44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the health-conscious constituents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
For anyone tuning in tonight, one may be wondering why we are talking about health products, even though the bottom of one's screen says this is a debate on Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.
The short answer is that the Prime Minister broke his promise to end the use of omnibus bills. Like a living, breathing “hold my beer” meme, these Liberals clearly thought the last government was not omnibusing hard enough. This bill is so obese, it is even cornering the market in Ozempic.
Ironically, this budget implementation bill would give the Minister of Health, and of anti-tourism, brand new powers to make Ozempic illegal for weight loss for everyone else. Since the Liberals started bragging about taking away people's drug plans and forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best, Soviet-style drug plan, I have had one question.
When Canada finds itself in the next drug shortage, how will the Liberals decide who lives and who dies? Not a single member from the socialist coalition has been willing to address the question, but the budget implementation bill's division 31 provides a sinister answer. The government will do whatever it wants.
Here is what the weighty omnibus bill says:
the Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for the purpose of preventing shortages of therapeutic products or foods for a special dietary purpose in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.
If one takes the word of the officials from Health Canada, all they are seeking is the power to import baby formula without bilingual labelling. If that were true, if the government's real intent was for a temporary emergency measure, the amendment would have been limited in scope and time. Instead, the government went with the kind of language, which maximizes power and minimizes oversight.
Here is the language the government originally sought for the therapeutic products:
if the Minister believes that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.
Credit goes to the members of the finance committee for adding an amendment to insert the words “on reasonable grounds” into that section, but it does not matter.
The bill also says, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.”
That is quite a power grab. The NDP-Liberal government is literally saying that it does not need evidence to support its radical policy. In fact, the Liberals are saying that any evidence that contradicts their policy can be ignored. This is not the Liberal government gagging scientists. This is the Liberal government gagging science, handcuffing science, taking science out back and executing it gangland-style.
If we take the word of the bureaucrats from Health Canada, the minister needs these extraordinary powers to prevent teenagers from consuming nicotine pods. If that were true, if this were only about preventing nicotine addiction amongst youth, what explains the very next section? It reads, “An order made under subsection 30.01(1) or 30.02(1) that applies to only one person is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”
The “minister of unhealthy road trips” will have the power to pass a regulation to prevent a single person from promoting a health product, and not just promoting. The minister could regulate a single person with respect to “importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing” of the drug.
Even more concerning is that these regulations targeting a single individual would not be considered regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act. Between this section and the section on uncertainty, the government has essentially neutralized the rights of Canadians to appeal these regulations to the federal court. This is an unprecedented power grab by the technocrats at Health Canada.
Given the arrogance on regular display by the car-phobic Minister of Health, it would not take much to convince me that he is the one seeking the radical, non-reviewable powers. Whether his lust for power is rooted in the repeated childhood traumas of station wagon vacations with his parents is not for me to say, but if this language were included in a Conservative bill, the minister would be among the first to accuse us of having a hidden agenda.
With just the flick of a wrist, the current Minister of Health or the next one could ban any drug based on some vague concern about health. As a parliamentarian, I oppose giving any government, Liberal or Conservative, that level of unchecked power. Health Canada's technocrats will claim that this is the same as the regulations limiting alcohol and tobacco advertisements. It is not. This law would give the Minister of Health the power to shut down a single podcaster or TikToker who advertises health products. It could shut down an Instagram influencer who talks about Chinese herbal remedies.
The government has not gone so far as to give itself the power to issue secret orders. Instead, it just gave itself the power to issue an order against a single person, not disclose the person's identity, not disclose the actual health risk and not have to publish it in the Gazette. Health Canada could destroy a person's livelihood by publishing a single sentence in an obscure web page buried deep in some government website. If anyone doubts that the socialist coalition is capable of that, let us remember that these amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are buried deep in the budget implementation bill.
The changes were not even given a mention in the budget. Instead, the government promised it would spend $3.2 million to update Health Canada's supply management capacity over the next three years. It takes a special kind of Liberal arrogance to believe the government can manage a supply of drugs for over 40 million people. The Liberals cannot manage passports. They cannot manage to recruit anyone into the military. They cannot manage an app for collecting travellers' information. They cannot manage the graft at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. They cannot manage the self-dealing within the local journalism initiative. The Prime Minister cannot even manage a cabinet. As a former Liberal cabinet minister said last week, the government has been drinking from a fountain of “socialist bafflegab”.
