Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to participate in this debate. What is interesting is that when we listen to the government, it is unicorns, rainbows, gumdrops and lollipops. However, when we look and dig deep into the situation, we can see some of the news headlines that are happening, such as “Oakville food bank sees greatest demand in its history” and “'Dramatic and alarming increase' in food bank use reported in Burlington”. Two million Canadians visited the food bank last year. It is expected that one million more, so three million people, will have to visit the food bank this year alone. Is that a record to be proud of?

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, earlier today the opposition party asked the Speaker to grant an emergency debate on the issue related to drugs in the member's home province of British Columbia. The government can schedule a debate on this issue if it chooses. Would the hon. member support not just an emergency debate, but a debate on the catastrophic drug issue going on in his home province?

Mr. Speaker, people in Ontario went into full panic mode last night, lining up to fill up because gas was going up to $1.80 a litre, the highest it has been in two years. Eighteen cents on every litre of gas are because of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister's carbon tax. By the time the costly coalition is done, the carbon tax will quadruple, rising to 61¢ a litre. After nine years and an extra $10 to fill up overnight, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. How about cancelling the carbon tax on gas this summer so Canadians can at least enjoy the time-honoured tradition of a road trip?

Mr. Speaker, if the member is so confident in the carbon tax, I dare him to convince the Prime Minister to call an election. The increase caused panic and long lines at gas stations across Barrie—Innisfil last night. Costco was so busy that cars were lined up in live traffic on Mapleview. The NDP-Liberal government plans to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. The lineups and panic across the country show that, after nine years, Canadians can no longer afford the costly coalition. Why do they not just come and live with reality and axe the carbon tax so that Canadians can afford life?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work she is doing in defending the jobs of energy workers and families and indigenous communities right across the country. She has been a steadfast advocate of the energy sector. One of the things that she understands is the global demand for LNG and the impact and role Canada can play in meeting that demand. We have seen others with less environmental standards, less labour and less human rights standards fill that void, like Qatar. The hon. member and I met with a European Union official. His sole purpose is to source energy, nuclear and LNG around the world. They prefer to do business with like-minded countries like Canada, with similar rules of law that are environmentally sustainable as well. Could she talk about the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean energy?

Mr. Speaker, it is as if the Prime Minister has forgotten that he has been in power for almost nine years and that he and his policies, all of them, are the direct cause of the housing and mortgage crisis Canadians are facing. The way he has been parading around the country, blaming everyone else but himself for the housing hell reminds me of that old Shaggy song, It Wasn't Me. Well, it was he who was caught red-handed promising to lower the price of housing, rents and mortgages in Canada that have doubled in nine years, pushing middle-class Canadians to live in tent cities in nearly every city. Last week, CMHC confirmed that it has been him causing less affordable housing and higher rents because fewer homes are being built than we did in the 1970s. Worst of all, it is he who has dealt a devastating blow to young Canadians hoping to enter the housing market, young people who feel like they have been lied to and let down by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a chance to axe the tax in tomorrow's budget to make life more affordable for Canadians. The question is this: Will he, or will he continue to blame others for the problems he has caused and say, “It wasn't me”? Canadians know it is the Prime Minister.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this urgent matter to the attention of the House. It has been six years. The House passed the resolution, and yet the government has not acted. We have seen, over the years, the level of threats and intimidation that has gone on within the Iranian community because of the IRGC. Can the hon. member tell the House why he thinks the government is failing to act on designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech this afternoon on this very important concurrence motion. I would like her to comment on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said just before question period when she stood in front of the microphone. She spoke to an Israeli counterpart and said, after the weekend attacks, they should just take the win and de-escalate the situation. Obviously, we would like to see a de-escalation of the situation in the Middle East, but she implied that Israel should somehow take the win because there were no deaths. Fortunately, Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervened and shot down many of the airborne missiles and weapons sent to Israel. Can she comment on the comments of the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Mr. Speaker, for the better part of the afternoon, we have been talking about what has gone on over the last six years, and the fact that the House expressed its view in banning the IRGC as a terrorist organization six years ago. We have not seen any action by the government at all. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague wants to speculate on or perhaps provide the real reason the Liberals are not deeming the IRGC a terrorist entity.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families and business owners are paying the price with an NDP-Liberal government that is addicted to debt and deficits. Record-high deficits and carbon taxes driving up inflation are increasing the costs on everything, including the necessities of life. Interest rate increases fuelled by NDP-Liberal spending and increased debt are punishing Canadian families and business owners. We are just now starting to see the full impact that increases on mortgage rates are having on mortgage renewals, and it is a crisis. No prime minister has added more to the national debt than the current Prime Minister. Through it all, he has been aided and abetted by his NDP coalition partners. Anyone who has any sense at all knows that one does not put more fuel on an already out-of-control debt-and-deficit fire. It is time for a return to fiscal common sense in this country that sees a government cap spending to bring down interest rates and inflation with a dollar-for-dollar rule that finds a dollar in savings for every new dollar spent. Common-sense Conservatives will not support the budget unless it axes the tax, builds homes not photo ops, and caps spending.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of confusing to me, in a way, to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about perhaps moving this into different areas. It was in front of a parliamentary committee. The committee exercised its obligation and its will to get to the bottom of what Canadians are now seeing as a significant and gross misuse of public funds. Public opinion is in agreement with that. Even during committee and with the obligations of committee members to get to the bottom of this and the privilege they have exercised to get to the answers, we heard that Mr. Firth did not respond. What was the next step? It was an unusual and historic step, which was to ask the Speaker to rule on a matter of privilege. The Speaker did. The expectation is that, now, based not just on the debate that we are having today but also on the ruling of the Speaker, that we will have Mr. Firth come before the bar. I am not as confident, perhaps, as the hon. member that we are going to get to the bottom of this and have Mr. Firth answer questions unless he is brought to the bar and answers those questions directly. Does the hon. member feel that parliamentarians on that committee, exercising their obligations to have those questions answered, are best answered here in the House of Commons, with Mr. Firth called to the bar, or back at committee?

