David Bexte
Bow River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Conservatives' dissenting report to the flood damage report. Canadians do not need another report telling them that floods, fires, droughts and storms are costly. They see it when basements flood, roads wash out and communities are forced to evacuate.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are less safe today than they were a decade ago. Violent crime has risen by 55% since 2015. Liberal weak-on-crime policies have left Canadians feeling less secure. Police need effective tools to stop dangerous criminals. With proper judicial authorization, lawful access is key to investigating serious crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister avoided the answer. Veterinarians and animal health technicians play a critical role in the Canadian agriculture system, and they are in short supply. Neither vets nor animal health techs are covered under the Canada student loan forgiveness program, unlike other professionals.”
“The Liberals promised to listen and make changes. Instead, they are ramming a contentious bill through Parliament. The Liberals are ignoring legitimate concerns raised by experts and Canadians. They should be embarrassed.”
“If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards. The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk.”
“I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge.”
The complete record
Every one of 222 lines we hold for David Bexte, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Conservatives' dissenting report to the flood damage report. Canadians do not need another report telling them that floods, fires, droughts and storms are costly. They see it when basements flood, roads wash out and communities are forced to evacuate. What they need are flood maps and, when they are finished, warnings that arrive on time, infrastructure that holds and disaster programs that small and rural communities can actually use. This dissent makes one thing clear. Announcements do not stop flooding, press releases do not protect homes, and excuses do not rebuild communities. Canadians deserve results before the next disasters, not apologies. I present the report in both official languages.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister avoided the answer. Veterinarians and animal health technicians play a critical role in the Canadian agriculture system, and they are in short supply. Neither vets nor animal health techs are covered under the Canada student loan forgiveness program, unlike other professionals. Can the minister explain why these vital professions are not being treated the same?”
“The Liberals promised to listen and make changes. Instead, they are ramming a contentious bill through Parliament. The Liberals are ignoring legitimate concerns raised by experts and Canadians. They should be embarrassed. The government should swiftly pass part 1, give police the tools they need and then go back to the drawing board with part 2.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are less safe today than they were a decade ago. Violent crime has risen by 55% since 2015. Liberal weak-on-crime policies have left Canadians feeling less secure. Police need effective tools to stop dangerous criminals. With proper judicial authorization, lawful access is key to investigating serious crimes. That is why Conservatives are prepared to support part 1 of Bill C-22 . Part 2, though, raises serious questions. I have heard from many of my neighbours who fear elements of this legislation are overreaching. They likely infringe on the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has warned that part 2 risks creating a “surveillance state”. Canadians should not have to choose between public safety and protecting their fundamental freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take a directly opposed view of the circumstance. I spoke with numerous members across the riding, and unanimously they wanted tougher bail conditions without fail. The RCMP's sworn members, in every detachment that I visited in my riding, universally wanted tougher bail conditions without loopholes and without judicial discretion because they know that the bad people need to be dealt with in the system and not unleashed on the public.”
“Mr. Speaker, it goes again to the same thing, which is the confidence the Canadian public demands of Canada's justice system. If there are loopholes in the system, then the bad guys will learn how to use them. They will figure out how to convince unreasonable leniency from the courts. To the Bloc member's point, I have numerous cases of events here in Bow River and around southern Alberta where the judges just did not bother to write the reasons down. It was arbitrary. There are so many things that go into this circumstance about resources to police and resources to the judiciary that contribute to this. I grant that. However, that should not be a free pass for Parliament to water down legislation when we had already unanimously clear expectations in the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the accommodation by the member down the way in giving me time to make sure I clearly understood her question. It goes, I guess, to the root of the problem, in that there is a concern about the public trust in the judiciary, the judgment of our judges. It is a separate arm of government. We have to have an independent judiciary, but it is equally incumbent on the Parliament of Canada to have absolutely clear legislation as to what we expect judges to do. It is the ambiguity in the loophole that brings into question the problem. That brings into question judges having the latitude to interpret things that Parliament has already decided must happen. In those cases, we need to tighten up the legislation.”
