Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. My colleague before me lamented the fact that he had to speak twice on this. I will add to the lament, as this is my third time rising, because the government is not listening to ordinary Canadians as they are represented in this chamber. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of 40 extraordinary Canadians, for that is truly what ordinary Canadians are, for bringing the peace train to Ottawa two nights ago. MPs from a cross-section of this chamber, representing a cross-section of philosophical paths to peace, from our military veterans and peacekeepers to our peaceniks, all agreed on the message represented by the peace train participants: that Canada should do more for peace in our world. It has been said many times that war is a failure of statecraft. We thank these folks for reminding us to invest more, in many ways, for peace. Speaking of state and government failures, here we are again because the current government is ruling like an autocratic regime rather than a parliamentary democracy. Of course I am referring to the green slush fund and the Liberal refusal to hand over documents as ordered. The government is not being accountable on any front. Today we are talking about the subamendment that is to be added to the amendment, and it reads as follows: ...except that the order for the committee to report back to the House within 30 sitting days shall be discharged if the Speaker has sooner laid upon the table a notice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that all government institutions have fully complied with the Order adopted on June 10, 2024,— That is my birthday. —by depositing all of their responsive records in an unredacted form. In other words, the government does not have to report back to the House if it actually complies with the ruling of the Speaker's office. At issue, of course, is the Auditor General's finding that the Liberal appointees gave 400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. This is about 400 million wasted taxpayer dollars while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. The NDP-Liberals must end the cover-up and make the unredacted documents available, as ordered by the Speaker, so Parliament can get back to working for Canadians. Let us review a few of the facts. The Speaker ruled that the NDP-Liberals violated a House order to turn over evidence to the police for a criminal investigation of the latest Liberal $400-million scandal, but why the cover-up? Why would they allow Parliament to be incapacitated rather than address the issues that Canadians really and truly care about, like the doubling of housing costs, food inflation, crime and chaos? On the crime front, the government has made a mockery of our justice system. Terri-Lynne McClintic, who abducted, and then assisted her boyfriend in the sexually motivated killing of, eight-year-old Tori Stafford in 2009 was allowed to be in the presence of children through a mother-child program at a women's federal penitentiary. It is hard to even fathom. Where is the accountability? I spoke so much about accountability in my previous two interventions. Time after time, the government has revictimized victims, just as it did when it allowed Paul Bernardo to be moved out of a maximum-security facility. The government created the problem by passing Bill C-83, which ensures that even the worst of the worst, like Paul Bernardo, Luka Magnotta and Terri-Lynne McClintic, must be incarcerated in the least restrictive environment. The Prime Minister has unleashed a wave of crime across the country with disastrous policies like Bill C-5, which took away mandatory jail for violent crime and allowed sex offenders to serve their sentences in the same home as their victims, under house arrest. Bill C-75 also made it easier for repeat violent offenders to be given bail. While the Liberals are concerned about heinous criminals being given a less restrictive environment, Canadians suffer the consequences of unrestricted crime and chaos. Again, the victims of crime are revictimized. The government must be held to account for its failures. It has allowed Parliament to be paralyzed by its refusal to be transparent about the SDTC documents. Its own self-interest supersedes all other issues in their minds. Refusing to hand over the documents is an affront to Parliament. What is so bad that the government would go to such lengths to hide it? Why would the government not instead focus on the food inflation it has caused? Food bank use has doubled. Wholesale food prices in Canada have risen 36% faster than wholesale food prices in the U.S., a gap that has opened up since the introduction of the carbon tax. Sadly, now there are two million people lined up to feed themselves and their families at food banks. Our economy is teetering on the brink, but the worst is yet to come. The coalition government voted for and legislated the quadrupling of the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. In Ontario alone, Feed Ontario revealed last September, a record one million people visited a food bank in 2024. This is a dramatic increase of the 25% from the previous year, with Feed Ontario's CEO telling the media, “I never thought I would see this day”. She went on to say that she had been with the organization for almost 15 years and never thought it would see this level of demand. She cannot believe it has reached a point where the numbers are so dramatically high. However, the Liberals seem oblivious to the suffering. In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament is supreme. If a citizen finds a certain law repugnant, their only option is to mobilize a change in Parliament, for example by campaigning in favour of a certain issue, by joining a political party or by standing for office, such that Parliament changes that law. Citizens who disagree with the law of this land and believe that their rights have been violated can push for political change. The rule of law is crucial in a democracy because it ensures that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law. Key points about the rule of law in a democracy include equality before the law regardless of social status, checks on power, and holding the government accountable, which is a fundamental point in the rule of law. Other key points are the protection of rights; social sustainability, where citizens trust the law will be applied fairly; and economic development. A strong rule of law fosters a predictable business environment, encouraging investment and economic growth. It is evident that the government believes that it is above the law and above the sovereignty of the chamber. Holding leaders accountable for serious wrongdoings is a hallmark of democracy. That is why we are here today. Again I ask, where are the documents? What is in them that is making the Liberals so afraid of the Canadian public's finding out? To the matter at hand, let us talk for a moment about what the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund could have done with respect to research and innovation, and in particular, for a moment, with the energy sector. If colleagues would please indulge me, I will come back to the direct issue of the corruption at hand in a moment. I have often talked about this next sequence in round tables at town halls that I host. If we think back to the creation, development and increase of wealth in our western world, it has largely mirrored the increase and the densification of our energy. When we came out of the caves, we kept ourselves warm and heated our food with wood. Over time we moved to charcoal and coal and on to fossil fuels. Today we have nuclear energy. Potentially tomorrow we will have hydrogen. Each one of these sources of energy has come with its own set of environmental consequences. As we have moved to a new path to that densification of energy, we have found ways of reducing and eventually removing, hopefully, environmental consequences. There is a question I often ask when I am hosting round tables. We often hear the opposition speak of fossil fuels, their use and a hope for the day of peak oil. Here is my question: When did the world achieve peak coal? I do not mean the metallurgical coal we need for steelmaking. When did the world hit peak use of thermal coal? I often ask this question at home, and I get responses from my constituents. Some say it was probably during the 1870s, during the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it was in the roaring twenties in the lead-up to the great crash, or more recently, after the green revolution of the 1970s. However, our world hit peak coal, the record use of fossil fuels in the form of coal, in 2023, and we are going to break that record this year. Why is that important? Coal has twice the greenhouse gas emissions of liquefied natural gas. If Canada truly wanted to address greenhouse gas emissions that had a material effect on the world, we would be championing the sale and use of our clean and ethically produced liquid natural gas. We had 15 projects on the books 10 years ago. That is not what the government has done. We have had the world come asking for that energy. Instead, the government has introduced a carbon tax, and while it might make someone feel good by patting themselves on the back that they are doing something, Canada produces 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Weather and climate are a worldwide phenomenon. If we wanted to impact greenhouse gas emissions on a worldwide scale, we could. A carbon tax is not going to do it. We could, not as an end goal a century out but as an interim step, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a material perspective and fund our own wealth as we transition our economy over to even more environmentally benign technologies. That is what we could be doing. There was a fund set up to direct energy, investment and innovation in that direction. The Auditor General took a look at it back in 2017 and that fund was working well then. However, here we are today. I will end in a few minutes after already speaking for an hour to the corruption that has come from the government, but I will note that if we wanted to do something, that is where the fund could truly be making a difference. Instead, we are here talking about corruption. I have spoken at great length in the House about the lack of accountability and about the endemic corruption of the government. There was a lack of accountability by the former employment minister. After months of Conservative prosecution, he finally resigned. There have been allegations of fraud, of being involved in a private business while sitting at the cabinet table and of fake indigenous claims, and they were not enough to remove him from cabinet for months. Why is this behaviour seemingly endemic in the government? Earlier this week, the Prime Minister defended the former minister and claimed, “I'm happy that he is continuing to lead on issues around jobs and employment and represent Alberta in our government.” It is now clear that the Prime Minister knew about the crime and corruption the other Randy was engaged in the entire time. That was not enough to remove him. He knew about the double identity but chose to look the other way. The Prime Minister knew that the member for Edmonton Centre was operating his own business while sitting at the cabinet table. Members may remember that the former minister had the nerve to testify that the Randy referenced in texts was not him but another Randy who just happened to work at the company he has a 50% ownership stake in. His business partner has refuted these claims, stating now that he was the only Randy who worked at that company. I guess he thought if the Prime Minister was backing him, he could get away with it. After all, the Liberals have gotten away with a litany of scandals over their rocky nine-year tenure in government. The Prime Minister knew he was falsely claiming to be indigenous to steal money from indigenous people. After firing a legitimate indigenous justice minister for upholding the rule of law in Canada against his wishes, the Prime Minister decided to protect a corrupt, fake indigenous minister. There is a double standard when it comes to the Liberals: They expect the rest of us to be responsible for our actions, but they are not accountable for theirs. Everything from Frank Baylis and the $273-million scandal to the former minister Navdeep Bains getting an executive position at Rogers after the government green-lit the Rogers-Shaw merger. It is unconscionable. Every member of the House of Commons swears an oath to uphold the democratic institution of Parliament. Parliament is the foundation our nation was founded upon; it is a firm and solid base. As we come here to work every day, we are witnessing the rebuilding of Centre Block. The government is spending between $4.5 billion and $5 billion in part to provide a firm and solid foundation under that national treasure. There is an old hymn whose refrain goes like this: On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand.... When we build a home, the foundation is arguably the most important part. Without a firm foundation, Centre Block would not be secure. Our security in a democracy is the firm foundation that our country was built upon. It provides the stability upon which we stand. When a democratic government rules as if it were a dictatorship, the supremacy and the stability of Parliament is lost. Freedom is not free. Over 118,000 Canadians have died in military service for our country to keep this “land glorious and free”, a predominant line in our national anthem. It is time the government adhere to the principle of the rule of law in Canada. The fundamental principle of the rule of law means that everyone is subject to the same laws and no one is above the law. The rule of law is based on the idea that laws should be applied fairly and equally to all people, regardless of their power, wealth or societal position. It is time to restore accountability and democratic freedom in Canada. Conservatives will continue to hold this government accountable and demand that the documents be released in an unredacted form. When will the government call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can vote out this out-of-control, corrupt government and vote in a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home lower prices for all Canadians? For our home; for your home, Mr. Speaker; and for my home, let us bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways I could go in response. Let us start with trees. The government has addressed climate change by planting two billion trees. I would ask every member with a phone here to go to Google and ask, “How many trees does Canada have?” The government's plan to address climate change was to plant two billion trees. It is nowhere close to that, but it wants to add two billion to Canada's present 318 billion trees. It is not there yet.