Madam Speaker, one of the things that my hon. colleague talked about was the decline in democracy and the diminishment of Parliament. We all recall, in 2015, how the Prime Minister said that this was going to be the most open and transparent government by default. We found that, since then, nothing has been like that. The member talked about the Winnipeg lab scandal, where they actually called an election so that the information would not come forward. Could the hon. member speak to the decline and the diminishment of this Parliament and the power and supremacy of Parliament under the Liberal government?

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the Bloc Québécois member on this issue. The integrity of parliamentary committees is paramount. We have seen witnesses appear in committee, including the ethics committee, and not answer questions. When we call someone to the bar to testify before a committee, we want to send them the message that parliamentarians are entitled to full and truthful answers every time anyone appears before a committee. That is the message we are going to send to the next witnesses who appear in committee. Does she agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. It is an important one for the House to debate. Like all Canadians, I have been watching what has been going on in the proceedings of the government operations committee, and I have been extremely disturbed by the lack of information being provided by this individual. I know the hon. member is involved in several committees, not the least of which is the government operations committee, but, because we are talking obstruction, I want to speak specifically to the obstructive tactics that have been going on in committee by the NDP-Liberal coalition, whether it is filibustering, amendments to motions to water things down or just generally obstructing the ability of the committee to do its work, especially on those committees where they have the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Helen Horodynsky, who passed away March 13 at the age of 100. Helen was born in the Sumy area of eastern Ukraine. She lived through the Holodomor and the Second World War as forced farm labour in Austria. Helen met her husband, Walter, when they were in the Red Cross DP camps near Salzburg, Austria, and immigrated to Canada in 1949 with Walter and a daughter. She would later have five more children in Canada. Like all Ukrainians, Helen had a strong work ethic that she passed on to her children. She worked well into her nineties on her son Boris's farms in Barrie and Innisfil. In her late eighties, she would weed the onion fields well into the evening and would only leave after she was told to. Helen came to Canada from Ukraine with nothing but determination and the hope of a better life for her family. She was loyal and proud of her hard-working family, loyal and proud to be Canadian, and loyal and proud of her beloved Ukraine. Canada is a better nation because of Helen's contribution to it and the contributions of all Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

