Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, one part of the member's speech that really intrigued me was the notion of returning to some sense of normalcy in this country. That is something I am hearing in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil, where the apparatus of government has been used to divide people along regional lines, race lines, faith lines and gender lines. The health status of our neighbours has been another reason to divide people in this country. People are sick and tired of the apparatus of government being used to divide this nation. It is time we unify it. The member spoke about that, and I want to give him another opportunity to speak to that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his participation in this debate because it is very important. In nine years of Liberal rule, we have witnessed scandal after scandal. The latest involves $400 million handed out to Liberal insiders appointed by the Liberal Party. This defies belief. As far as I am concerned, this succession of scandals underscores the need to call an election. Despite the demands made by the Bloc Québécois, does my colleague agree with me on the need for immediate elections?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question but more so a comment. After being here for almost nine years now, one thing I have seen over those nine years is that there is nothing more alarming, more unstable, more dangerous and more unhinged than a member who has already announced that they are not running again using the parliamentary privileges and immunities of this place to say what they would likely not say outside of these walls. That is my comment.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for moving this motion in the House today. The report in question was tabled in the House in 2022, but AI technology has come a long way since then. Canada may now be lagging behind when it comes to privacy laws. One of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations involved the need to update our privacy laws. He said that privacy is not recognized as a fundamental right in our legislation. Does my colleague agree with me and with the Privacy Commissioner that the Privacy Act needs to be updated now?