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada does need to build an awful lot of housing. We have our own ideas about that as well. However, the topic of discussion today is actually the sustainability development fund. If the member was listening to my speech, he heard that this is where we could be investing and making our processes more efficient to provide fuels to the world in a way that actually addresses the climate and addresses greenhouse gas emissions. Now, this would not be forever. That is actually a practical, common-sense approach that would enrich Canada rather than bankrupting it while being able to fund the transition to even greener fuels. Instead we have a tax. That is the plan, and that is the plan the Conservatives say no to; we will axe the tax, and we will fund sustainable technologies in the future.

Mr. Speaker, there are several things I do support. I have spent time in food security, and I support food security for Canadians and indeed for all peoples of the world. I am trying to remember what the other question was. I support my colleagues who have done great work with the indigenous files as well, and the next government will actually have bold and innovative plans to deal with reconciliation with our first nations.

Mr. Speaker, yes, there were 186. I think the fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, once all of the documents have been provided. I have been fortunate in my life to be part of several different organizations. What really, truly, is a fact, is that the culture of an organization often comes from the leadership shown at the top. There are 186 conflicts of interest here. I did not have time today, and I even cut about four pages out of my speech, but I did do two previous interventions when I began to list the litany of conflicts and corruptions from the government in the past. Why is this? It is almost like Canadians have become immune to Liberal corruption. I think that we will find out that they are not immune when we do finally get to an election. What I wanted to say is that the example gets set at the top. The Prime Minister is the first prime minister who has been convicted twice for ethics violations. Is that what is causing the almost permissive ability for his ministers to go, one after another, to commit the same kinds of acts?

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about coal, we have to be very careful about whether we are talking about metallurgical coal or thermal coal. They are two different entities. Metallurgical coal goes into the production of steel. We need steel. Ideally, we would be making more Canadian steel. As I said in my speech, the progression of technologies through the densification of energy and their resultant lesser, more benign environmental effects are things this party does and will always support.

Madam Speaker, Sun Qian has been imprisoned by the People's Republic of China. She is a practitioner of Falun Gong, which is the traditional Chinese spiritual discipline of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. Tens of thousands of such practitioners have been imprisoned, and Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has sponsored and been behind the petition of 1.5 million folks in 50 countries bringing this to the attention of their governments. Petitioners are looking for a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systemically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring to the House the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, in particular those of your sister-in-law and your brother, whom I thank for his service to our country and to our community. Recently I spoke to the amended privilege motion regarding the SDTC scandal, or as it is better known as now, the green slush fund. Today we are speaking to the subamendment to the amendment, from the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, which was seconded by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I will read it into the record: That the amendment be amended by adding, after subparagraph (a)(ii), the following: “(iii) the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,...” The name is being added to the list of witnesses to be called. The subamendment goes on to state, “‘who respected the order of the House and deposited unredacted documents,’”. Then there is another new part: “‘(iv) Paul MacKinnon, the former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance),’”. We want to add the mentioned individuals to the list provided in the original amendment, and we want them called to testify before the PROC committee. First, however, we are here, and we need the government to respect the first ruling of the Speaker of the House to provide all of the documents unredacted, period. We will be here in the chamber until that is accomplished. In my first intervention in speaking to the amendment, I described the government's plethora of scandals. It is a list, a plethora or an amount; pick any word to describe the scandals.

