So V ote

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

May/6/22 11:58:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we heard stories from across the country of vulnerable Canadians who have received or are pursuing a medically assisted death because they cannot afford housing, they cannot access indigenous services or they are poor. Is that what the government wanted when it let radical lobbyists dictate the policy? The Liberals have extended medical assistance in death to people with physical disabilities and mental illness, and now they want to extend it to minors. Will the government ensure that no more Canadians will be victimized by this medically assisted death regime?

92 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

May/6/22 11:09:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the rollout of the Liberals' MAID regime, we have heard harrowing stories of folks who were abused and pressured to receive a medically assisted death by the same medical system that failed to offer them adequate care. Luckily, in some of these cases, there was an intervention to stop the process. In others, sadly, those people are no longer with us to tell their story. Now, with the government becoming the legislative branch for certain radical lobby groups and blindly expanding medically assisted death to people with physical disabilities and mental illness, we are hearing more stories of abuse and victimization, stories of people who have received or are pursuing a medically assisted death because they have a disability and cannot afford adequate housing, or because life has become so unaffordable that they no longer have the means to live or to pay for treatment. If this is what the government had in mind when it expanded the regime, what will it look like when it is expanded to medically assisted death for minors? The Liberals must ensure that no more Canadians are victimized by this medically assisted death regime.

193 words

May/6/22 10:33:08 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, we saw a scandal that involved a billion-dollar contract going to insiders again, as I mentioned in my previous response. With respect to the CFO, Victor Li, who did not appear before the committee in person, as well as multiple members of government staff who were instructed by ministers not to appear before the committee, Parliament and Canadians have not received the answers. It is incumbent on all members in this place to make sure that our lawful powers and authorities are respected in this light.

89 words

All Topics

May/6/22 10:31:15 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, as for so many things, a special interest group or a lobby group picked up the telephone. It rang directly in the Prime Minister's Office. It answered, and said that it was not really concerned about the impact on Canadians, but that it sounded great so it was going to be included in the budget. The problem, when an analysis is not done on something like the impact of this particular tax, is what that looks like for jobs in the communities where people, for example, provide service on aircraft and boats. That is going to have a devastating impact on communities. It was an obligation of the government to study that impact and consider it before putting it in this omnibus bill.

126 words

All Topics

May/6/22 10:28:56 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in attempting to correct what I said, the parliamentary secretary, who obviously only woke up halfway through my speech, repeated what I said: that the $2 billion was to address backlogs caused by COVID-19 in the health care system. What I said, and I will repeat it for the hon. gentleman, is that the provinces and territories asked for stable and predictable funding. They have since said they want to meet with the Prime Minister to negotiate what that agreement is going to look like going forward. The Prime Minister has refused to do it. Shame on him.