Mr. Speaker, what an honour it is for me to stand in this place, pay tribute to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and express my sincere condolences to his family: his wife, Mila; daughter, Caroline; and sons, Mark, Nicolas and Ben. I had the opportunity to meet with the family today, and I expressed my sincere condolences on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil. On my 18th birthday, I was a kid working the all-night shift at a country music radio station in Brandon, Manitoba. I think the member for Brandon—Souris thought I was going to tell that story. The reason I mention it is that it was around the time Brian Mulroney had entered the political scene. I had not really thought much about politics at that time, but there was just something about him. There was something about his magnetism and his communication skills. Maybe it was the background in radio that I was pursuing, my fledgling radio career, but there was just something that drew me to him. At that moment, during that period, I became a Progressive Conservative. I was not as active in the political movement at that time. I later became very active, under former prime minister Stephen Harper. However, there was something that piqued my interest in politics, and it was Brian Mulroney, not just in the way he communicated but in his vision. If I were to describe him in one way, in one word, it would be “bold”. I have sat here through most of the debate tonight, and I know there are a lot of ways to describe the former prime minister. He was bold. He was bold at a time when Canada needed to be bold, not just domestically but internationally as well. I know several of my colleagues have recounted how we had come out of a period of great despair; interest rates were high. He made some bold decisions, and they were not very popular. That is really the sign of leadership, when we think about it: moving people in a direction they know they should be going in when they are not willing to do so. That is what Brian Mulroney did for this country. He led us into a period of economic prosperity, for which we ought to be grateful. In many cases, it was a long-lasting prosperity. Brian Mulroney obviously won the largest majority in the history of this country. Not only did he draw in a young, impressionable 18-year-old radio DJ at that time, but he did the same for the rest of the nation, and there was a reason for that. He had the type of personality that drew people in. He had the capability to communicate effectively and share his vision for the nation. He did that very well. We can think of his accomplishments, many positive, some controversial, and what he did around the world: He restored Canada's place as a well-respected global leader. Brian Mulroney was the epitome of a statesman in the way he carried himself and communicated with other leaders. We can think of where he was in terms of the stature of other world leaders: He was their equal. He was not below or above. When he walked into a room and talked about the things that were important globally, such as fighting apartheid in South Africa and environmental issues, he had the respect of the room. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, François Mitterrand and Mikhail Gorbachev were larger-than-life figures for their own reasons. Brian Mulroney could walk into a room and deal and talk with those people at a level that I do not think we have seen in this country for a long time. He garnered respect. He was bold in his love of Canada. It was what this nation meant to him. He believed in Canada and our Confederation. He believed in the inclusion of all the provinces. We saw that evidenced by his work on the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. He really worked to bring this country together at a time when it needed it the most. He did this not only in the time that he was prime minister but also long after he was prime minister. We have heard stories tonight of him reaching out and influencing. Even earlier this week, when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition spoke about Brian Mulroney, they spoke about receiving phone calls from him; based on his experience, he gave them his best advice. Whether it was the update to the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement or other things, he was always there to provide advice. He was always there to comfort people in their time of greatest need, whether he would make phone calls or simply write people notes. I heard these stories long ago, and it is a practice that I have adopted as a member of Parliament to write notes to people in a way that Brian Mulroney would have done, or simply call people just to see how they are doing. He had the ability to draw one in, and when in the room with him, it did not matter whether there was one person or 1,000 people; he had a way of making a person feel special and that he could connect with them. Later on, after the election in 2015, I got to know the prime minister. We shared a desire, he and I, on the Gulf War veterans. As members know, it was Brian Mulroney who cobbled together a coalition of like-minded countries that saw the need to deal with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. Again, it was that principled foreign policy approach. Brian Mulroney brought this alliance together and caused Saddam to retreat out of Kuwait, which was the impetus for the war in the Persian Gulf. I know that Prime Minister Mulroney cared very deeply and was very passionate about sending Canadian troops over to the Persian Gulf. Brian Mulroney could tell a story like nobody else, and in our shared desire to see the Gulf War veterans elevated to wartime status as opposed to UN mission status, I recall a story he told. He was talking about his concern over sending CF-18s to the Persian Gulf. He was on the phone with Hosni Mubarak, who was then the president of Egypt. Brian told this story at an event, and he said in that deep baritone voice, “Hosni, I'm very concerned about sending CF-18 pilots to fight in the Persian Gulf War.” Hosni Mubarak said to him, in his Egyptian accent, “Brian, you don't have to worry about that.” Brian goes “What do you mean, Hosni? How can I not worry about that? These are our pilots flying our planes.” Hosni said, “The reason you don't have to worry about it is that we trained the Iraqi pilots. We know they're bad pilots.” Prime Minister Mulroney said at the time that it gave him comfort in the fact that he was making the right decision at that point to send our troops over to the Persian Gulf. As I said, we shared the desire to see the Persian Gulf War veterans elevated to wartime status. I say that in the past tense, unfortunately, with his passing. If we are going to pay tribute to the legacy of Brian Mulroney and the deep compassion, the empathy and the concern he had for so many others, I would call on the House as a matter of his legacy to see if we can come together as parties, as government, to ensure that the desire to have those Gulf War veterans elevated to wartime status is met. We have done that twice in our history, with the Korean War veterans and the merchant mariners. In honour of Prime Minister Mulroney, we should be doing that for our Persian Gulf War veterans. As I conclude, I am fortunate that my riding of Barrie—Innisfil is adjacent to that of the president of the Treasury Board for the Province of Ontario, Caroline Mulroney. I get to spend a lot of time working with Caroline on joint issues and shared common things within our area of central Ontario. On behalf of the people whom I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, I stand here tonight to express my sincere condolences to Mila, Caroline, Mark, Nicolas and Ben and to thank them for their contributions to our nation and for sharing who was, in my view, a very remarkable Canadian: Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the people that I represent in Barrie—Innisfil. There is a full-blown carbon tax revolt going on in this country right now. Today's motion represents voices across the country. They are saying that, on April 1, when the 23% increase in the carbon tax occurs, it needs to stop. I know the Speaker is from Nova Scotia and that he heard the news today out of Nova Scotia that the Nova Scotia Legislature unanimously passed a motion to stop the carbon tax increase on April 1. In fact, 70% of premiers in this country are asking for the same, and 70% of Canadians are asking to axe the tax increase on April 1. Yesterday, the Liberal leader of Ontario stood in front of microphones in the Ontario legislature and called on the federal government to axe the 23% tax increase on April 1. That is why we are here today. One thing I get to do as the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil is communicate regularly with my residents. I know many of the MPs utilize the tools that are available to communicate; in every circumstance that we deal with mailers, we ask a question. We ask the question so we can get a sense of how our constituents feel about certain issues that we are debating in this country. Recently, I sent out a constituency mailer. What this represents is just a small portion of the responses that I got back. The responses were telling. They were telling of the circumstances that my constituents are feeling right now, not only as a result of the carbon tax but also as a result of the affordability and inflation crisis and the interest rate increase crisis. These things have dramatically impacted my residents and people right across this country, and not just people, but businesses as well. In some of those responses, 81% of the respondents that got back to me with the mailer said that they wanted to scrap the carbon tax. It was not a trick question that I asked. It was a very simple and succinct question: “Do you support the carbon tax?” Eighty-one per cent of the residents came back and said that they do not. There were some, I acknowledge, that did support the carbon tax, and that is fine. However, what I saw is consistent with what I am seeing right across this country; this is that 70% of Canadians want the carbon tax scrapped. Here is what some of the residents are saying. I am their voice. I stand up here in the House of Commons as the voice of the people of Barrie—Innisfil, who have elected me since 2015. “We are 80 and 81 years old. We cannot afford the taxes we have”, said Lyle and Phyllis from Barrie. “Every month on average my carbon [tax] cost just for the gas bill is $59. At the end of the year that is $708 just for the gas bill, not to mention the cost of the groceries that have gone up. We can't save anything. Even with that little bit of my paid taxes (yes our money) I'm getting back 4 times a year, the PM acts like he is doing me a favour. It doesn't put a dent in the cost of everything going up,” said Lulu in Innisfil. “Just a quick note to let you know that I am OPPOSED to the upcoming April 1st carbon tax increase on gasoline. As a pensioner, I am finding it difficult to keep up with all the increases in taxes, cost of food, utilities, etc. My pension only increases...2% a year”, said Mark in Barrie. The carbon tax is going up 23% on April 1. “The general public cannot handle any more taxes at this time”, said Jennifer in Innisfil. “It's a significant contributor to inflation, which we urgently need to control”, said Alexander in Innisfil. “Don't believe it effectively encourages less fuel consumption”, said Todd in Lefroy. “They should cancel it; life is very expensive already”, said Nora in Barrie. That is the crux of what we are discussing here today. As I mentioned earlier, the affordability and inflation crisis gripping our nation right now is having a real impact on people. We can add to that interest rate increases and mortgages that are coming due for renewal. Is it any wonder that there is a carbon tax revolt happening not only at the grassroots level but also among provincial premiers in this country? This is because they are on the ground. It is easy for us to sit here in the Ottawa bubble and not recognize the impact this is having on people in our country. I am sure Liberal, NDP, Bloc and other members are hearing from their constituents, as I am, about the affordability factor. All we are asking is to give people a break and not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. This is not the end of it. The tax will be going up four times more by 2035. It is going to increase to four times more than what it is right now. People cannot afford it now; how are they going to afford it then? Of course, the argument from the government is that it is revenue-neutral. If one does not take it from people in the first place, then one never has to give it back. The fact is, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, people are not getting back what they are paying into the carbon tax. Liberals can argue all they want as they stand up here. As the former environment minister famously said one time, as she was sitting in a bar in Newfoundland, if they say things loud enough and long enough, people will totally believe what they say. It is effectively propaganda. However, the facts are in front of us, through the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In the province where I am from, Ontario, in 2023-24, the cost of the tax will be $1,363. The rebate will be $885, which means that people are spending more on the carbon tax than what they are getting in the rebate, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, it is $1,281. People are getting back $934. In Alberta, people will pay $2,466 in carbon tax, in terms of the fiscal and economic gross cost; the rebate they are getting back is $1,756. If we cannot believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the data he provides to parliamentarians, then why do we even have him? I would suggest that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's data, and the anecdotal data I am hearing from residents in my riding, say exactly this: They cannot afford this carbon tax. They cannot afford the increase. One thing I want to focus on for a minute is the cost of business. We have said many times in this place that, when one taxes the wholesalers, producers and transporters, the tax ends up at the consumer through grocery stores. The stores, by the way, are paying to heat and cool their buildings. It is ultimately the end consumer who ends up paying for it. On the supply side, business ends up paying for it. Yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business produced a document that it posted on its website. It reaffirmed to its members that the “carbon tax is increasing by a staggering 23% on April 1st! That means the cost of a litre of gasoline will include 17.6 cents of carbon tax!” One thing it discussed is the fact that the federal government had promised to return the carbon tax to business. Across this country, there is currently $2.5 billion owed in rebates. In the province of Ontario, $2,637 is owed to each business as a result of this rebate, yet the government continues to hold on to that money. These businesses are still being impacted on the supply side with the increase in the costs I mentioned earlier. I am here today on behalf of the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, who I know are going through a massive affordability issue. These are seniors, single moms and people trying to keep a roof over their heads, not just because of the carbon tax but because of all factors. All we are asking for today on behalf of not just the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil but all Canadians, in this carbon tax revolt that is currently ongoing, is to axe the tax and try to help make life more affordable for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I have a tough time justifying in my own mind how anybody lining up at a food bank is better off than they are providing for their own family. In Barrie, in the month of December, there was a 150% increase in food bank usage. We are seeing two million people a year utilizing food banks in this country. The expectation this year is that there is going to be another million, on top of the two million, who are going to be utilizing food banks. Is that the kind of country we want? Do we want people lining up at food banks, or do we want them producing and trying to provide a secure future for their families? I deal with the PBO. I deal with statistics as well, just as the hon. member does. However, I also deal with those residents and businesses in my riding, which are telling me that the cost of living is way too much because of a combination of a lot of factors. Not the least of these is the increase in the carbon tax on April 1, as well as future increases that are planned, which the government said would not happen. The Liberals said they would not raise it to a certain level, and in fact they are. The cost of everything is going up, including the cost of necessities of life. Given the affordability crisis that exists today, I happen to think it is unfair.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is currently on the rise across the country because the NDP has supported so many of the Liberal government's policies. I do not think he heard what I was saying before, which is that there are families in this country who are paying more in the carbon tax than what they are getting back. According to the data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in Ontario, the province that I live in, the fiscal and economic net impact on a family is $1,820. I have no reason to not believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer; he is an independent officer of Parliament whose job is to assess this data and give us the information according to the data he assesses. This means the family is paying more than it is getting back in the carbon tax. The fact is that there are premiers in this country who are now calling on the government to stop the carbon tax, to axe the tax on April 1. They are listening to their constituents, as I am doing, and 81% of my constituents have told me that they do not want this carbon tax to occur. They certainly do not want to pay for future increases that are going to happen under the Liberal government's plan.