Madam Speaker, we are debating a report that was presented by the ethics committee on a study it did in 2022 about facial recognition and the advancement of artificial intelligence. One issue that has come up is that the technological advancements in AI are having an impact on the spread of disinformation and misinformation. They are also affecting and impacting the privacy rights of Canadians. One thing the Privacy Commissioner has talked about frequently at the ethics committee is the need to update the Privacy Act to ensure that privacy is a fundamental right for all Canadians. I am wondering what the member's opinion is on that and whether the government has any plans to update the Privacy Act to recognize that privacy is a fundamental right.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member's perspective given that he was a member of the ethics committee when this report was drafted. He did draft the report and, obviously, read it. One of the issues that has come up consistently over the last nine years with the government, and we have heard directly from the Privacy Commissioner on this on several occasions, is that oftentimes the Privacy Commissioner is considered an afterthought. They are not even consulted on any of the legislation. The office and the commissioner are not consulted in such a way that they could proactively provide advice to the government in order to avoid many of the pitfalls the hon. member spoke about. I am wondering if the member could speak about the importance of the involvement of the Privacy Commission. As the member just said, the Privacy Commissioner also has asked for the ability to levy fines if the government is not following the privacy laws of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very glad to rise for the motion of privilege in front of the House today. I want to thank my colleagues, the member for Cariboo—Prince George and the member for Brantford—Brant, for their speeches today. I have been working with my colleague from Brantford—Brant on the ethics committee, and this issue came before it almost a year ago. That is when we started looking into the SDTC scandal. However, even then, we were just scratching the surface of what was to come and what has led us to this point today. I want to go back to August 12, 2020, just over four years ago. Of course, the world was dealing with the uncertainty of COVID at that time. The House was operating as a committee of the whole, and I remember that I gave a speech. We were just starting to really understand the extent and scope of some of the sole-source contracting that was going on. In particular, there was an issue with CMHC and Frank Baylis's ventilators. We were seeing insider cronyism start to take root within the Liberal Party, and sole-source contracts related to COVID matters, COVID equipment and so on were being given to Liberal-connected insiders. I want to go back to what I said on August 12, 2020. I said, sitting right over where the hon. member for Edmonton Manning is right now: The sponsorship scandal will look like a speck of sand in a desert when this is all over. When this is all over, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance [Bill Morneau] will be just fine. I have a question to ask on behalf of every Canadian before more stories surface, because they will. How many more Liberal-connected friends, families and insiders have had their palms greased and have personally financially gained from this pandemic at the expense of Canadians who have suffered so much during this crisis? Will the Liberals be honest for once or do we have to wait for the Auditor General to tell us? Well, the Auditor General has been telling us. Several investigations later, we have landed on the SDTC scandal, and what a scandal it has become, with Liberal-connected insiders and cronies greasing their palms to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars without any thought of conflict of interest and somehow without any thought to putting measures in place that would stop the fleecing of taxpayer dollars by the board of directors running SDTC. It is important that we remember what got us to this point. It was the Auditor General who found that the Prime Minister had turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. I remember being at the meeting where she presented her report and how she talked about the malfeasance that was going on within SDTC and the fact that there was very little oversight and a whole lot of conflict of interest going on. I have heard some of the questioning today from the Liberal side about criminality. It was not the Auditor General's task or role at the time to look into criminality. What she was looking for was how taxpayer dollars were landing in the hands of Liberal insiders without any regard for conflict of interest rules. That is what she was looking for, that is what she was reporting on and that is what shed light on the extent and scope of the scandal that the ethics committee was looking into almost a year earlier. The other thing the Auditor General found was a recording of a senior civil servant who slammed the outright incompetence of the government, which gave out 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately. The whistle-blower was speaking about the very things that were going on. I recall that we had Doug McConnachie at the ethics committee. He had been recorded by the whistle-blower. They were talking about this scandal, and even Doug McConnachie was saying that this was a sponsorship-level scandal. The sponsorship scandal was $40 million, which is enough money, and we all know what happened there. It led to the Chrétien government being brought down. This is upward of $400 million of taxpayer dollars being funnelled to Liberal-connected insiders and cronies without any oversight. The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects and that it, on occasion, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit, not one environmental benefit, or the development of green technologies. Over 186 cases, $334 million went to projects for which board members held a conflict of interest. It is unbelievable that $58 million went to projects without ensuring that the contribution agreement terms were met. I think of the coordinated effort that it takes among those boards of directors and the people involved to distribute that amount of money to what we now know, in many cases, were companies that they had a financial interest in. If that does not border on criminal, there is nothing that does, quite frankly. The Auditor General also made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the Prime Minister's industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to Liberal insiders, so it was common-sense Conservatives who really started the process of trying to get to the bottom of this. We had the industry minister in at the ethics committee, and we had an audit report that was done on this that we had asked for. We got it back, and it had been redacted. Then, the ethics committee had asked that we get the report unredacted and that the report actually come to us, and it did, finally, after a lot of push and pull. However, I think it is important to really talk about why these oversight committees are so important to Parliament. The standing committees on ethics, public accounts and government operations, or “the mighty OGGO”, as we like to say, are important because they are chaired by opposition members. I have been the chair of the ethics committee now for two years, and that is why I am glad to speak to this. In my role as chair, there is a level of neutrality that is required, and we have to make sure that we are operating in a neutral way, in a neutral function, and giving a fair chance for all members. However, these committees are run by the majority opposition members, and their intent is to hold the government to account. In the case of the ethics committee, we deal with ethics issues, and we have been dealing with a lot of ethics issues. I refer to it as the “shooting fish in a barrel” committee because of the amount of ethics scandals that we have been dealing with, and I will touch on those a bit later. The mighty OGGO deals with government operations and contracts. Through OGGO, we found the arrive scam scandal and how that played itself out. Of course, there is public accounts. Quite frankly, this issue has been touching many committees, not just the oversight committees that are led by the opposition. We have been trying to do our job, our constitutional responsibility as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to get to the bottom of the many scandals that have been occurring, and we have been doing a very good job at that, sometimes with some opposition from the opposition. We have not always had team players within other parties. We certainly saw that when the coalition agreement was on between the NDP and the Liberals. The NDP would provide cover in many cases for motions that we were trying to pass to shed light on many of these scandals. We have seen, what I would call hopeful, signs that they have backed away from that, and we are getting to the bottom of many of these scandals, not the least of which is the “who is Randy” scandal that the ethics committee, and now Parliament, is currently seized with. When we look back on SDTC and we look at what its mandate was, it was, and still is, a federally funded non-profit that approves, and was supposed to disperse, $100 million in funds annually to clean technology companies. The key problem, of course, as I mentioned earlier, is that SDTC executives awarded projects, for which they held conflicts, amounting to over 330 million dollars' worth of taxpayer funds. In 2019, when there were not any scandals in relation to the fund, former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains began removing Conservative executives from SDTC and started replacing them with Liberal-appointed executives. The Prime Minister's newly appointed board began voting in companies for which the executives of held active conflicts of interest in SDTC funding. Governing standards at the fund deteriorated rapidly under the leadership of the new chair Annette Verschuren, who was appointed by the Liberals, and who we had at the ethics committee. In July, the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner initiated separate investigations after those whistle-blowers came forward with allegations of financial mismanagement at the fund. The Auditor General's investigation, as I said, found severe lapses in governance standards and it uncovered almost $400 million in funding that was awarded to projects that either should have been ineligible to receive funding or were awarded to projects in which board members were conflicted during that five-year audit period. This is just incredible stuff. I wanted to talk a little about history. It is not just the SDTC scandal that we or Canadians should be focused on. It is a myriad of other scandals as well. As I said, as chair of the ethics committee, I have had a front-row seat over these last two years to many of these scandals. I also had a front-row seat when I was opposition House leader under our interim leader, Candice Bergen. At that time, we were really dealing with the Winnipeg lab document scandal. The government had not provided documents that were asked for by Parliament. In fact, it dug its heels in so much that the government took the Speaker to court to prevent these documents from being released. We are seeing a very similar situation here. There was nothing in the order by Parliament, and Parliament is supreme. When committees ask for documents, there is an obligation on behalf of the government to provide those documents, and if documents are asked for in an unredacted manner, there is an obligation, because of the supremacy of Parliament, to provide those documents unredacted. That was not the case here with the SDTC scandal. When I go back to the Winnipeg lab scandal, almost the exact same thing had happened. The documents were not provided. What did they have to hide? Who was connected? Who is further connected to the SDTC scandal that the government does not want us to understand or know about? Why would the Liberals not want the potential criminality to be exposed in this scandal? These are questions that the government and its members are going to have to answer when, and if, we get to an election. However, it was not just Winnipeg labs or SDTC, it was also the arrive scam scandal. Over $60 million was given to Liberal-connected insiders for the arrive scam application. There were no answers, and the government pushed back. We had to call Mr. Firth to the bar, proving the supremacy of Parliament and the fact that we are the arbiters of what we need to determine and what we need to get to the bottom of. There is also the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which we have been dealing with at ethics committee, and foreign interference. Oversight committees are intended to hold the government to account. Whether the government likes it or not, that is our constitutional role, and it is our constitutional role as His Majesty's loyal opposition to push and fight to make sure that government is on the up and up and that we are the stewards of taxpayer dollars. We will continue to do that. Now, we are dealing with another situation, as I said earlier, which Parliament is now seized with, and that is the ruling of the Speaker on the question of privilege that was brought up by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, whom I sit with on the ethics committee. However, we are dealing with another question of privilege, which I am sure the House will be seized with over the next few days, and that is with respect to the “who is Randy” scandal and the fact that the minister was seemingly operating his business while he was a minister. The conflict of interest in that is palpable. The illegality of that is real, and we need answers to that. Back in July, the ethics committee had a meeting. We had requested documents from a witness, Mr. Anderson, who failed to provide those documents to the committee. We gave him a timeline for when we needed them, and he failed to provide the information that was requested. Again, asserting ourselves and the supremacy of not just the committee but Parliament, I reported to the House what had happened, as was the committee's wish. The member then rose on a question of privilege and the fact that the privileges of the committee and the privileges of its members were not adhered to by Mr. Anderson. The Speaker ruled that the question of privilege is now before the House and the motion has been duly moved. It is a motion that we will be debating, likely over the next couple of days and perhaps even into next week. Part of that motion is to have Mr. Anderson come before the bar of the House to not only be admonished by the Speaker, but also, more important, to answer the questions that parliamentarians have been asking for him to answer. That is our job, not just on ethics, but on the mighty OGGO and, of course, on public accounts as well. As I know members have heard a couple of times, it all goes back to 2015, when the Prime Minister stood up before Canadians and said that the government will be transparent and open by default. In fact, it was in the throne speech of 2015. All of the examples that I have been citing over the last few minutes prove that it is a government that has not been transparent, accountable and open by default. In fact, it has been anything but. Part of our responsibility on the ethics committee is to deal with access to information. We issued a report on access to information a few months back after studying it and having experts come in, including members of the media who have been involved in the access to information system, and it is broken. Often, the wait times for access to information documents are months, if not years. Information comes that is redacted. That is not open, transparent and accountable by default. That is anything but. Therefore, as I conclude, it is not just the system that is broken in this country in many ways, such as the affordability system, housing and the fact that young people have lost hope and are despondent now of a prosperous future for themselves. The division that the Prime Minister has sown in this country along regional lines, race lines and faith lines, pitting neighbour against neighbour, are all things that are broken. The worst part about what is going on right now is that we have a decline in democracy as a result of the government's not being open, transparent and accountable by default. It really speaks to the diminishment of our institutions and the ability of Parliament to ask for the information that it requires to protect the people of this country and to protect their money. I will conclude by saying this: I am extremely disappointed that we are on this path once again. The only thing that is going to change it is a change of government to a common-sense Conservative government. I hope that happens soon.