“I have already talked about December last year and all the work that was done in committee to advance this. It is rich that the government is urgently getting to it now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the almost conciliatory tone of the member across the way. He was being nice, which is refreshing. An hon. member: I am sure you will get to answering the question soon. David Bexte: Mr. Speaker, at some point, I will answer the question far better than a Liberal government will answer a question. I have spoken with members across my riding, and they are so concerned about the repeat offenders who are going to get out. If they are unsupervised or supervised by someone who has not earned the trust of society, then the problems are not being solved. The root cause and the root problem here is that the amendment undermines the entire premise of the bill. The Liberal government had 11 years to work on this and fix it.”
“The Senate amendment abandons that principle and replaces it with a loophole. Bill C-14 was supposed to strengthen bail, and the Senate amendments would weaken it. For that reason, and for the countless Canadians who expect Parliament to put public safety first, Conservatives cannot support these amendments, and we hope the government will reject them as well.”
“If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards. The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk. What about law-abiding Canadians who expect the justice system to prioritize their safety? Victims deserve meaningful safeguards before accused persons are released into their communities. Weakening those safeguards does not strengthen confidence in the justice system. It weakens it. (1500) This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: When public safety and convenience come into conflict, which side should Parliament choose? Conservatives believe the answer is clear, and it is that recent indictable offenders should not supervise accused persons released on bail.”
“Canadians deserve clear standards, consistency and confidence that public safety measures will actually be applied. Bill C-14 was introduced because Canadians have lost confidence in the bail system. They have watched violent crime increase, repeat offenders cycle through the system and governments talk about public safety while failing to deliver meaningful reform. The House provision would help restore confidence. The Senate amendment would weaken that confidence. The Senate has argued that some marginalized communities may face difficulties. We should absolutely recognize the challenges faced in some communities, but compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. The purpose is not merely to find someone willing to sign a form but to find someone capable of providing meaningful supervision and accountability.”
“Canadians expect the person carrying out these responsibilities to have demonstrated respect for the law and, if they have lost it previously, that they have earned it back adequately. It is not an unreasonable expectation. It is common sense. The Senate amendment relies heavily on the phrase “the interests of justice”. That sounds reasonable, but it is vague. When I spoke earlier about judicial culture, that is the thin edge of the wedge allowing the system to accommodate unreasonably. Different judges may interpret it differently. Different courts may apply it differently. This place deliberately established a clear rule, and clarity to the judiciary is required to meet the expectations of Parliament. The Senate is replacing certainty with discretion, and therein lies the loophole.”
“The answer is not lowering the standard that Parliament deliberately established but maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system. The public demands it, and our honour demands that we deliver that to the public. Polling cited during the Senate debate found that 72% of Ontarians supported limitations on who may act as a surety, 71% supported cash bail for violent and repeat offenders and two-thirds believed that Canada's bail system was not strict enough. Canadians are clearly asking for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones. The Senate amendment would also undermine accountability. Sureties are expected to supervise accused persons, report breaches, encourage compliance and ensure attendance in court. Those responsibilities require trustworthiness.”
“Parliament determined that a recent indictable conviction makes someone unsuitable to supervise an accused person, so why does that person suddenly become suitable simply because there are no other alternatives? Well, it is because there usually are alternatives, but the accused person does not like them. The answer is that they do not have to like them. The standard has simply been lowered. The Senate presents a false choice. It suggests that if an accused person cannot find an eligible surety, then detention becomes the only option, but that is not so. It is simply not true. Canadian courts already possess numerous tools within the bail system. Courts can require financial pledges, impose cash deposits and set a number of other conditions in order to ensure that the public remains safe.”
“Jonah escaped, but I am not sure we will. The original provision was clear that a recent indictable conviction would mean an individual is not eligible. It was simple. The Senate amendment would change that standard: eligible whenever no better option could be found. Public safety and the public perception of safety demands better than that. That notion transforms the prohibition into a guideline, which then, with the judicial culture we have today, makes it optional, an exception, if the judge feels like it. When safeguards become optional, they are no longer safeguards. (1455) We were deliberate in the provisions that were put in the bill sent from this place, and they were debated vigorously. Canadians should ask a simple question.”