Mr. Speaker, what a tangled web we weave and how cynical the government has become over the years. I recall, in 2015, when the Prime Minister, with hand over heart, said that better was possible and things were going to be different. In the 2015 election, one of the things Liberals talked about was making Parliament more functional and allowing the opposition parties to be the voices of their constituents, yet here we are again with this motion, which is effectively controlling this place, just as the Prime Minister has had a propensity to do in the past. Does the government House leader not understand the significance of his actions for future Parliaments and what this could mean for the future of this place? In this place, things, as they relate to the Standing Orders, are built on consensus. This is anything but. This is the government strong-arming itself over the will of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I rise today in tribute to former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner Mary Dawson, who passed away on December 24, 2023. Mary Dawson was not just the former ethics commissioner. Her fingerprints are all over very important parts of our history, including the drafting of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Canada Health Act, the Official Languages Act, the Competition Act, the Customs Act and the Young Offenders Act. She was made a member of the Queen's Counsel in 1978 and became associate chief legislative counsel in the early 1980s. Aside from being the associate deputy minister of justice for nearly two decades, she was particularly proud of her constitutional work, including being the final drafter for the patriation package on the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The job of a good conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is to make members of all the parties equally uncomfortable. She did her job well. Mary Dawson was a remarkable person, and Canada has been well served by her contributions. Our condolences go out to her family on the passing of a remarkable Canadian, Mary Dawson.

