John Brassard
Barrie South—Innisfil, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner.”
“Mr. Speaker, this goes back to April 2025, when Canadians elected a minority government to provide oversight, accountability and transparency so that the opposition parties could hold them to account and provide that oversight.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now.”
“Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better.”
The complete record
Every one of 225 lines we hold for John Brassard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that. The message to the media is, “Do your jobs. Hold the government to account for everything that is going on with respect to spending, contracts and all that stuff.” Canadians are going to need to rely on the media to do this. The Liberal government is handcuffing the opposition party right now, particularly on oversight committees. With this motion and with everything else that we have seen, the sad reality is that Liberals expect Canadians to give up, get complacent and go away, so that the Prime Minister can have total power without any accountability. That will not happen. Our country and its people are worth fighting for. We will continue to fight for people to afford homes, fuel and food. We will continue to fight for safety on our streets.”
“9, I want to send a message, because it is going to become increasingly important for the media if this passes without amendment on the oversight committees: “Do your goddamn jobs.” Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“(1600) That needs to stop right now, because the power that is given to this Parliament, the power that is given to MPs, the supreme power that is given, is being taken away by the Liberal government through Motion No. 9. It is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to oversight, accountability and transparency, when there are YouTubers who are finding out more about what is happening within the Liberal government, the scandals and the connections of well-connected insiders, lobbyists and family members. When YouTubers are researching this stuff and finding this stuff out, that is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to media accountability in this country and holding the opposition to greater account than the government party. With all that is happening with Motion No.”
“There would be no studies on things that happen as a result of scandals within the government that would ever see the light of day. That is what is most troubling to me. The other thing that has been troubling, and I have seen a pattern of this over the 10‑plus years I have been here, speaks to the importance of what is needed in this country. If we do not have any accountability and do not have the type of transparency that Parliament is going to be able to provide at this point, especially given the work the committees are charged with, it seems like we have turned into a country where we are the only country in liberalized democracies around the world where the opposition party is held to a greater account than the government by media.”
“I have a grave concern that the level of accountability and transparency is not going to be there with Liberal members on these oversight committees, controlling these committees. When those committees were constituted, there were good-faith negotiations. The proportionality of what has happened now in this transactional nature of a majority government, where we have seen floor crossers give the government a majority, means they have just over 50% of the seats right now, which, again, should be reflective on those committees. What the Liberals are proposing with Motion No. 9 is to in fact give themselves 58% of representation on those committees, which would ensure that nothing the opposition wanted to do at those committees would actually happen. There would be no summoning of documents. There would be no appearances by witnesses.”
“The oversight committees exist because they deal with issues of importance related to government operations, government contracts, ethics, accountability and transparency. If it was not for the oversight committees in previous parliaments, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, none of the scandals that became big scandals, one which caused Parliament to be prorogued in the case of the Winnipeg lab scandal, would have come out if not for the oversight committees. The purpose the oversight committees serve is to hold the government to account, to ensure there is transparency and to ensure that the information is available to us, especially when a minority government is elected. We run a real risk.”
“What that meant, as is the convention around this place in relation to the Standing Orders, is that we had committees that were negotiated at that time that were structured in a way that reflected the results of the election. It meant that for Conservatives and members of the Bloc, we had the majority of members on those committees. For the committees that were not oversight committees, that meant that if the opposition members wanted to determine what a study was going to be, wanted to compel witnesses, wanted to summons or wanted to compel documents, they could do it without it having to get to the chair. That is the way committees were formed. The same can be said about the oversight committees. I am the chair of the ethics committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, if Canadians wanted any evidence at all that what the Liberal government wants is an audience and not an effective opposition, Motion No. 9 reflects that accurately and precisely. It was just under a year ago that the Prime Minister of this country was elected by Canadians. It was a fair election, but the Prime Minister was elected in a minority situation. He received fewer votes than what he needed for a majority. Canadians sent that message, as they did in previous elections, because they were not happy with the Liberal government and what it was doing to this country. Canadians elected the government in a minority situation because we had an untested, unproven Prime Minister who had never engaged in politics before. Canadians voted for a minority government.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the words of that great country music singer, George Strait, “I've got some ocean front property in Arizona” to sell. That was quite the speech. The minister mentioned that if it were the will of the opposition parties, if for some reason the majority the Liberals have cobbled together with floor crossers were to decline into a minority situation, if the opposition parties did decide to use an opposition motion and the motion did pass, would the minister respect that decision and not call it a matter of confidence if and when that scenario were to happen? That is a fair question to ask him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Before I conclude, I want to thank all of our witnesses, the analysts, the clerk, the technicians and translation staff for their work on this report. It is a fairly comprehensive report that provides significant recommendations to changes to the Conflict of Interest Act.”
“As the member of Parliament for Barrie South—Innisfil, I want to thank both the Barrie and Innisfil firefighters associations and their members, IAFF Local 1753 and Local 3804, for the work they do in increasingly difficult circumstances and for their charitable fundraising to help those in need. Finally, I want to thank every IAFF firefighter in Ottawa this week and general president Ed Kelly for their service, their advocacy and their unwavering commitment to firefighter safety. I thank them for looking out for our families.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, the International Association of Fire Fighters is holding its 33rd legislative conference in Ottawa. As a former firefighter and president of Markham Local 2727, I know the work IAFF members are doing this week, meeting with MPs from all parties, is critical to improving firefighter health and safety, as well as ensuring the financial security of Canadian firefighters, their families and the families of members who have been lost in the line of duty, either by accident or illness. Their advocacy reflects the same commitment to service they bring to their communities every day.”
“Mr. Speaker, here is what the member knows. We have seen the future of a Liberal majority at committee, and the future is now. Just last week, the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating and more relevance and substantive debate at committee. What we are actually seeing at committee is Liberal obstruction and a clear sign that they will further obstruct the work of committees and not allow for transparency and accountability, and for the truth to be exposed. If the finance minister has nothing to hide, why will he not come to committee and explain why he discussed and voted on portions of the budget specifically related to Alto, when he said he would not?”
“Mr. Speaker, speaking of jobs, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. For 16 hours and 45 minutes, the Liberals have been filibustering the ethics committee meetings on a motion that would invite the Minister of Finance to appear before it about his assertion that he put an ethics screen in place because of his spouse's employment as vice-president at Alto. How can there be an ethics screen in place when the minister has been participating in every decision on Alto since the screen was in place? What is the minister hiding, and why are Liberal members of the committee not wanting him to appear?”
“As Joe Bowen closes this remarkable chapter of his career, we thank him for the memories, the emotion and a voice that helped define a love for hockey in Canada. Thanks for everything, Joe, and holy mackinaw, enjoy retirement.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true icon of Canadian sport and broadcasting and the pride of Unionville, Joe Bowen. For more than four decades, Joe Bowen has been the voice of the Toronto Maple Leafs, bringing passion, professionalism and an unmistakable love of the game to fans from coast to coast. Through thrilling victories and heartbreaking losses, Joe made us feel every moment, from last-second goals to unforgettable playoff runs, with a sincerity that connected generations of listeners and resulted in more than a few bent steering wheels in Leafs nation. His calls were never about hype. They were about respect for the game, for the players and for the fans who gathered around radios and televisions season after season. “Holy mackinaw” became more than a catchphrase. It became part of our national hockey culture.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. If the minister had nothing to hide, he would have nothing to fear in coming to the ethics committee. The ethics committee will be heading into its 12th hour with the Liberals filibustering an amendment that Conservatives actually support. The motion calls on the finance minister to explain his claim that he has recused himself from decisions on Alto when it is clear he has not. Yesterday the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating, more relevance and substantive debate at committee. If the Prime Minister truly believes that, why does he not tell his members to stand down and have the finance minister appear?”
“Mr. Speaker, what we also need are politicians with a backbone who stand behind law enforcement to enforce hate crimes in this country, but that is another subject. I want to go back to what the hon. member said about the member for Nunavut . She cited several examples from that member in her opposition to this bill. The member for Nunavut crossed the floor. In about 30 minutes, I suspect that she is going to be voting for this bill. I am not sure how the member for Nunavut can reconcile that, and I am interested in the hon. member's opinion on that as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations , the shadow minister for justice, proposed that the bill, in an amendment, be sent back to committee. The reason is a simple one. There are at least 15 faith-based organizations in the country who have asked that the bill be reconsidered in its current form. These faith-based organizations represent, collectively, millions of Canadians who are concerned about the bill. Does the hon. member agree that the bill should be sent back to committee to have witnesses at least come in and talk about their concerns and that, perhaps, some more amendments could be made that would make the bill palatable to Canadians? As it stands today, the bill is not.”
“Mr. Speaker, here at home, our people want to work. They want to produce and they want to provide for their families. Young people want a family and a home for their kids to grow up in. Because of the last 11 years of Liberal failures, a generation has lost hope that this will ever happen. Today's job numbers are a national crisis. Maybe the Prime Minister can focus, for once, not on his Brookfield interests abroad but on what is happening here at home and work with Conservatives to solve the job crisis impacting Canadian families and our young people.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister travels the world promoting Brookfield's interests like he is their PM, portfolio manager, here at home, “shocking” is the only way to describe this morning's job numbers: 84,000 Canadians lost their jobs in February and 108,000 jobs were lost in full-time work, while private sector employment fell by 73,000. Employment mostly fell among men aged 25 to 54, the core working age group, and young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Why can the Liberals not finally admit that everything they are doing is an illusion and that they are failing Canadian families and young people?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is our businesses and our people dealing with self-inflicted wounds, because they are. From failing to eliminate these ideological taxes, causing cascading affordability impacts, to the ideological, almost hate-driven attacks on our wealth-creating natural resource sector, every problem we have started here at home in 2015 and continues today under the Liberal Prime Minister . Our nation has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the only shrinking economy in the G7. When will the Liberals accept responsibility for what they can control and for what they caused by removing policies that have made life more expensive for our people and businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, here at home, Canadian families, seniors and businesses are still dealing with ideologically flawed economic policies, regulation and legislation that have seen the cost of everything, including food prices in Canada, rise 7.3% in January alone. Taxes imposed on our farmers, fishers and those who transport our food, as well as the industrial carbon tax, which the Liberal Prime Minister keeps in place, have raised prices on everything made with steel, aluminum and plastic. Why can the Liberal Prime Minister not do the right thing and remove these failed policies that have caused unnecessary hardship and make life more expensive for our people and our businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, we voted against more bureaucracy and more red tape instead of getting the job done. Our kids are worried, and our grandkids are worried. In 10 years, home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 60% to 52%. It is even steeper among young people: 93% of gen Zs and millennials are worried about the state of housing in Canada today. Unfortunately, unaffordability is reshaping communities, with nearly half of young Canadians reporting that they have considered leaving their current city or province. This is not a tariff issue. It is a self-inflicted wound caused by failed policies. Can we at least agree to start restoring the hope of owning a home among young people by removing the GST on all new homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have stolen all our ideas. A recent Missing Middle Initiative report shows just how many young people have lost hope of ever owning a home. For parents and grandparents, the signs have been obvious for years. If we are honest about it, the problem started well before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. Despite the Liberals throwing tens of billions of dollars at the problem, the fact remains that 10 years of structural incompetence and Liberal policies have caused house prices and rent to double and, with that, the lost hope of home ownership for a generation. Here is an idea: Why not remove the GST on all new homes to start restoring the hope, at least, of home ownership among young Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, the short response is we would do exactly the opposite of what the current government is doing, because what it has been doing over the last 10 years has not only failed our auto sector but failed auto workers and, by extension, those who have a connection to the auto industry.”