Mr. Speaker, I think if there had been any evidence of that, we certainly would see it playing itself out. What we have seen evidence of is foreign interference on the part of the Liberal government. We see a Prime Minister who was informed many times, in fact, and the foreign interference inquiry is just shedding light on that this week. He was told about the foreign interference situation that was going on and how many of his members were involved in it. Therefore, if the member wants to shed light on foreign interference, I would suggest to him that we name the 11 members in this place who were involved in foreign interference. That would be a terrific start. The other day, I met with one of the commissioners of the European Union. We agreed that the only way to deal with foreign interference is to shed light on it so that we are not looking at one another and casting suspicion on one another. If we name the 11 MPs who were complicit in foreign interference, as a result, this country will be in a better position to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I also remember all the Liberal Party scandals in 2015. We saw it come up almost immediately with the Aga Khan scandal. We can look at history all we want, but the reality is that we have had nine years of a government that said it was going to be different. It said it was going to be open, transparent and accountable by default. It talked about sunny ways and how sunshine is the best disinfectant. I remember the Prime Minister saying it all with his hand over his heart. What did we get? We saw scandal after scandal and a divided country along all the lines I talked about earlier. We have debt and deficit. We have a young generation of people who have lost hope in this country. We need to restore the promise of Canada. That is precisely what Canada's common-sense Conservatives are going to do, including upholding ethical standards. If the member wants any evidence of that, he can look at the bill the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has proposed and support that as a start. It is a signal of what our intention is going to be in the next government.

