Pat Kelly
Calgary Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“They are the same Liberals who spent the last 11 years actively preventing Canada from diversifying its export markets by systematically preventing the construction of the energy infrastructure necessary to export Canadian energy to the world. Canadian oil and gas is by far Canada's most valuable export. It dwarfs everything else.”
“I thought that might mean that a year after he made these claims, there would be some kind of approval on the horizon for a pipeline project. I could easily imagine that.”
“If it had been built, it would be carrying 525,000 barrels a day today to world markets. At today's prices, that would bring about $20 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Would we be in a recession today, if the Canadian economy had another 525,000 barrels a day in exported production?”
“Madam Speaker, the member brings up the Trans Mountain pipeline and, again, Conservatives were not calling upon the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and build it themselves.”
“They ran up deficits in the eighties that were so big that by the time the Liberals were defeated in 1984, Canada was literally kiting interest payments by issuing new debt just to cover the interest on the existing debt.”
“She said that, based on the government's stress tests, which, “draws on decades of Canadian economic and fiscal history, including, recessions, financial crises, oil price crashes, and runs thousands of combinations to show the range of possibilities....that the likelihood that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline...is less than 1 per ce…”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Pat Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“The supplementary estimates are there to make adjustments when changes in law, announcements or things like that come about, so the government can plan ahead. The government's current plan for personnel with CBSA would be a net reduction of 600-odd personnel through to 2028. Once again, the Liberals have an A for announcement, but right now it looks like an F on follow-through, which has been the MO of the government for so long. With respect to fentanyl, we heard some heart-rending testimony from members of the House on the scourge of opioid addiction, with people dying in our streets. There is also the trafficking of fentanyl. Yes, we agree with the changes the Liberals have made in the bill; they are important and supportable. However, the government is not enforcing the laws we have already.”
“Members may remember that the then minister of justice had his own ministerial car stolen at least twice, maybe even three times; I do not remember for sure. This is the level of problem we have that the Liberals are trying to solve. We would support that. In addition, with respect to drugs, we certainly support changing the classification of precursor chemicals to controlled substances. However, I will point out that while the Liberals are taking credit for strengthening our border protection, something Conservatives had for years called for, the departmental plans for the CBSA and the RCMP do not support the announcement material that has come along with the bill, which we see if we take a cursory look at both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates.”
“Who was asking for this? I suppose the government does deserve credit for listening to Conservatives, who had encouraged it through opposition to these measures to try again, so here we are with a new bill. It is a curious mix of ideas plagiarized from the Conservative Party in its previous platform, symbolic announcements that were not fulfilled with follow-through, and some steps for improvement on things that need to be done. I will talk about only a few of them, as it is a huge omnibus bill. With respect to the border, yes, Conservatives support export tracking in our ports. This is something Conservatives have for years called for. We talked years ago about the crisis of auto theft in our country and the need to have the ability to scan container ships for the thousands of cars stolen from Canadian streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House, as always. Today we are talking about Bill C-12 . It is a fairly large omnibus bill that would amend many different acts, and it goes into many different areas of national policy. It is a second attempt by the government to put forward a bill that would address a number of problems that are well known and well identified, problems that Conservatives have identified for years. The government has finally acknowledged the existence of some of these problems and is trying to fix them. The Liberals came out with Bill C-2 , literally the second bill tabled in the current Parliament. It was a disaster; it fell very flat. Nobody wanted the bill. It contained some terrible measures, including a bizarre outright ban on certain cash transactions, as well as warrantless mail opening.”
“Madam Speaker, on the same line of questions, would the member comment on how the Liberal government, and in fact from the response to the infamous tweet heard around the world, managed to break the system through the conflation of economic migrants and refugees.”
“Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague made reference to the tweet that resulted in the conflation of economic migrants and asylum seekers. When he mentioned this tweet, which single-handedly broke the asylum system, he was heckled by the Liberal benches. One member in the Liberal benches called it the best tweet ever, so it would seem that the Liberal government has learned nothing, certainly the members on its benches. I thought I should bring it to this member's attention to see if he had any comments on it.”
