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 3 of 5.
“Madam Speaker, the comments and questions from the member opposite are truly one of the greatest pleasures to experience in this House. Alberta beef, and Canadian beef worldwide, is noted for its quality. It is sought out by the world because it is the best beef in the world. However, I think the member misunderstood. I was not talking about the Philippines and the partners that we already have in the trans-Pacific partnership. I was talking about the U.K. and the opportunity the government has right now to ensure that we have fair, equal, equitable, reciprocal trading with the U.K. The U.K.”
“refuses to index their pensions, even though it indexes them for those in the United States and elsewhere, their incomes shrink every year as inflation rises. We know inflation is a problem in Canada. Given the Prime Minister 's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, members would think he might have used this opportunity to stand up for these pensioners. Instead, there is silence. Conservatives believe in strong, principled trade, trade that strengthens our economy, supports farmers and delivers results for Canadians. We will hold the government accountable for its failures and stand up for the producers, ranchers and workers who make Canada competitive on the world stage. Under a Conservative government, Canada will not settle for bad deals; we will fight for better ones.”
“walk away from negotiations that were supposed to protect Canadian interests? The government has failed Canadian farmers under CETA; it has failed forestry workers on softwood lumber; it has failed our energy sector, and now it is failing our beef and pork producers under this agreement. Conservatives will not stand by while rural Canada pays the price for Liberal negligence. We will support trade agreements that expand opportunity, not agreements that reward protectionism abroad and punish production here at home. While we are talking about fairness, there is one more group the government has ignored. This has been spoken about by my colleague already. There are more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. These seniors paid into the system. They paid their whole lives, but because the U.K.”
“We always have, but we also believe in fair trade, trade that works for Canada and not against it. This is not just about tariffs or paperwork; it is about the livelihoods of hard-working farmers and ranchers who feed this country and feed the world. When their shipments are blocked and their access to markets is cut off, it means less income, fewer jobs and more uncertainty for rural communities. It is especially egregious when these non-tariff barriers are such flimsy excuses. This is the difference between keeping the family ranch afloat or just shutting down, so I ask the government, why did it allow British beef unlimited access to Canada while Canadian producers cannot sell a single kilogram to the U.K.? Why is the government tolerating non-tariff barriers that violate science-based trade rules? Why did we let the U.K.”
“The carcass wash has been mentioned, and the Canadian standard is arguably far higher than that of the U.K. It is also a fallacy to blame EU requirements, as the U.K. has left the EU. It is a non sequitur. What have the Liberals done about it? Nothing. Not a single kilogram of Canadian beef has been sold into the U.K. in 2025, yet the government calls this progress. This is not progress; this is failure. The Liberals had years to stand up for our farmers and fix these barriers. These problems and irritants are not new. Instead, they chose the photo ops over results. They let the U.K. walk away from negotiations, ignored clear warnings from producers and are now rushing to rubber-stamp this deal without securing anything for Canadian agriculture. Conservatives believe in free trade.”
“Now the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. This is without fixing a single one of these problems, and they are giving the British everything they want while Canadian farmers are getting little in return. This is not a negotiation; it is surrender. The Canadian Cattle Association has been crystal clear: Terminate the failed Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement and return to the negotiating table, because right now there is no continuity for Canadian beef. The only market access is for British exporters. (1650) The U.K. continues to block Canadian beef using a hormone ban that the World Trade Organization ruled against nearly 30 years ago. It refuses to recognize Canada's world-class meat inspection system, a system trusted by dozens of other trading partners.”
“The Liberals have had nearly a decade to fix the barriers harming our farmers and producers, and there has been no progress, only neglect. Let us look at some facts. The U.K. exported over 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, over $42 million in 2024 and over $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canadian beef exports to the U.K. were just over $85,000 in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and zero, not a single dollar's worth, in 2025. The situation is just as bad for pork. British pork exports to Canada rose from $5.6 million in 2023 to $9.1 million in 2024 and another $3.6 million in the first half of 2025. Canadian pork exports to the U.K. were zero in 2023, only $75,000 in 2024 and $122,700 this year. That is not free trade; it is one way. It is not bilateral; it is preferential.”
“These were, and are, true stewards of the land, calving through snowstorms, fixing barbed-wire fences and holding on to the promise of spring. It means hard work, long days and an unwavering commitment to ensuring that food reaches Canadian tables. Once again, Canada's farmers are being left behind by the Liberal government's incompetence on trade, or its laziness. Bill C-13 is supposed to strengthen our partnerships and expand trade through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP. Make no mistake, the CPTPP is a good agreement. It offers real opportunities to grow Canada's trade footprint, and Conservatives support that vision, but under the Liberal government, those opportunities are being squandered.”
“In the process, they were instrumental in establishing the vibrant and successful ranching industry that remains a fundamental part of our history and our future as a province [and a country].” This goes to the heart of what I want to get at today, which is how what may seem a small part of a trade agreement is in fact large, because it goes to the cultural fabric. The influence of ranchers on southern Alberta can be seen in countless ways, for example in the Calgary Stampede, established in 1912 to honour the end of open-range ranching, and in the preservation of vast stretches of native fescue grasslands. Today, the 160,000-acre McIntyre ranch, established in 1894 in southeastern Alberta, remains home to the largest tract of fescue grassland in North America.”
“Larraine Andrews writes in her book, Ranching Under the Arch , about life on the ranch, “In reality it represented a uniquely hybrid combination of Old and New World culture, skill and expertise, heavily influenced by American, British and Eastern Canadian know-how and adapted to a frontier environment that demanded adaptation for survival.” In her remarkable story of a people and a landscape, one that helps to explain southern Alberta's uniqueness, Andrews makes clear that the land and the people cannot be separated. She also writes, “They made the rangelands their home, conserving and preserving the land for generations to come.”
“Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-13 and the impacts it would have on cattle producers, especially in my riding of Bow River, but first I want to recognize the storied history and legacy of ranchers in southern Alberta. The beef industry has long been vital to the region. Since the late 1800s and the era of open grazing, the herds of the Circle Ranch, the Bar U and many others have grazed the expanse of Bow River. People homesteaded there and built lives on the harsh prairie. As D.”
“Madam Speaker, again, the member opposite knows full well it is fully up to the government and the House leader to convince this side of the aisle that the government has good legislation, or it could accept our amendments and incorporate them into the legislation. It is absolutely a no-brain circumstance, and that may be part of the problem on the other side of the aisle. Amend the legislation. Make it actually useful. Eliminate all of the carbon tax. Make a meaningful tax cut that meaningfully affects all Canadians, and make sure the GST comes off homebuilding for all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, the short answer is that the question answers itself. It is absolutely ridiculous that this is the circumstance seniors find themselves in after more than 10 years of the Liberal government. Thirteen and a half cents is a pittance and an insult to the people who have worked so hard and contributed their whole lives to the building of this country. It is absolutely not acceptable, not at all.”
“Madam Speaker, it is two parts, two questions and too much time. With voting, it is up to the government to convince us how to vote and to bring in the amendments required to make this something that will actually help Canadians. It is up to the government House leader to earn the support across the aisle. As to the first part of the member's question relating to the Premier of Alberta, the grand ransom was a deal where the premier did not have a choice because the government across the way boxed everybody in. It is a fallacy to think that the compromises that had to be made are going to result in anything productive or an improved economy.”
“Canadians cannot afford half measures. They need a government that will build homes, lower taxes, scrap the carbon tax and restore hope. Conservatives will continue working to deliver that future. It must be noted that when Conservatives previously put forward common-sense amendments at the finance committee to expand tax relief to more Canadians, Liberals filibustered and blocked those proposals. That is their record, not ours.”
“In conclusion, Bill C-4 simply does not go far enough to address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians. The income tax cut is too small. The GST rebate is too limited, too temporary and too specialized. The carbon tax changes leave the industrial carbon tax completely untouched. As much as my colleagues across the aisle might want to claim that this does not impact affordability, it impacts all affordability at every level of the economy. These measures borrow from Conservative ideas, but they lack the ambition and substance required to give Canadians real relief. Canadians deserve a plan that delivers a stronger tax cut for working people, broader GST relief, a full repeal of all carbon taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, and responsible spending that finally stops driving up inflationary deficits.”
“Conservatives will continue to advocate for a full repeal of all carbon taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, so that families and small businesses can finally get the relief they deserve. All these measures also come with significant fiscal implications. The first part would cost $27 billion, and the second part, nearly $4 billion. As carbon taxes are potentially reversed, GST and corporate revenues will inevitably decline. Without reductions in wasteful spending, these policies risk further expanding deficits. I must say that spending is out of control. Conservatives will put forward amendments to ensure that tax relief is paired with reasonable, responsible savings, by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, reducing excessive foreign aid and eliminating corporate handouts that benefit the well-connected, rather than working Canadians.”
“That means the carbon tax will continue to increase the price of groceries and put punitive costs on farmers, who will have to pay extra to heat their barns, dry their grain, purchase and use fertilizer and buy and operate farm equipment. (1645) As a bit of an aside, the carbon tax is also on steel, concrete, aluminum and glass, everything required to build homes, build businesses and build factories. It is increasing the cost of everything for everyone. This is not how we stimulate an economy. Farmers, truckers, small businesses and working Canadians understand that. However, the Liberal government seems unable to grasp the obvious: A tax on everything increases the cost of everything.”
“Even finance department officials admitted the measure could push prices up, not down, which is completely counterproductive if demand rises without matching increases in supply. The rebate is also unfair. Canadians who are widowed or divorced and need to purchase a new home would be excluded, and so would anyone who signed a purchase agreement even one day off the arbitrary May 27, 2025, cut-off. The third major element of Bill C-4 deals with the consumer carbon tax, which Liberals now admit, after years of denial and vehemently obstructing any discussion about it, has become unaffordable for Canadian families. Even as they attempt to backtrack on the consumer tax, the industrial carbon tax, which drives up prices for farmers, processors, manufacturers and ultimately consumers, remains firmly in place.”
“Once again, the Liberal government adopted an idea rooted in Conservative policy and then stripped out the very elements that would have made it effective. Conservatives proposed removing the GST from all new homes under $1.3 million, because we recognize that housing affordability is fundamentally a supply problem. More homes need to be built, and the government should encourage construction across the entire market, not just for a narrow, politically sensitive subset. The Liberal version is so restrictive that housing experts are already warning it would have little impact on construction or affordability. The Building Industry and Land Development Association in Toronto, one of the largest homebuilding voices in Canada, has said plainly that very few new buyers are first-time buyers, meaning the policy would barely move the needle.”
“This is not even enough to buy a cup of coffee a day. It would be $840 for a couple. That does not come close to matching the rising cost of groceries, rent or mortgage payments. While Conservatives support tax relief, we also believe in fiscal responsibility. This measure would cost $27 billion over five years. Canadians deserve to know that any tax reduction will be matched by responsible spending decisions rather than higher deficits passed on to future generations. I must say the problem is that the spending goes nowhere. It does not add meaningfully to anything in the country. The second part of Bill C-4 would offer a GST rebate on new homes, but only for first-time buyers and only until 2031, with construction deadlines extending to 2036.”
“Bill C-4 contains four major components: an income tax cut, a GST rebate for certain homebuyers, a partial repeal of carbon tax measures and a legislative response to a recent British Columbia court decision regarding federal political privacy rules. Again, my remarks today will be restricted to the first three. The first part of the bill would lower the lowest income tax bracket by 0.5% in 2025 and another 0.5% in 2026, reducing it to 14%. However, Conservatives campaigned on lowering this bracket to 12.75%, which is a real cut that would have offered meaningful relief to working Canadians who are struggling to get by. Under our plan, a typical worker earning $57,000 would have saved $900 annually and a couple would have saved $1,800. The Liberal plan, in contrast, would eventually save the average Canadian just $420.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-4 , a bill respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. I will not be speaking to the other measure, but I will be speaking to the first three. I am splitting my time today with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole . Let me begin with a simple truth. Some elements of this bill are based on long-standing Conservative principles, but every single one of them has been diluted, weakened or watered down by a government that has spent nearly a decade creating the very affordability crisis it now claims it wants to fix. That is why I find it fitting that, perhaps unintentionally, the bill is titled “C-4”, because the Liberals have certainly blown up affordability in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, Liberal members scrambled to explain that their so-called MOU with Alberta was not the approval of a pipeline. It was just more consultations, and the B.C. Liberal caucus rushed to distance themselves from it entirely. The same agreement includes a massive increase in the industrial carbon tax, a hike that will raise the cost of everything for families and businesses already struggling under the government. At committee today, the minister admitted Alberta's exemption for the clean electricity regulations will take place way down the road. When the Liberals said they could move “at a speed and scale not seen in generations”, did they mean building projects or just raising taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for an opportunity to address this issue in the House for ages. The government's exorbitant price for the Trans Mountain pipeline had a direct correlation to its jeopardizing of the project and its exposure to a suit by the private proponent that was going to build that pipeline for a quarter of the cost, or less, of what the government spent. I do not believe, and most Conservatives do not believe, that the government should be investing in private infrastructure. It should not be investing and picking favourites. It needs to set the rules, make sure there is a level playing field and allow industry to do what industry does best.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the disconnect between our position and the Liberal position. The self-serving nature, apparently, of the transactions taking place have a very bad perception. The reality is that the Liberals are not going to help the Canadians on the street, day to day. We need to get government out of the way, programs reduced and taxes reduced so that people keep more money in their pockets and can spend it where they choose to, which is predominantly, first and foremost, at the grocery store.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am shocked the member opposite did not state that I was right, like far right, even more right. An adage I have from when I was working in the field in the oil and gas industry is that, as one of the engineering staff, “The engineer is here, and he is here to help” was the biggest fallacy and joke in the system. A more poignant adage is “I am from the government. I am here to help and I am going to make it better.” That never happens. I think the fundamental disconnect is that the government needs to get out of the way of private industry doing what it does best, which is, make the economy better.”
“Instead the Prime Minister and his finance minister are choosing the opposite path: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, higher deficits and more debt, and Canadians are paying the price. Canadians deserve a government focused on lowering costs, not on raising them. They deserve a government that believes in farmers, families and workers, not in big bureaucracies and high taxes. They deserve a government that respects the value of a dollar and the dignity of work. (1755) Conservatives are ready to deliver.”
“Farmers in my riding and across Canada have pleaded with the government to end the carbon tax on growing food. Instead, the budget doubles down. It keeps the carbon tax on barns, irrigation, grain drying, fertilizer production, tractors and combines. When we tax the people who grow the food, we invariably raise the cost of the food they produce. The consequences are real. These increases hurt rural Canadians, seniors on fixed incomes, single parents, and young families trying to get ahead. They are the result of high taxes, high deficits and high regulation from a government that refuses to listen. Conservatives believe in a simple principle: If we want to make life affordable, we cut taxes, cut waste, build homes, unleash industry and remove the bureaucratic barriers that hold Canadians back.”
“Food inflation came in at 70% higher than the Bank of Canada's target. Families are spending $800 dollars more this year than they did last year, just to feed themselves. The prices of basic necessities such as meat, coffee and baby formula are all skyrocketing. Beef is up more than 12%; processed meat, more than 5%; coffee, more than 27%; infant formula, 6.6%; and soup, 5.3%. These are not luxuries; these are staples. When the cost of basic staples goes up, everything else in life becomes harder for working families. While the government finds new ways to tax food at the checkout counter, it continues taxing food at the farm gate as well. Rural communities know the reality: The government's refusal to scrap the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment, and its doubling down on it in the budget, is breaking Canadian farmers.”
“Without structural reform, the CFIA will continue to hide behind bureaucracy rather than provide the certainty and transparency farmers need in order to operate efficiently and safely. Canadian farmers, the ag industry and the public demand it. The incremental digital upgrades planned cannot fix the systemic issue. The government's approach leaves Canadian farmers exposed to higher costs, excessive regulation and competitive disadvantage. Until the industrial carbon tax is removed, bureaucratic barriers are reduced and the CFIA is truly reformed to act decisively on agriculture issues, this budget will continue to fail rural Canadians. Nowhere is the impact of the budget more painfully felt than at the grocery store. Canadians are already facing one of the worst affordability crises in living memory, and the budget only makes it worse.”
“Grain Growers of Canada warned that “without extended interswitching, farmers lose a competitive tool that [keeps] costs in check and performance accountable” in terms of grain and commodity transport. The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada called the budget a failure on food security, stating bluntly that “this budget fails to deliver on the government's earlier promises” and that it falls short on all counts. Moreover, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency modernization measures do not go far enough. For too long, the agency has shifted responsibility between itself and Health Canada and Agriculture Canada, depending on where the pressure was coming from to perform, and it has left farmers without accountability or timely action.”
