Kellie Leitch

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 20th, 2016]

With regard to the 2016-2017 Main Estimates for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), specifically the 134% increase in proposed spending on “Internal Services” as compared to the 2015-2016 Main Estimates: (a) what Budget line item will these funds be drawn from; (b) how many Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) will this increase add to the CIHR's payroll; (c) will any added FTEs be permanent employees or contracted for a definite time period, and, if so, how many will there be in each staffing category; and (d) how many additional FTEs will be executive-level?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the member mentioned, I think there are grave concerns among health care professionals, not just physicians, but nurses, young residents, and others who would be compelled and quite frankly, ordered on an order paper to participate in this act.

Currently the legislation as outlined really does not provide protection for those who choose not to participate and that is not just about physicians. It is about nurses, young Canadians who have become residents, and Canadians who are participating in the health care field.

I would like the member's thoughts on how those individuals could be protected, because right now the legislation protects one group of health care professionals, but does not treat the other groups fairly.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up at a dinner table where my mother talked to us about how we had to respect others. She did not use the word “tolerant”, but we had to be tolerant of the other kids in the playground. When I entered this place, the most meaningful conversation I had was with my dad, and I say this to the minister who I know is also a doctor. He turned to me as a physician, and said, “I don't ever want to see you do anything in that House that you would not have a mom or dad be respectful of you saying or doing in your clinic.”

I have grave concerns about what happened in this place yesterday. I would like to know this from the minister. Does she find that type of bullying acceptable? Would she conduct herself that way in her clinic? Does she find that language acceptable? Would she talk to a parent or patient in that manner? Also, what would be her advice to the Prime Minister on his unprofessional behaviour?

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as theLeader of the Opposition has stated, this was really a violation of respect for not only this place but also for other Canadians. Bullying is just simply unacceptable, in any circumstance, toward any woman or man in our country. I know our Leader of the Opposition is working respectfully and diligently to ensure Canadians are united by having a forward and positive vision.

Could she please outline for all of us here what she thinks that professional decorum should be in the House of Commons, one that was not shown yesterday evening but one I know she absolutely respects?

[Excise Tax Act, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood for his input here. As he said, education is something that we all feel is a part of being Canadian. We pride ourselves on providing that opportunity for freedom and prosperity to young students because they are educated. It is the reason why many people come to this country. As was mentioned by a previous member, this is already a mechanism in place.

Maybe the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood could explain the enormous benefits that students across the country would be receiving because of lowering the rebate that is asked for by the government.

Maybe the government members could at some point in time say why they are voting against students.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, our country has actually been built on fairness and freedom, and as my colleague has already mentioned, the issue with respect to that freedom empowering each of us as Canadians with regard to our private and individual rights. As a practising physician, I take very seriously my freedom to make choices for my patients in working with them.

My concern with respect to what we are focused on here is this principle that binds us together as Canadians, that unites us together, that freedom of choice is not represented here. I recognize that there have been amendments put forward, particularly to clause 3, to legally protect those who provide, but it actually does not specify those who do not provide. My concern is that is an issue of freedom as a Canadian.

I have serious concerns about the lack of conscience protection for physicians in this bill. Does the hon. member have any suggestions for improving conscience protection for physicians?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his presentation. However, I do have cause for concern.

We continue to hear from the government about consultations, as opposed to action. For the people in my riding, at Honda, we saw action taken when our government was in place with the Canadian-European agreement, and the opportunity for 600 new jobs.

My question is, when is the Liberal government taking action to close the deal on the TPP, so we actually see the jobs?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I have issue with is that our initiatives actually impacted every Canadian family and every Canadian child. As the Liberals will say again and again themselves, only 9 out of ten actually benefit from what they are doing.

As my colleague earlier mentioned, one can be in a family, maybe a nurse or a teacher, and these individuals do not even benefit from what the Liberal government is doing now.

What our party focused on was making sure that every single Canadian family benefited. Every single Canadian family had more money back in their pockets, as opposed to what the Liberal government is doing, which is augmenting our debt and deficit, taking that money out of their pockets and giving it to the Government of Canada.

I think Canadians should have that money back in their pockets so that they can make great decisions for their families.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, actually there is data. I encourage him to go on PubMed and look it up. It shows that the implementation of these kinds of tax-free or positive incentives to have families and children participate show that more children participate. That is why it is so disappointing that the Liberal government has eliminated the children's fitness tax credit. Not only was it a tax credit for some families, but it was a subsidy for other families who were not eligible for a tax credit. Every Canadian child benefited from it.

I am happy to instruct the member that if he would like to look it up on PubMed, there are several articles published on this. However, let us be frank. This is actually about Canadian kids and the Liberal government abandoning them at a time when they need encouragement to get out there and play, to get on the playground. We know that is good for Canadian children's health.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. The deficit is getting much worse. The government promised a $10-billion deficit, which I found quite concerning to begin with, but it is actually $29.4 billion.

Ours was a government that the parliamentary budget officer has already reported had us in the black. In fact, we were over $7 billion in the black, as reported in February. However, our now Liberal Minister of Finance says that is just a thing to consider.

Let us be serious. The Liberal government is mortgaging the future of Canadian families and the future of younger Canadians. I encourage them to think again and actually put young Canadians first.