105 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

May/6/22 10:18:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the budget is a big document. It has a very nice cover, and it spends an awful lot of money. This year, Canadians are going to have an incredibly tough time getting by. One of the questions for the previous speaker was whether it was appropriate for the budget document to have so many things jammed in it that did not address the raison d'être of the budget. No, it is not appropriate. The government had one job with this budget, and that was to make sure that Canadians could afford to live. We have seen, over the past two years, incredibly challenging times that were met with an incredible response, including incredible sums of money being spent by the government. However, there is $57 billion in new spending at a time when the economy does not need more stimulus, but Canadians need a break. We are not seeing that. Canadians were looking for ways that the government was going to make their lives more affordable. We have the highest inflation that we have seen in more than three decades: it has climbed up over 6.7%. We have not seen an inflationary hit like that since the introduction of the GST. What does this look like for families? We hear the government's response to the pleas, cries and assertions of the opposition that Canadians need help, and government members will say it is a global phenomenon and our net debt-to-GDP is pretty good when we compare it with other countries'. That does nothing to help Canadians who are going to spend, on average, $1,000 more this year to feed their families. That word salad will still leave people with empty bellies. The price of gas in this part of the country, eastern Ontario, is going to climb over $1.90 a litre between today and tomorrow. It is not a question of if gas is going to hit $2 a litre, but of which day it is going to hit $2 a litre. What does that look like for someone who has to drive to work? What does that look like for someone who depends on their vehicle for so many things, especially in parts of rural Canada? In rural eastern Ontario, in my community of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, people have to drive to get to a doctor's appointment, to get to work and to take their kids to school or recreational activities, to say nothing about social visits. It means that they cannot afford to. We also live in one of the world's coldest climates, and the price of home heating is going up, as well. What is in this budget document? Is there a GST holiday for Canadians to help them when more than half of Canadians, nearly two-thirds, are within $200 of insolvency and not being able to pay their bills? That would jeopardize their ability to keep a roof over their heads, to feed their families and themselves. No, it is not in there. With energy prices soaring and hitting the average Canadian especially hard, is there a break on the carbon tax increase, which does nothing to stop the necessity to drive? It is not correcting a bad behaviour. They are good people doing good things. No, there is no break on the carbon tax increase in there for them. It is incredibly disheartening to see this document from the government after so much goodwill was given, by all members in this place, to support a team Canada approach in helping Canadians get through the pandemic. Canadians now need a team Canada approach to support them when life is so unaffordable. Before the pandemic, the provinces and territories were asking for something in the range of $28 billion in increased health care dollars, and during the pandemic, the Prime Minister said we would talk about health care spending when the pandemic was over. I think that COVID is going to be with us for a long time and this is, arguably, the first post-pandemic budget, but the Liberals have not even started the conversation with the provinces about stable and predictable health care funding. Instead, they introduced a separate bill to spend $2 billion to address backlogs on surgical wait times and delayed and cancelled care and treatment appointments that are devastating Canadians with unbelievably negative results for their personal health. They have tied that $2-billion commitment into this bill. We had hallway health care across this country, and hospitals operated at between 95% and 130% capacity before COVID. Instead of introducing new programs that are going to tax a health care system that is already experiencing a health care human resource shortage, and there is nothing to address that health care human resource shortage in the budget, they are putting in new programs that the provinces did not ask for. Health care is solely their responsibility, and a $2-billion one-time payment is supposed to stand in the place of meaningful consultations between the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the provinces' premiers. That is not partnership. It is not co-operation. It is certainly not going to give Canadians any comfort. Frankly, Canadians have been very patient over the past two years, and as I said the results have been of varying degrees. They have been terrible for those who had delayed, missed and cancelled treatment and care appointments and surgeries. What does this budget do? We hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say that it does a lot. It does a lot to make sure that the government gets to stay in power through its deal with the NDP. Voters are going to get an NDP budget, having voted Liberal. It is incredibly disingenuous of the government to say that they are putting Canadians first when what we have seen is the same thing we have seen from the government time and again: that is a Prime Minister who will do anything to stay in power. If questions get too hot in committee, he prorogues Parliament. When all members of the House agree not to have an election during the pandemic and polls look good for the PM, he calls an election. When there is a real opportunity to do right by Canadians, and to give them a break on this affordability crisis that we are facing, the Prime Minister saw a great opportunity to hitch his wagon to the NDP and continue for another year to hold on to power, instead of doing what Canadians elected us all to do. That is to look out for our neighbours, look out for each other and not look out for our own self-interest, which is what we have seen with this. It is very disappointing, but I can assure members that the official opposition is going to continue to stand up for Canadians. We are going to continue to remind the government that on Main Street, life is getting more unaffordable, and even though they are getting their advice from Bay Street, we are going to be here fighting for Canadians every single day.

1207 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

May/4/22 2:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about his failures and wants to change the channel on his absolute failure to follow the science. We have seen that in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and other countries around the globe, their science is all the same, just like in the United Kingdom. What is the evidence? What is the science that the Prime Minister is following? He is not following science. He is desperate to keep power and control over Canadians he dislikes, just like Xi Jinping in China and Maduro in Venezuela. The provinces are ending their mandates. Countries around the world are doing the same. The Prime Minister—

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

May/4/22 2:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is May 4 in Canada and there are citizens who cannot leave the country. They cannot fly; they cannot take a train. They have lost their jobs, been laid off or fired, because of a health choice. It is May 4 in the United Kingdom, and citizens have been thriving without mandates for nearly two months because their government followed the science and made the shift from mandates and control to personal responsibility. Prime Minister Boris Johnson ended the mandates, but our Prime Minister will not. What is different? Is it the science or just the PM's politics?

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

Context: House Hansard - 61 - Apr/29/22

May/2/22 6:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I wanted to draw the attention of all members in the House to the fourth anniversary of the passing of my predecessor and hon. member of this place, the late Gord Brown, who served as the MP for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes from November 2004 to 2018. He was the husband of Claudine, the father of Chance and Tristan. He was a friend to all members of this place. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to mark his passing four years ago today.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/29/22 11:53:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about supporting our neighbours. Under the government, we still have neighbours and members of our community who are not able to travel and who are not able to provide for themselves and their families because of unscientific mandates that the government continues to perpetuate. It is the end of April and the Prime Minister still refuses to follow the science. International allies and most of the provinces have done the right thing, but the government continues to lag behind. Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister finally take the politics out of it, follow the science and end the mandates?

106 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/28/22 12:01:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if perhaps the hon. gentleman had forgotten to share his time to allow another member of the Liberal caucus to have an opportunity to speak. Perhaps the member for Halifax was looking to speak. I would not want him to be deprived of that opportunity.