“I have spoken about this before in this place. We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue as a result of these ideological attacks on our natural resource sector. As a nation, we would be standing on our own two feet, notwithstanding the tariff war with the United States, if we had that $200-plus billion in our hip pocket. We would be a nation that would be resilient, and we would be free of any threats of tariffs that come from the United States.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him. We work very hard together at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. [ English ] Members will not be surprised by my response. There is obviously an ideological difference in terms of the natural resource sector, what it means to Canada and what it means to providing great wealth to our nation. Similar to the auto industry, there are hundreds of thousands of people employed in the natural resource sector, either directly or indirectly. We have the third- and fifth-largest reserves in the world. The ideological attack over the last almost 11 years by this government, endorsed and supported by other parties in this place, has resulted in a loss of great wealth to our nation.”
“The Prime Minister actually made false statements to Canadians that he was going to solve this problem, and here we are with 5,000 workers out of work and a manufacturing sector that is dealing with doubt and uncertainty and has been decimated as a result.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not surprised by that intervention. As I stated in my speech, the reality is that 99% of EV subsidies supplied by this government actually went to foreign auto manufacturers. If the government is interested in solving this crisis, two things need to be done. Number one is to invest in the Canadian sector and take our suggestion of reducing the GST off the purchase of new vehicles. That would help spur on the purchasing power of Canadians. Number two is what the Prime Minister promised he would do in the last election, and that is to negotiate a deal with the American administration on the tariff situation. He said that he would do that by July 21, 2025, and at this point, there has been no resolution.”
“Today, Canada's Conservatives are standing up not just for those auto workers and the 600,000 people who are employed in the auto sector, either directly or indirectly, but also for those hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes, are having trouble paying their bills, and are now being asked by the Liberal government to subsidize vehicles that are going to be made in other countries. It is wrong. This motion attempts to address that. It is another solution proposed by Canada's Conservatives to fix what has gone wrong over the last 10 years as a result of the failed economic and ideological policies of the Liberal government.”
“We see a retrenchment now in the investments by auto manufacturers and the auto sector on the EV mandates, largely because the largest consumer market in the world, which is the American market, has moved away from EV mandates. However, here we are in Canada, doubling down on a failed policy as a result of ideology that is going to cost Canadian workers billions more hard-earned dollars to subsidize not just a failing industry but also vehicles made in the United States.”
“There are other examples of vehicles that are made in South Korea, Japan, the United States and other places, like Mexico, where Canadian workers will be subsidizing the purchase of these EVs under this new scheme and regime that was announced by the government. Auto workers are losing their jobs. There are hard-working, middle-class taxpayers right now who can barely afford the essentials and the necessities of life. They are being asked, under this new scheme, to subsidize vehicles that are not going to be manufactured in Canada, resulting in more uncertainty and more doubt within the automotive sector with respect to where this investment is going. As an example, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said that we have seen $53 billion put into the EV sector that is basically money that has been poured down the drain.”
“I will provide some examples of vehicles that are manufactured in the United States but sold in Canada under the $50,000 manufacturer's suggested price that may qualify for this: The Volkswagen ID.4, which has a suggested price of $46,000, is assembled in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the Chevy Bolt is manufactured in Kansas City; the Tesla Model Y is manufactured in Austin, Texas; and the Ford Escape plug-in hybrid is manufactured at the Louisville assembly plant in Kentucky. Here are other identified eligible electric vehicles that are made outside the U.S.: The Chevy Equinox EV is assembled in Mexico; the Hyundai Kona Electric is manufactured in South Korea; the Fiat 500e is manufactured in Italy; and the Nissan Leaf is manufactured in Japan.”
“While Donald Trump continues to slap additional tariffs on our auto workers, the Prime Minister decided to give Americans access to this $2.3-billion subsidy. Canadian taxpayers should not have to subsidize American EVs when the trade conflict with the U.S. has already cost 5,000 Canadian auto manufacturing jobs and 37,000 manufacturing jobs since the Prime Minister took office. He needs to answer as to why Canadian tax dollars would subsidize American EVs and to stop this insult to workers, who have seen production leave to the U.S. They will be the ones who are now paying the price.”