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that we are here tonight debating what is effectively a gutted Bill C-234. Just to remind everyone at home, this bill would have provided a billion dollars' worth of relief to farmers in this country by exempting them on the carbon tax. In fact, members may recall that this bill passed through the House with all of the opposition parties voting for it. There were five Liberal members who voted for it, but the rest of the Liberal caucus voted against it, and it is unbelievable that they would actually vote against carbon tax relief for Canadian farmers and farm families who produce and create so much food security in this country. I think it was frankly an embarrassment to see this go on during that time. However, the worst part about it was that it went through the House, as I mentioned, and it passed, so it went to committee. The Liberal members of that committee tried to move amendments in committee that were rejected by the majority of the opposition parties, and the bill ended up at the Senate. The Senate then, as a result of coercion and what some would say were bullying tactics by the radical, extremist environment minister and the Prime Minister, who by media accounts really strong-armed so-called “independent” senators who had been appointed by the Prime Minister, reintroduced those amendments back into the bill, and this is what we are dealing with today. A billion dollars' worth of relief has been lost for Canadian farmers. I know members have heard this many times, but when we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the transporter who transports the food, it is eventually the end consumer who ends up paying the cost, and that is what is happening in this case. Let me tell members about Barrie—Innisfil. I am so fortunate to represent a riding that is a mix of urban and rural, and I would argue that that split is probably about 60-40, but we have farmers in Innisfil who are some of the best environmentally sustainable farmers, if not just across the country, then around the world. Horodynsky Farms is the largest onion farmer in the country. Boris Horodynsky, who is of Ukrainian decent, uses the most influential technology we can find, drone technology, to make sure his land is sustainable. Kell Farms is one of the largest privately held farms in all of Ontario. We have Wardlaw's Poultry Farm, Barrie Hill Farms and Hewitt Creek Farm. We have some other producers who are greenhouse producers, such as Lakeview Gardens and Bradford Greenhouses. Every single one of those farms I represent in Barrie—Innisfil would be paying more because of what the Senate has done to this bill, complicit with the government. It is a shame because one of the things we need to focus on, coming out of COVID, and it should be the number one priority in this country, in addition to energy security, is food security. We need to make sure that our producers are producing enough food so that we are not dependent on other aspects of the world, other despot nations or other big countries, bigger countries than Canada, for food. This food security is being threatened. Those farms I described before, along with Eisses Poultry Farm, which is a chicken farm in my riding, are multi-generational farms, and the more these costs increase for these farms and farm families, the more at risk they are going to be in providing that food security for our nation. The risk will come from industrialized farms, the big conglomerates. We have a couple of them here in Canada, but there are those farms globally. What happens when these farms no longer exist in this country? What happens when these farm families are put at risk as the result of an ideological attack by the government with its imposing and implementing the carbon tax? It puts all of our food security at risk. This is not to mention the fact that it increases costs, and I know many of the speakers before me have talked about that. I will give an example. I was thinking about this as I was preparing for this discussion tonight. Earlier today, I had what every Canadian has had. Many members probably had it for lunch today. I had a clubhouse sandwich, and I looked at the ingredients of that clubhouse sandwich. I looked at the whole wheat bread, as I am trying to eat healthy, the tomatoes and the bacon, which came from pigs in those heated barns and is now going to cost more. I also looked at the lettuce, which is grown in those greenhouses and is now going to cost more as a result of paying to heat those greenhouses. All of those costs are going to be added on. It will be an extra $910 million cost to the farmers as a result of the Senate amendments that have come back to this place. It is going to cost every Canadian family more, at a time when food insecurity is at its greatest. We are hearing that two million people are going to the food bank every month in this country because they cannot afford the cost of groceries, and seniors are walking into the Stroud I.G.A. or the Zehrs at Big Bay Point, looking at the food and at the price, and then putting the food back because they cannot afford it. The government and its complicit senators are putting at risk that food security. They are putting at risk the ability of Canadians to be able to afford food. As I said at the outset, this is not a controversial bill. In Atlantic Canada, we have seen a carve-out, because it was politically expedient for the Liberal government to carve out the carbon tax and allow an exemption because they were feeling the political heat of the cost of the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. What the member for Huron—Bruce did by proposing this bill was to provide that relief for those farmers who are producing our food and are producing food security. I do not think it is too much to ask. This is why we are here tonight, to talk to the government and the other opposition parties, and to tell them to support the bill in its original form, particularly the opposition parties, because they did, when it was brought to this place. When it went to committee, they voted against those amendments. That is all we are asking for, to be able to provide that relief to Canadian farmers and Canadian farm families. The other aspect of this is really concerning. I have a restaurant in my riding and I recently spoke to the owner. I was sent their gas bill, and the federal carbon charge was noted on that gas bill. Without giving the name, they sell chickens, they sell a lot of chickens. The federal carbon charge on that bill was $1,413 for one month. Let us assume they work off 10% margins. They would have to sell another $14,000 worth of chicken, plus HST, as I am reminded by our agricultural critic, just to pay the carbon tax. Now, as I mentioned before, we have Eisses Farm, chicken farms, a large chicken operation, in southwestern Ontario. Every single one of those producers will be paying the carbon tax as a result of the fact that this bill has been gutted in the Senate. That is going to increase costs, not just for those restaurants, but for every single family in this country who is thinking about buying chicken, fruit, vegetables or anything grown or heated in this country. That is all the member for Huron—Bruce was trying to avoid in this bill. It was to give some relief to the farmers so that the consumers could get some relief at a time when we need relief. This is not going to stop. This is a radical, ideologically left-leaning, activist government that believes that the carbon tax is the solution to fighting climate change. It is going to go up four times by the time it is done. People are going to be paying four times more. Producers are going to be paying four times more. I stand here tonight, not just for those farms and farm families, but for every single person that I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, to fight to make life more affordable for them. Before I stop, I do want to wish my wife, Liane a very happy Valentine's Day.

Mr. Speaker, the arrive scam app is just like the Prime Minister, not worth the cost and not worth the corruption. The investigation and damning report issued by the Auditor General on ArriveCAN shocked even her. Really, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, no one should be shocked by the level of incompetence and wasteful spending that Canadians have seen from this Prime Minister. A reasonable-thinking person could conclude from the report that the arrive scam app issue has reached the level of criminality. Will the Prime Minister join Conservatives and call on the RCMP to expand an investigation into the arrive scam app, based on the revelations in the Auditor General's report?

Mr. Speaker, the question was a simple one really, but after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, who in this place or across Canada expects a proper response from a Prime Minister who is not worth the cost and not worth the corruption? The AG's report causes a reasonable person to conclude that what happened with the arrive scam app has reached a level of criminality that must be investigated, so I am going to ask again. Will the Prime Minister join Conservatives and call on the RCMP to expand an investigation into the arrive scam app, based on the revelations that were contained in the Auditor General's report?

