Kelly McCauley
Edmonton West, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North , bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9 , actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9 , such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths. Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre . It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs.”
“Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269 . However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate?”
The complete record
Every one of 372 lines we hold for Kelly McCauley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Calgary Centre for his continued advocacy for Alberta's oil and gas industry. It is ridiculous. This government continues its virtue-signalling tour around the world, spending Canadian money on wasteful projects, I believe, overseas, when we have 2.2 million people every month at food banks in Canada. We have seniors and we have parents who cannot feed their children. This government should be focused on growing our wealth, not spending our wealth abroad so the Liberals can have photo ops.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a great point. He has actually brought up two great points. When the same old, corrupt, tired Liberal government was elected, the Liberals stated they would no longer do omnibus bills, and that is what this is. I think there are 11 different pieces of legislation, including the act the member mentioned. On the direct question about helping foreign entities come in and take over our banking system, I honestly wonder what he expects from the Prime Minister when one of his last acts in the private sector was moving his company out of Canada into the States, and then denying he actually did it. The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country. I think he is dedicated to his business interests.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48 , which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69 , the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries? The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.”
“It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.”
“The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada's oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it. The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world.”
“On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government. With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway.”
“She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more. I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments.”
“It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending. What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48 , which bans tankers off British Columbia's north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69 , the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country. We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot.”
“How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year. (1645) That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending. In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports.”
“For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth. What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada's number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year. How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers?”
“It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals' own documents. What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around. What does all this extra spending get us?”
“There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister , not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt. Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more. The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us?”
“Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared. Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years. Do members remember the government's saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see. Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and his advocacy for the vulnerable. I do not think there is a stronger voice in this House for that, so I thank him very much. I wonder if perhaps he could comment on some of the other groups that are supportive of his measures. He mentioned Inclusion Alberta, which is wonderful, but I wonder if he could mention some of the others. Apparently, people on the other side of the House think this is not an issue to be attended to.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has noted that red tape alone is costing businesses $18 billion a year. Red tape and regulations are strangling Canadian businesses. I wonder if my colleague thinks that perhaps the Liberal government could introduce legislation to reduce some of this burdensome red tape rather than relying on the Senate to bring in a bill that has a relatively low impact on supporting businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre for bringing some more information to this very interesting subject. Is he aware whether the government has done a cost analysis on the cost to government and industry for these changes in the regulations?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was riveting. He kind of lost me, though, after he moved away from the cheese explanation. I realize it is not an easy subject to carry. He spoke a lot about trust and trust in the system, and I appreciate that. We have seen, recently, reports of large grocery chains robbing Canadians knowingly because they had scales that were not working. The CFIA and the government have known about this issue for years and yet have done nothing. In fact, the CFIA has not even issued fines to these large grocery companies. How does that instill trust in Canadians, when the government knows that taxpayers and Canadians are being robbed but has done nothing about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently. It is clear that he is not. His politics are like the empty, performative politics of every member of the past Trudeau government and the current government. They are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. The Liberal members want to respect parliamentary tradition when it benefits them. Anything else they throw in the garbage, along with any sense of accountability, oversight or transparency. That is a Liberal government. The Liberals like parliamentary tradition if it suits them. If not, they dispense with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Again, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament's being called. The very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. The member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund. He voted in favour of taxpayers' money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists. If the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: “what touches all should be approved by all”.”
“We were able to force ministers to actually show up. Of course in ethics, there was the WE scandal and there was showing the current Prime Minister and his conflicts. There was also the “other Randy” issue. I want to finish with a couple of quotes from Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker. Pearson said he recognized that the health of Parliament has to rely on the opposition's “right to oppose, attack and criticize”. Diefenbaker said, “freedom always dies when criticism ends.” That is what Motion No. 9 is about: ending the criticism of the government. Again, the Liberals want solely an audience, not an opposition to stand up for taxpayers.”
“Billions of dollars was spent by the government on management consultants at the same time as the Privy Council came to us and said that actually there were people within the government who could do the work, but it was still going out to McKinsey and other management companies to spread Canadian taxes around. Of course, there was the millions of dollars spent on the New York consul general's apartment on Billionaire's Row. The government desperately tried to shut that down. We were able to expose the spending because we had the ability, and they did not have the Liberal numbers to shut it down. In the public accounts committee, on which I sat, there was the issue of green slush fund, which of course had been approved by the then industry minister, who is now the finance minister . There was the Trudeau Foundation scandal.”