The technocrats who have been advising the finance minister believe Canadians would be happier if Canadians were taxed at over 50%. The only thing socialists can manage are breadlines. With the median age around 40, that means nearly half of Canadians were born after the collapse of the last socialist empire. They do not know about breadlines. They do not know that Soviet-style socialist drug plans mean Canadians would have to line up for life-saving medicines. The well connected and the wealthy could pay people in line to wait for them. The poor and the marginalized would have to take a day or two off work and wait in line at the government pharmacy.
Just as in the Soviet Union, when reality fails to conform to Communist ideology, the government will ratchet up repression. If rebellious reporters speak up about the drug shortages, the government can accuse them of putting the health of Canadians at risk and issue an order silencing them. The reporters could take the minister to court, but when the judge asks the government lawyers how certain they are that the censorship will protect public health, the government can reply, “Not certain at all, Your Honour”, and the judge will have no choice but to rule in the government's favour.
If members think this sounds unconstitutional, they would be right, but it would not matter. The Liberals would use their favourite notwithstanding clause, called section 1. We saw it time and time again during the pandemic. Governments issued unconstitutional orders, citizens took the government to court and judges ruled that they were not health experts and would defer to the government's experts.
With the precedent set, the technocrats at Health Canada saw it as a green light to seek more power. The Department of Health already has the power to ban a drug, recall it or place any number of conditions on its sale. It already has that power, but it was not enough. Like our Prime Minister, who admires the Communists who control China, the technocrats want the kind of power that only Communism can grant them.
1539 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:21:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no tin hat over there.
My question for the member is in regard to misinformation. I am very interested in her thoughts on it. The far right, in particular the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, is very good at disinformation through social media on issues such as cutting the carbon tax and missing out on rebates. It is misleading Canadians and feeding into the extreme right.
I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that. Does she think her leader is doing a good job by representing the extreme right?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:22:06 p.m.
- Watch
Order. Before I give the floor to the hon. member, I just want to remind members that if they want to contribute to the discussion, they should wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:22:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe you can grant me more time for questions and answers so that everyone can ask a question.
As far as the member opposite goes, my greatest fan in the chamber, the Liberals have gone so far left, together with the other radically left parties, that anything in the centre seems far right to them.
As for our effective leader, I believe all Canadians are served well by him. He is interested in them, and he will do a good job for Canada in controlling spending, bringing down debt and making Canada the kind of country everyone is proud to live in and can prosper in.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of serving with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence.
She began her speech by talking about the fact that we are having to debate an omnibus bill. By definition, an omnibus bill contains anything and everything. This one includes 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures.
We are going to vote against it because some of it is completely unacceptable. However, we can still see our way clear to agree that some other measures are acceptable and even good. One example is having the Canada child benefit continue for six months after a child's death.
I would simply like to hear her speak to any measure in the bill she considers worthwhile, or to know whether she thinks Bill C-69 is a total write-off.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:24:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that we sit on the defence committee together. Tomorrow, the Secretary General of NATO, who has served us well for a decade, will be coming to visit. What is truly an embarrassment for all of Canada is that we are not doing what we should to protect North America. The budget is devoid of funding for the protection of our nation. The Prime Minister has no pride or concern over the security of those living in Canada, cutting a billion dollars out of the budget of the military.
People across the ocean in Ukraine are fighting the fight that we might get drawn into. One witness even said that we are at war, so it is only a matter of time. We need to control spending for a day when we really need it. We should put more money into giving equipment to the women and men who serve us in the Canadian military.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:25:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always like to hear from my comrade from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. That being said, she railed against the NDP's dental care program. It is important to note that 200,000 seniors have had dental care so far, including hundreds in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In fact, as we speak, in Pembroke, dentists are advertising the NDP's dental care program. The reality is that many people in her riding are benefiting from the NDP's work.
Could my comrade and colleague please tell us why she is opposing a dental care program that her constituents—
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:26:03 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can give a brief answer.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not a comrade yet.
I know the dental community in Renfrew, Nipissing and especially Pembroke well, and I can tell members that I get nothing but complaints across the valley about this so-called dental program. The Liberals did not plan anything. It is not a plan. They just threw money out there and signed people up. There is not a single dentist in Pembroke signing up to this Soviet-style dental plan, and not 200 people have received service. If the member can show us otherwise, I would be pleased to speak to it further.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:26:52 p.m.
- Watch
Order. If members want to contribute, want to try to answer or want to make comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:27:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to the budget implementation act, even though we are in the eleventh hour of this session. I am looking forward to the House rising at the end of this week for the summer recess.
It has been nine years of the costly Prime Minister, and each successive budget creates a bleaker outlook for Canadians' futures. The guise of fiscal restraint has been cast away, and the Prime Minister and his finance minister have put the pedal to the metal. They have decided to spend Canadians' money at an alarming rate, with no plan to balance the budget, to pay off the debt or to even rein in deficits to a modest level. They are literally going for broke. They believe they can tax their way out of the problems that their out-of-control spending has created. While inflation has reached record levels, the government continues to pour fuel on the inflationary fire with tens of billions of dollars in new spending.
I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
In fact, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, stated that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending was “not helpful” in bringing down inflation. It costs the average Canadian family an extra $3,867, but the Prime Minister refuses to learn from his mistakes and continues to double down on his failed policies, which means more inflationary deficits driving up inflation and interest rates, doubling our national debt and, thus, endangering our social programs and jobs across the country.
More to the point, doubling the national debt means that the federal government will now be spending more on interest on its debt than it will send to the provinces for health care. There will be $54.1 billion spent on servicing our national debt, half of which the Prime Minister is responsible for. The high-spending addiction of the government has endangered Canadians' livelihoods. It has led to a record high of two million visits to food banks in a single month, and now we have a report from Food Banks Canada that one in four Canadians is living in poverty.
After nine years of the Prime Minister's disastrous policies, 25% of Canadians are living in poverty. Every party in the House had the chance to vote on giving Canadians a break and to help them keep more of their money in their pockets when Conservatives proposed giving Canadians a break from the carbon tax for the summer. Instead of giving Canadians the relief they are looking for from the oppressive Liberal carbon tax regime just for the summer, Liberals have doubled down and have introduced a new capital gains tax increase.
Despite Canadians struggling paycheque to paycheque, the Liberals have decided to endanger their retirements, which have taken decades of prudent planning, saving and investing to build. According to the government, it is unfair for a plumber to sell their business they built over decades to fund their retirement. It is unfair for an electrician to sell the company they built to fund their retirement. It is unfair for a doctor to sell their shares in their practice to fund their retirement. It is unfair for the Liberals to take more of Canadians' hard-earned, self-made retirement funds so that they can continue to indulge in spending billions of dollars on their failed policies, yet the Prime Minister continues to squeeze Canadians for every last dollar with tax increases, while showing no signs of fiscal restraint.
If the Prime Minister is worried about the richest in Canada, he should look in the mirror. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister and his friends have never had it so good, with tens of billions of dollars going out the door each year to his high-priced consultants. Hundreds of millions of dollars in favourable contracts went to his friends at McKinsey, which was led by the Prime Minister's close friend, Dominic Barton. There was $222 million given to Rio Tinto just months after Dominic Barton became the chairman. The billion-dollar green slush fund funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Liberal insiders with no oversight. Canadians suffer and Liberal insiders prosper.
After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is on track for its worst decline in living standards in 40 years, with more than nine in 10 middle-class families paying more in income taxes. Struggling families cannot afford the Prime Minister's higher taxes and out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything. The Liberal government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments, and the number of tent cities is growing across this country. It is no wonder that Canadians are fed up with the NDP-Liberal coalition.
The Prime Minister is trying to trick Canadians into believing that he will fix what he broke by doubling down on his failed policies, issues that were created by nine years of methodically disastrous policies and that have made life more expensive for Canadians. They are policies that have stolen the dream of home ownership from young Canadians, policies that have forced Canadians to live paycheque to paycheque and policies that have endangered Canadians through a steep increase in violent crime.
Now that these policies have caused crises in housing, immigration, crime, inflation and other areas, the government feigns interest in fairness. It is not fair to Canadians to jeopardize their retirements with a punitive capital gains tax increase. It is not fair to double housing prices and rent. It is not fair to drive up inflation, drastically increasing the prices of everyday necessities, including basic food items. It is not fair to push 25% of Canadians into poverty and to force millions to visit food banks in a single month. The government does not care about fairness. It cares about spending as many taxpayer dollars as it can in its short-time left in government and setting the Liberal government members and their insider friends up for comfortable retirements.
In conclusion, it will come as no surprise that I cannot support this budget implementation act. It is more of the same failed policies from the NDP-Liberal coalition, which refuses to acknowledge its failures. If any member in this place truly believes in fairness, they cannot vote in favour of this bill. No member can look around Canada today, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and truly believe that the government has served Canadians well.
It borders on the absurd that Liberal members can stand in this place, claim that this budget, which is more of the same policies that got us into this current mess, will somehow now get us out of it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Unfortunately, Canadians are the ones paying the price for this madness. I will repeat what I said when speaking to the budget. Canadians are losing hope. They are hanging on by a thread, and this bill will be the scissors that severs it.