“They have not earned back the trust of society to stand as the caretaker of someone who is in the system. The principle is straightforward. If a person has recently demonstrated a serious disregard for the law, they should not be entrusted with supervising another individual accused of breaking the law. Most Canadians would consider that common sense. The House agreed. Parliament agreed. However, the Senate has now chosen to weaken the rule. I cannot understand why. The Senate amendment would create an exception that allows judges to approve individuals with recent indictable convictions as sureties if the judge believes no other surety is available and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. This is a loophole we could drive a bus through. This exception swallows the rule whole, like Jonah and the whale.”
“These measures were debated in the House, and the House of Commons gave clear direction as to what the expectations were prior to sending the bill to the Senate. That is precisely what the amendment before us would do. It concerns sureties. For the Canadians watching at home, a surety is not someone who simply signs paperwork. They play a critical role in the bail system. They are expected to supervise the accused, to encourage compliance with bail conditions, to report violations and to help ensure the accused attends court and does not pose a danger to the public. These are serious responsibilities. Being a surety is a privilege, not a right. That is why the House adopted a simple and common-sense rule: If someone has been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years, they are not eligible.”
“They cannot be in the community where they need to be when they want to be there because they are busy dealing with failures of the justice system. We cannot let this stand. It is my hope that we do not. I think of the impact on farmers, small towns and rural communities, whether it is pickup trucks, cars and vehicles parked in front of the local co-op that are stolen in broad daylight or a spree of 14 vehicles, in a town that only has 150 residents, stolen over the course of a day and a half because the perpetrators are out on bail and looking for a joyride. It is irresponsible of the government to allow this to happen. It is because of these realities that Canadians expect Parliament to strengthen public safety. We need to strengthen these measures, not weaken them.”
“My neighbours and I were alert all night long, in the middle of the night, in the winter, vigilant to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. It turned out that the individual was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant and from Winnipeg. He had been on the lam for more than a year and had been in and out of the justice system again and again. (1450) These are not petty crimes. These are crimes and activities that tug at the fabric of the communities that hold Canadians together. Also, these long wait times do not impact just the community at large but sworn members themselves. They fear they are going to miss a call when something bad happens. They are stretched too thin because they are consistently dealing with repeat people.”
“Every time I have a chance to visit a community, I stop by the detachment. I speak to the sergeant in charge and to the constables. I ask them what they worry about. I ask them what problems they see. Habitually, it is the repeat offenders who have been kicked out on bail, who have not been rehabilitated and who keep coming back into the system. They deplete RCMP resources in these areas that are, using the words of the constables, “police deserts”. There is a 40-minute or an hour to two-hour response time. That is what the detachment staff tell us. I know this from personal experience. I had bad actors out in the middle of the field in the middle of the night, and it was four hours before the RCMP were able to get there, to get to us.”
“It may seem like a fringe or a fad, a petty theft kind of circumstance, but the impact to communities and, in this particular case, farmers is significant and massive. Petty criminals will go and raid an irrigation pivot for less than $100 of copper, sometimes less than $50 of copper, but the cost to get that equipment repaired is tens of thousands of dollars. More importantly, that machine is not available when the crops need water. It impairs the farmer's ability to grow food. It makes the farmer feel vulnerable. He does not know what kind of bad actor he is going to run into when he is out in the field, checking the equipment and doing the work, growing the food for Canadians. I have visited multiple RCMP detachments across my riding. I make a point to visit them.”
“If we think back to December, they prevented the justice committee from studying this legislation not once, not twice, but 18 separate times. If the government was so anxious to get this legislation enacted and have it receive royal assent, it had every opportunity at innumerable times to progress it through the parliamentary process. It would be in force today, and we would not be having this debate in the House. I cannot help but think what the impact is in communities because we, the Liberal government, delay. If we had been permitted to do this work earlier, we would be much further along in the process. I would like to share some stories from my home, from where I live, remarks on the impact of crime and the impact of repeat offenders. At home, it is now commonplace to hear about copper theft.”