“Mr. Speaker, is the member concerned that our NATO allies will see right through the accounting trickery of shifting a budget for the Coast Guard from a civilian budget to the Canadian Armed Forces without actually improving or enhancing our defence preparedness?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and yes, eight years ago the government, through a deliberate choice of the then prime minister, blew up the asylum system, and the conflation of economic migrants and asylum seekers began. We have been in opposition for the tenure of the government. The government then purports to table a solution in the bill to a problem we have spent eight years trying to explain, and we have been called horrible names, horrible things, over the years. Could the member tell the House just how much credit the government deserves for at least finally tabling something to acknowledge the problem it created?”
“Mr. Speaker, toward the end of his speech, the member was getting on to some of the financial trickery we hear in the Liberal government's talking points. The Liberals speak of declining debt-to-GDP, yet the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up. The per capita GDP is lower now than it was in 2014. I wonder whether the member could comment further on the Liberals' selective use of accounting and, maybe perhaps in particular, the distraction the finance minister has brought up, where he is distracting Canadians by trying to trick them with changing the method by which the Liberals publicly disclose their finances.”
“Mr. Speaker, the phenomenon of share buyback is symptomatic of just how horrific the investment climate is in Canada. Businesses would generally love to invest in plant, equipment, technology and things that would increase productivity, but in this country, there is no opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is probably pretty insulated from the damage he is doing to the country. As to why he is doing it or what the motive is, I would have to leave that to the Liberals. I have no idea why they are wreaking fiscal and economic vandalism on this country. I wish they would not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will address one specific example that occurred under the Liberal government. From time to time, we hear its members patting themselves on the back over the Trans Mountain pipeline. They congratulate themselves for nationalizing what was private infrastructure and subsidizing it to a staggering sum, so we ended up using public money to build something that should have been built privately. It would have been built privately if the government did not chase the investment out of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Brian Mulroney inherited a basket case that is even worse than what we have today. Nine years was not long enough for Brian Mulroney to undo the damage that Pierre Trudeau did to this country. Every time we have someone named Trudeau running this country, they destroy the energy industry in my city and wreak fiscal and economic vandalism on Canadians.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government's fiscal plan is unsustainable. He called it “stupefying”. He said that it is “unsustainable”. The Liberals always claim these different measurements, such as declining debt-to-GDP ratio. When the debt-to-GDP ratio started to come up, it was our AAA credit rating. We will see them bait and switch every time on their goalposts. That credit rating is at risk. They are trying to trick Canadians with a new accounting methodology as their deficits continue to get even worse. It is time for the House to call upon the Liberal government to stop plagiarizing Justin Trudeau's failed policies and recognize that deficits drive investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.”
“When investment dollars leave the country, that means there is no investment in plant and equipment and technology, which would help drive up productivity so that Canadians can earn more and live better, fuller lives and cope with the increased costs that have crept in under the government. It is not happening. Wages are not rising. Unemployment is rising, with 900 jobs lost in my city last week in one layoff, announced by Imperial Oil. These guys have spent the last 10 years chasing investment and jobs out of, especially, the energy sector. We call on them to fulfill the promise that they made in the election and start getting serious, finally, about the budget. We have had a PBO report and a PBO committee appearance, in the last couple of weeks, that are just devastating.”
“They told Canadians that they were going to rein this in, that this was the whole point of the change of leadership, that there was a change of style. They keep talking about a new government, even though it is the same front bench and there have been the same policies over the last 10 years. It has not happened. We are getting close to a new budget. I might add that, on top of the $500 billion in capital flight that has occurred under the government before the current Prime Minister arrived, it has accelerated since then. Another $60 billion has left the Canadian economy.”
