Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, the member talked quite a bit about damaging the ecology. She talks a lot about having to pay for pollution. The member's city, the city of Victoria, has historically been one of the biggest offenders of dumping raw sewage into the ocean without having to pay for it.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, that was an entertaining speech, to say the least. I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan. The Bloc largely represents rural Quebec. My family's personal vehicles would usually have a combined amount of about 115,000 kilometres a year on two vehicles. That did not include our farm vehicles, farm machinery and all the other stuff.

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, it gets more and and more obvious just how out of touch the NDP-Liberal government is. After nine years of the Prime Minister's high spending and tax hikes, Canadians can barely afford necessities. That does not matter to the NDP-Liberals, who want to hike the carbon tax by 23%, and they want to keep on raising it, year after year.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member thinks we are standing. We are standing in Ottawa in the federal Parliament, not in the Saskatchewan legislature. I have two points on that. First, this fall there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan at the provincial level. Maybe the member should put his name on the ballot if he is so concerned about what is happening in Saskatchewan, and see how the people of Saskatchewan like him.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, maybe they should both be punished because, as I said in my speech, the only way the Speaker's name can actually end up on an invitation with a specific date, time and location is if he approved it. That is the only way that that could happen. It has been a complete nightmare and disaster ever since he took the chair.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, absolutely, strike three and someone is out. That is what needs to happen. I hope that all parties will vote to remove the Speaker. It needs to happen. As I said before question period, it seems like “Oh, we'll give him another pitch, let him have strike four. Oh, maybe we'll let him have strike five.”

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was just getting into the relationship between the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that in 2023, the Speaker was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As I was saying, the Prime Minister himself has three ethics reports written in his own name.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and speak on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan. Over the weekend, I had a great opportunity to spend some time at the ball diamonds. Baseball season is in full swing in Saskatchewan. A lot of people at the ball diamonds who came up to me have been paying attention to what is happening in the news, what is happening here in Ottawa.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister and the Speaker are having a personal competition to see who can break the most ethics laws and continue to get away with it. The Prime Minister has three in his name. The Speaker has one ethics violation in his name, and there are now three instances where he violated the chair with partisan activity.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, I think that the Speaker learned from the best, because he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As we know, the Prime Minister has three ethics violation reports in his own name. Perhaps the Speaker learned this particular type of behaviour from the Prime Minister.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act  Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost.

Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act  Madam Speaker, it is absolutely true that we continue to see the divide-and-conquer approach, and it goes no further than with the Impact Assessment Act. We know how much devastation that has brought entirely across the country, and the Liberals continue to hide behind that and use that as a way to divide people on this bill as well.

Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act  Madam Speaker, putting the livelihoods of tens of thousands of fishers and all the spinoff industry that comes from it at the behest of another industry is not the way we build an economy. It is not the way we get more people involved in the economy. As the witnesses, who I referenced in my speech, talked about, they are happy to see more economic development in the region.

Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act  Madam Speaker, our desire in committee was to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. When the bill came to us, it had over 35 direct references to the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and the government gave us no timeline as to when it would deal with that.

Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act  Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today. I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill.