rural locations across the country, including essential services to those who boat recreationally. It is important that these services be reinstated. The petitioners are calling on the government to reconsider its proposal to cut these very vital services, which help us prepare ourselves in time of emergency.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons on behalf of many residents, including the Friends of Wye Marsh in Midland, Ontario, who recognize that Canada holds 24% of the world's forests, over 20% of the world's fresh waters, three oceans and all the plants and animals that go in these ecosystems. These individuals are calling on the government to work with indigenous rights holders to protect more land, prevent degradation of the environment by holding companies responsible when they are doing work and, of course, to increase the amount of land that it conserves. I appreciate that and submit that to the House with great pleasure today.”
“I look forward to working with all members in the House to shepherd this bill through this chamber. As I mentioned before, this is the third time it has come to this chamber for consideration. I would like to thank the seconder in this chamber, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk , who is a wonderful colleague and partner in this quest to introduce more transparency at the CRA. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)”
“moved that Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax) , be read the first time. Bill S-217. First reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to sponsor this bill in this chamber. I would like to congratulate Senator Downe on his third time sending this bill, which deals with increased transparency at the CRA, into this chamber. The names of those who are convicted of tax evasion, both in Canada and abroad, should be made easily and publicly available for all in Canada to see. In addition, this bill would require the CRA to publish statistics related to the tax gap, which is the amount the CRA assesses versus what it actually collects. It also includes provisions to make data more easily available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have an integrated auto market in North America. Part of that means we need to make sure our regulatory environment is harmonized. If we are going to decouple the regulations and align our tailpipe emissions with the European Union, we will not be able to send our vehicles into the U.S. I have a newsflash for the government: It will not be economical for us to ship vehicles from Canada to Europe when there is overcapacity of supply there and additional manufacturing being built to supply that market to reduce transportation costs. China is already building plants in eastern Europe. We will not be able to do it. The most likely destination for our vehicles is the United States. Of what we produce, 80% is exported, and 90% of that number goes to the United States. That is the most likely purchaser for our vehicles.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that was the member's first question of me, and I am pleased to serve in this chamber with him. I am not sure I would agree with the premise that there is $10 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector. I do believe that in a resource-constrained and fiscally constrained environment, we need to question every single dollar that is spent, and why we would subsidize the purchase of vehicles that are not made in Canada. With respect to the oil and gas sector, we need to make sure that we have more pipelines in this country to get our resources to market, and we need to work with the provinces to make that happen. That would produce more jobs for Canadians here at home.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence to suggest that the rebate will protect Canadian jobs, because that rebate is going to go primarily to automakers who do not produce vehicles in Canada. What is even worse is that the rebate is actually higher in the upfront years, the next one or two years, and tapers off. By the time Canadian automakers might actually be producing electric vehicles, that rebate is going to be even less. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that this rebate will protect Canadian jobs. We should take the GST off Canadian-made vehicles. That is a direct way to support Canadian auto workers and their families.”
“In my last 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you a happy Valentine's Day. I would like to wish my wife a happy Valentine's Day, as well as my two children, my friends at sunny ways and my close friends, including Tom Barlow.”
“and that some of the parts in these vehicles will be made in Canada and eventually shipped back in a finished vehicle, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the thousands of parts in the conventional internal combustion engine vehicles that are currently made today and that need to go to the U.S. It is absolutely imperative that we do not decouple and believe there is some fantasyland where Canadians are going to start making vehicles for shipping elsewhere around the world. China is already building plants in eastern Europe. Car manufacturers are building plants in Europe to service that market to reduce transportation costs. We need to be realistic that the most likely scenario to save our auto sector is to ensure market access for Canadian autos, and we should be rewarding Canadians for purchasing Canadian-made products.”
“That means that vehicles need to be assembled in a different way. It is just not a practical solution. We absolutely need to maintain an integrated market in North America for vehicles. We need to make a deal with the United States that would see a de-escalation of this trade war, especially as it relates to automobiles being produced in Canada. These jobs are not just a job for one individual. These jobs support families. These jobs support communities. These jobs are supported by thousands of other jobs throughout the rest of the supply chain in the conventional vehicle market. I know the government likes to claim that there are electric vehicle parts produced in Canada for the integrated EV market in the U.S.”