“Taking five dollars out of a taxpayer's pocket and giving two dollars back as a handout is a broken proposition, and it devalues the contract a government has with the people. (1750) The budget also fails Canadian farmers and rural communities. Major farm organizations have been clear in their criticism. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that while the government included some measures, the budget is “a missed opportunity to address some of our sector's most pressing challenges such as a permanently increased interest free threshold for the Advance Payments Program, [dealing with] labour disruptions in the food supply chain, [and] protecting farmland”. Modernizing the Canada Grain Act should also be a priority.”
“This means that we would spend more just to service the debt than we spend on the entire Canada health transfer. It is more than the entire GST revenue; the equivalent is that every single dollar collected through GST would now go straight to a banker or a bondholder rather than to a doctor, a nurse or patient care. That would be the true cost of the government's reckless spending. Einstein once talked about the magic of compound interest, but the current government is showing us the magic of compound spending. Under the Prime Minister , the federal debt has soared to $1.35 trillion, and the budget adds another $321 billion over the next five years, more than double what the previous government would have added over the same period. Canadians are paying for runaway debt.”
“Exner-Pirot warned, the cap acts as a production cap in disguise, driving capital out of the country and sending good-paying Canadian jobs to jurisdictions with weaker environmental standards. The budget hints at delays, and it softens the language, but it does not go nearly far enough. If Canadians want Canada to be an energy superpower, and if we want to attract capital instead of driving it away, the emissions cap must be taken off the table. Only then can we restore investor confidence, protect thousands of jobs and unleash the full potential of Canadian energy. One of the most shocking features of the Prime Minister 's budget is that just the interest on the national debt will reach $55.6 billion next year. That is a hard number to let sink in.”
“In reality, the independent estimates from The Conference Board of Canada and Deloitte suggest production could fall by as much as 11%, a figure that aligns much more closely with observed trends. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 5.4% projection appears conservative in light of the current data. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also reported that the emissions cap would cost over 40,000 jobs and shrink nominal GDP by $20.5 billion U.S. by 2032. This is a stark discrepancy, and it indicates the government is downplaying the true economic impact of its own policy. It is putting Canadian energy investment at risk, it is putting jobs at risk and, as Dr.”
“On the subject of consequences, economic consequences, nothing is more destructive to jobs and investment than the government's looming oil and gas emissions cap. Further illustrating the disconnect between the government's projections and reality, ECCC's own modelling assumed that the cap would reduce production by only 0.7%. How do we become a global energy superpower by reducing production by 0.7%? That is the first fallacy. However, as Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot confirmed to the environment committee, the modelling was already flawed. It relied on overly optimistic scenarios from the Canadian energy regulator and the International Energy Agency that have not matched actual market trend.”
“I remember a time when a $3-billion, $4-billion or $5-billion deficit was dramatic and worthy of bringing the government down. Now it is almost as if money means nothing anymore. The finance minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. He promised to rein in government spending, but instead he is spending $90 billion more, an equivalent of $5,400 in new inflationary spending for every household in the country. He promised to work with municipalities to cut homebuilding taxes in half and to get more homes built, but the budget breaks that promise too, making housing more expensive and more unattainable for young Canadians. He promised stronger investment, yet the budget reveals that business investment is collapsing. These are not small misunderstandings; they are broken commitments that have real consequences for real families.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard-working families, farmers and forgotten rural communities of Bow River in southern Alberta to speak against a budget that will make life more expensive for every single Canadian. The government has delivered a spending plan that will drive up the cost of food, drive up the cost of housing, drive up the cost of energy and dig this country deeper and deeper into debt than at any time in our history, and for what? It would be for more bureaucracy, more waste, more costly programs that fail the people the Liberals claim to help, and yet another round of broken promises from the Prime Minister and his finance minister . Let us start with the basics. The finance minister promised Canadians a $62-billion deficit, but instead the deficit is now $78 billion.”