“For the 1,200 workers at the CAMI facility in Ingersoll who have been laid off, the severance pay and lump sum payouts are reduced by the minimum tax rate, meaning that over 50% of their payouts are held by the government until these workers file their taxes. (1030) Canada's Conservatives are asking the Liberals to use their existing authority to reduce the amount withheld in these payments, which can simply be done by the finance minister under section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the government has labelled helping laid-off workers as political malpractice, announced a rebate that will subsidize American-made EVs, and committed a swath of taxpayer cash for EV charging stations.”
“Since 2016, vehicle production has been cut nearly in half, from 2.3 million cars per year to 1.2 million in 2025. Real GDP in auto manufacturing fell another 10% in November alone, and 5,000 auto sector workers have been laid off in the last year. As a member of Parliament from central Ontario, I am very proud of the investment that Honda Manufacturing has made in Alliston. There is a significant concern not just among the members of Parliament from central Ontario but among those workers, those thousands of workers, many of whom live in my riding of Barrie South—Innisfil. They are quite concerned about the state of the auto sector as it stands right now under the Liberal government.”
“Of this spending, $84 million will go toward EV charging stations across the country, with no connection between the amount of funding and the number of chargers delivered. This adds more fuel, frankly, to the fire that was last week's announcement that the Liberals will be spending $2.3 billion in subsidies that will mostly go to foreign EVs. When looking at the numbers, Conservatives found that in 2023, 99% of EV rebates went to foreign-made cars. There is only one Canadian EV that is made in Canada and qualifies for the rebate, and that is the Dodge Charger EV, which is unaffordable to most. They simply cannot afford it, as part of the middle class. Canada's own auto sector is hurting, and Canada's workers are being put out of jobs.”
“For years, Canada's Conservatives have been clear that forcing 100% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2035 was unrealistic and created prolonged uncertainty for manufacturers and workers making long-term investment decisions. The one thing businesses cannot afford is uncertainty and doubt when making those decisions. By cancelling the EV mandate recently, the Prime Minister and the Liberals signalled and admitted that Conservatives were right all along. However, their solutions will still leave Canadians and Canadian workers behind. Canadians cannot afford to keep paying into EV subsidies for vehicles they cannot afford and that are not built by our workers. The announcement by the government wastes $97 million in taxpayer money on its environmental crusade and ideology.”
“Number one is scrapping the subsidies for foreign-made electric vehicles entering Canada, which force Canadian workers to subsidize $50,000 new cars. Two is removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles. This was something that was in our Conservative platform in the last election, as a measure to spur on Canadian sales of Canadian-made vehicles. The last thing is for the government to use its existing authority under section 153 of the Income Tax Act to help the workers in Ingersoll who have been devastated by job losses and, worse yet, have had to pay taxes, right now, on their severance pay. We are trying to help those workers in that regard. In 2023, the then Trudeau government implemented an electric vehicle mandate that would require 100% of vehicles sold in Canada to be electric by 2035.”
“Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to the opposition day motion. Before I begin my remarks, I too want to express my sincere sympathies and condolences to the people of Tumbler Ridge, B.C. It was an incredible tragedy, and I want them to know that I and the people I represent in Barrie South—Innisfil are thinking of them. We send our love and our comfort to them during this unimaginable time. Having gone through tragedies ourselves, losing two police officers in 2022, we know the coming days will be dark days for the community of Tumbler Ridge, but the love and comfort of our nation is with them. Members in this place certainly expressed that yesterday. We are dealing with an opposition day motion on an EV mandate, and I want to focus on three things that the opposition is asking for today.”
“Mr. Speaker, by every metric, every problem Canadians faced before the last election is getting worse. Food costs have doubled, food bank use has doubled and housing starts are almost non-existent. There are mass layoffs and plant closures across all sectors of our economy. The interprovincial trade barriers still exist. There is still no trade deal with the U.S. Half a trillion dollars in investment capital has left Canada. Deficits are ballooning, and Canada's debt is at record levels. In the last election, the Liberals promised affordability, lower prices and real relief for Canadians, so after a year of higher costs and broken promises, which part of that do the Liberals actually think they have delivered on?”