“No one can make this up. They also seem to believe that the way forward is to assemble vehicles in Canada for export to markets other than the United States. That is just pure fantasy. There is no planet where it makes sense to build cars in Canada to send to Europe, China or to other countries, other than the United States. This is also evidenced by them linking the tailpipe emissions standards and aligning them with Europe. Those regulations make no sense. We should be aligning on a continental fuel-efficient standard so that vehicles can be assembled in Mexico, the United States or Canada to be sold in those markets. It is just not realistic. Not only will we be diverging on our standards but safety standards for vehicles in Europe are incredibly different from those in Canada and the United States.”
“It makes no sense why we would take Canadian tax dollars and send them out of the country. It makes even less sense that we would take those tax dollars and send them to American companies. Why would we reward President Trump for his behaviour? (1740) This is all too common a pattern of behaviour for the government. It introduces bad laws and bad regulation against reasonable advice, only to turn around and reverse itself and then expect that it will be applauded, that it deserves a medal. However, we do not have to think very hard about those examples. It took the Liberals years to realize they made a mistake with the carbon tax. In fact, they went on for years saying that the carbon tax put more money in Canadians' pockets. Then, when they cancelled the carbon tax, they said they were doing it to make life more affordable.”
“The automotive sector is on its knees. It is 50% smaller today than it was when the Liberals first took office in 2015. We have seen automotive production continue to be sucked south of the border. President Donald Trump has made it his explicit objective to take Canadian auto sector jobs because, in his words, Americans “don't need” Canadian-made automobiles; they want American-made automobiles. Of the $2.3 billion set aside for this rebate program, the lion's share of that amount will go to Canadians to purchase vehicles not assembled in Canada. Even worse, a large amount, millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars, will go to American automakers that are assembling vehicles in the United States and sending them to Canada. It is bewildering. It is stupefying.”
“The challenge the government has is that it has now replaced the electric vehicle mandate with an electric vehicle rebate scheme, which it is now reintroducing, that will subsidize the purchase by Canadians of electric vehicles that are not produced in Canada. In this moment, we do not just have massive deficits. We have deficits double the size of what even former prime minister Justin Trudeau projected. In a time when we have these massive deficits, the government is bringing forward an unfunded program. It needs to borrow additional money to fund this new rebate scheme, where Canadian tax dollars will be going outside of the country to purchase vehicles not built in Canada. There is another way. It includes the Conservative proposal to take the GST off Canadian-assembled vehicles to reward production that stays in Canada.”
“Officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada even raised the prospect that the electric vehicle mandate would drive up the prices of used cars, in turn hurting low-income Canadians, and would harm individuals in rural and northern communities because of a lack of access to infrastructure. Since the EV mandate was proposed, Conservatives constantly and consistently demanded that the EV mandate be abolished. I suppose one might say or think that Conservatives should now be very happy because that EV mandate has been abolished. I suppose one might think that we should be applauding the government for listening to Conservatives, for listening to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not want to be told what kind of vehicle to drive.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Simcoe North, and it is always an honour to rise in the chamber to speak about issues that matter to Canadians. Before we get into the opposition day motion, the supply day motion, it is important to discuss, with respect to electric vehicles, how we came to be here today. For years, the Liberal government was chasing an electric vehicle mandate such that, by 2035, 100% of the vehicles sold in this country needed to be electric. For years, the Liberals were wedded to this ideological view that the government should force people to drive certain kinds of vehicles. That was against all the advice from industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, the auto sector is half the size today as it was when the Liberals took office. President Trump has launched a sustained and unjustified attack on Canada's auto sector. His stated goal is to take Canadian auto jobs and put them in the U.S. Now the government is going to use taxpayer money to subsidize electric vehicles made outside of Canada. Thousands of these rebate cheques will end up in American pockets. Does the minister really believe that we should be using taxpayer money to reward President Trump's behaviour?”
“That is how this chamber is supposed to work. We are supposed to collaborate. This is a great bill and a great idea. We will improve transparency on behalf of all taxpayers.”