“Even the minister admitted, in leaked audio, that the program did not work. This wasteful $750-million Liberal vanity project will not stop violent crime. The Liberals should scrap this program.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme has been a failure from the start. Its Cape Breton pilot reportedly collected just 22 guns, yet the government continues to hold back the official results. It is likely because this dismal result is true. Now the Liberals want to roll this broken program out nationally, including in southern Alberta. To make things even worse, the police chief overseeing the pilot, the brother-in-law of a Liberal MP, has suddenly announced his retirement just as scrutiny intensifies. Meanwhile, the other member from Cape Breton shrugged off the failures, claiming he has not heard anything and people are not talking about it. Maybe the member should pay more attention to the concerns of his residents instead of breaking the Elections Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, every time the Prime Minister is wheels up, Canadian bank accounts go down. The Prime Minister has taken 28 trips, travelling far enough to circle Earth almost four times. What do Canadians have to show for it? There are no new trade deals and no concrete wins, just photo ops, fancy meetings and hollow letters of intent that never turn into real results. He met with China: higher tariffs on canola. He visited India: tariffs on yellow peas. He had meetings in Washington: higher tariffs on softwood. He had meetings in the U.K.: crickets for beef and pork. Is he even trying to get tariffs removed, or is he just racking up more Brookfield—I mean air miles?”
“Matthew reminds us, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Let us support these efforts. Let us also ensure that government policy respects and empowers faith-based charities and parishes whose missions lift up the most vulnerable in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we enter the Christmas season and celebrate the birth of Christ, Canadians are reminded that this is a time not only of celebration and hope, but also of compassion and grace. Across our communities, local food banks and charities are working tirelessly to ensure that no family goes hungry and that every child feels the joy of Christmas. Their work reflects the best of who we are, which is to be generous, caring and grounded in faith and service. Across my riding in Bow River, charities are ensuring that families and children have the support they need this season. The Wheatland County Food Bank holiday food drive is helping local families in Strathmore, while St. Joseph's Parish in Vauxhall is once again setting up its angel tree to collect gifts for the Vauxhall and Area Food Bank.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is pushing ahead with a costly and misguided gun grab that ignores the real problem: illegal guns smuggled from the U.S. Instead, it is targeting the most responsible, law-abiding Canadians. In Cape Breton, the mayor says that he was not consulted. The local police union was blindsided, and the project is run by the brother-in-law of the local Liberal MP. Canadians need an affordable budget for an affordable life. Three-quarters of a billion dollars is being wasted on the program. When the budget pressures are so high, why are Liberals wasting three-quarters of a billion dollars on political optics and nepotism instead of cracking down on real criminals and keeping Canadians safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my esteemed colleague, whom I highly respect. Bill C-12 is going in the right direction. It has merit, but on the reinforcement of accountability measures and the punishment and treatment of people abusing the system who are outright criminals, we need to ensure there is no more bail and that we fully follow through on all of these things. Otherwise, society will never step back.”
“Mr. Speaker, the RCMP indeed had a reputation globally of being absolutely top-shelf, but like any institution, it is subject to the potential of management weaknesses— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! David Bexte: Mr. Speaker, there are very good analogies all over government and all over private industry, but we have seen management weakness in previous governments and even in the most recent Parliament. That is what has brought us to this place today. I think all of us could ask for the best performance possible from our institutions globally.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not a scholar of the Standing Orders. I understand that two items cannot be debated at the same time, but from that perspective, I cannot comment. I would like to thank the member for correcting me on the notion that Conservatives are the only ones who stand for the right thing to do. Every member of the House has the potential to cross the aisle and join the Conservative Party. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: They would not take me. David Bexte: Well, Mr. Speaker, there may be some we would have to be more selective with, just like a very good asylum system. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, mail is one of the most sacrosanct private communication methods we have in society. There is a presumption of privacy in our mail, and the bar must be exceedingly high to have a judicial review on any attempt or ability of the government to interfere with it or surveil it. I am very concerned. Any weakening of privacy conditions is problematic and prone to abuse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not agree with my colleague. We do not believe that the changes would go far enough. Yes, change needs to happen, but the bill would not go far enough. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: What would you do differently? David Bexte: I would do more. Mr. Speaker, I would keep the Crown accountable. I would keep the bureaucracy accountable. We would keep the system working for the benefit of the people and would ensure fair treatment of refugees and that people fleeing persecution and abuse worldwide have a safe haven in Canada.”