“Mr. Speaker, the last 10-plus years have been incredible if one is a well-connected Liberal insider or lobbyist friend, or has business connections to the Prime Minister. Every leading indicator says that the Canadian economy is in free fall, and while the well-connected people get to gorge on the all-you-can-take taxpayer buffet, auto workers, tradespeople, families and single moms struggling to pay rent and mortgages, young people who have lost hope and seniors who cannot afford groceries are being told they have never had it so good. What happened to all the grand promises of the last election? Were they not more about the Liberals' self-preservation than about solutions to fix the self-inflicted wounds they have caused over the last 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, if things were so great and affordability were in fact improving, there would be no need for the Liberals to spend $12 billion more outside the budget. The truth is that the Liberals are doing this to distract from their failed policies. They can right now implement solutions to solve the structural problem of grocery affordability and the food insecurity crisis that Canadian families and seniors are dealing with. Conservatives are willing to fast-track the elimination of all taxes that are having a cascading impact on higher grocery prices. Will the Liberals join us, or will they obstruct real relief for Canadians and carry on with their short-term vote-buying scheme?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a stunning admission of failure, over-promising and underdelivering, Liberals this week announced that they will be seducing Canadians with their own money. Without acknowledging that their failed economic policies have caused structural food insecurity for millions of Canadians families, the Liberals' latest scheme will put $12 billion more on the country's credit card. In the spirit of co-operation, here is an idea: Why not eliminate their industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, and lower income taxes, boost grocery chain competition and stop taxing farmers so families can keep food in their cart rather than having to put it back on the shelf?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister 's Bay Street buddies who are sounding the alarm. If someone is on Bay Street and wants a mine built, it is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help. If they want a reactor built, that is no problem either, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help them. Are they a large capital investor, say like, I do not know, Brookfield, and want to fund a green project that pads the Prime Minister's portfolio? That is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help. This is wrong, unethical and corrupt. How is this happening?”
“Mr. Speaker, we found out today that the Prime Minister 's signature Major Projects Office is directing Bay Street corporations, capital investors and banks to lend or second staff to the MPO, asking the companies to top up their pay. Here is how greasy this is: Banks, energy companies, mining companies and Brookfield could end up with employees on the inside of the MPO, giving them the inside track and advice on projects they are working on while these companies pay their salaries and provide lucrative bonuses. Under this scheme, just to spell this out, the Prime Minister's corporate buddies will be paying to have insiders work at the MPO. How is this ethical?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in my colleague's comments. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. In this Parliament, as in all Parliaments, there are committees responsible for government oversight. My job is to closely monitor the work of these four oversight committees, as well as the committees chaired by Liberal members. Could my colleague comment on how oversight committees function in comparison to committees chaired by Liberals? In my opinion, the latter seem to function less effectively than the former.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I have a lot of respect for my colleague. He is a great guy. We may disagree politically, but I have a lot of respect for him. I am very pleased that my colleague is looking at the statistics on how committees work. We are doing that as well. Today's debate is about the fact that a number of committee chairs are Liberals. As my colleague said, the chair has a lot of power and can cancel meetings. Does my colleague think that democracy suffers when Liberal chairs operate this way? Does that diminish the ability of members to do their work in the House and in committees?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is absurd that we are seeing the government filibuster its own bills, and there is a reason they are doing this. It is because, on every committee, not just the oversight committees, they do not hold the majority. The majority has been held by the opposition parties. After the committees were formed, between the Conservatives and the Bloc, we hold the majority, which means that no vote ever gets to a Liberal chair. What they do instead is cancel the meetings, or take their ball and go home, only to regroup and come back. What we are seeing is a pattern across all committees, and no member in this place should be surprised, including—”