Mr. Speaker, from some of the debate I am hearing today, I think hon. members need to get back into a DeLorean, try to be like Marty McFly and go back to the future. We are talking about scandals that are seizing Parliament right now involving the Liberal government, not the least of which is a $400-million scandal. If the NDP would stop propping up the government, we might just get to the bottom of this. Better yet, let us have an election so that Conservatives can prove to Canadians that we are going to be a much better common-sense government than the Liberal government has been over the last nine years. We will not cause the despair and the misery that is facing our nation right now. Let Conservatives prove to Canadians what good government is all about.

Mr. Speaker, that is a loaded softball question that we need to hit out of the park. I know we are in the major league playoffs here, but I do not know what it is with these guys. It has to be in their DNA. We have seen scandal after scandal come up, where Liberal-connected insiders and cronies have benefited as a result of the relationships they have with the Liberal government. I mentioned a few of them off the top. Probably one of the most absurd ones was former MP Frank Baylis getting a sole-sourced contract for hundreds of millions of dollars for ventilators that were not even used. It was a sole-sourced contract, which means that the Liberals did not put it out for other bids. They gave it to Liberal-connected insiders. We have seen these palms being greased since the beginning of the Liberal government. We saw it with the Prime Minister setting the example with his trip, the ethical violation, to the Aga Khan's island. I think it is in the Liberals' DNA. I do not think they can help themselves when it comes to breaching ethics laws and code of conduct laws in this country. That is why we are seeing it. When that example is set at the top, it disseminates throughout the entire organization. In this case, it has disseminated throughout the entire part of government. This is why we are dealing with these scandals. It is having an impact, effecting a decline in our democracy and trust in our institutions by Canadians. We have to restore that trust, and the only way we can do it is to replace the tired, corrupt government with a common-sense Conservative government.

Madam Speaker, I do want to go back to Mark Carney, who absolutely loves the carbon tax. He is acting in the shadows right now of the Liberal government. We are hearing about contracts of $10 billion. We are hearing about other contracts that he is trying to get from the Liberal government, acting in the shadows, not being open, not being transparent. We have actually seen this before. Dominic Barton was a special adviser to the Prime Minister on finance in 2017. McKinsey ended up with $120 million in contracts. How important is it that Mark Carney be held to account?

Madam Speaker, a few days ago, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said with bravado, the same bravado we saw from the leader of the NDP, that if the government does not get the bills passed sooner, the deadline for passing them is October 29. How is the Bloc Québécois going to force an election without the NDP to back it up? Bloc members say they have no confidence in the Liberal government, but how are they going to do that?

Madam Speaker, we talk a lot about the need for housing affordability and housing attainability, but there is another crisis looming, and that is the mortgage renewal crisis. Right now, there are moms across this country who are worried about renewing their mortgages and the impact that is going to have on overall costs and the ability to put food on the table to take care of the future for their families. I am wondering if the hon. member can speak about that.

With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), since January 1, 2020, and broken down by year: (a) what is the value of the goods discovered, in total, and broken down by year and by month; (b) for each seizure, what was the (i) date, (ii) quantity, (iii) estimated value, (iv) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered, (v) product description, (vi) country of origin; and (c) what is the estimated percentage of counterfeit goods which are intercepted by the CBSA versus those which are smuggled into Canada without being intercepted?

With regard to government measures to stop counterfeit goods from being sold in Canada: (a) what are the details of the specific measures the government has taken since 2016 to stop the sale of counterfeit goods in Canada; (b) how many individuals has the RCMP arrested for trafficking or attempting to sell counterfeit goods, broken down by year, since 2016; (c) what are the descriptions of all counterfeit items that were seized in relation to the arrests in (b), broken down by year; (d) what is the government’s estimate on the value of the counterfeit goods sold each year in Canada, in total, and broken down by type of merchandise; (e) does the government have any policy prohibiting government employees from selling such products, and, if so, what is it; and (f) does the government have any policy which would prevent employees, or any other individuals who have been issued a government phone or mobile device, from using that device to sell counterfeit products, and, if so, what is it?

Mr. Speaker, another day, another scandal. What is new after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government? On Monday, Parliament passed a motion calling on the government and the Auditor General to hand over all documents related to the Prime Minister's green slush fund to the RCMP. Not surprisingly, every Liberal, including the Prime Minister, voted against our motion to give the RCMP the information it needs to investigate potential criminality and to expose just how deep the rot is. What is known is that Liberal insiders greased their palms with millions from taxpayers, yet here we are again with another attempted cover-up by the Prime Minister and his caucus. It is shameful. It is no wonder the Liberals want to cover this one up, as 123 million dollars' worth of contracts were given out inappropriately, 90 cases did not follow conflict of interest policies and $76 million was spent on projects connected to Liberal friends. The Liberals are not fighting for fairness for all. If this were true, why are they lining the pockets of their friends while everyday Canadians continue to struggle?