“In the operations committee, we were able to expose the ArriveCan scam that the government desperately tried to cover up. People remember that the Liberals tried to say that it was a life-saving measure and that it cost only a few million dollars, but of course, it cost well above $60 million. There was the GC Strategies scandal, in which two people working out of the basement of a house racked up $15 million, $20 million or $30 million in billing to taxpayers. With McKinsey & Company, another one, $120 million from the government was paying off its friends and insiders. We were able to expose that because we had an ability to keep the committee going and not be shut down by the government.”
“The government seems to think that what touches all should be just approved by the Liberal government. The slush fund was $15 billion. When we asked one of the Liberal officials what the money was for, he said that it was presumptuous that the government would explain to Parliament what that $15 billion was for before we approved the spending. Vote 10 of the Treasury Board is normally about $200 million or $300 million. In the 42nd Parliament, under a majority, the government ran that up to $1 billion a year. For decades, it had been in the low ten millions, 20 millions or 30 millions of dollars. The government moved it up to $1 billion a year. It rammed it through because it had a majority. What happened in 2019 when the Liberals lost the majority? They backed away from the vote 40 slush fund, and it has not raised its ugly head again.”
“In the long run it works to discredit both the government and parliament.” I could not agree more, and Motion No. 9 discredits both Parliament and the government. I am going to go over a couple of examples of how oversight has exposed some of the corruption, some of the issues, with the current government. In the 42nd Parliament, when I was first elected, Liberals, when they had a majority with the current government House leader as their lead on the operations committee, brought through what was called the “vote 40 slush fund”. This was a $15‑billion slush fund set by the government, which presented it with no backing of what the money would be spent on. Again, I go back to King Edward when he formed the Model Parliament in 1295 and said, “what touches all should be approved by all”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to finish the second half of my speech concerning Motion No. 9. As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals view the House not as a House of Parliament, it seems, but more as a theatre for themselves, where they tolerate no criticism and all they expect from people in the House are gratitude and cheers for their empty, performative politics. They very much live by Jean Chrétien's attitude of “It's called question period, not answer period.” There is a former Liberal MP from the House named John Stewart, who actually went on to the other place to be a senator. This is not the Jon Stewart whom the current Prime Minister loves so much. Senator Stewart stated about proceedings in the House, “slipping things through the house may seem smart in the short run.”
“He said there would not even be a budget in 2025, and yet when the Liberals finally tabled a budget, 10 months later, they accused the opposition of purposely delaying it. I understand I am out of time for this half of my speech about Liberal obstruction and blocking accountability. I look forward to continuing it afterwards.”
“With Bill C-13, the Liberals brought in a bill that would allow them, for 21 months, to have unlimited taxing and unlimited spending without any oversight or vote in this Parliament. The whole reason Parliament exists goes back to King Edward I, 1295, when calling the model Parliament, stating that “ what touches all should be approved by all”. Here we have the Liberal government under Bill C-13 saying that, for 21 months, what touches all should only be approved by the Liberals and not by all elected members. This government has a long history of trying to stamp out opposition. We have seen this government and my colleague from Winnipeg North constantly call out any opposition to Liberal plans as obstruction. Let us remember that the finance minister refused to table a budget last spring.”
“That was a motion that would have gutted Conservative opposition members' ability to submit Order Paper questions. The government was going to decide what was a valid Order Paper question, not an elected MP. The minister would decide. Also under Motion No. 6, the government stated that it would decide what was an appropriate amount of debate. The Liberals would stop the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP from debating certain issues. Of course, we all remember that famous night of Motion No. 6, known as “elbowgate”, when the former prime minister manhandled the late Gord Brown and also elbowed an NDP member in the chest. During COVID, we saw Bill C-13 under the Trudeau government, and again, a majority of the members opposite were part of that government.”
“That is why we are proposing that the operations committee, known as the mighty OGGO, the public accounts committee, the access to information committee, also known as the ethics committee, and the status of women committee maintain the current setup, which is traditionally led by the opposition, with the Conservatives and the Bloc making up the majority. Again, this is for accountability and transparency. Now, we have seen the contempt the Liberals have for this Parliament. It is clear again and again, and this goes back to 2015. The Liberal government always seems to say that it wants an audience and not an opposition. We have seen motions like this in the past. Going back to the 42nd Parliament, we had Motion No. 6 from this government. Many of the Liberals here today were here for Motion No. 6.”