Mr. Speaker, the former Speaker of the House of Commons was forced to resign after a scandal that saw an SS soldier recognized in this place last September during President Zelenskyy’s visit. I want to read a few quotes about the former Speaker during the period that led to his resignation. “I can’t see, based on the conversations I have had, how he can continue to have the support of Liberal members of Parliament,” said the Liberal House leader in calling for the Speaker to resign. “What happened on Friday is completely unacceptable. It was an embarrassment to the House and Canadians,” said the foreign minister. Last week, after months of denial, written evidence in an email came to light that the Prime Minister did in fact invite the same SS soldier to a government reception in Toronto, so where is the same condemnation for the Prime Minister from those cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs who threw the former Speaker under the bus? The Prime Minister and his office are guilty of the exact same sin as the former Speaker, and because he is, he deserves the same punishment for embarrassing our nation once again. Like the Speaker before him, the Prime Minister needs to resign.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued before, that there is no other trade deal that Canada has that has implemented a carbon tax in it. I would argue, and it is a very reasonable argument that can be made, that what Ukraine does not need is a carbon tax; what it does need are weapons. When Bill C-57 went to committee, the member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan proposed amendments to the bill that would expedite the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and yet the NDP voted against that amendment to the bill. My question is: Why?

Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to recall the carve-out that was implemented in Atlantic Canada, which was as a result of bad polling numbers and the fact that the carbon tax is not well received in Atlantic Canada. That is why the Atlantic caucus forced the Prime Minister to do this carve-out. With a quadrupling of the carbon tax, everything is going to cost his constituents more by the time it is fully implemented. Can the hon. member honestly stand here and tell this House that his constituents approve of and support that?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for taking away 20 minutes of my life, which I will never get back. I often laugh at this comical narrative the Liberals are trying to build of comparing the Conservative Party to Donald Trump because it wants to stand up for working families across this country by making life less expensive for them. I see my good friend from Saint John—Rothesay, whom I deem a reasonable and practical Canadian. I recall in 2015, when the Liberals talked about taxes, debt and deficit. Because of these comparisons, I often hear from people that this is not the party of Chrétien-Martin, but a radical, ideological, leftist cult led by a two-bit actor, who memorizes lines given to him by much smarter socialists. What happened to the Liberal Party of Chrétien-Martin?

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise on behalf of the residents and businesses of Barrie—Innisfil to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. When my four kids were growing up, there was a TV show with Barney, the purple dinosaur, and the lyrics of one of its famous songs went: If all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops Oh, what a rain that would be! If we were to listen to the Liberals debating the fall economic statement, or anything to do with their economic policy, we would think that Canadians had never had it any better and that things are rosy across the land. I can tell members that, after spending the last six weeks in Barrie—Innisfil speaking to residents and businesses, things are dire right now. They are dire for many reasons for a lot of families, and I will focus on what I heard from my residents and the businesses of Barrie—Innisfil over the last six weeks. In fact, I have been hearing from them for a long time because many of the economic policies that the government has implemented have disproportionately affected Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses in a way that many may never recover from. The first thing I will focus on is the carbon tax. We live an hour north of Toronto and do not have access to mass transit like they do in the city of Toronto. We have a Barrie transit system and a GO transit system that gets us where we need to go for special events in Toronto, for example, or from point A to point B in Barrie. However, the difficulty for many people who live in Barrie is that they drive, so they are being impacted by the cost of the carbon tax on their gas bills as they go to work, visit family and take their kids to hockey. In many cases, hockey does not just happen in Barrie, but all over Ontario. I know that first-hand from having two kids who played AAA hockey. My wife and I often talk about the circumstance where she would be in Belleville and I would be in Peterborough, separately, each with one of our kids playing hockey, and the impact the carbon tax would have had on us as a family at that time. We could barely afford to put our kids in hockey then. I cannot imagine what families are going through right now having to pay the carbon tax on their fuel and everything else, such as heating, whether that is residential or for a business. I had a bill sent to me today from a local business owner, who runs a restaurant, and his carbon tax, just last month, was $1,431. Members can assume for a second that this restaurant works off of 10% margins. They would have to sell an extra 14,000 dollars' worth of goods or services just to pay for the carbon tax. The fact is that the carbon tax is going to quadruple, so they would have to pay more. Certainly, the business would not get any of that back in a rebate. Many families are showing me their gas bills, as I have asked them to, and they are saying the same thing, which is that they are not getting back in total what they are paying for gas, for natural gas or for groceries. They are not getting back from the carbon rebate, as the government claims, an equal amount to what they are paying in the carbon tax. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about exactly that. Many more families are getting less back in the rebate than they are paying in carbon tax, and it is disproportionately affecting low-income Canadians. Many of them are in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil. I have, as we all have, sent out newsletters and mailers, and we have the ability to ask a question on the back of a mailer. There has been no other issue that I received more responses on than the issue of the carbon tax. The question was simple: Do you support the carbon tax? I can say that, out of the hundreds of responses I got back from Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses, 82.5% said that they do not support the carbon tax, 15% said they did, and 2.5% had no response. This was out of the hundreds of responses that were sent back. Also, there was an option to give comments, and here are some of the responses: “What are they doing with the tax?” asked D.B. in Barrie. Another said, “I would be interested about what improvement our carbon tax collected has made on the climate change so far.” We have already heard, through various reports, that our emissions have not been reduced significantly, save and except during COVID. That stands to reason because nobody was driving or doing anything at that time. The economy was effectively shut down. We need to do much more to stop climate change, but I do not believe that the carbon tax in Canada is doing anything to change it. H. H. in Innisfil wrote, “The carbon tax on home heating is unfair”, while another said, “Don't believe it effectively encourages less fuel consumption”. D. Morrison from Barrie wrote, “The Government has no idea what goes on in the real country for the average person.” Another constituent wrote, “I pay 62% of my pension in tax. It is obvious to me that this money is not being spent in my best interest”. Now we hear that the government, because it feels that it has a narrative problem with respect to the carbon tax, is effectively going to try to put lipstick on a pig. It is going to change that narrative. It is going to try to advertise it in a way that more people understand it. I can tell members that people do understand. They understand when they see their gas bill, go to the grocery store and put gas in their car that the carbon tax is costing them more. When we tax the farmer who produces the food, the shipper who moves the food, the producers and wholesalers who look after the food for distribution and the grocery stores, who ends up paying more? It is the consumer. How bad is it in this country? There are two million people using food banks. I had an opportunity last week to visit the Barrie Food Bank. It told me that its utilization was 150% greater in December than it was the December before. It is seeing people using the food bank like it has never seen before. It is multi-generational as well. Families are coming in utilizing the food bank as though it were a grocery store because they cannot afford to buy food. I was also at the Innisfil food bank. What precipitated my visit, in addition to donating $1,312.50 as a result of some fundraising that we did specifically for the food bank, was an email from its director, who wrote: I finished the yearly report for the Innisfil Food Bank so am sharing some of the stats here. We have seen an overall increase of 29% over the course of the year. The majority (43%) of our visitors attended the food bank between 2 and 5 times this past year. 24% of our clients came 6-12 times/year. Our busiest months were October (our highest ever) and January (which is pretty standard). Over 55% of our people are supporting dependants. The food bank's increase is consistent, or even less, than what we are seeing across the country, and there again is that multi-generational use. The email continues: We are seeing an increase in multi-generational homes. This means that someone is supporting both children and parents or grandparents are supporting their own kids but also their grandkids. This is in a G7 country where we are supposed to have abundance, where people are not just simply supposed to scrape by, but have the dignity of work, producing a paycheque and providing for their family. That is sadly not happening. What we have seen with this fall economic statement is the government commit to another $20 billion in spending with no fiscal guardrails. We have debt and deficit increasing like we have never seen before in this country. Interest rates are continually at a level where they become unaffordable. The other thing I heard about was the impact of mortgage rates and how it is affecting Barrie—Innisfil homeowners. I was doing the Salvation Army kettle in Stroud. I had a self-employed person come up to me who said their bank would not provide them with a mortgage. That person had to go to a secondary lender, not at 4% or 5%, but at 9%, and will be at risk of losing their home. Mortgages are up for renewal for 900,000 homes in this country over the next three years, and as a result of the fiscal policy of the government, many are at risk. Conservatives are going to be focused on four things in this session of Parliament: axing the tax; building homes; making sure we help the government fix the budget, with suggestions that are going to do that; and stopping crime. There is only one alternative to govern in this country, and that is Canada's Conservatives, so we can have common sense for everyone and restore common sense and decency for people in this country.