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 80th anniversary of Canadian Forces bravely storming Juno Beach to defeat the Nazis in the fight for freedom, human rights and human dignity. On that day, 124 Royal Canadian vessels, 10,000 sailors, 39 Royal Air Force squadrons and a total of 14,000 Canadians took part in D-Day with our allies. It was a day that changed lives, and history, forever. On this day, 359 Canadians perished so that millions could be freed from Hitler and the yoke of Nazi Germany. Today we honour and thank our Canadian comrades who fought on land, at sea and in the air, under circumstances that defy the imagination and with a courage that none of us, save for those who were there, could ever understand. We will always be indebted to this generation of brave Canadians and their families. Their determination will forever be remembered. Their story must never be forgotten, and their cause should serve as a reminder to all of us that, sadly, in these times, the forces of hatred still exist. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank them from the bottom of our hearts, for their courage, their sacrifice and their results on this day, 80 years ago, which changed the course of history. We will remember them.

With regard to the benefits received by Canadian Armed Forces veterans classified as wartime service veterans and benefits received by veterans who fought under the “special duty service” classification: (a) what are the benefits received by (i) wartime service veterans, (ii) special duty service veterans; (b) how many veterans are receiving “special duty service” benefits for the (i) Persian Gulf War, (ii) Bosnian War, (iii) Afghan War; (c) what is the cost of benefits provided to wartime service veterans in (a) for (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018, (vii) 2019, (viii) 2020, (ix) 2021, (x) 2022, (xi) 2023; (d) what is the cost of benefits provided to “special duty service” veterans in (a) for (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018, (vii) 2019, (viii) 2020, (ix) 2021, (x) 2022, (xi) 2023; (e) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Persian Gulf War veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023; (f) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Bosnian war veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023; and (g) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Afghan War veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023?

Madam Speaker, I serve with the member for Trois-Rivières on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I can say that he is well respected and hard-working. I am concerned that this bill will not be passed before the next election. Does the member for Trois-Rivières agree with me, my Conservative colleagues and the members of all but one of the other parties that we need to pass this bill quickly, before the next election?

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. I am quite looking forward to her intervention on this matter. It is actually quite incredible to me that we are in this place at this point. I have been listening to the debate today. I have been listening to the government side. I have been listening to what I now call the moderate wing of the Liberal government, which is the NDP, argue that this is somehow a character assassination. In fact, a member of the opposition, who functions in his role as an opposition member, legitimately fulfilled his constitutional obligation by rising in this place and presenting a question of privilege. This was in relation to an advertisement of a partisan event that the Speaker of the House was going to be participating in. The ad was itself a character assassination of the Leader of the Opposition. When a member brings a question of privilege to the House, it means they feel that their privileges, or the privileges of other members, have been violated. At that point, given all the interventions that occur, the Speaker makes a ruling. In this case, the Speaker was not able to make a ruling, because he was directly implicated in this question of privilege; therefore the Deputy Speaker made a ruling. In it, he said there may have been a violation of members' privileges. That is it. The independence of the speakership was actually effective at that point in determining that a proper question of privilege had, in fact, happened. As is the right of all members, the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie moved a motion based on the Deputy Speaker's ruling, which is what we are now debating. It is not as though any opposition party, be it the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or any other party, wrote this ruling. This was a ruling of the independent Deputy Speaker after the Speaker recused himself. That is what we are dealing with today. We are not dealing with a character assassination; to be frank, we are dealing with a question of character. That question of character relates to the Speaker's ability to act in an independent, non-partisan manner, to act as a referee with respect for all members and their privileges. That is, in fact, what we are dealing with today. In the short period since the Speaker was appointed as such by the House, we have not just dealt with this on one occasion; there have been two other occasions. I know that colleagues on our side have been talking about those instances. Of course, the most famous one happened in Ontario. It was shortly after the Speaker was appointed that he felt compelled, in his Speaker's robe and using the resources of the Speaker's position, to make a video for the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I recall when I first saw that video. It was a Saturday night. I was sitting there, as a former House leader, looking at this video and thinking, “What in God's name is he doing”? It was partisan. I recall sending a text to our current House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I asked him if he had seen it. How could the Speaker have such bad judgment, poor judgment, that he would make such a video for the Ontario Liberal convention? Of course, that was the first time that the question of privilege came up. Then there was another incident, in Washington, D.C., where the Speaker travelled on Speaker business and ended up at a partisan event that was videotaped and broadcast on social media. There, he talked about his experiences as a Liberal Party member. Now, of course, there is the latest incident, talking about the Speaker appearing at a fundraiser. However, within the notice for the fundraiser, there was a partisan attack on the Leader of the Opposition. It calls into question not only the Speaker's ability to be non-partisan but also, in many ways, his judgment. That is the fundamental issue we are dealing with today. It did not just happen once or twice. It has happened three times at this point. I think the ability of the opposition to function in its constitutional obligation and not have confidence in the Speaker is the root of what this question is all about. When the Speaker was elected, he promised this chamber and its members that he would act in a non-partisan way, that he would not get in the way of debate and that he would be the referee, which is his role. However, time and time again, we have seen otherwise. This was not only the case in these three incidents but also in rulings and judgments, not the least of which was removing the Leader of the Opposition from the House during question period. That is something that I have not seen in the nine years I have been here. Many members whom I have spoken to, some with a long history in this place, and some with knowledge of history, had not seen anything like that occur before. I can say that I was here the day when that happened. I was watching the Speaker. We had started off on a Monday. It had been a pretty raucous question period. I know that the Speaker had, at his left hand, the notice of removal. Somebody was going to leave the chamber that day. I am convinced of that, and it happened. We actually had two members who left. One was the member for Lethbridge, and then that was quickly followed up by the Leader of the Opposition. The challenge right now is trust in the ability of the Speaker to conduct himself in this non-partisan way and with impartiality. That really is what this is all about. Again, this prima facie case of privilege that the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie brought up is what we are dealing with today. It was not written or initiated by the opposition; it is something that was initiated by the Speaker of the House. I can say that I do a lot of events; we all do. There is a vetting process that goes on for any event that I attend by my staff to make sure that I am not using House of Commons resources and that those events that I am attending are, in fact, proper events. There is no convincing me that someone in the Speaker's office or the Speaker himself did not know what was on that invitation. Finally, I would like to finish off with what I perceive as a decline in our democracy. I see an erosion of respect for our institutions. The fact is that the Liberals and the NDP are standing up in this place and seemingly defending the actions of the Speaker, and they have been doing it since this debate started yesterday. This speaks to a lack of respect for this institution. If anyone had any honour or integrity at all, they could see the chaos this is creating. The fact is that their decisions and their lack of judgment, impartiality and non-partisanship is causing such disruption in this place. This speaks to a decline in our democracy and a lack of respect for our institutions. The first time the Speaker conducted himself in this way, when he made that video for the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, I said that he should have to resign. I believe that was the appropriate time for him to resign. Now we have two other instances where the Speaker has shown this lack of judgment and lack of impartiality. As far as I am concerned, there is no other option. Almost half of the House believes that the Speaker has acted in a way that is unbecoming in terms of his role as Speaker and that he does, in fact, need to resign. I appreciate what the Bloc tried to do before, which was to bring a unanimous consent motion to have a secret ballot when this vote occurs. I believe there are still people within the Liberal Party, and perhaps some within the NDP, who conduct themselves with honour. They see the actions of the Speaker and how that is causing a lack of respect for this place. If a secret ballot were held, I believe that some of those members, other than the ones who are going to stand up as they ask their questions, would actually want to see the Speaker removed, as the motion states.