Mr. Speaker, “cornucopia” is another good one. I asked where the accountability is. Indeed, the witnesses should be compelled to come before the committee to provide Canadians with the documents and the answers they seek. Since my first intervention, I have not gotten a satisfactory response to the question I asked: Where is the accountability? I will therefore continue along in the similar line of questioning. In the case of the green slush fund, $400 million was paid out to Liberal insiders. The bigger mind-boggling number to me is that it was through 186 cases of conflicts of interest, a number that came from a sampling by the Auditor General. I wonder how many Canadian families could be fed with $400 million. It is hard to wrap one's head around a number so big, and around so much corruption. According to another member's intervention in this place, $400 million is equivalent to the annual tax filings of 22,000 Canadian families, all to go to fund Liberal insider corruption. According to a recent RBC study, the average Canadian family of four now spends $1,227 a month on food, just under $15,000 a year. The math would suggest that $400 million would feed over 27,000 families per year, which is about 108,843 Canadians. Please do not misunderstand me. The role of government is to create the fiscal and societal climate where powerful paycheques allow Canadians to feed themselves; it should not have to be the role of government to directly feed Canadians. Members get my point. I am trying to make the big numbers, which are so hard for many of us to wrap our heads around, relatable in order to indicate exactly the size of the issue we are dealing with and the amount of the gross misuse of taxpayer money. It is simply not acceptable. Where is the accountability? In speaking for 20 minutes two weeks ago, I did not have enough time to go through the full list of scandals, corruptions and conflicts of interest. I will continue in that vein today. I did comment last time on the Prime Minister's removal of the only indigenous woman ever to serve as a justice minister and Attorney General for Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould. She was removed because she would not be pressured by him to thwart the rule of law in Canada to help the PM's friends at SNC-Lavalin. The former minister lost her job because she stood up for what her oath of office required her to do. She was accountable, which is the principle that everyone is subject to the law, regardless of their relationship with the Prime Minister of Canada. I also spoke about one of several Bill Morneau scandals, including Bill C-27. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares increased dramatically. Coincidentally, Minister Morneau held 21 million dollars' worth of shares. I also mentioned the David Lametti scandal, yet another case of Liberal disregard for the rule of law in Canada. The former attorney general cancelled the verdict of first-degree murder against Jacques Delisle, a former judge, even though all the legal experts were against this decision. Who can forget the then minister of public works, whose husband sat on LifeLabs board as a director while the company was awarded COVID testing contracts totalling $68.2 million? What is the value of that in today's groceries? It could feed 18,470 plus people. Again I ask, where is the accountability? I mentioned Scott Brison's attempt to benefit from his and his husband's ties to Irving Shipbuilding by trying to block a shipyard contract in favour of Irving away from Davie. In the process, the Liberals and Mr. Brison tried to frame multi-decorated Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and charge him with breach of trust. He was exonerated of all those charges, but not before his military career was destroyed. The whole sordid affair was unconscionable. Where is the accountability? Former minister Navdeep Bains was also mentioned in my previous speech with his telecom windfall. As the former minister of innovation, science and industry, he pledged to deliver government support and that they would demand the big three telecoms, which are Bell, Rogers and Telus, to lower their prices by 25%. Now, Mr. Bains sits as the chief corporate affairs officer at Rogers and is receiving a six-figure salary. Again, there is no accountability, and for Canadians, there are higher cell phone bills. In many cases, Canadians' mobile data plans cost 200 times more than the cheapest ones in other countries, according to a recent Toronto Star report. I do not know about other members' cell phone bills, but mine has not gone down. Of course, no scandal chronicle would be complete without mention of the WE Charity scandal and the Trudeau family bonanza paydays totalling $482,000. Doing the math, that amount would buy 128 Canadians groceries for a year. I guess that is okay because I am sure Margaret, Sacha and Sophie needed the money for groceries. I would have been negligent in my previous intervention if I had not touched upon the notorious arrive scam and GC Strategies incident. That was the Liberal-friendly company that charged $60 million for an app that could have cost $80,000. Again, there is not much accountability. If my calculator is correct, that would be the equivalent of groceries for 16,300 Canadians for an entire year. What about the Prime Minister's Christmas vacation on the Aga Khan's island and the subsequent $50 million of federal funding that flowed to that foundation, which is what it has received since 2016? The Prime Minister also invited a convicted terrorist, Jaspal Atwal to dinner when he was in India with his family, and he ensured the feast was prepared by his own celebrity chef, who was flown in from Vancouver. He embarrassingly played Mr. Dressup with an insensitive overuse of Indian clothing. That scandal cost Canadians another $1.66 million, or the equivalent of the annual food bill for 451 Canadians. There was no accountability for that fiasco. Once again, Canadians were left embarrassed and angry, or perhaps hangry. The Ethics Commissioner found that the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development also broke ethics rules when she doled out just under $17,000 in a contract to a friend. That is about one family's worth of annual groceries. I am sure we all know of families that could use that money. Now on to the scandals that I did not get to last time. I did not have time to describe the Julie Payette fiasco. The Prime Minister ignored the independent process put in place by the previous government to vet potential Governors General, as he thought he was smarter and could do it better himself. He picked his own. We know how that turned out, which was a disgrace to both the Governor General's staff and to the institution. What about the Minister of National Defence's interference in the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy? He pressured RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to publicly release information about the specific firearms used in the shooting in order to advance the federal government's misguided gun control legislation. These are ones I did not get to last time. I am just getting to them now. That is not to mention, following the resignation of the then ethics commissioner Mario Dion, due to overwork, I believe, the Liberal government decided to appoint Martine Richard, the sister-in-law of the current public safety minister, to replace him. Does this sound like nepotism to anyone? Again, where is the accountability? Under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the sponsorship scandal may have been the spark that ignited the grand-scale Liberal penchant for lining their own pockets and those of their friends. Unfortunately, it was not the last. The Liberals and their buddies have discovered that their corruption is inflation-proof when it comes to padding their own personal fortunes. Therefore, here we are today. After the documents for the SDTC scandal, the green slush fund, are finally handed over, Conservatives will raise concerns over the member from Edmonton Centre's company receiving over $120 million in government grants and contracts, including when he was minister. Although the minister has denied any wrongdoing, he went so far as to say text messages referring to a “Randy” uncovered during the committee hearing last summer, was not him, but, indeed, “another Randy”. The evidence tells a different story. New text messages indicate that the member in question was in cabinet at the time and, at one point, the texts between the business partner and his client referred to a “Randy” being in Vancouver on September 6, 2022. We know that the member for Edmonton Centre was attending the Liberal government's cabinet retreat in the same city. Furthermore, Global News reported that the minister's former business partner was texting a “Randy” about deals involving a half-million dollar payment. Subsequently, that same business partner admitted that he had lied to Global News about the identity of the “other Randy”, confirming that it was, indeed, the member for Edmonton Centre who he was referring to in those now infamous text messages. However, the minister had the audacity to testify that the “Randy” referenced in those texts is not him, but another Randy, who just happened to work at the company he had a 50% ownership stake in. At the committee hearing, his business partner did come clean and testified that, indeed, there is only one Randy who ever worked at the company, and it was the minister himself. I guess he thought better than to stand by his original statement when he learned that section 132 of the Criminal Code of Canada states, “Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Where is the accountability for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages? Where is the ministerial accountability? Where is ministerial integrity? Who can forget the Frank Baylis scandal? Frank Baylis left politics after only one term as an MP and was part of a consortium of companies that received $237 million to provide 10,000 ventilators in the spring of 2020. It sounds eerily similar to the situation of Navdeep Bains. When will Canadians find accountability restored again in their government? I can tell members: It will be when they elect a common-sense Conservative government. That is when. Now questions are arising about whether taxpayers are going to be funding one of the companies that Mark Carney works for days after he was announced as an adviser to the Prime Minister. As a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, on paper, he seems to be the perfect fit as a financial adviser to the PM. Unfortunately, it appears that he is cut from the same cloth when it comes to financial ethics, or lack thereof. What should come as no surprise, a potential conflict of interest has come in for Mr. Carney and his company, Brookfield, which could involve billions of taxpayer dollars. I am moving on from millions of dollars now to talk about billions of taxpayer dollars. The Globe and Mail reported that the proposal floating around Bay Street and the halls of Parliament would see Brookfield Asset Management create a $50-billion investment vehicle, with $10 billion of that to be paid for by Canadian taxpayers, and members guessed it, Mark Carney is the chair of the board for Brookfield. He holds the title head of transition investing at Brookfield. How much is $10 billion? How do we wrap our heads around understanding how much $10 billion is? It is the equivalent of 689,163 Canadian families' groceries for a year. Even that is a number too big, and I cannot fully fathom how it would impact Canadians if this were to come about. It is simply unacceptable that carbon tax Carney has been given the power by the Prime Minister to offer him advice on a company in which he holds $1 million in stock options. Why is there no conflict of interest screen being applied? If the Prime Minister were to grant Brookfield's request, does that not beg the question of how much money Mark Carney would stand to personally profit. The Financial Post reported that Brookfield immediately began lobbying the government for this money after the Deputy Prime Minister created a task force in last spring's budget to redirect Canadian pension fund investments. This was of course led by the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz. What we do not know is if Mark Carney personally put efforts into pushing this through, as he refused to register as a lobbyist. The Prime Minister protected carbon tax Carney by appointing him to a position in which he does not have to declare his conflicts of interest. Every day, more and new questions emerge. As mentioned last September, Carney's close friend, who serves as the CEO of Telesat, Daniel Goldberg, received $2.1 billion in taxpayer loans to build a broadband network that other firms could have delivered at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers. Despite Carney's glaring conflict of interest, both the NDP and the Liberals decided to protect him from answering questions at the House of Commons committee. I ask my colleagues down the way why it is that NDP members have sold their souls to their Liberal partners and then ripped up the deal, and now they are saying they will sell them on a case-by-case basis. have they been caught protecting their own again? I do not know. Why can we not have transparency? The injustice never ends. The only way it would end would be after the next election, when Canadians would be able to take back their paycheques from the corrupt government. To summarize, I have spoken to about 17 scandals that show the Prime Minister of Canada views the government and the government's treasury as his own personal slush fund, and that of his cabinet and their close friends, all to be used to improve their personal fortunes. The lack of accountability starts with the Prime Minister, and this disease and corruption seems to pervade this cabinet. The member for Edmonton Centre followed the lead of the Prime Minister and his colleagues by stepping up to gorge himself at the illicit Liberal banquet table. Will the real Randy please step up and take responsibility? We need change and accountability, and we need the kind of leadership that shows Canadian people that the government serves them and not the other way around. We need the kind of leadership offered by the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and a country where its citizens can both heat and eat. That government will only be found in one place, and that is with common-sense Conservatives, who presently sit on this side of the House. We will turn the Liberal hurt into the hope that Canadians need by bringing home a country where hard work pays off members' homes, my home and our homes. Let us bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, I just checked through my notes and do not recall speaking about foreign interference. I thought I was talking about generalized corruption. However, I do not mind addressing the question. Will I take on some responsibility here? Absolutely. I am going to work very hard so the Leader of Opposition becomes the Prime Minister of Canada. Then he will receive these briefings without any clearance at all. Anyone who thinks the Leader of Opposition has anything to hide should listen to his words: Release the names. That is what we are asking for. There is nothing to hide here.

Mr. Speaker, I was not here then. I am part of the proud 2019 cohort. I will head off a question from across the way. I do not need any help in the other legislation being debated that has come up in earlier interventions. I look forward to having an election now. To the question that was asked, let us put accountability back to the Canadian people. Anyone who has breached ethics, shown corruption or had a conflict of interest should be held accountable, period, end of story. I do not care where they come from in the House.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I tried to relate some of the terms in my intervention to what so many Canadians are struggling with, be they young or otherwise. What is the equivalent value in the form of groceries of the money being corrupted away? Absolutely, responsibility, especially responsibility to fiscal management of taxpayer resources, needs to come back to the House. Often in round tables at home, I say to folks I meet with who tell me of their struggles and ask for government help, governments of any stripe, be they municipal, provincial or federal, that no government has money. Governments only have the power to get money, municipally or provincially, by taxation or borrowing. The federal government can also do so by printing, which the government did, and now we are living with the consequences of that. What young Canadians and what my own children and their families are looking for is responsibility in stewarding their tax resources. I believe it was the member for Kelowna—Lake Country who said the $400 million from this corruption, to take it back to the subject before us, is equivalent to 22,000 Canadian families' tax filings. Canadians, young ones especially, are looking for accountability, responsibility and proper stewardship regarding those funds.