Madam Speaker, I think Canadians were sold a bill of goods with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I do not believe it is $10 billion; I believe it is much more than that, $35 billion in fact. If the member wants the answer, I can give him the answer. It is $35 billion, and I would question how many of those projects have actually been built and how much has gone towards executive bonuses. It is no secret. The hon. parliamentary secretary makes it out to be some dark secret that we are going to cancel the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Maybe we will put in a better program, or, worse yet, maybe we will balance the budget, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, with a dollar-for-dollar scenario. Every household does that. If I am going to spend a dollar here, I am going to find a dollar of savings there. After all the consultants, all of the wasted spending and all of the corruption that has gone on with the government, I am sure we are going to be able to find many dollars to help fix the budget.

Madam Speaker, we are going to strongly disagree on this issue. There is no question that there will be strong disagreement between the way the Bloc feels and the ideology of the government. We happen to believe that clean Canadian energy and clean Canadian technology are the answer to reducing climate change, not just here at home but also around the world. I happened to meet with a European Union representative whose primary focus is to source clean sources of energy. What they said to me was that Canada has become an unreliable partner in that because of ideology. We have the best environmental standards, the best human rights standards, the best labour standards and the best technology in the world to supply the world with clean Canadian energy. If we are not doing that, ideological attacks on our energy sector aside, if we are not supplying the world with clean energy, then who is supplying it? Russia, Iran, Venezuela and others are. We are going to disagree on this. It may be an ideological thing, but the fact is that we have clean Canadian energy that could help reduce emissions not just here at home but also around the world.

Madam Speaker, I think I made it very clear in a previous answer, and Conservatives have made it clear, that we are going to do what every household does: If it looks to spend a dollar, it is going to find a dollar of savings. Think about single moms and families. What about those moms who are going to bed worried every night about keeping a roof over their head? What do people think they are doing? There is no reason the government should not be living in the same manner. The Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear what our plan is. We know there is wastage. We are seeing it with the $54-million arrive scam app. We are seeing it with billions of dollars being spent on consultants. Our focus is going to be on ensuring that working families have hope and opportunity for the future, not just for the next generation but also for generations to come. That is our focus. As I said earlier, we are determined and we are extremely focused on that task.

Mr. Speaker, here is a question: How many Canadians stayed in a $9,000-a-night resort owned by a friend over Christmas for free? The answer is very likely none, but there was one, and that was the Prime Minister. At a time when two million Canadians are using food banks, the carbon tax is punishing families and businesses, housing is unaffordable for young Canadians while those in their houses can barely afford them as mortgages become due for renewal, and seniors cannot afford groceries and are not eating nutritiously because of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister did not for a second think that maybe an $87,000 free vacation to a luxury resort was not a good look right now. He clearly did not care. What about the 100 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions put into the atmosphere from the not one but two private jets he needed for the trip? We can understand why Canadians are upset about his lack of judgment and his hypocrisy. It is clear to everyone that after eight years of the Prime Minister, he is not worth the cost. Canadians see that everything is about him, and that while we live in his world, the rest of us are just squirrels looking for nuts, nuts that not many can afford anymore.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, I also take my earpiece out, not because it is loud, but because I quite frankly do not want to hear what the other side has to say. This is an important issue, because it speaks to the confidence the House has in the Speaker to make objective rulings in a non-partisan manner. My expectation, and I am sure that of my colleague in the Bloc, is that the Speaker is to make those rulings in an objective, non-partisan manner, but the activities of partisanship and the continued bad judgment speak to a real problem. My question is a pointed one. Does the hon. member have confidence in the Speaker to be objective and non-partisan and to act in the manner they should as they take that chair?