Madam Speaker, in the first instance, shortly after he was pronounced Speaker, the Speaker engaged in a partisan message to a partisan party convention, the Liberal Party convention. He was in his robes, using Speaker resources. There have been people in this place who have resigned or have been forced to resign, and did the right thing by resigning, for much lesser grievances than that. Therefore, yes, I do believe that the Speaker should have resigned in the first instance. Now we have additional instances, two more, in fact, of partisan activity by the Speaker. That, to me, speaks more to his character, his lack of judgment and his inability to act in a non-partisan manner while sitting in the chair.

With regard to Old Age Security (OAS): (a) how many OAS payment recipients were not residents of Canada for tax purposes in the 2023 tax year; (b) what was the total amount paid out in OAS payments to the recipients in (a); and (c) for OAS program recipients outside of Canada, what is the breakdown by country of the aggregate number of recipients, and the total amount paid for each of the tax years 2022 and 2023?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada.”

With regard to the increase in the number of public service employees between 2016 and 2023: (a) what was the total number of public service workers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2023, in total and broken down by department or agency; and (b) what was the total number of positions added to the public service between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2023, broken down by occupational group, level, Treasury Board classification, and department or agency?

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the member is an honourable member, but when he stands up in this place and he says that more Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than what they are paying, nobody believes it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that is not true and that more Canadians are paying more in the carbon tax. In the province of Ontario, it is $600 more. Canadians are paying more for gas and to heat their homes, and businesses are paying more in the carbon tax. How can he stand up here and say that to Canadians when the information out there is contrary to what he says?

Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question to the hon. member, I too want to express my sincere condolences on the passing of a Canadian icon and a Canadian treasure this evening, Rex Murphy. The Speaker seems surprised. Obviously, this is news to him. On the reverse of that, I want to wish Lillian Vaughan, a Barrie—Innisfil resident, a happy 105th birthday today. I know that she is a big supporter of the Barrie Colts. She is at home this evening with Bryan and Jennifer. Happy birthday to Lillian. Rural Canada is obviously a big part of the member's riding. I wonder if he can talk about the fall economic statement, the latest budget and their impact on rural Canada. I represent half a rural constituency in Innisfil, and I find there is a disproportionate negative impact on rural Canada. I wonder if he could speak about that.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly sounds like Conservatives are living in this member's head with the constant attacks. I recall when I was House leader and the costly coalition was formed, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberal Party, I referred to that situation as the NDP heading to an abyss of irrelevance. Certainly, if I check out the latest polls, the NDP has not gained any status at all among Canadians. In fact, many Canadians feel like the New Democrats have sold their collective soul to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. As such, I am wondering how the member can reconcile that, given the status of the party in the polls.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation about modular homes. They are being built in a way right now that far exceeds any normal building standards. They are an option for the housing crisis in this country. The challenge with modular home builders right now is that, although they could scale up and actually build two or three times more than what they are building right now, they have a problem with cash flow. Oftentimes, they are required to pay out the development, which causes problems in terms of their ability to put these modular homes on developed spaces. I just visited a modular home builder and cash flow is critical, so finding some way of advancing or eliminating the cash flow crisis that exists can actually help build these homes and scale them up in a much greater capacity. However, this budget does not address that.