“This happens with a stroke of the pen behind closed doors. This is the kind of transparency that we need. Unfortunately, we are going backward. My colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler just mentioned how Prime Minister Trudeau ran on having a very open government, and now the government is deleting its emails and messages after 30 days. That is quite a reversal. I do not want to get too far ahead of myself and off topic because I understand we have support to see this bill sent to committee. I will have more to say on this if it is successful and comes back to the House, but I would mention that I am open to reasonable amendments. I will make myself available to the minister and his office, who I have been appreciative of so far in terms of getting information and having comprehensive and fruitful discussions.”
“Unlike government ministers who have legions and a number of resources at their disposal, this group in the House of Commons supports us very well, and we are very well served by their expertise. To follow up on some of the comments, it is important that taxpayers know how their money is being used. When the government, through CRA, goes after or contacts regular Canadians to pay monies they owe the government and starts charging interest on the first day they miss a payment or the first day they are late for very nominal sums, sometimes as low as $100 or even less, it is offensive to every sensible person to know that behind the cloak of secrecy, officials within CRA or the government, in general, are waiving millions and millions, tens of millions and, in some cases, hundreds of millions in debts owed to the government.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but it is also a pleasure to rise on Bill C-230 , a private member's bill I drafted. I want to thank all of my colleagues, obviously the ones from my own party who spoke in favour of this bill today but also colleagues in other parties who have expressed a willingness to see this bill sent to committee, which I hope we will be able to do at the end of my remarks this morning. I would also like to thank the legislative drafters, a small team that does great work, Marie-Claude Hébert and Marie Danik, who helped draft this legislation. We should recognize all of the work they do to support private members' business.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course we denounce those tariffs, but with all due respect to the minister, she has had 10 years with her Liberal colleagues to protect the auto sector here in Canada. Now it is being reported that the government is going to reintroduce subsidies for Canadians to purchase electric vehicles. Really? Does the government really think the way to save Canada's auto sector is to give taxpayers' money to Canadians to buy Chinese electric vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2016, Canadians built 2.3 million vehicles. Just last year, that number dropped to 1.2 million cars. Last week, there was more devastating news for Canadian auto families as General Motors laid off 1,200 employees. When will the government stop telling people it is eventually going to be okay and start delivering results for Canadian auto workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, from the very early days of this country, and even before it was formed, Canadians and those before us realized the importance of trade. We cannot satisfy ourselves with exactly everything that we need, but it is not just that; we actually have many things that the world needs, and we can trade those things for what we need here at home. From the earliest days of the founding members of our country up to today, Conservatives have always supported free trade, but it also has to be fair trade. It is built on reciprocity. That is, if we give something, we must get something. That is an important distinction that we have to make sure is upheld, a principle that we need to have as our shining light or North Star.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his partnership, which was for a long time, on the finance committee. We did such a good job, they actually moved us to other committees. He is a very thoughtful individual, and I am proud to serve with him in this place. I do think it is important to consider labour rights, especially for young people. I note that the Bloc has a bill regarding forced labour. We have also been looking at that issue at the trade committee in support of examining it further. That would be another area of concern that we should further scrutinise in this bill when it goes to the trade committee, if that is the will of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is my first question from that member, although I do hear him often in question period. I welcome him to the chamber. I would agree with the member in the sense that there are opportunities for Ontario, especially as it relates to agriculture. This is also something that applies across the country. Indonesia is poised to become one of the largest markets, not only by population but also by a growing GDP, so that will mean it will have a greater demand for high-quality agriculture products. I think we can satisfy that demand.”
“The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands recognized that this trade deal will only increase the GDP by, if I am correct, 0.0012%. That is not going to replace the big “elephant in the room” deal with the United States. We had a relationship with Americans and the United States before the current president. We will have a relationship with Americans and the United States after the current president. It is important that we sort out that relationship in a way that benefits everyone in North America, including Americans, Mexicans and Canadians, for the benefit of us all, not just for our economy but for peace and security and for certainty. That is the primary job of the government. It was elected on a promise to manage that relationship. We are still waiting.”
“It is an important thing to expand our trade, but we will hold the government accountable when it is making these decisions. As I mentioned, we have some questions about Bill C-18 . We will not just blindly agree and support the government on every trade bill it brings forward. We believe it needs to go through the proper process, but we are here to work with the government. I have to mention that I do have concerns with the government travelling to Qatar and to China. I think that will have some long-standing difficult situations that we will face ourselves. I think it is an acknowledgement and a confirmation to the CCP in Beijing that its tactics have worked when we have capitulated because of the way it squeezed us on tariffs. I would hope the government is taking some lessons from the way Mexico has been operating.”