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced that a game is being played. Let us end the game. There are two ways to do so. Power resides on that side of the House. If the Liberals hand over the documents, the game will be ended. If they do not want to do that and are afraid of foreign interference, let us go back to Canadians. Let us have an election. We are prepared to end the game and continue the work of Canadians in this place. We are prepared to go to the people and ask for their confidence to run the affairs of this country, spend money responsibly and protect our country from foreign interference. Let us end the game. I am all for it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the party in fourth place in this Parliament. It wants to represent Canadians and says it is working for Canadians, yet it has missed so much time in this chamber. It has missed 24 shifts while we are doing this. I cannot understand why the New Democrats are propping up the government. They say they are not going to prop it up, but they prop it up and do not come to this chamber to bring the government down. I do not have an answer. I really do not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed a public spotlight on what Canadians are already feeling in their wallets. The “food professor”, Sylvain Charlebois of Dalhousie University, has forecast that inflationary pressures, including the carbon tax, on the growing, processing and transporting of food will increase the cost of wholesale food for Canadians by 34% by 2025. Food affordability is becoming out of reach for many Canadians, while our U.S. counterparts are paying 36.8% less for wholesale food. Why? Well, here could be the reason. This week, Canada's budget watchdog confirmed that the carbon tax will cost Ontario families another $903, in part due to the rising carbon tax on food. Canadian parents should not have to choose between feeding their kids a bag of chips and a veggie tray. When costs go up, time is up. When will the government axe the tax and restore Canada to a nation where healthy food is not a luxury?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to bring your sister-in-law's voice to the chamber, along with the voices of all the other constituents from Chatham-Kent—Leamington. The Speaker has made a ruling that House business must be suspended until the government hands over all documents related to the SDTC scandal to the RCMP. The Auditor General of Canada found that the Prime Minister had turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders, with $400 million paid out to them. There was a total of 186 cases of conflict of interest, an astounding number. I will be asking this more than once: Where is the accountability? The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the industry minister, who “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts given to Liberal insiders. A July article in the National Post reads: “The former chairperson of a scandal-plagued clean tech fund...was found to have ‘improperly furthered’ the interests of companies she was associated with by failing to recuse herself from the board’s funding decisions, according to the ethics commissioner’s latest report.” It goes on: ...Annette Verschuren resigned as the president of the board of directors of Sustainable Development Technology Canada...late last year when it was announced that she was the subject of an ethics investigation.... [E]thics commissioner Konrad van Finckenstein found that Verschuren “failed to comply” with some provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act.... She resigned, but the industry minister did not follow suit; he announced that he would not resign. Why was it appropriate for Ms. Verschuren to resign but inappropriate for the minister to do the same? The previous speaker, my colleague, referenced ministerial accountability. Where is it? This brings back some memories of the sponsorship scandal. Members may recall that the year was 1996 when the Liberals founded the sponsorship program to promote federalism in Quebec. Two Auditor General reports found that the Liberals, under Jean Chrétien, had overseen the spending of $250 million through the sponsorship program between 1997 and 2001. Of those funds, $100 million was redirected to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. The scandal led Canadians to vote out the Liberals for the next decade, in favour of Conservatives, who could be trusted with the public purse strings. Now history is repeating itself. As the early twentieth-century writer and philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It seems that the government has forgotten the past. Let us fast-forward to today. Here we are once again. Apparently the Liberals feel that they are “entitled to [their] entitlements”, a phrase infamously coined by former cabinet minister David Dingwall. The scandals are numerous and mounting. What I am incredulous about is that, over the past nine years, there has been no accountability from the top. Again, I reference ministerial, or even higher, accountability. The Prime Minister has thrown those who did not succumb to his will under the bus. Let us think of the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould and the Hon. Dr. Jane Philpott. However, he himself has not taken any responsibility for what is arguably the most scandal-plagued and corrupt government in recent Canadian political history. I have a laundry list of Liberal scandals to validate my point. I only have 20 minutes, but I am going to take a crack at touching upon just a few of the conflicts of interest and corruption cases here. Again, I am going to ask this: Where is the accountability? In 2020, a firm in the riding of the then minister of public services and procurement was paid $150 million for COVID-19 vaccines that were never delivered. Medicago was that firm, and it received $173 million in research money, for a total of $323 million in federal aid. Medicago was to build a vaccine factory, but that never transpired. Once again, the Liberals shut down any investigation into why taxpayers paid such an amount and received nothing in return. Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common pattern for the government. Bill Morneau is another former minister who was scandal-prone. He began his political career by violating the Elections Act, for which he was fined. He participated in a series of “department-supported events” in his official capacity as finance minister during the pre-election period for the 2019 election. This “caused the expenses related to those events to benefit the [Liberal Party of Canada]”. This is the same minister who forgot to declare that he had a villa in France. I am to address all questions through the Speaker, so Mr. Speaker, have you ever forgotten a house? Mr. Morneau also sponsored Bill C-27, which just happened to increase the value of pensions sold by the minister's company Morneau Shepell. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares jumped. Coincidentally, the Minister Morneau held 21 million dollars' worth of those shares. Conflict of interest, anyone? Again, I reiterate, where is the accountability? CBC reported that when former minister David Lametti left cabinet, many people were wondering why. We have since learned that the former attorney general cancelled a verdict of first-degree murder against Jacques Delisle, a former judge, even though all legal experts were against this decision. Mr. Lametti and the government refused to answer why he had done that, even though Delisle later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. I am not done yet. In fact, I am just getting started. The disregard and breaches of ethics kept on coming. In December 2022, the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development of Canada was found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of giving contracts to her best friend. Who can forget, of course, the case of the other Randy? Last July, the ethics committee uncovered text messages showing that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages continued to direct his company while he was minister. In another sheer coincidence, his company received nearly $120 million in government grants and contracts. Again, conflict of interest, anyone? Where is the accountability? The minister testified that the Randy referenced in these texts was not him, but another Randy who just happened to work at the company that he had a 50% ownership stake in. At the following committee hearing, his business partner testified that, really, only one Randy ever worked at this company and that was the minister. Friends and family of Liberal cabinet ministers have also inappropriately benefited from their ethical lapses. The Minister of Transport failed to report, as required under the Conflict of Interest Act, that her husband John Knowlton, a director at LifeLabs, was among several businesses awarded COVID-testing contracts, as confirmed by the health minister. Blacklock's reported that LifeLabs received COVID-testing contracts worth $66,307,424 on June 23 and a separate $1.9-million contract on August 20 when the transport minister was the minister of public works. It is another case of “nothing to see here, folks”. Conflict of interest, anyone? Where is the accountability? Who can forget Scott Brison when he was President of the Treasury Board? He was trying to block the approval for a navy supply ship that was being built at Davie shipyard in favour of the powerful Irving shipyard. He used to chair one of the investment firms as his spouse sat on the board of directors. He then worked with the government to have Vice-Admiral Norman charged with a breach of trust before Vice-Admiral Norman was exonerated of all charges in 2019. Is there no limit to the lengths to which government members will go to to enrich the lives of themselves and of their friends? I would be negligent if I failed to mention Navdeep Bains, whose name has come up in earlier interventions. He is another former Liberal cabinet minister. As minister of innovation, science and industry, he pledged that the government would demand that the big three, Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Canada and Telus Communications, would lower their prices by 25% in the next two years for cellphone plans that offer between two and six gigabytes of data. In April 2023, former minister Bains was appointed by Rogers to its executive leadership team. The hiring of Mr. Bains does raise concerns, especially in the light of the government's approval of the Rogers-Shaw merger. Did anyone on the government side of the House dare to question the blatant conflict of interest here? Where is the accountability? Of course, no Liberal scandal chronicle would be complete without mentioning the SNC-Lavalin affair and the WE Charity scandal. I have previously mentioned how former ministers Wilson-Raybould and Philpott were victims of the government's corrupt behaviour. SNC-Lavalin was more than just breaching ethics rules. The Prime Minister made a travesty of the separation of the power between his office and that of the Attorney General's office. The PM ignored the independence of the Attorney General to help his friends at SNC avoid criminal prosecution. In doing so, he orchestrated a campaign to pressure the Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to overrule the independent public prosecution. No one should be above the law, not even the Prime Minister. Another infamous scandal was, of course, the WE Charity. This time, it was the Prime Minister's family who benefited greatly. Margaret Trudeau was paid approximately $250,000 for speaking at 28 events, while the Prime Minister's brother Alexandre spoke at eight events and received about $32,000. In testimony before MPs on July 28, Marc Kielburger said Sophie Grégoire Trudeau was reimbursed more than $200,000 in expenses for appearances at WE Charity events, and the WE Charity covered $41,000 in costs for Bill Morneau and his family in 2017 for trips to Ecuador and Kenya to review the organization's humanitarian work. I would be remiss if I did not touch upon the notorious arrive scam and GC Strategies, the Liberal-friendly company that charged at least $60 million for the app, which was to have cost $80,000. To add insult to injury, 76% of the contractors did zero work on the app. Once again, the Canadian taxpayer footed the bill with zero accountability on behalf of the government. I am still not done. Unbelievably, there are more illicit Liberal practices to come. Let us talk about the Prime Minister's Christmas vacation at the Aga Khan's island and the subsequent $50 million in federal funding the Aga Khan Foundation has received since 2016 from the government. The vacation lasted until January 4, 2017, eight days in total. It was later disclosed that the government expenditures for the trip had amounted to $215,000. The Prime Minister then adopted the position that he and the Aga Khan were close friends, and the trip was of a more personal nature, even though they had not seen each other in 30 years. It is more of the “entitled to my entitlements” philosophy, I guess. The Prime Minister has a penchant for luxurious vacations. Most Canadians would agree he is justified in taking a vacation; I certainly do. However, I do not believe they would agree he should satisfy his champagne tastes on the taxpayers' dime. Although it took some persistent digging through access to information, the PMO finally admitted it was the Prime Minister and his wife who stayed in a $6,000-per-night hotel suite while attending the funeral for our sovereign Queen Elizabeth II. The stay at the Corinthia London hotel became just another shameful display of a lack of respect for average Canadians by billing them an astounding $400,000. The Prime Minister and his office were not forthcoming with these details. Witness what we are doing here today and for the past week. Again, it is an abhorrent lack of accountability. I would be remiss if I did not mention the disastrous trip to India by Canada's first family. As The Economic Times reported at the time, “Trudeau’s time in India was criticised for its lack of official business, not to mention—”