“The size of the public sector in Canada is the only thing that grew under the government. They added 100,000 federal public servants, yet service gets no better for Canadians. They cannot run anything over there. There are 59,000 employees at the Canada Revenue Agency, and they still cannot answer the phone. The government was supposed to have someone serious at the helm now, someone who would get control of our finances and bring the budget under control. It has not happened. Liberals promised, in the election, to rein in and reduce the expenditures on consultants. In the first estimates that they tabled, they have gone from, I believe, $19 billion to $26 billion. I do not have it in front of me. That is what I recall. They have increased their spending on consultants.”
“As has been remarked by others, this was the guy who was supposed to know what to do. It had been 10 years of Trudeau, and we were done. We needed to actually have a serious person and have an adult in the room. They switched leaders, and this guy who was supposed to be the adult in the room, who knew finance and had a wonderful resume, came in. He said that this was a serious point of crisis, that we are going to get serious, that we are going to rein in spending and get control of the public finances so that we can grow the economy and deal with the current challenges. What has happened since then? He did not do any of that. This is a Prime Minister who promised Canadians that they were going to rein in the general bloat of government that has occurred under the Liberals.”
“We have the worst-performing economy in the G7 right now. The Liberals always talk about the G7 and say we are going to be the best in the G7. Well, we are the worst. Our economy is no longer growing per capita. In fact, it has shrunk. It is lower per capita than it was in 2014, the final year of the Harper government. Per capita GDP is lower now than it was in 2014. Let us think about that. This means Canadians are getting poorer over time. I do not even think a 10-year window covering the Depression would even reveal a period that long and that sustained of declining per capita GDP, or GDP that has shrunk. (1025) We have lower wages, lost jobs and lost investment under the government. We call upon it to reverse course and get serious about the budget. That brings us to the current Prime Minister .”
“We are here today to call on the government to quit plagiarizing the playbook that has brought us to the point we are today. These out-of-control, structural deficits began under the Liberal government. It inherited a balanced budget. This is clear. A balanced budget was tabled in 2015. The fiscal monitors who track spending showed that we were on track to balance it until the new spending of the Liberal government was brought in. It received a balanced budget. It inherited one. It blew it immediately. The capital flight that resulted from the Liberals' out-of-control spending and anti-industry laws kicked in immediately and began to do what these policies always do everywhere they have been tried from time to time: They led to inflation. We have out-of-control deficits. We have inflation. We have a cost of living crisis now.”
“In the finance committee, there were appearances by that minister. He never acknowledged this solemn promise that, clearly, was a point of differentiation between parties. That was part of what got the government elected in the first place, and it was a lie. What the Liberals had promised during the election was so obviously untrue compared to what they did in office. They were elected. They passed a bunch of anti-business, anti-job and anti-industry bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 . These led to immediate capital flight from Canada. Upon the election of the government, $200 billion from the energy industry alone left this country. Half a trillion dollars of investment has left Canada since the government was elected.”
“Even the NDP back then knew we could not borrow with impunity forever. The Liberal Party was the only party promising a deficit. It said that deficits were okay. This was going to be a short-term deficit. It was going to make historic investments in national infrastructure. It was going to make investments. Its deficits were investments, and that would lead to the budget balancing itself and make people more prosperous. Here we are, 10 years later. We have an out-of-control structural deficit closing in on $100 billion annually. When the Liberals were elected, this promise of limited deficits followed by a balanced budget was immediately discarded. It was never, ever acknowledged after that. Bill Morneau was the finance minister. I attended question period after question period.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is $100 billion. No, that is not Dr. Evil's ransom demand from the world. That is today's headline in the National Post. The potential deficit that will be tabled in the budget in November is $100 billion. This is today's front page headline. It is important to consider how we got here. A $100-billion deficit is staggering. This is almost twice the national transfer to provinces for health care. This is the amount of extra borrowing being piled on. The interest from that will eventually make us unable to spend money on health care, national defence and all the things Canadians rely on from their governments. How did we get here? The government, in 2015, promised it would run limited deficits for three years. It was the only party in that election promising to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised by the line of questioning that came from the Liberals. They would have us think that we have never had it so good, that everything is rosy in Canada and that, after 10 years of economic and fiscal vandalism, Canadians should congratulate the government for a job well done. The Liberals have broken every single promise they have made on deficits, debt and fiscal anchors or guardrails or whatever we want to call them. Would the member have any further comments on that with whatever remaining time she has?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member invited me to contrast the government with previous governments, and I would be delighted to. The government has been in power for 10 years and has presided over the collapse of home ownership and the doubling of the cost of rent. The crisis of access to housing that Canadians can afford is entirely of the government's making. When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister, we had a healthy and functioning construction, home and real estate sector, where private sector builders built, supply and demand were in balance, and wages were rising. I know that the Liberals love The New York Times. The New York Times said that Canada had the wealthiest middle class in the world that could afford homes. That was during the tenure of the previous government. This government has blown it.”