“I would note that when the Liberals formed the committees in June, they actually reduced the number of committee members they normally had, stating they did not have enough members to do the work. It is funny to see them now actually bumping up two people on committees, when really they could make do with one. Again, I am perfectly fine with it. They do have the majority. However, this House and Canadians deserve oversight from this government. For the sake of accountability and transparency, we need better oversight.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is hard to fit in so much on an attack on democracy and explain it in four and a half minutes, but I will try. I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 9, another attempt by the Liberal government to quash all opposition and criticism of its government. Now, this is not about the legitimacy of the Liberal majority, however vile the betrayal of their constituents was by the MPs who crossed. It is still allowed within the Westminster system and I do respect that. I recognize the government as a majority. The Prime Minister commented that he was going to do things differently, with a less partisan approach to governing. Of course, that comment aged about as well as his comment that affordability is at its best in the last 10 years. I am fine with the Liberals adding more members to committees.”
“Does the member for Winnipeg North not believe that those voices should be heard by way of their representatives in this House, or does he only believe in the Liberal way of pushing the bill right to committee without those voices being heard?”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. He mentions he has been doing this for about four decades. From this side of the House, it feels like it has been eight decades of him speaking. To get back to the issue at hand, the Liberals seem to want to push this idea that nothing should be debated in this House and everything should go right to committee. They are pushing this again and asking us to let debate collapse. I understand the sentiment of this bill, but we have seen that the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Dakota, Treaty 5 and, from Edmonton, the Otipemisiwak Métis nation have lots of issues with this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her well-thought-out and respectful speech. We do not see that in this House as much as we need to, nor as much as the provinces or the taxpayers deserve. I have a question. I will be honest. I do not know as much about this file as perhaps others do, but I have a question that has been brought forward to me. In the Powley decision, the courts emphasized that Métis communities are diverse, with distinct histories and traditions across different regions. This treaty may risk pushing that diversity into a single narrative and elevating the Red River Métis above other authorities. I wonder if perhaps the minister can explain how this bill promotes inclusion as opposed to exclusion.”
“We heard Veterans Affairs come to the government operations committee on the CER cuts, the expenditure review cuts, where they are actually cutting veterans' access to pension help, when pension help shows that 90% of the reviews are going in favour of the veterans. The Liberals have cut this. Instead of actually helping veterans, the Liberals are cutting services to them. This motion does nothing to help Canadians or veterans or anyone in that member's riding.”
“People cannot find a doctor, and if they do have an emergency, these communities are shutting down access. Imagine the member hearing that, and what is her reaction? It is to come to the House and put through a motion to tie up the government operations committee. This is not a motion or a private member's bill to move something forward for the community. It is not one that would actually move anything forward that would help veterans. It is done to tie up an opposition-led committee. Those are the cold, hard facts. The member is part of the government. She could actually walk up to the vice-chair and ask them to do this. She is part of the government. If this was an issue, she could actually work inside her own caucus to address issues for Veterans Affairs.”
“Again, imagine this being the priority, to have OGGO do a study outside of its mandate, when members could actually just walk into any committee and drop a motion to study this. Thirty per cent of all renter households are living in housing that is officially considered unaffordable. We have a rental crisis as well. As of August 1, there are 7,900 Nova Scotians who need a family doctor. This riding is about one-twelfth of the province's population, so there are probably about 800 who are living without a family doctor in that riding, one out of every 12. Eight out of 37 ERs in the province were closed simultaneously due to staff shortages. In the member's riding, Pugwash, Parrsboro and Springhill experience frequent closures of their emergency rooms.”
“Imagine going door knocking, asking people for their vote and asking about their biggest issue, and it is not child poverty, nor the fact that there is a 50% increase in requests for help at women's shelters because of intimate partner violence. I wonder how many people actually said that they wanted OGGO to study something outside of its mandate. Honestly, does anyone think a single person in that riding actually said, “Let's do that study”? There are other issues. Amherst business owners told Global News that they are feeling unsafe. Donna Gogan, the owner of a restaurant next door to a crime scene where someone was shot, said, “I wish I could say I’m shocked. I’m not shocked. I expected something like this to happen over the last year or so”. Crime is up so high. Violent crime is 50% above the national standard.”
“There is a $1.6-billion loss from the operations of Canada Post. A lot of those losses could have been dealt with if the government had actually listened to or followed committee recommendations. However, it is not forced to. The green book says, “A motion is a proposal moved by one member in accordance with well-established rules that the House do something”. They could have simply come to OGGO and moved a motion. Now what could the Liberal member have brought in instead? Her riding of Cumberland—Colchester has a child poverty rate of 25.5%. Imagine going door knocking in that community for an election, where there is a 25% child poverty rate. The Amherst women's shelter had a 50% increase in requests for beds in December 2025 compared to the previous year.”