“It sought to close loopholes that allowed serious offenders to avoid removal proceedings through lengthy appeals and technicalities. We have heard time and time again in this place, in question period and in debate, just a small sampling of the examples from across the country where this is happening in real time. The consequences for our communities are palpable, real, tragic and avoidable. The Liberals voted it down. Additionally, the Liberals just voted down Bill C-232 , which dealt with blocking transfers of dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety, like Paul Bernardo, to medium- or low-security prisons, ensuring they remain in maximum-security prisons. When Parliament finally had an opportunity to study Bill C-14 , the Liberals repeatedly blocked progress there as well.”
“Bill C‑246 would have strengthened sentencing provisions for serious sexual offences and recognized the profound and lasting harm that these crimes inflict on victims. Victims deserve confidence that the offenders will face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes. The Liberals voted it down. (1445) Bill C-220 represented another serious effort to strengthen accountability within our justice system and restore public confidence in a system that too many Canadians believe is failing to protect them. It would have amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences resulting in sentences of six months or more inadmissible to Canada and subject to removal.”
“Throughout this Parliament, Liberals repeatedly stood in the way of common-sense criminal justice reforms. They voted down Bill C‑220 . They voted down Bill C‑242 . They voted down Bill C‑246 . These were not half measures, but substantive legislative proposals designed to address real and growing public safety concerns facing Canadians. Bill C‑242 , the jail not bail act, would have strengthened Canada's bail system for repeat violent offenders. Canadians have watched too many tragic cases unfold, where dangerous individuals repeatedly cycle through the justice system and are released back into communities despite extensive criminal records. The principle behind that legislation was simple: Public safety should come first. The Liberals voted it down.”
“That is why Bill C‑14 matters. This bill is really important. The original purpose of Bill C‑14 was straightforward. It was intended to strengthen Canada's bail system and restore confidence to a justice system that many Canadians believe has become far too lenient toward repeat offenders and violent offenders. The intent was to ensure that meaningful safeguards were in place when accused persons were released into our communities. I just spoke about how our communities feel and how they feel unsafe. These safeguards are what Canadians expected from Parliament when it began studying this legislation. Unfortunately, we are here today because the Senate has chosen to weaken one of those safeguards. Before turning to the amendment itself, Canadians and parliamentarians need to understand the broader context.”
“I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge. It is maybe not a grand scheme, but it is a culture that has insidiously infected our judiciary and that has resulted in deference to the perpetrator. Where does this leave victims? Where does this leave the public when they are worried about crime? The crime wave that is sweeping across this country, which we have been enduring for years, is sometimes bringing our communities to its knees. The people I represent do not believe public safety should be controversial. They do not believe accountability should be controversial. They certainly do not believe that protecting victims should take a back seat to protecting criminals.”
“They were worried about public safety, and they were tired of hearing the same stories over and over again. Just this year, a man from Okotoks was charged after police found more than 500,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material in his home. Investigators described it as one of the largest collections they had ever encountered and involved tens of thousands of victims. Following his arrest, he was released on bail, which sparked outrage and concern throughout the community. The RCMP warned the public against retaliation, threats and vigilante actions. A criminologist from Mount Royal University, Kelly Sundberg, said that stricter bail conditions could help the community feel at ease.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today to represent the people of Bow River, and the river keeps flowing. I rise to speak to Bill C‑14 and to the Senate amendments that have been returned to the House. Before addressing those amendments themselves, I want to return to my maiden speech, which was not much more than a year ago. I came to Ottawa because I was tired of watching common‑sense Canadians feel like nobody was listening to them. I came here because farmers and families, teachers and nurses, doctors, mechanics, oil field workers, seniors and residents across Bow River told me they were worried about the direction of this country. They were worried about a government that seemed increasingly disconnected from everyday realities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it so rich that the Liberals now find some urgency to do this. The Conservatives have offered multiple times at committee to advance this legislation, bring it forward faster, get things done, include common-sense amendments and deal with the loopholes that could have been presented. Now we have loopholes that have again been put into the bill through the amendments from the Senate. These need to be addressed. Those loopholes need to be removed to make this a solid bill so that the Canadian public can once and for all have safe streets again, after 11 years of the Liberals' mismanagement of the justice file, among every other file.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that this is my first full year in the House, and I find it a bit disappointing, in fact a lot disappointing, that the government had all year to get this work done, yet it is imposing closure. A bill such as this, which arguably does not have a lot of controversy attached to it, would have been very easy to pass with the process that we had allowed, yet we have these games from the Liberal government. We are here to work as long as possible to make sure that we shine the light of transparency onto everything the government is doing, and I really would appreciate a comment from the government as to how transparency is served by closure.”
“Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Bow River always appreciate when I have an opportunity to speak in the House or ask questions. More than a decade of having Liberal-appointed, soft-on-crime judges who follow the tone and tenor set by the government has really eroded the confidence of people on the disposition or the delivery of justice. I wonder if the member can speak to how bills passed need to be explicit in terms of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences and how, otherwise, judges will erode the system and public confidence in the judicial system.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Canadians are being told to tighten their belts while the Prime Minister cannot stop spending. On a single trip, taxpayers were billed more than $17,000 for salmon, which is more than many Canadian families spend on food for an entire year. Meanwhile, the environment minister said it was reasonable to spend half a million dollars on luxury accommodations in Brazil on a junket. With all the extravagant spending, will the Prime Minister stop dodging and tell Canadians the truth? Are we in a recession or merely a technical recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support free trade, and ranchers do not need another Liberal press release about trade diversification. They need real market access and a government willing to defend their industry here at home. This is not a game, but the Liberals are acting like the beef industry is a convenient bargaining chip. Would the Mercosur deal actually benefit farmers and ranchers in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, Alberta beef is the best in the world, produced by ranchers and farmers who are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot. While the Liberals talk about buying Canadian, they are negotiating a Mercosur deal that could flood our market with imported beef produced under conditions that Canadians would never accept at home. Canadian cattle producers are held to world-class standards, yet the government is prepared to reward foreign producers who do not play by the same rules. Why are the Liberals willing to undercut Bow River ranchers instead of standing up for Canadian beef, Canadian jobs and Canadian ranching families?”
“Families in Bow River and across the country deserve fairness. They deserve common sense, but most of all, they deserve to be able to afford their dinner.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Canadians are out of money. The latest data from Dalhousie University shows a heartbreaking reality. Affordability is now the only thing driving food choices. For it, nutrition is being sacrificed and quality is being killed. One in three Canadians is now borrowing money just to afford groceries. Families are scaling back, yet they are still spending more on food every single year. The government House leader is complaining that this is all he hears, but the pressure is rising. The Prime Minister has doubled the Trudeau deficit and Canadians are the ones being crushed. Nothing has changed. This costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending and more taxes. It is more of the same. The Liberals are spending more and Canadians are getting less.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is important, and it may be one of the most important aspects of this legislation. We need to look at how the finances are treated and get it right. The power rests with the people and is enabled by the money. The adage is to always follow the money. We need to have people knowledgeable about how to audit, conduct, measure, tabulate and ledger the expenses, and to do it with honour, discipline and honesty. However, if we have them spread out too much, then it introduces a lot of problems. The bill needs to go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why it needs to be studied at committee. The sharing of data and the unintended consequences of that, and the impacts of privacy of the individual have to be fully vetted out and compared. It deserves sunlight, the discussion of open debate and thorough study. Our democracy is not necessarily supposed to work fast, but it is supposed to be thorough so it can be effective and stand the test of time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way. I think he touches on an important part. I had, in my words earlier, alluded to some solutions. I think it is close. I think that sort of notion of “once”, but limited perhaps outside of the constituency, because there is a limited pool of people with experience who know how to run things well. Because of the financial aspect of campaigns, it is important we maintain security around that too. I think it is best studied at committee. It seems reasonable to have other perspectives from witnesses and experts to comment on that, to anticipate the unanticipated. That is where this belongs.”
“I am really encouraged by the notion that we collaborate to get this right. I hope the government listens to constructive criticism and to how we can build a system that is reliable and can stand the test of centuries. Specifically, it needs to go to committee because I do not think it is complete. I think more work needs to be done, most importantly, because my neighbours deserve a system that holds. The country deserves a system that holds, one where every citizen can walk in, mark a ballot and know where it stands, where no foreign government can lean on it. That is what we are here to protect.”