61 words

Apr/28/22 10:53:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a great question from the member for Kitchener Centre. I do not think we need to create a ranked list of what the biggest crises are. Do we have a housing crisis in this country? Yes. Do we have an affordability crisis? We sure do. Do we have an opioid crisis and epidemic? Definitely. Are we still dealing with the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects? Absolutely, we are. This is an issue that started two years ago, and we need to—

90 words

All Topics

Apr/28/22 10:52:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always concerned when we have a situation in which a group that is lobbying the government then gives a gift worth, let us say, a quarter of a million dollars to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister fails to get permission from the head of the branch of government for which he works and then satisfies all of the criteria laid out by the RCMP for a charge of fraud on government to be laid. That type of behaviour between a lobbyist and a government official is incredibly concerning, and I hope the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the RCMP in a case like the one I mentioned.

115 words

All Topics

Apr/28/22 10:50:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask the member opposite why he is afraid to have other members on his bench speak. The member speaks more than any other member. He and the member for Kingston and the Islands have the rest of them muzzled so tight that they are not even allowed to talk in this place, so we are not going to take any lessons from the member opposite. Further, what is interesting about Motion No. 11 is that if they are talking about sitting extra hours, why does the motion stipulate that their members do not have to be here? It is just like what we saw in the last Parliament, when they would have only one person in this place, who was the member for Kingston and the Islands, because they were too afraid their members might erupt with some concern about the activities of the government and the Prime Minister, which would reflect very poorly on them. If they had not called an unnecessary election during a pandemic, we could have dealt with this two years ago.

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:36:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear the enthusiasm from the hon. gentleman opposite and to follow the esteemed member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, as we talk again about a thematic problem for the government. While the Liberals hope, try and pray that prorogation and snap elections, at a time when the Prime Minister had promised that he would not call an election, will make those problems go away, we are here today because these concerns are real for Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the integrity of the institutions that they hold dear. I gesture this way because I talk about the government and I talk about the executive branch. It is important. We are all temporary occupants and guardians of the offices that we hold. When that is called into question, and when those offices are brought into disrepute by actions or allegations of actions, it is incumbent upon us that there be transparency and a fair hearing of that information. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman laid it out very well. We have seen this pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister over a number of years: He believes that the rules do not apply to him. It is the wrong message to send to Canadians, it is the wrong message to send to parliamentarians and it is also the wrong message to send to the world when we hear condemnations that have come from groups such as the OECD, when it comes to legislators from other countries, who are concerned about the appearance of corruption or corrupt practices by members of the government. In this case, specifically with respect to hearings that were had on the WE Charity scandal, we had a number of witnesses who were duly ordered to appear by a parliamentary committee. They were instructed by members of the executive, by federal cabinet ministers, not to appear at committee. They were instructed to defy a lawful order of the House. What is the precedent that sets? I can tell colleagues that on its face it is a bad one. It is that we have a government so afraid of letting the light of transparency shine that it would unroll hundreds of years of precedent and undermine the traditions, customs, practices and legal authority of this place and say those rules do not matter because they make things uncomfortable for it. That puts us in a really tough spot. I heard questions and comments to my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asking why we would talk about this and not talk about that. This issue could have been resolved in the summer of 2020, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to kill it and then set up a system where the government “ragged the puck” so that committees could not meet. This issue was then pushed forward through the fall and into the spring of 2021, and before the issue was resolved to come back in the fall of 2021, he called an election, although just that spring he had committed to not call one. All members in the House undertook to continue advocating for the priorities of Canadians, but in this case the Prime Minister had a different priority and was protecting himself from uncomfortable questions. The individuals named in that order to appear at committee must appear. It is incumbent on all members of the House to see to the completion of that work. It is an abdication of our responsibility as members, as the House of Commons, and as the Parliament of Canada not to complete our work. Are there other important issues facing this country? We can bet on that. There is fiscal mismanagement and failure to work with the provinces on important things like health care. The member for Courtenay—Alberni was talking about his coalition partners and a need for action on the opioid crisis facing this country. Hear, hear, I agree. His party had direct input and impact on what this budget looked like. New Democrats are the ones who are going to carry this budget across the goal line for the government. We can talk about that. We continue those consultations. Conservative members are continuing work on this important file, challenging the government on issues like addiction and mental health and what resources it is committing to the provinces. Is it collaborating with the provinces? Has the Prime Minister finally met with the first ministers, the premiers, to talk about what the future looks like for health care in this country? No, he has not. However, unlike the Prime Minister, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do both of those things. We are talking about the budget; we are talking about addiction and mental health; we are talking about reconciliation with Canada's first people. We are doing a lot of things, but we are not going to forget just because the Prime Minister took the walk up to Rideau Hall, contrary to what he said he was going to do, breaking his word, breaking a promise and acting against the will of all members of this House when we passed a motion saying there would not be an election. That is part of the pattern, so we are back, dealing with it again. Liberals hope that water under the bridge and time on the clock are going to be enough that Canadians will forget, but it is about those precedent-setting behaviours that we take. When we decide that it is okay for ministers to instruct individuals who are duly and lawfully ordered to appear at committee not to appear because they do not like what they might say, what does that say? It says that we are going to cast aside all the traditions of this place. We should have gotten this done in 2020. Liberals have delayed and obstructed this from being completed. We have formed a new Parliament since then. We had an election. Most of us find ourselves in different roles. I know the member for Winnipeg North continues in his role, as was pointed out by my colleague, as the defender or apologist in chief. I have other things that I am working on, but I can also do this at the same time. It is incredibly important. In concluding my remarks, I want to underscore for all members in this place that this is important. It is important that we not allow games by the government to distract from the important role that we have as the guardians of this institution, of the rights of Canadians and of what they hold sacred, and that is trust in these democratic institutions. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Committee for further consideration, provided that (a) the Committee be instructed (i) to make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with this House's order of Thursday, March 25, 2021, to appear before the Committee, (ii) to consider further the concerns expressed in the report about the member for Waterloo's failure “in her obligation to be accurate with a committee”, and (iii) to report back by Monday, October 17, 2022; and (b) the Committee be empowered to order the attendance of the member for Waterloo, from time to time, as it sees fit.