Madam Speaker, if one were to listen to the hon. member, one could not help but think that Canadians have never had it so good, but what we are seeing, and one just has to scan the headlines to see it, is that Canada's productivity is lagging. It has reached crisis levels. Productivity will take years to remedy. Weak productivity is threatening Canada's postpandemic recovery, and this has a direct impact. Lagging productivity is a threat to Canadian living standards. There is a lack of investment, a lack of capital, fleeing capital and fleeing investment. Wages are not keeping up. Just last week the finance minister announced the government would increase the debt ceiling by another $295 billion, adding to the interest that needs to be paid on the debt for future generations. That is going to have an impact. I do not know how that member can stand there to say that the Liberals are doing everything right, when all of the indicators are that they are doing everything wrong.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil in the House of Commons and, in this case, in particular, to discuss the budget implementation act. If one listens to the Liberals, and I have been in the House for most of today, one would almost get the sense that Canadians have never had it so good as what they have right now. The member for Ajax stood up before, and I recall asking him a question about Canada's productivity. We are seeing declines in productivity, investment and capital investment, other than government investment; it is at a point where our productivity is heading into developing nation status right now. It is obvious that the ability of Canadians to have some sort of lifestyle or provide for a quality of life for themselves is clearly diminishing after nine years of the current NDP-Liberal government. There is not one day that I am in my Barrie—Innisfil office, not one phone call and not one email that is telling me that their life is better after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. In fact, I would say that we spend most of our time, and my staff's time, in my Barrie—Innisfil office walking people in off the ledge, because they are so concerned about their economic future. I recall that, a couple of months ago, I had a senior come into my office. Fortunately, he had a mortgage, but he had to renew it. With the new interest rates, mortgage renewal rates, the way they are, he was only going to be left with $600 at the end of the month to pay his property taxes, to pay his heat, to pay his hydro and to buy groceries. That is an indictment of nine years of failed economic policy, and it is having a severe impact on Canadians right across the country. The budget does nothing to address that. In fact, I will subscribe to the idea that it actually makes things worse for Canadians, especially in the younger generation. In 2015, younger Canadians voted for the Prime Minister; he was talking about providing them with hope over fear and all the other things he was talking about. He said that things were going to be better for the next generation; in fact, things have gotten worse. Young people right now do not just feel as though they have been lied to and let down. Rather, they feel as though they have been left behind after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. I will go one step further. Any young person whom I talk to right now does not just feel that. Young people are despondent right now, because they do not feel as though they are going to have the same opportunities as their parents had. They have done everything right. They have gone to university. They have gotten educated. In some cases, some of them are working three or four jobs just to get by. However, because of the economic policies of the government, they still cannot afford to come up with the down payment to buy a home. Those who have bought a home are now facing a mortgage renewal crisis that this country has not seen in generations. Moms are being kept up at night, trying to figure out how they are going to pay for their mortgages, because mortgage rates have tripled as a result of the failed economic policies of the Liberal government. When one listens to the Liberal government, it is almost as though Liberals do not realize that they have been in government for nine years and that they have created the mess we are in right now through failed economic policies. When one injects as much liquidity into the system and one creates as much debt and deficit as we are dealing with right now, what does one think is going to happen? The Leader of the Opposition was predicting three or four years ago that we were going to see interest rates increase as a result. The only lever that the Bank of Canada has to curb inflation is to raise interest rates. We have heard from former Liberal finance ministers and from former Bank of Canada governors, who keep saying the same thing: It is almost as if the Bank of Canada is pressing on the brakes while the Liberal government is pouring more fuel on the inflationary fires. There is no greater example of that than what is within the budget: There is $40 billion in additional spending and $56.1 in interest costs, just to service the debt. The debt has been doubled by the Prime Minister; his insatiable appetite to spend is putting at risk the economic prosperity of millions of young Canadians, including my kids. That $56.1 billion is more than we spend in health care transfers to the provinces, and it is almost an equal amount to what we take in on the GST. It was the former NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, who said just shortly after the budget that the GST is designed to pay for many of the services Canadians rely on. Every time somebody goes out and fills up their car with gas, goes out for dinner or buys a ticket to something, they pay the GST. They pay it knowing that it is designed to go towards providing for the social safety net that Canadians rely on in this country. However, right now, almost every single penny of the GST is going toward servicing the cost of the debt accumulated by the Prime Minister and the failed NDP-Liberal experiment. As Tom Mulcair said, “It is no longer the GST. It is the DST, the debt service tax”. He could not have been more correct. The government is hiding behind generational fairness, but the generational mess it has created for younger Canadians is not going to be fixed by the budget. It is going to be fixed by a government that lives within its means and that focuses on the revenue side of the ledger rather than solely the expense side. By that, I mean not attacking income-producing sectors of our economy that have historically created great wealth for our nation, such as our natural resource sector and agriculture sectors. Those sectors have contributed greatly to not just providing for that social safety net but also to being able to provide for Canadians. In the natural resource sector, we have a big role to play in providing clean Canadian energy to the rest of the world, and there is no greater example of that than when the President of Germany came to Canada, begging for LNG. Energy security is the number one issue that Europe is facing right now. He came to Canada, and our Prime Minister shooed him away as though there was no business case for that. Two weeks later, the same German president signed a $27-billion deal with Qatar, which has fewer environmental, labour and human rights standards. That $27 billion could have come to Canada to be used to improve health care, education and the quality of life of not just the next generation but also future generations to come. We have seen an increase in housing costs. We have seen rent and house prices double. We are seeing mortgage rates that, in some cases, have tripled. Hundreds of thousands of homes are now due for mortgage renewal, and these next couple of months and the budget would do nothing to allay the fears that moms have when they go to renew their mortgage, already facing an increasing affordability crisis and a housing attainability crisis. The last thing I want to focus on is the fact that the government has raised the carbon tax again by 23%, and that is not the end of it. We are at $80 a tonne right now, and we are heading up to $170. After the 2019 election, the government said the price would never go up past $50 a tonne. We are already past that point, and it is expected to double, which is going to increase the cost of everything, such as the necessities of life, as well as housing costs, the cost of groceries and the cost of transporting goods. Everything will become more expensive in this country, and as our productivity continues to decline, so too will the quality of life of Canadians. I am going to vote against the budget because it would do nothing to improve the quality of life for future generations or this generation today.