“The minister and the government are completely out of touch with reality when they take credit for the current housing starts. Housing sales and housing starts are in collapse amid a crisis over access to home ownership and the affordability of rent. I would invite the parliamentary secretary who is going to engage to familiarize himself with the testimony we heard at the finance committee if the Liberals are going to take credit for housing starts.”
“We were told, so that Parliament now knows, that in the GTA and greater Golden Horseshoe areas, preconstruction condo sales are down 89% and ground-oriented home sales are down 70%. If buyers cannot afford homes, they will not be built. This is testimony from Mike Moffatt of the Missing Middle Initiative, which is hardly a Conservative voice or go-to Conservative witness. He outlined brutal statistics on housing starts. Now, this is on pre-sales, which are the housing starts two years from now. We also heard testimony from Richard Lyall of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, who corroborated this testimony: Housing pre-sales are down 90% in Toronto. This is a complete collapse of housing starts. The alarm bells are ringing loud and clear.”
“We have seen, in this country, that we have descended and become a country with two kinds of families: those who already own real estate, wherein the parents can share the equity in their home one way or another, through mortgages, selling the home or flat out letting the kids live in the home; and families who do not own real estate. The gap between the two is getting larger, and the despair among young Canadians is growing. However, the answer I got from the minister was extraordinarily tone deaf. On Monday, we had a finance committee meeting where we had experts testify. I would bring this to the minister 's attention or to the parliamentary secretary who may debate me during this late show.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here for an adjournment debate. Some time ago, I asked the Minister of Housing about the terrible track record of his government, in that the cities that received significant funding from the so-called housing accelerator had collapsing housing starts. The response I had from the minister was quite astounding. In his answer, he said that they are at near-record housing starts, and he questioned the whole premise of my question that there was anything wrong with the situation for housing. It was quite astounding. We have watched, over the last 10 years, as the government presided over the collapse and evaporation of the dream of home ownership for Canadians, where young people despair over whether they will ever become homeowners.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reminded the House of some historical facts and that some members who have engaged in the debate are on some pretty weak ground in taking such a condescending tone toward Conservatives. The member reminded the House of the scandal of one year ago. It seems a long time ago, but it was this time last year, if I remember correctly, that the scandal of indigenous procurement came to light involving a then minister of the Crown. I thank the member for reminding Canadians of that. Perhaps the Liberals ought to be a little less haughty in their defence of the bill and on indigenous policy altogether.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is new to this place, but I am not. I have been here for 10 years now, and I have seen repeatedly how the government ignores reports from officers of Parliament. It ignores reports from the Auditor General. The Auditor General audits a department, finds shortcomings and tables a report. The government says it accepts the findings, and then it does nothing. It has done this with every officer of Parliament. It ignored the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. What would adding another officer of Parliament do, other than give the government another person whose reports it can ignore?”