1290 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 58 - Apr/26/22

Context: House Hansard - 58 - Apr/26/22

Apr/26/22 7:21:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his response, but the question we are left with is whether the intent of the vaccine mandate for federal public servants was to drive up the vaccination rates. They have largely plateaued across the country, so the primary objective has been achieved and the mandates are not going to get any closer to their end goal by being maintained. Unless the parliamentary secretary is prepared to offer to the House tonight that boosters will be mandated for federal public servants, and I would encourage him to bring that information forward if that is the case, the government needs to let us know, and let the public service and all federally regulated employees know, when it will end those mandates. In my community, vaccine uptake is over 91.5%. It is the highest in the province of Ontario and one of the highest in the country, but it is not going to get any higher because of the vaccine mandates that are in place. If the mandates have achieved their objective, what are the epidemiological or other factors that will need to be met before the parliamentary secretary and his minister will lift the mandates?

202 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/26/22 7:13:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to give the government an opportunity, and I am pleased to speak directly to all of those who have recognized that this is such an important issue for them to be seized with. It is time to end the unscientific mandates. Of course, I am talking about the federal mask mandate and the federal proof-of-vaccination requirements. As we have seen across this country, every province has signalled a plan to do just that. With dentists, we see on the commercials that “four out of five dentists agree”. In the provinces, nine out of 10 of the top doctors have agreed that it is safe to lift their vaccination and mask mandates. This is exactly what the federal top doctor and the Minister of Health need to be looking at. We know that it is safe to do this. With the impacts mandates are having on people's federally regulated employment, our public service and our RCMP, it is too important for the government to continue to delay. This is based on science the Liberals have not revealed and science that differs from that of all of the chief medical officers of health across this country. They have said it is safe. What we have asked of the government over the last number of months is to provide us the information we are looking for and explain to us the benchmarks that, once hit, will cause the mandates to be lifted. What are those benchmarks? Would they be based on waste-water surveillance? Would they be based on hospitalization rates? Would they be based on vaccination rates? We do not know the number that, once hit, will trigger the lifting of the mandates because they have not set a target; they have not determined what it would be. That is because what we are seeing is that this is largely a political decision: one of political science and not of medical science. If we were doing this based on the targets that could best be hoped for with vaccination, as one of the most vaccinated countries in the world we have hit that benchmark. That is what we have seen. When case rates largely decoupled from hospitalization, the chief medical officers of health across this country said that it was time and that it was safe to gather, safe to remove mask mandates and safe to end the proof-of-vaccination requirements. That is what we are looking for the government to do. It should follow the science, tell Canadians the thresholds that need to be achieved and end the unscientific mandates. We have given the government multiple opportunities through opposition days requesting that it sets a deadline. We are going back almost a couple months since we first asked for a plan, so tonight is another great opportunity for the government to provide us with a plan that would see the end, as I said, to what has proven to be mandates based on political science, not based on medical science. I will ask the parliamentary secretary this. Are the Liberals ready to end the mandates?

526 words

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

Apr/25/22 2:25:55 p.m.
Watch

Where is Justin? Come out with your hands up.

9 words

All Topics