Madam Speaker, I thought I made a pretty substantive argument as to why, in some cases, the budget was not going to work for Canadians. If the hon. member wants to sit here and hurl insults, it is his prerogative to do so. The fact is that we do not know. In the absence of seeing any of the contracts that have been signed, either through Stellantis or Volkswagen, the only thing we know is that there are billions of dollars' worth of government subsidies being applied to these plants, on the credit card, by the way, because, again, we are at $1.4 trillion in debt. Just last week, the finance minister announced that she wanted to increase that debt ceiling by another $295 billion to $2.1 trillion. Why does the government not provide confidence for Canadians and show just where the work is going to come from? All we are hearing right now is that there are a lot of temporary foreign workers, non-Canadians, who are going to be working in the plants. Show us the proof; that is all we ask.

Madam Speaker, I fundamentally believe that here in Ottawa, the federal government has a role to play in assisting the provinces. However, provincial jurisdiction must be respected. Our leader respects provincial jurisdiction and will work with the premiers of every province in order to ensure that we have a confederation that is functioning and united, not divided. The Prime Minister has a tendency to divide us along regional lines, race lines, faith lines, gender lines and the house status of our neighbour, and now, by creating a new class war, he has another reason to divide people. I believe that if we are going to have a functioning confederacy, we need a prime minister who not only respects provincial jurisdiction but also works with the provinces and provincial leaders.

Madam Speaker, clearly the country is in desperate need of infrastructure replacement, and not just from a rail standpoint. The difficulty I have with the budget, frankly, is that it does not necessarily focus all of its attention on that. I see a lot of debt and a lot of deficit. I see problems for future generations that are going to be caught up in many of the issues that the budget faces, not the least of which is the ability for young people to have hope for their future. They are being weighed down in mountains of debt and deficit as well. We need to control spending.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member something. Veterans' issues are noticeably absent in this budget. However, the one issue I have been seized with, and I know the member has been seized with it as well, is having the Persian Gulf War veterans deemed as having wartime status. Only two times in our nation's history have we done that, both for the Korean War veterans and the merchant mariners, all of which was 30 years after service. In this case, we are 30 years after the Persian Gulf War. The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have it within their power, with one fell swoop of a pen, to deem it as wartime service. I wonder if the member is as disappointed as I am that we did not see any of that in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of Canadians to present a petition with respect to this large interventionist government proceeding again to take away consumer rights and health rights of Canadians, which will have a significant impact on the natural health products business in this country that employs literally thousands of people and that represents multi-billions of dollars of business. The petition says that the Liberal Party is threatening access to natural health products. Through the new rules, it will mean higher costs and fewer products on store shelves, that new so-called cost recovery provisions will impose massive costs on all consumers of natural health products and will undermine access for Canadians who rely on these products and that the provisions in the latest Liberal omnibus budget have given the government substantial new arbitrary powers around the regulation of natural health products. Therefore, the undersigned residents of Canada call on the government to reverse the changes made by the Liberals regarding natural health products. While I am on my feet, I do agree with many of my residents and businesses in Barrie—Innisfil, who see this as an attack on their consumer choice and cost, and it will have a dramatic impact on businesses in this country.