“Mr. Speaker, again, that is a great question, and it is one that I cannot answer. That is a question for the government. Why did the Liberals wait so long to implement this recommendation? The very fact that the government, including the former prime minister and minister, spent all of the resources that it did trying to cover up sexual misconduct in the armed forces says everything that one needs to know about how seriously the Liberals took the problem at the time. Even after that episode, it was years before they tabled the bill that would implement the transfer of complaints to civilian courts. It took them way too long, and I do not think they deserve any credit for having finally introduced this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have no answer for the member's question, which was why the government spent 10 years ignoring the problem. That would be a question for the government. The member is absolutely right. The Liberals had 10 years. They have been in office for 10 years, and it took them eight years to even table this bill. Then they did not call it for a year, so it was not debated. It was moved and we had maybe one day of debate, and then the Liberals spent six months of House time avoiding an order of Parliament, during which time the bill could have been called and debated. The member is absolutely right to point out that the government has had 10 years to do this and it has failed.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. On the very first day of debate, the member is saying that a Conservative is delaying passage because we wish to debate a bill. There is a lot to unpack in that intervention. I will point out to the member that the previous government, which was the Harper government, procured what was necessary for our troops and armed forces at a time when they were at war. They needed new helicopters; they got the helicopters. They needed transport aircraft; they got it. The current government, which has been in power for 10 years, has entirely neglected the armed forces and neglected the problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.”
“We see over and over again how repeat violent offenders are automatically granted bail as a result of the Liberals' so-called bail reforms of Bill C-75 , and earlier this afternoon this very Liberal bench voted entirely against replacing and repealing that law. We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We see an acceleration in crime. We see a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can get access to trial, and this bill would not fix all of these problems. This bill contains an important long-standing 10-year-old recommendation, and I hope this Parliament will debate this bill and that we will have a proper debate so we can come to the bottom of this and conclude it.”
“We have had testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say they cannot access justice because of the lack of access to the civilian system, which this bill would ultimately change, and because of the inability to get information about themselves to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is part of the problem. This bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go to ensure justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual misconduct. It is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured. It is far from it.”
“He was a kid from northern British Columbia with enormous responsibility, and he was so positive and full of energy and enthusiasm for his work. These are incredible people, and they deserve our support. They are the best, and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens. We have already heard in debate a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy and the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of national defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels, and we see it at the unit level, as my colleague said earlier today.”
“This bill would address a well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in the recruitment and retention crisis we face and a factor in morale at a time when we desperately need to fill vacancies for almost every single position in all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I have said before, let me say something about the men and women in our armed forces. They are among the very best people in this country. I have travelled and visited foreign bases of operations in Latvia and England, and these people are the best. They are extremely young people with extraordinary responsibilities. I met a 19-year-old in Latvia who was responsible for training and helping allied soldiers.”
“The government let a production line of artillery shells mothball in an emerging threat environment, and now, as Canada and its allies desperately need this ammunition, we do not have the production capacity. We do not have the production capacity to supply ourselves and our allies with desperately needed 155-millimetre artillery shells. That is a World War I munition, the production of which the government partially shut down on the eve of the Ukraine war. Base housing is in a deplorable condition, with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog of personnel waiting to access base housing. Barracks are in horrific unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for many military families.”
“Its track record over the past 10 years speaks for itself. (1640) Right now, as I speak in this chamber, ships are rusting out at sea. Fighter jets that should have been ordered and delivered by now have still not been delivered. We would be lucky right now if we could get one submarine in the water for a handful of days per year, and there is no replacement ordered. We have only a handful of operational tanks, barely any available for training. We do not have air defence systems. New transport and refuelling aircraft have been ordered with no plan, no hangars built to house them and no base location decisions made. Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as adequate shells.”
“It was what kept then chief of the defence staff Wayne Eyre awake at night, according to his own committee testimony. In 2023, after eight years of neglecting and ignoring the armed forces, other than the occasional morale-sapping pronouncement lamenting military culture, the Liberals finally tabled Bill C-66 but did nothing to advance it for an entire year. They finally introduced it in the House of Commons in the spring of 2024, and as my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke pointed out, in the fall of 2024, they spent their entire legislative agenda avoiding compliance with an order of this House and not advancing this legislation. Let there be no doubt about the government's lack of seriousness about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the problem of sexual misconduct in the military specifically.”