This bill should not be passed. Canadians are depending on all opposition members to stop the government's harmful policies and its out-of-control spending, and vote non-confidence.
1241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:36:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the issue of caring. If the member opposite and members of the Conservative Party truly cared, they should do some self-reflection in terms of why they do not believe that fixed-income seniors who do not have a dental plan should not be allowed to have access to dental services and be supported by the Government of Canada. Even Pembroke has dental services, I think a half-dozen or more, being made available to their constituents.
I would ask the member this: Why will Conservative after Conservative-Reform member across the way, all those reformers and former Alliance members, not support fixed-income seniors in getting dental care in the ridings they represent? Is it that they do not care?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:37:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because, at the end of the day, Conservatives have a simple plan, and I know that the member could probably repeat it verbatim: We will axe the tax. We will build the homes. We will fix the budget and stop the crime.
The government has a housing accelerator fund that is not building houses. It has a school lunch program that is not serving lunches. It has a national dental program with a handful of dentists who have signed up. We are going to cut the waste and mismanagement of the government, and we are going to restore common sense for Canadians.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:38:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her faith.
I would like to bring her back to familiar territory: common sense. Back home, growing up, my father often talked to us about common sense. Common sense relates to a set of elements that everyone, or almost everyone, agrees on.
Is my colleague's party seeking unanimity? After all, there is a part of the population that is worried about climate change and the astronomical contribution of billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is invested in oil companies that are already worth many billions of dollars since they make a lot of money.
Since my colleague is for common sense, I would like to know if her potential government will stop investing in oil companies that already have billions of dollars. I would also like to know if she is going to increase health transfers to the provinces so that they can use them how they want and breathe a bit of life back into their health care networks.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing Canadians can count on is that Conservatives are the party of common sense. We are consistent in our approach when it comes to reducing taxes. We are consistent when it comes to making life more prosperous for Canadians. We are consistent when it comes to how we vote in this place, which is something that member should actually talk to her leadership about.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:40:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for those comments. I enjoy sitting on committee with her.
I was thinking back to another minority Parliament that saw a tremendous amount of progress when it comes to iconic policies that are now an integral part of the fabric of our country. They are things like the Canada pension plan, Canada student loans, the 40-hour work week and two weeks of vacation time, and a new minimum wage. Many of these things were put in place despite the opposition from the Conservative Party.
Is the member not worried that she is on the wrong side of history when she rails against things like a national dental care plan and universal pharmacare for people who need prescription medication? Is it not clear that these things will make our country stronger?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. We do serve on the government operations and estimates committee together, and one thing we have been dealing with is the absolute out-of-control spending of the current Liberal government when it comes to outside consultants, and when it comes to lining the pockets of Liberal insiders and their friends.
What I would put back to the member is this question: When is he finally going to start standing up for Canadians and be an opposition member who is looking out for their interests?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:41:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to see a clear pattern of what a Liberal budget is, as well as the Liberals' omnibus budget implementation acts, which, of course, they promised not to use.
One might ask what exactly is the pattern of a Liberal budget. We have to go back to 2015 for a moment. What happened in 2015 is that the Prime Minister promised three years of so-called “modest” deficit spending budgets before he made a cast-in-stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. One might ask what happened to that promise. In every one of those three years, the Prime Minister spent considerably more than he promised he would.
In 2019, he did not even attempt to honour his so-called cast-in-stone promise to return Canada to a balanced budget. In other words, the Liberal Prime Minister did not even try to do what he promised he would. Why even make the promise at all to return to a balanced budget if he had zero intention of doing so? It is because, of course, making promises on things he has no intention of ever honouring is basically a hallmark character trait of the Prime Minister.
Where are we today with this latest Liberal 2024 budget? We are now at a total spending of $535 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Let us pause for a moment to recap.
The 2022 so-called “return to fiscal responsibility” budget was $434 billion. Here we are in the 2024 budget, and the proposed spending is up to $535 billion. This means that this latest Liberal budget proposes to spend $100 billion more than what the Liberals themselves labelled as a “return to fiscal responsibility” budget just a short time ago. Let us not forget that before the pandemic began in 2019-20, the Liberals were spending around $338 billion. We went from $338 billion to now $535 billion. That is an increase of almost $200 billion in annual spending. Let us not kid ourselves. Everyone knows the Liberals will spend more than the $535 billion they are proposing, more so given that next year is an election year.
Now we can all see the pattern to Liberal budgets that I mentioned earlier. Every year we are told what will happen, but it never actually comes to pass. The forecasts, the promises, everything the Liberals promise ends up being completely false. They do not even try to live within the fiscal limits they propose for themselves. Most offensive of all is that the Prime Minister's Office has the audacity to label this budget as the “fairness for every generation” budget. I am literally aghast by this.
The 2024 “fairness for every generation” budget proposes a $40-billion deficit for this fiscal year alone. We know that this is not the case. The finance department has said that the government is billions over that particular projection already. This is noteworthy because the Liberals' previous debt forecasts were at $35 billion for 2024-25 and $26.8 billion for 2025-26. That is a big difference we see between $40 billion and the $27 billion or so they had previously said for 2025.
We all know that the cost of servicing the national debt has exceeded the federal spending on health care. This is what the Liberals call fairness for everyone. It is not unlike the capital gains increase. The Liberals will tell us that this tax impacts only Canada's most wealthy, yet we have heard from many everyday Canadians who, through a divorce, a health crisis, retirement or otherwise, are in a one-time situation where they might be looking at paying a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains tax. These are doctors, small business owners, people in the trades. Larry the plumber from Winnipeg was brought up today, who is working hard. None of these people are so-called ultrawealthy, but they will all be hit hard by this latest Liberal tax grab. The Liberals know that these people exist and also know that the Liberal tax grab will hit them hard. However, they would still look them in the eye and say that only the ultrawealthy would be impacted by this.
I do not know if anyone on the Liberal or NDP side of the House realizes how angry people become when they believe they are being deceived and misled by their own government. Make no mistake: They are not happy with the Prime Minister. He needs that extra tax grab for fairness, he says. Let us talk about fairness for a moment.
There is now an entire generation of young Canadians who are left out despite all the Liberal spending. Literally, this problem is so bad that even the Prime Minister himself openly admits that young people now feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way their parents or grandparents could. However, it is much worse than that. The Prime Minister is leaving future generations of Canadians with record levels of debt and no plan whatsoever to return to a balanced budget, ever. The Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the budget the year previous. He just spends more, and we go further into debt. That is not fairness.
Before I close, I would like to share something with this place. We, of course, spend a portion of our time in this place debating budgets and budget implementation acts. A sitting government hopes to table a budget that resonates with Canadians. As all experienced parliamentarians will know, some budgets resonate more than others, and some, very little at all. This particular budget has not been like most. I do not recall at any time so many different citizens coming forward in opposition to a budget as they are for this budget, and by extension the budget implementation act. I make a point of reading every email, returning every phone call and scheduling as many meeting requests as I can. I can tell every member of this place that this particular budget is not impacting many Canadians the way the Liberal government would have us believe. The Liberals may call this a “fairness for every generation” budget, but many I hear from see this budget as being anything but fair to them.
I am not one to follow polls, so it does not surprise me at all that so many different polls show this budget, like the Liberal government, as falling down so badly. I would submit that this is without a doubt an unfair budget for many Canadians. I will be joining with those Canadians who now say “enough is enough” in rejecting the Prime Minister, his desperation budgets and this flawed budget implementation act.
I have one final point before I conclude my comments this evening. Earlier today, I read a report from the National Post, and the headline said it all: “Airplane food cost more than $220K on [the Prime Minister]'s Indo-Pacific trip: Meals included beef brisket with mashed parsley potatoes with truffle oil, braised lamb shanks and baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle”.
When the Prime Minister and his finance minister lecture others about fairness and needing people to do a little more, why is it that the Prime Minister never does his part? The reason is that the Prime Minister is always above these rules. Why does the Prime Minister consistently make demands upon others that he himself fails to follow? Canadians are tired of this. In my riding, as I am sure in many other members' in this place, people want an election and they do not want this budget or this budget implementation act. That is why I will be opposing it.
I would like to thank all members of this place for taking the time to hear my comments today.
1342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut.
My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 7:50:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will let Canadians judge the content and the conduct of that member. He cannot even get the parties' correct names in this room, so I do not know if they will trust him with details. When it comes to a prime minister's security detail, it is the RCMP that makes the decision on what security is appropriate. I believe that it is important for a prime minister to remain safe and secure, particularly when we are doing international travel, so I will leave the RCMP to manage those concerns, but what is 100% under the conduct of the Prime Minister is his penchant for expensive hotels and for the $220,000 on meals and alcohol. That is what I am contesting here, not the security detail.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