“They have heard of and have seen foreign governments trying to influence outcomes. They know their data is being handled under a different set of rules and they are asking a simple question: Is the system as solid as we were told it is? Can they trust the system? This is what needs to happen. We need real oversight of political party data by the Privacy Commissioner. We need serious penalties for anyone working with foreign actors to interfere in our elections. We need a foreign agent registry. We need to crack down on those who are interfering directly in our elections or from the shadows. We need clear rules to prevent these ballot stunts from ever happening again. We need to protect nomination races, because that is where the foundation is first laid. I think the best place for this bill to go is to committee.”
“Non-citizens should have no say in our elections, no say in who gets to be on the ballot, and certainly no say in who gets to stand in this House. There is also the question of privacy, which is another part of the structure that should be solid. Back home, Rocky's Bakery in Strathmore sells some of the best hot cross buns one can ever find. When a customer swipes their credit card, a litany of laws kick in to protect that consumer data. Rocky's Bakery follows the rules. It answers to the law. However, political parties in this country think they are above the law. They collect vast amounts of data on Canadians and operate outside of any oversight. There are gaps in the system like this. These sorts of gaps will not stay small; they will widen. Here is the reality. My neighbours are watching election after election turn into a circus.”
“That pressure does not stay contained. It spreads, and it weakens the trust in the entire structure. (1300) My family came to this country, escaping from communist Europe, to build a country where we could speak freely and participate in public life without fear. That belief rests on a democratic system that people can trust. When foreign governments start interfering in who gets elected, they are attacking that trust directly. It does not start on election day either, but far earlier. In the nomination races, we have seen reports of buses of non-residents showing up to tip the scales. That is pressure being applied at the very base of the system. If one can shape who gets on the ballot, one can shape everything that follows. This legislation does nothing to stop it.”
“It cost this country millions of dollars. It delayed results. Most importantly, it shook confidence. Ultimately, it creates a cascading effect of doubt. If a voter in Bow River sees a circus across the fence in Battle River, they start to wonder if their vote is next or if the whole system is broken. When people see the process break down, they start to wonder what else is not holding. Everyone saw it coming. The warnings were there, and the government did nothing. There is a deeper crack that we need to look at: foreign interference. While people were dealing with a system that was already under strain, foreign actors were pushing on it from the outside. We saw what happened to Kenny Chiu. There were smear campaigns, coordinated messaging and falsehoods designed to turn his own community against him.”
“One of the Liberals stood up with complete confidence and berated this side of the House about the supposed hockey skills of Irish kickboxer Conor McGregor. We knew he was talking about Alberta's hockey superstar Connor McDavid, but close only counts in horseshoes. We are human, and we all are susceptible to error. That is why we have to have rigid, reliable systems. It can be stressful standing up in the House, especially when the elbows-up PMO has the Liberal caucus on a strict hockey analogy quota. Let us imagine the same moment in a voting booth: Two Connors are in someone's head. They know who they mean to vote for, and they just hope they get it exactly right. That is the system the government forced on people. The longest ballot committee exposed a weakness, not in our underlying system but in the administration of it.”
“A senior who has voted for 50 years walks in, ready to do their duty, and suddenly they are asked to reconstruct the ballot from memory. If someone spells a name wrong, their vote could be tossed. If someone writes too fast or writes a name slightly off, their vote could be tossed. The government was warned by the Chief Electoral Officer that these ballots were becoming a barrier for voters with disabilities. This had been done before. It knew the longest ballot scam was threatening our democratic process, and it did nothing. It took something that should have been simple and made it fragile. I have to say, I am most concerned about my Liberal colleagues, because we all saw what happened in the House.”
“The bill would start that work, but it is late, and it does not go far enough. In my maiden speech, I said that the Bow River does not ask Ottawa's permission to flow. Even though obstructions are in the way, it cuts its path. Just across from my riding, my neighbours in Battle River—Crowfoot walked into a by-election and saw what happens when those foundations are neglected. They saw a ballot so broken it barely worked. The longest ballot committee flooded that by-election with 214 candidates. It forced Elections Canada to abandon the normal ballot process, and people had to handwrite their vote on a blank line. They were forced to manually write out names and risk a spoiled ballot just to exercise their basic right. Let us think about that.”