“I am skeptical of the government's decision to get a little closer to the Politburo in Beijing. However, I will not let all of those issues on which I disagree with the government blind me from acknowledging that we need to work together to expand our trading relationships. On this issue, members can rest assured that because this is on behalf of the benefit of Canadians, because we believe that expanding our trading relationships and diversifying trade is an important step to take for our producers, our employees and our businesses, it is an area on which there is consensus. I offer my support; that is one word to use. I offer my hand in collaboration with the government to ensure we can continue to deliver to Canadians expanded access across the globe.”
“I think that was a signal from Canadians that they expect this Parliament to find ways to work together, and I believe we are doing that. Prime Minister Harper had embarked on an aggressive trade deal expansion, which really set up a number of agreements, including the one with the E.U. and member nations, on which this current government has built. (1640) I do not think we always agree on many things in this chamber. I said to the minister yesterday at committee that I do not agree with a lot of what the Liberal government does: the spending, the overtaxation, doubling of the deficits. The government prefers to spend valuable police resources confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens instead of actually going after criminals, gangs and smugglers of illegal firearms.”
“We need to make sure that if we are giving market access to one group of producers in one country, we are afforded that same access when Canadian firms are abroad. I am happy to report that the trade committee is working relatively well at the moment. We have a government bill that we have agreed to move forward in, again, the spirit of collaboration with the government that would allow the U.K. to ascend to the CPTPP, which I think is yet another proof point on how Parliament can work together. I will remind everyone that we just had an election. About 41% of Canadians voted for folks on this side of the House, a few more per cent of Canadians voted for people just behind me, and just over 41% or 42% voted for people on the government side.”
“There were also a few individuals who highlighted the fact that with respect to procurement, it would appear that Indonesian firms have the access and ability to bid on Canadian government procurement projects; however, that same access is not afforded, by right, to Canadian firms to bid on projects in Indonesia. They would be welcome to indicate their willingness to bid, but they would have to be invited by the government to do so. I think that is an area of the bill that we would seek more information on and discuss in committee, to further scrutinize it to make sure Canadian firms are receiving equal preference. I as an individual, but Conservatives also, have generally always stood for free-but-fair trade, and that includes reciprocity.”
“The esteemed Christine Lagarde, who is the President of the European Central Bank, was the former finance minister in France and also headed the International Monetary Fund, was asked whether she agreed with the Canadian Prime Minister, and her comment was that she was on a different page than the Canadian Prime Minister. I think the rules-based trading system is worth fighting for. Canada and Indonesia have had a long-standing relationship dating back at least to 1952, but even before that as it was gaining its independence. As I mentioned before, while Conservatives generally support this bill moving to committee, we do think there are some issues that require further scrutiny, including those around procurement opportunities. I read the bill. At first glance, from feedback, there were a number of stakeholders who welcomed the bill.”
“If one listens to question period every day, one would hear the government talk only about obstruction, but I think this is an example where at least the official opposition party has offered its support to work with the government, to collaborate on moving and expanding our trading relationships for the betterment of Canadian employees, workers and businesses and our citizens around the world. It is on this expanding trading relationship that I think there is some agreement to promote rules-based trade, although I would say I had to disagree with the Prime Minister when he gave his speech and said the rules-based trading system is dead. I do not think it is dead; on the contrary, I think it is worth fighting for. In fact, members do not have to take my word for it.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons. I consider it a distinct privilege every time I am given the opportunity to use my voice in this place on my constituents' behalf and on behalf of the country and Canadians. It is also a pleasure to rise on a bill on which I think there is general consensus that, speaking for myself, we should send this bill to committee for further scrutiny. I think we have heard some reasonable concerns so far about this bill. It is important to understand how we arrived here. I understand there have been many conversations between the House leaders looking for areas of collaboration.”
“Madam Speaker, I always listen intently when the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands speaks in this chamber. The member opened the door on trading with democracies. She mentioned China by name. I wonder if she would offer an opinion on the Prime Minister 's recent deal, if we want to call it a deal, or agreement with the CCP.”