Mr. Speaker, one thing I find curious every time the member gets up to speak to this is this almost contemptuous nature with which he speaks about members for bringing these issues up. The Bloc Québécois has a right and an obligation to be an opposition party, which it is doing. We are dealing with a concurrence report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that not just investigates what happened with the Speaker but also gives an opportunity for the House to deal with this. We also understand that there is other business of the House that can occur, but in this case, through the whip, the Bloc Québécois wanted to bring this to the House to have this debate, to talk about it more and to find concurrence of the House. The hon. member can vote either for or against the concurrence report, but the Bloc has the right to use those tools, as every opposition member does, in a way that holds the government to account and, in this case, to find concurrence on a report that came out of committee. Why does he hold so much contempt for this? In fact, I would argue that, when he was in opposition, these very same issues would come up. They would also do concurrence reports on this, so why the difference now compared to when he was in opposition and this contemptuous nature with which he continues to hold this institution and our ability to hold the government to account?

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise on Motion No. 96. I would not mind ceding my time to the hon. Leader of the Opposition so I could hear him speak more about the fall economic statement, but we are in Private Members' Business, and I do need to speak to this. The last time I spoke to this, I spoke to the goodwill and good nature of what this motion represents. I also mentioned I met with the International Association of Fire Fighters. This is an issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, but what I spoke about is the need to get this to committee, which is how we make decisions around this place. Private Members' Business, even with a motion as good-natured and as good willed as this, really does not have the effect or authority that committee business would have. What I mean by that is that we would get everybody in. The committee could, through its work, have stakeholders come in, including the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Canadian Airports Council and the International Civil Aviation Organization so we could all get as much information as we could to make an informed decision, not only on the status of current firefighting capabilities at airports, and how that relates to safety and other issues, but also on what the impact of that would be on costs. A critical component to this is getting all sides of this issue to the committee table and having a proper and informed debate with lots of opportunities to ask questions and get answers. This is a critical component to where we want to go with this. In fact, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, our shadow minister for transport, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, presented a motion to committee to study this very issue. I will read into the record what his motion proposes. He moved: That the committee undertake a study on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes (Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 303) allocating a minimum of three meetings to this study to hear from witnesses that include the International Association of Firefighters, the Canadian Airports Council and other interested parties, and that the Committee report its findings to the House. That would be the proper format and venue for this issue to be studied. The member for Chilliwack—Hope is proposing to committee that we have up to three meetings and invite all of the stakeholders in, including the IFF, of which I am a former member, and the Airports Council. I would suggest having the International Civil Aviation Organization come in to talk about safety. We could have Transport Canada at that meeting. We could have government officials at those meetings to really properly vet this out and hear from all sides and, therefore, make an informed decisions. Private Members' Business is an opportunity for members to propose legislation and propose motions. While I certainly see the value in what the member is proposing in his motion, it requires study. I do not think one would find an argument from the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Airports Council or other stakeholders such as the International Civil Aviation Organization that this issue needs to be properly studied. I know the International Association of Fire Fighters has done a study on this. At committee, it could come in front of committee to argue its points. We would then have committee members write a report that would come back to Parliament to be endorsed by Parliament in its entirety. Only then, when all of the stakeholders have been to the table and all of that information has been proposed, and a report has been written by our eminently qualified analysts, could a suggestion of this magnitude and recommendations of this magnitude be made, knowing all of the facts. While I appreciate and respect the work the International Association of Fire Fighters has done on this, we do need to hear from others and hear about the impact this is going to have on not only service but also costs. We have talked about that. I know there is a number floating around that it could work out to a few dollars per airline ticket as a surcharge, and I would submit we may even have the airlines come in to talk about the impact that might have. I know there have been recent reports through the UN and International Civil Aviation Organization that suggest that safety at Canada's airports is not as robust as it should be. Perhaps we could have the authors of those reports come to committee as well. I do think it does require a more fulsome study, other than just passing a motion here in the House of Commons. Yesterday, the member for Chilliwack—Hope proposed a motion at the transport committee. I hope every single member of the transport committee would look at that motion and understand what the intent is. It is to have everybody come in, talk about this and provide their input, and then have that committee issue a report to Parliament, which we could debate in a more fulsome manner. Sometimes, through private members' business, we see a lot of different motions come forward. If we want something that is going to have some teeth, if we want something that is truly going to put forward the safety issues that the firefighters have identified, then we need a committee to study this further and bring all these parties to the table. I appreciate the work everybody has done.

With regard to analyses conducted by the Department of Finance related to deficit financing or inflationary spending conducted since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such analyses, including, for each, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) what was analyzed, (iii) what methodology was used, (iv) on what date did the analysis begin, (v) on what date was the analysis complete, (vi) what was the analysis’s findings?

With regard to international conferences attended by the government, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all conferences attended by the government, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name of the conference, (iv) number of government attendees, (v) amount spent on conference fees or tickets, (vi) amount spent on travel related to the conference?

Madam Speaker, I was also very shocked to see the Speaker address Ontario Liberal Party supporters. For most Canadians watching this debate and listening to the motion just moved in the House, I think it might seem a little like baseball. Could the member talk a little about the confidence that the House places in the Speaker? Can he talk about the effect of the Speaker's ruling? More than 120 members are now calling for his resignation. The NDP has not taken a stand on the matter. Can my colleague talk about that?

Madam Speaker, the issue at hand is one of great urgency. It speaks to the confidence the House has in the Speaker to perform his abilities in an independent and non-partisan manner. The amendment is completely appropriate given the circumstance we find ourselves in. The procedure and house affairs committee should deal with this matter expeditiously and then come back to the House with a recommendation. Does the hon. member not believe that for the confidence of this House and its ability to ensure the Speaker, in a non-partisan way, has the ability to make the decisions required, as there are many decisions to come, this matter needs to be dealt with at the speed the amendment calls for?