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 8 of 8.
“I wonder if my colleague thinks that, perhaps, instead of adding more debt, the Liberals should cut back the billions they are giving to their friends at McKinsey and other management consulting companies.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her excellent speech and especially for her advocacy for seniors. I introduced a private members' bill in the 42nd Parliament to eliminate the mandatory RRIF withdrawals entirely. It would help seniors. I want to note that every single member of the Liberal Party voted against that and actually voted against affordability for seniors. To get back to the bill, one of the failures of Bill C-2 is that every penny of these tax cuts is coming from borrowed money. The Conservative plan was costed; we were going to reduce reliance on Liberal-friendly consulting companies instead of packing on the debt.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent, well-thought-out speech. One of the issues of this so-called significant tax cut, as we constantly hear the member for Winnipeg North call it, is that it only provides $271 this year, according to the Liberals' own numbers from their campaign platform. That is less than one dollar a day. However, according to Dalhousie University, the average family will be spending over $600 more on food this year. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the so-called significant tax cut when the Liberals will not even cover half of the increase in food costs this year for the average family.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's usual well-researched speech. The platform that the Liberals announced during the election shows that the tax cut would cost the government about $5 billion a year in lost revenue, yet at the same time they have massively increased, by a larger amount, the amount of money they are going to give out to their friends at McKinsey, GC Strategies and other high-priced Liberal-connected consulting firms. I wonder if my colleague could tell us what he thinks of the Liberal priority of giving taxpayer money to the McKinseys of the world and not to the average Canadian family.”
“I was just wondering if the member opposite would work with her government to bring in some measures to help those people who had the misfortune of, perhaps, signing the deal one day before the Liberals actually tabled the motion, therefore being forced to pay the GST.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. It is not a partisan question. It is actually an issue that is affecting a lot of constituents. When the ways and means motion was introduced, it was effective immediately that day. If one had purchased, or had agreed to purchase, a newly built house the day before, even if they were not to be taking possession for a year or two from then, and paying the GST then, they would be cut off. They would still be forced to pay the GST, even though we missed it by one day and even though we would not be purchasing or even building the house for a year or so.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from a neighbouring community gave a wonderful speech. The Liberals constantly talk about their great middle-class tax cut, which works out to barely $1.50 a day. In the recent main estimates, we saw the Liberals put in an extra $26 billion for high-priced consultants, such as those at McKinsey, GC Strategies and any other of the myriad of those connected to the Liberal Party. That works out to about $1,400 per household, but their middle-class tax cut would barely be $800 per household. Could my colleague explain why the Liberals placed a higher priority on paying out taxpayers' money to their connected friends at McKinsey and GC Strategies and other management consultants than on looking after Canadian families?”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have gone through this before in the House. In a previous debate I had with the member opposite, I stated the exact same thing: It is either that the numbers are lying in the public accounts, or the member is purposely misleading the House. I was told by the Chair that I could not say that because it implied the member was lying. He is using the exact same excuse to infer that we are lying. We ask that he withdraw—”
“Madam Speaker, I want to correct the previous speaker, the member for Richmond East—Steveston . If we look at the public accounts and the Treasury Board's own numbers, they show that in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Liberal government slashed the amount of full-time equivalents at the CBSA. It was not until 2019 that the numbers actually came back to the Harper-era level. I wonder if my colleague could comment on how the Liberals, instead of actioning all these issues that are in front of the country right now, just want to stand in the House and gaslight and mislead Canadians.”
“I wonder if my colleague across the way would commit, to the House, to talk to the minister to ensure that the RCMP officers are provided with the heavy body armour they require.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very happy that someone brought up the issue of the casualty report. One of the items, specifically, was a lack of heavy body armour. We had an Order Paper question come back just recently, about a year ago, which was 10 years after the mass casualty issue, where the government has still not provided heavy body armour to the RCMP. The government is repeatedly saying that it is going to add 1,000 RCMP officers, but there is no commitment to provide the heavy body armour, even for the existing ones. The government has not provided the heavy body armour to existing, much less additional, ones. In fact, it does not even know how much heavy body armour is available, because it has to put out an RFP, apparently, to hire a consultant to count how many items it has for the heavy body armour.”
“I wonder if my colleague could answer this: Why does she think the government is pushing a false narrative instead of answering important questions today on this debate about the border bill?”
“Madam Speaker, before I give my question, I want to put something to rest, I hope once and for all. We have heard the member for Winnipeg North and others repeat the same false narrative about everything being okay that they have not done in the last 10 years because of Harper's cuts. I would like him, the Liberals and everyone in this House to take a look at the public accounts. These are non-partisan numbers put forward by the government. These are real numbers on spending. Adjusted for Liberal inflation, the Liberals are actually spending $200 million less on CBSA than when they took over, so the government should actually end that false narrative, stop misinforming Canadians and actually start spouting the truth about what is going on at the border.”
“Why would Canadians believe the government is actually going to do something when its own plans and papers for five or six years have been saying it is going to do something but it has done nothing?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to pass on my compliments for your appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker. It is wonderful to see you in the chair. I cannot speak without referencing the departmental plans. If I look back as far as 2019, when Ralph Goodale was in this place, and the plans from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, every single one of them mentions cracking down on fentanyl. One of them, from about four years ago, actually talks about bringing in legislation to ban precursors. Since the 2019 departmental plan came out, 41,000 Canadians have died from the fentanyl scourge, yet every year we hear the same thing: “We're going to do something, we're going to do something, we're going to do something.” However, nothing has been done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I realize the Prime Minister is new here, but all those things would be in a budget if he would table one. This year alone, the government is going to spend a staggering $26 billion on high-priced Liberal-friendly consultants, an eye-watering $1,400 for every Canadian family. It will present no budget, no departmental plans and zero transparency. It will not even stand in this House and tell Canadians what the deficit will be this year. Will the Liberals come clean and table a spring budget as this House has demanded?”
“Mr. Speaker, with $73 billion spent while Parliament was shut down by the government and a spending package of half a trillion dollars, with a record $26 billion for Liberal-friendly consultants like McKinsey and no oversight or scrutiny from Parliament, this House has had enough. Last night, the House passed our Conservative motion calling on the Prime Minister to table a spring budget. Will he respect the will of Parliament and table a budget immediately so Canadians and this Parliament can have the transparency we deserve?”
“Is this, as the government calls it, “Building Canada Strong”, or is it just building another empty PR program for this tired and stale government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the Speech from the Throne, and it highlights several areas that talk about creating an energy superpower by removing barriers, yet the government refuses to eliminate the job-killing Bill C-69 or the production cap. It talks about homes, yet the housing minister says housing prices should not fall. It talks about building “a safer and more secure Canada”, but for 10 years the government has done nothing about the fentanyl crisis. It talks about hiring 1,000 RCMP officers, but for a decade the government has refused to buy heavy body armour for the RCMP. It goes on to talk about cost issues, but the government went ahead and handed over $26 billion to friends like McKinsey.”
“Is that their plan here, and if not, how are they going to find money for all the added defence spending the government has planned?”
“Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me be the very first to congratulate you on your new role. I note for everyone that the current Deputy Speaker used to sit beside me in the House, and I think he went out of his way to become the Deputy Speaker just so that he would not have to sit with me anymore. I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him on winning and on his maiden speech. Yesterday, at CANSEC, which is basically the defence contractors conference, the Minister of Defence spoke glowingly about the need to find money to spend on defence. This is wonderful, but he gave an example of another country that cut 22% of its public service; he spoke glowingly of another country that eliminated national holidays. Could my colleague comment on the Minister of Defence's comments?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your new role. I hope you will succeed in bringing integrity and decorum back to the position. I want to read for my colleague a heading in the throne speech from the government: “Building Canada Strong by spending less and investing more”. The government tabled the estimates yesterday with a 30% increase in spending for management consultants, giving an extra $6 billion over last year, which was a record year, for Liberal friends at McKinsey and scoundrels such as those at GC Strategies. I am wondering whether my colleague considers spending $6 billion more, $2,400 per household in Canada, as actually spending less.”