“Then from 2019 to 2021, the Liberals continued to ignore victims of sexual misconduct, although the resignations of senior officers piled up during that Parliament. They continued to delay procurement, as worsening morale began to foment a crisis of recruitment and retention that would start to jeopardize Canada's force posture and readiness to respond to requests from allies on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and respond to China's explicit challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security. Then in the last Parliament, between 2021 and 2025, Canada's lack of military preparedness became undeniable and unignorable. In 2023, it became known that there were 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces and that another 10,000 force members were undertrained and undeployable.”
“However, then minister Harjit Sajjan did take time to cover up the sexual misconduct of the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and during that Parliament, the government did take the time to engineer the frivolous and vexatious politically motivated prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals also expended no resources to try to deal with procuring important equipment. They did spend time, though, buying rusted-out Australian F-18s while delaying a decision to replace our own fighter jet fleet. They squandered the entire four-year majority Parliament without addressing sexual misconduct in the military or making progress in procuring ships, jets, other aircraft, submarines, land vehicles, artillery, ammunition and base housing.”
“The Harper government accepted the recommendations, and had the Conservatives been re-elected that fall, we would have had the opportunity to table the appropriate legislation to implement the Deschamps report. Instead, we have had three entire parliaments during which the Liberal government failed to make this legislative change and implement the recommendation that Justice Deschamps made in March 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the government took exactly zero steps to implement the recommendation to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to spend some time talking about the context in which this debate is taking place, because the legislative route that this bill took to get to this moment says everything about the tired, old, incompetent government. It is really worth taking a moment to examine that. This bill is the second attempt to finally, after over 10 years, implement the recommendations of the Deschamps report to transfer the criminal prosecution for sexual offences to civilian court. This was contained in the report and recommendations made to the Harper government in the spring of 2015. That was just before Parliament adjourned ahead of dissolution for the 2015 election.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer; that is just another Liberal bait and switch. The Prime Minister promised to cap spending. That promise was broken: The Prime Minister is going to double Justin Trudeau's deficits. The Prime Minister promised Canada would have the strongest economy in the G7. That promise was broken: Canada now has the slowest economic growth in the G7. The tired, old, incompetent government has presided over 10 years of economic and fiscal vandalism. When will it finally rein in its out-of-control inflationary spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been caught plagiarizing again. This time, he is copying his protege, Justin Trudeau. Trudeau promised that deficit spending would be an investment. What happened? When the debt went up, investments in Canada collapsed. Then, after COVID, Trudeau said he would remake the economy with deficit spending. This gave Canada the worst growth in the G7 and the worst inflation in 40 years. No matter what Liberals promise, debt and costs go up while growth and investments go down. Why would it be any different this time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I share the member's view that the best protection for the consumer is a free and unfettered market. In the member's speech, he talked about how regulation puts the thumb on the scale in opposition to the consumer. I wonder if he could use more of the time we have to talk about any of the specific regulations or the role of regulation in the cost of food.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Many members are still relatively new, but the rules for voting are quite clear. Once the question has been called, members must be in their seat if they are voting in the chamber and must not leave their place. I believe the member for Bourassa left the chamber and returned before the vote was finished. If his vote was counted by the Clerk, it would have to be taken off because he was not eligible to vote.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Calgary Herald reports record demand at the Calgary Food Bank as food prices at the grocery store continue to rise faster than inflation and as unemployment approaches 8% in Calgary. The Prime Minister said he would be judged by the cost at the grocery store, and the verdict is a scathing indictment of the Prime Minister's performance. When will the Prime Minister stop running out-of-control deficits that are driving inflation, unemployment and demand at the food bank?”