“Again, if any member wants to bring in a motion, they just have to show up any Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. or any Thursday at 11 a.m. and simply table a motion. There is no need to waste hours in the House for a motion to study something that is not actually binding on the government. (1805) I will give an example. Just last month, in the government operations and estimates committee, a majority voted and agreed that the government extend the term of the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, what we saw today was that the Liberals actually voted in their own candidate. There is no imperative on the government to actually listen to a committee study. The Canada Post recommendations that the government operations committee tabled were ignored, and what did we hear today?”
“Again, instead of actually working to help veterans, this is “Will you please recognize the Liberal government and tell us how great we are”. It is a false thing. The motion goes on to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, “to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands...in ways to help reinvigorate communities by serving as centres that provide services for veterans.” Unfortunately, the problem is that the final line makes it outside the operations committee's mandate. We do not have a mandate to reinvigorate communities or provide suggestions on reinvigorating communities. Perhaps HUMA does or perhaps Veterans Affairs does, but it is outside OGGO's mandate.”
“The general sentiment, I think, of the PMB is to convert government offices to use for veterans, but it starts off by asking that the House not actually do that but recognize the great job the Liberal government is doing with its spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. It starts off not talking about help for veterans, but asking that the House recognize “that the government is making historic investments in the Armed Forces to meet our NATO funding targets”. It does not mention, by the way, that $5 billion is actually re-profiled out of pensions and another $2.5 billion is merely re-profiling the civilian Coast Guard as defence. This is the same civilian Coast Guard that the chief of the Coast Guard says there is no plan to arm.”
“What is ridiculous about it is that any MP from a recognized party can show up at that meeting, and in this case it is the operations committee I have sat on for 10 years, and just table a motion for us to study it. Currently, with the makeup of the operations committee, we all generally agree to look at different things, and we will pass them together. I think the last three studies we have done were passed unanimously among the parties, which worked collaboratively. The member could have just simply showed up at OGGO and tabled the motion, and we could have worked it out and done it instead of using up an important item like a PMB.”
“Out of the ballpark 310 left, usually, depending on the length of the Parliament, whether it is two years like the 2019 one or a bit longer, maybe the top 40 names or 60 names drawn will actually get to be heard in the House. It is pretty rare and it is a great opportunity for an MP to bring through a private member's bill. We saw the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola bring in one to address intimate partner violence, which was an excellent PMB. I had an opportunity in the first Parliament I was here, in 2015, to bring in a private member's bill to eliminate discriminatory taxing of seniors by eliminating the mandatory RRIF withdrawals, which unfortunately the Liberals voted against. It is shocking to see someone come to the House, with a rare opportunity to get a PMB heard, just to basically ask a committee to do a study.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 16. I do not support this motion, and I oppose it in so many different ways I am not even sure I can get through it all in the 10 minutes allotted to me. First of all, this is one of the worst do-nothing private members' bills or motions I have dealt with in 10 and a half years. Possibly the worst, of course, was from the former member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, who used up two PMB slots just to change the name of her riding. Members will know that after every election, the parties all agree under unanimous consent to change the names of the ridings then. This member used up two slots just to change the name of a riding. For those wondering, not every member of Parliament gets an opportunity to table a private member's motion or bill. There is a draw out of the 343 of us, minus the 30 or 40 so in cabinet.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of great points. The Liberal government, in a program running until next year, is giving $4 million to Cornell University in the United States. It is a private university that charges $95,000 Canadian per year for tuition. Why does my colleague think the Liberal government is funding private universities in the U.S. while, at the same time, depriving Canadians of funding to attend career colleges in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, in February we saw the loss of 46,000 jobs in Canada among youth. Canada has the lowest workforce participation for youth since 1998. Now we see the government stepping in and cutting funding for youth to access programs at vocational colleges and career colleges. At the same time, the government seems to be implying that it is all about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's vote, which is going to be delayed by a whole two hours today. Why does my colleague think that, despite all of these horrific tragedies happening with respect to the youth job market, the Liberals are trying to deflect with respect to a vote being delayed three hours instead of focusing on youth?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the bill and what the government is trying to accomplish, but there are a lot of concerns from Canadians about, perhaps, overreach by the government and about privacy. I brought this up previously. There is a provision in the bill for parliamentary review after three years. We have an Order Paper question that just came back a couple of months ago that shows the government is behind on 106 legislative reviews. I have mentioned some of them. It appears the government is not actually performing the legislative reviews. I am wondering if my colleague opposite can advise the House and Canadians on what would be done to ensure that this review would be done within the three years, as would be mandated.”