Mr. Speaker, I do so retract. As The Economic Times reported at the time, “[So-and-so's] time in India was criticised for its lack of official business, not to mention the excessive photo-ops and insensitive overuse of Indian clothing.” Canadians were once again on the hook for what appeared to be more of a lavish family vacation than a diplomatic bilateral meeting. The fiasco included having his own celebrity chef flown in from Vancouver. However, all of this pales in comparison to the Prime Minister inviting convicted terrorist Jaspal Atwal to dinner. Mr. Atwal was convicted of attempted murder in Canada in 1987 after he tried to assassinate a visiting Punjabi cabinet minister. It turned out that Atwal was a long-time Liberal supporter and activist, a former donor to the party and a former Liberal board member for the electoral district of Surrey, British Columbia. There has not been accountability for the India fiasco, and Canada was left red-faced with embarrassment and $1.66 million in debt. There are simply too many Liberal breaches of ethics violations to name them all here today. I have not touched upon the Julie Payette fiasco, nor the Minister of National Defence's interference in the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy. Members will recall that he pressured the then-police commissioner Brenda Lucki to publicly release information about specific firearms used in the shooting to advance the federal government's gun control legislation. Following the resignation of the former ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, who I believe resigned due to overwork, the Liberal government decided to appoint Martine Richard, the sister-in-law of the current public safety minister, to replace him. Again, is that not a conflict of interest to anyone? Where is the accountability? This is why common-sense Conservatives have raised this question of privilege. This is why we are here today, why we were here yesterday and the day before, and why we will be here tomorrow and in the coming weeks, if necessary. This is why we call on the government, SDTC and the Auditor General to hand over all documents, unredacted, related to the Prime Minister's green slush fund to the RCMP. The argument has been made that handing over these documents breaches the constitutional rights of individuals. It is time. The government recognizes that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals from the government, not the government from individuals. It is time for the government to come clean with Canadians. We have had enough with the cover-ups and enough with them gorging themselves, their families and their friends at the public trough. The Liberals need to hand over the documents. We want to get back to the work of the people in this chamber. It is not Conservatives obstructing this work. All it would take would be for the Prime Minister to hand over the documents. We want accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I was not complete and I acknowledge that. I forgot Frank Baylis and the respirators. My colleague mentioned carbon tax Carney. I also did not mention carbon tax Carney. I must give my hon. colleague credit. For a week, he has been responding with the same arguments that have been disproven over and over again. He mentioned former prime minister Stephen Harper and the Senate scandal, the biggest scandal, where the Conservatives got caught trying to pay back $60,000, money that ended up being appropriate, although the optics were terrible, which is why they did what they did, which was to pay back to the public treasury $60,000. The taxpayers were paid back. The rules were changed, actually, to be far more proper, but in the end it was found that it was legally taken. The optics were bad. I acknowledge that. That is the biggest scandal from the previous government. That was a small one. We were getting caught paying money back to the taxpayer. I did not take the time in my 20 minutes to add up the millions upon millions upon millions of dollars that I articulated, let alone the scandals that I did not have time to get to.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to acknowledge that we on this side of the House do want to govern. We do want to bring fiscal accountability and common sense and trust back into the stewardship of our government finances. I will take the member at his word that he also will support efforts to bring back trusted stewardship to public finances and to get to the bottom of all of these scandals. I appreciate the sentiments that he has expressed.

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, and this is going back a week or more, the Speaker's ruling was to turn over all the documents. We are here because the government has not turned over all the documents. That is the business of the House and the business of the loyal opposition. We do want justice for Canadian taxpayers. We are not directing the RCMP what to do with those documents; that is not our place. However, the Speaker, not His Majesty's loyal opposition, has ordered the handing over of all the documents. That is what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, the question is in a similar vein as the one the member's colleague asked. What the member is asking for are proper processes with proper oversight and proper accountability. Absent in the government has been any sort of government ministerial accountability. Should there be proper processes in place so funds are not misappropriated? I absolutely, fully agree with that. I can count on, on the basis of the two interventions from my Bloc friends, their supporting the next government as it puts the proper processes in place.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to crawl into the DeLorean for a moment. There have been a number of references to the sponsorship scandal as a marker or a comparator. If I recall that era, a former Liberal cabinet minister, David Dingwall, stated, “I'm entitled to my entitlements.” Is that what is going on here? Has this now been extended to government appointees, not just to cabinet ministers and prime ministers?

With regard to the awarding of the contract to CIMA+ for the site pre-engineering contract, of which one project included the bury of the transmission and distribution lines on the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) why was CIMA+ chosen to replace the original design consultant Stantec for the Gordie Howe International Bridge pre-engineering contract; (b) if CIMA+ was awarded the contract due to lower cost considerations over Stantec, what was the initial awarded contract cost, and what the final paid amounts to CIMA+; (c) were there any official memos between the Director of the Canadian Port of Entry, Joe Maghnieh, and former Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) Chairman, Dwight Duncan, regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; (d) if so, what were the details of those memos regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; (e) did the WDBA Chairman, Dwight Duncan, send any official memos to the Office of the Prime Minister over the awarding of the contract to CIMA+; (f) if so, what were the details of those memos over the awarding of the contract to CIMA+; (g) did the Office of the Prime Minister send any official memos to the Director the Canadian Port of Entry, Joe Maghnieh, regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; and (h) if so, what were the details of those memos regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract?

With regard to the failure of the Schedule 40 pipe used on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) why did the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) ignore the independent engineering evidence of Kinectrics, Geotherm and Brierley, who all confirmed that the Schedule 40 pipe was the wrong pipe specified for this project; (b) why did the WDBA accept the opinion of CIMA+ private consulting engineer firm on this issue when they were the firm who specified the use of the Schedule 40 pipe and therefore were in a conflict-of-interest to make such a determination; and (c) why did the WDBA not seek an independent opinion on the Schedule 40 pipe after its failure as CIMA+ was in a conflict of interest on the issues with the Schedule 40 pipe?

With regard to the tendering process and announcement that CIMA+ was to be awarded the pre-engineering contract for the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) were there any official memos between the Chairman, Dwight Duncan, the Chief Financial Officer, Linda Hurley, and the Chief Executive Officer, Mike Cutillo, of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority regarding the tendering process and CIMA+ being awarded the contract for the Gordie Howe International Bridge project; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of those memos regarding the tendering process and CIMA+ being awarded the contract for the Gordie Howe International Bridge project?

With regard to the delays of the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) were there any official memos sent between the Chief Communications Stakeholder Officer, Heather Grondin, the Chairman Dwight Duncan, the Chief Financial Officer, Linda Hurley, and the Chief Executive Officer, Mike Cutillo, of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority regarding the error made by CIMA+ regarding the installation and subsequent failure of the Schedule 40 pipe; and (b) if so, what are the details of those memos regarding the error made by CIMA+ regarding the installation and subsequent failure of the Schedule 40 pipe?

Madam Speaker, how many times have the Liberals falsely stated, even today, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay? I guess they figure that if they say something often enough, people will start to believe it. However, Canadians know because their pocketbooks tell them so. Conservatives have forced the end of the carbon tax cover-up, and now the public budget watchdog's report confirms that Canadian families pay nearly $2,000 more in carbon tax per year. They also know that it will cost our economy $30 billion per year in economic activity lost. When will the environment minister resign—

Madam Speaker, my colleague bookended his speech with a truism quote from Margaret Thatcher. I have been wrestling with another quote, one that comes from Napoleon Bonaparte, who said we should never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be attributed to incompetence. I wrestle with this. On the one hand, we have all of the spending scandals, the corruption and the crime that the government has inflicted upon the budgets and our economy. On the other hand, we see, through the capital gains measures it has proposed, the incompetence of that piece of legislation. Could my hon. colleague comment on whether this is competence, incompetence, conspiracy, corruption or any other C he can think of?

Mr. Speaker, in his intervention, the member referenced the spending of people's money. I understand that to the extent of present Canadian taxpayers. We can talk about the amounts, but my question is about the present federal debt of $1.255 million and the ongoing deficits. Who are the people whose money is being spent? My four children are all taxpaying citizens right now. Is he referring to my grandchildren who are not paying taxes yet? Are those the people he is referring to?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege again to rise in this place on behalf of the people of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to speak to the gutting of Bill C-234, arguably one of the most contentious amendments introduced into the House this session. Why is it so contentious? I opened my remarks as I usually do. It truly is an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of our constituents to this place. In fact, the bringing of those voices of Canadians to this place is the role that all 338 of us are supposed to do, through the process of debate, committee and voting in this chamber. Therefore, it is not a throwaway comment that I make when I begin my interventions. I am speaking with the weight of the vast majority of my constituents and of Canadians when I speak to the amendment that would restore the intent of the original Bill C-234 to exempt on-farm propane and natural gas for grain drying and for barn heating. This amendment would remove the most contentious part of the amended bill that came to us from the other place, and it reflects what Canadians want. This was a billion-dollar bill, a billion dollars' worth of carbon tax cost that was to be avoided with the passage of C-234, and this cost would be borne by our farmers and, ultimately, by consumers by 2030. The amendment brought back to this chamber by the other place, which guts the bill, would cut this relief to farmers and ultimately to consumers by $910 million, or 91% of that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is gutting. A recent Leger poll confirms that the vast majority, seven out of 10 Canadians, support this exemption for farmers using natural gas and propane, because there simply are not viable alternatives for the farmers. Let us put this in perspective. Canada contributes 1.6% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and agriculture only contributes 8% of that 1.6%, so this carbon tax is only a virtue-signalling exercise that drives up the cost of food. The carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. Therefore, I do hope that the other place, the place of sober second thought, takes note of what the will of the people is and ignores the browbeating they received from the Prime Minister when they consider this bill a sober second time. Before going on to the significance of the bill to my constituents, I want to take note of a few observations made by the independent PBO, and that is a gagged PBO, by the way. The PBO reports that Canadians will pay, in addition to the carbon tax, another $486 million, so another half a billion dollars, in GST on top of the carbon tax by 2030. This is a tax on a tax. In 2022, the carbon tax also cost $82.6 million just to administer. That cost was for 465 federal employees. Since 2019, this cost taxpayers nearly $200 million, or a fifth of a billion dollars, just to administer. I am going to focus the remainder of my time on two industry groups that do not immediately come to mind when we are thinking about the removal of barn heating from the carbon tax exemption. I am sure my colleagues who will follow with their interventions will speak to the more traditional aspects of barn heating. The bill is of particular significance to my riding, as Chatham-Kent—Leamington is home to 60% of Ontario's greenhouses, 2,730 of Ontario's 4,000 acres. In fact, the greenhouse acreage in CKL is larger than the entire U.S. greenhouse industry combined, making it the largest concentration of greenhouses in North America. Total farm gate represents $1.2 billion. Therefore, naturally my constituents are gravely concerned with the consequences of the Senate amendments. Greenhouse farmers did receive an 80% carbon tax exemption in the original 2016 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Why? It is because they grow food and because they recycle much of the CO2 back into the greenhouses, because, as we learned in high school science, plants grow better with CO2, tax or no tax applied. However, even with that exemption, Ontario greenhouse farmers will pay over $18 million in carbon tax this year, and that will rise to $40 million a year by 2030. Cumulatively, Ontario greenhouses alone will pay almost a quarter billion dollars in carbon tax by 2030, and this is with the 80% exemption, but as I said earlier, it is ultimately the consumer who pays. These are big numbers. At a time of high food insecurity across Canada and the world, the gutting of Bill C-234 is just another example of the Liberals' virtue-signalling ideology that will inflict more financial hardship on farmers and, in turn, subsequently on Canadian consumers. However, as difficult as it is for greenhouse farmers, it is that much worse for our mushroom farmers. They did not receive any consideration in 2016, so they are paying the full carbon tax plus HST. Let us think about this for a moment. A greenhouse cannabis producer gets an 80% carbon tax exemption, but a mushroom farmer gets no consideration. Is that virtue signalling? Carleton Mushroom Farms co-owner Mike Medeiros summed it up best when he said, “Instead of it being a staple, it's going to be a luxury item and it's going to affect sales. By affecting sales, I may have to cut back my farm, make it smaller.” Mr. Medeiros paid $150,000 last year in carbon tax and is on track to be out of pocket another $173,000 this year. By 2030, he estimates it will reach $450,000. This is on top of his heating bills. This mushroom farmer is an example of Canadian farm families setting the gold standard in efficiency, innovation and sustainability. He uses heavily insulated boilers that are powered by natural gas. Mushroom farmers in Canada will pay $7.4 million this year because of the tax, and by 2030 that bill rises to $16 million. Another mushroom producer, one that I am even more familiar with, is Highline Mushrooms. It operates 10 farms across Canada and is headquartered in my hometown. Almost all the farms are near the U.S. border, so they compete with U.S. producers for retailers both in Canada and the U.S. Of course, U.S. producers do not pay a carbon tax and so, logically, industry expansion in this industry could very well go to the U.S. Similarly, back to the greenhouse, its industry representatives recently testified at an agriculture committee hearing. They said that the U.S. industry was becoming a much more attractive alternative for expansion, this by our very own Canadian producers. This Canadian carbon tax is also directly contributing to food insecurity. Under pressure from high food prices, a 2023 Agri-Food Analytics Lab survey showed that almost half of Canadians were prioritizing the cost of groceries versus the nutrition of their groceries. Food Banks Canada backs up these figures with some startling figures of its own. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits, and they expect another million new users this year. One in 10 people in Toronto is having to rely on food banks to survive. This past weekend, I, together with the Leader of the Opposition, visited the Waterloo regional food bank. It has experienced a 50% increase in usage over the past year, and a fivefold increase in the past decade. That should not happen in Canada. The Conservatives have introduced an amendment to reject the Senate amendments and demand that the bill be passed in its original form, which would support our farmers and our families. When we tax the farmer that grows the food and we tax the trucker that delivers the food, we ultimately tax the Canadian consumer who consumes and buys the food. I call on our NDP and Bloc Québécois members to hold to their original vote on this bill and reject the Senate amendments. It is high time that the government puts aside its ideological agenda and does what is best for Canadians, as Canadians are calling for. Better yet, it should step aside and let the Conservatives restore hope and sanity to our country, uniting our country and our home; my home, our home, let us bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, the budget watchdog has released a report stating what Canadians already know, that they pay more in carbon tax than what they get back. They pay more for groceries, more for food, more for home heating, more for transportation and more for everything. The Liberal la-la math is just not adding up. When will the minister quit using made-up talking points, remove the gag order on the budget watchdog, release the secret report and end the carbon tax cover-up? Canadians have a right to know.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the comments made by my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove. Supply chain costs are what is really impacting the price of food here. The government is maintaining a 34% tariff on Russian fertilizer. Do not get me wrong. I am in no way in favour of any measures that support Putin. However, the government is exempting Russian titanium for our aerospace industry. Why the hypocrisy?

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague gave an excellent speech. Certainly I agree with the member when he talked about the comparison of the solution being taxation or more competition. Obviously I would support more competition. However, would he not also agree that a percentage of a higher number results in a higher number? For example, the retailers claim that they have maintained their margins throughout the whole pandemic, yet of course with the rising costs, their profits have come to record levels on a nominal basis. Therefore, would not an additional solution, besides more competition, be the removal of costs in our supply chain, like the carbon tax, like other tariffs that impact farmers, and things of that nature?

With regard to the final contract awarded by the government to the CIMA engineering firm by Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) for the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge: (a) what is the total value of the contract; (b) what were the determining factors of CIMA's submission being chosen over that of the Stanley Consultants engineering firm; (c) what are the details of all documents, including briefing notes, meeting minutes, draft documents, presentations, letters, contracts, agreements, communications, emails and recorded meetings regarding the hiring of Stanley Consultants, the dismissal of Stanley Consultants, and the hiring of CIMA; and (d) what are the details of all records, including documents and communications from April 2017 to April 2024, involving the (i) WDBA Board Chairs, (ii) employees of CIMA, (iii) employees of Stanley Consultants, (iv) WDBA Chief Executive Officer, (v) WDBA Chief Legal Officer, (vi) WDBA Chief Operations Officer, (vii) WDBA Chief Relations Officer, (viii) WDBA Chief Capital Officer, (ix) WDBA Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, (x) WDBA Associate Vice President and Chief Bridge Engineer?

Madam Speaker, I often begin my interventions in the chamber with the following statement: “It is an honour for me to bring the voices of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place.” I have and retain that privilege only by a process. It is the election process, and that is what Bill C-65 purportedly seeks to amend. Running in and the timing of an election should always be about maintaining the confidence of this place, about putting a vision forward for the country and about running on one's record in serving the country. Therefore, while some of the provisions of the bill are supportable, Conservatives have serious concerns about the changing of the fixed election date. Let me first make a few comments with respect to the laudable provisions contained in the bill. The modest changes to the third party regime, where foreign entities should not be permitted to contribute to third parties that engage in election-related activities, are supportable. There has been much discussion regarding foreign interference in our elections, so measures that would address these activities can be supported. While there are costs associated with advance polling days and locations, they pale in comparison to the costs involved with the amendment to move the next election date from Monday, October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Therefore, any further possible committee examination of the bill should be contingent on addressing the following point: These additional seven days would cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. I will be focusing on this aspect of the legislation in my remarks today, because the provision would make the bill an MP pension bill impersonating as an elections bill. This begs the question of why the government is proposing it. The Liberals are claiming that they would be changing the election date so as not to overlap with the festival of Diwali, and it just coincidentally happens to be that the seven-day additional delay would secure the pensions of over 80 MPs after six years of service, meaning any MP elected after October 21, 2019, would reach that six-year threshold only if the election occurs after October 21, 2025. I will note that this includes me and 31 of my Conservative colleagues, and I am prepared to run on my record. Will my Liberal colleagues make the same vow? Will they run on their respective records before October 21, 2025? Of the 80 members elected in 2019, here is how the members pushing the pension date break down across the political parties represented in the chamber: Conservatives have 32 members of Parliament from the cohort of 2019, and the Liberals have 22. The Bloc Québécois has 20, and the NDP has 6. The Conservative caucus and all of the 2019 cohort support running on our record and not delaying the final election date. Will the Bloc members also support not delaying the final date for the election? I welcome in the Q&A that follows my remarks any formal statement by the members on the record from that party. Similarly, I would invite my NDP colleagues, who have been alluding to that as well as the Bloc, to put on the record in their questions to me that they will not support the change. That is first and foremost, before we go on to any further discussions on the bill. The Liberal government is adamant that the sole reason for the proposed legislation is to strengthen our democracy. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs was quoted in a recent National Post article as saying the following: “[The] government believes that a strong democracy begins with enabling...Canadians to freely exercise their fundamental right to choose their representatives and we’ll always be there to defend that right”. However, the actions of the government and the Prime Minister show otherwise. I will go back for a moment to foreign interference and the intimidation my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and his family faced from foreign state actors. Our security agencies learned of this and informed the Prime Minister, and he did nothing. With the interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections in several ridings across this country, where was the government action? What about the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act, an action that erodes the very foundational principles of our democracy and the rights of our citizens? We only need to look at the conduct of our present Speaker and the lack of respect he has shown for the non-partisan role of his office not once and not twice. I cannot keep track of the number of violations. The government continues to erode the institutions that support the foundation of our democracy. If the minister and the government are so concerned about the defence of democracy, why do they not give Canadians back some of the freedom from the fiscal black hole they have imposed upon the citizens of this nation and not force us to pay an estimated $120 million if all MPs were to lose their seat in the next election? I have an idea. What if the government held the 2025 election on October 6, 2025 instead? That way it would not interfere with Diwali, nor would it affect the Jewish celebration of Shemini Atzeret, allowing the Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist and Jewish communities to vote on election day if they chose not to vote in advance polls. It bears noting that this is not the first time the issue has come to the forefront. In 2019, the Chief Electoral Officer ruled against changing the fixed election date. In 2019, Aryeh-Bain, a Jewish Orthodox woman running for the Conservatives in Eglinton—Lawrence, attempted to have the October 21 election date switched to October 22. She wanted to avoid the overlap of the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which was to begin on October 20 and end on October 22 of that year. The riding of Eglinton—Lawrence was home to about 5,000 Orthodox Jewish voters in 2019, and the previous, 2015, federal election had been decided by fewer than 4,000 votes. Aryeh-Bain argued the merits of her case based on the closeness of the results in the previous election. As I mentioned earlier, the Chief Electoral Officer in 2019 ruled against it, stating, “There is no such thing as a perfect election day, especially in a country as diverse as Canada. There are always Canadians who are unable to vote on election day.” Given the precedent set in 2019 by Elections Canada in that ruling, the government need not be selective in its observance of religious holidays. However, an October 6 election date would seem to resolve all of the possible issues around religious observances. Even better yet, let us have an election now, which would allow the government to run on its carbon tax record that it so proudly defends in the chamber. It can run on its housing record. It can run on its record on fiscal management of the country. After nine long years of the Liberal government, we can ill afford another selfish Liberal policy that would further bankrupt future generations. Conservatives will bring down inflation, allowing interest rates to fall by capping federal government spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule, and we will ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in pensions from moving the election date for spurious or disingenuous purposes. The bill before us is an MP pension bill impersonating as an election bill. Conservatives will restore hope to Canadians. We will bring it home for Canadians to unite this country for our common home. It is your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Madam Speaker, I am very relieved that I can assure the member that he does not have to defend the interests of our Conservative members, of the Bloc members or of the NDP members. We will put that question to Canadians. We are very willing to put the question to the Canadian electorate, and they can decide. That is how the government works. That is how our institutional democracy should work. The issue of MP pensions should not come into play in an election, period, simple, done.

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the opinion expressed by my colleague. Cynicism is something we should be addressing, and we should not be trying to drape an elections bill over, as he correctly characterized, an MP pension bill. We can talk about improvements to our elections, absolutely, but not when we are trying to slip something through and pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian electorate. Let us address that issue first. Then there is an opportunity to improve our election system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for a very well-prepared and articulated speech, with its constitutional elements. Obviously, this bill is another example of federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and I agree with her on the points in her speech. Does she find the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction a unifying factor in this country? I hear that it is not. Does she find that taking the money would unify our country more? Is she in favour of more unification through the federal granting of funds to the provinces?

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the hunger and/or homelessness. Food Banks Canada gives Canada failing grades, as nearly half of Canadians are financially feeling the cost of living increases. Housing costs have doubled. One in four experiences food insecurity. Food bank usage is up 11% in Windsor—Essex; 61% of Canadians are using food banks, and they are the first-time users. We believe in bringing it home. The tragedy of the current government is that people cannot afford a home, let alone food to put into it. Is this the sunny ways that the Prime Minister promised Canadians?

With regard to the completion date on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project being delayed until September 2025: (a) was the delay related to disputes with Valard Construction; (b) to which of the four major associated construction projects are the additional $700 million assigned, and which of these projects is expected to result in more claims; (c) will the $700 million cover the overrun costs to the subcontractors until the end of 2022; (d) what additional funds will be allocated for work order charges from 2023, 2024 and 2025 until the end of the project; and (e) if there will be no additional funds allocated, will the government confirm there will be no more contractors' claims for the remainder of the project?