Rona Ambrose

[Justice, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and other parties support it. Even chief justices have come forward to support this. Lawyers support it, judges support it, academics support it, advocates for change support it, and front-line sexual assault supporters definitely support it. Who else supports it? Women across this country who want to have more confidence in our justice system.

The Prime Minister talks the talk of the feminists, but I would like to know how he could possibly defend the status quo.

[Justice, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill that would ensure judges would be trained to deal with sexual assault trials. Fixing this problem is something that is necessary and is widely supported. Too many rape victims do not report the violence they experience because they have no confidence in the justice system.

I understood from our conversations and the votes of his caucus that the Prime Minister was committed to passing this legislation, but now I hear otherwise. I would like to give the Prime Minister a chance today to be clear. With a simple yes or no, will the Prime Minister and his caucus pass this bill and support rape victims?

[Taxation, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when hard-working Canadians get time off for a family vacation, they are often on a budget. This means that many times they are taking a modest occasional family camping trip. It is affordable, it is relaxing, and it is fun. However, for some reason, the Prime Minister wants to make it less affordable and less fun.

While taxpayers are on the hook for $130,000 for the Prime Minister's private island getaway, fees are going up at campsites all across the country. How is this fair?

[Taxation, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister just cannot help himself from nickel and diming regular Canadians. First, he went after their Saturday night by taxing beer, wine, Uber, bus passes. Now he is going after their May long weekend camping trip too. He is hiking fees on a fishing licence and even on campsites, and those fees are going to keep going up forever.

The middle class and those working hard to join it deserve some rest and relaxation once in a while. Why is the Prime Minister taxing their time off too?

[Taxation, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to power, the Liberals have continued to fail the middle class: taxes on payroll, groceries, electricity, and fuel; taxes on public transit and Uber; taxes on beer and wine; taxes on local businesses; and taxes on fishing, camping, passports, and all manner of federal permits.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what he plans to tax next, or when this taxation insanity will end?

[Foreign Affairs, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is on the record now as saying that he is committed to a regime change in Syria. This is a regime that is propped up by Russia and Iran. Now he is saying that we can continue to have conversations with these regimes, which are also supporters of violations of human rights and genocide.

What is the Prime Minister's plan? Is he going to continue to have this policy of responsible conviction, which loosens sanctions on Iran and normalizes relations with Russia, when they clearly support Bashar al-Assad? What is his plan?

[Foreign Affairs, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, immediately after taking office, the Prime Minister loosened sanctions on Iran and began normalizing relations with Russia. He even had a name for this policy. He called it “responsible conviction.”

We have another name. We call it “dangerously naive.” Everyone knows that if it were not for Russia and Iran, Bashar al-Assad would no longer be in power.

Now that the Prime Minister is committed to a regime change in Syria, will he first commit to restoring sanctions against Iran and support our Conservative legislation to toughen sanctions against Russia?

[Ethics, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, no one has begrudged the Prime Minister a vacation.

First of all, when he chose to vacation at one of the most expensive places in the world, knowing full well taxpayers have to pay for wherever he goes, for security, that was a choice he made. Second of all, he has told all Canadians that he thought there was no other option.

Now he is saying the RCMP told him he had to take a private helicopter. Is the Prime Minister saying today, then, that the RCMP told him to break the law?

[Ethics, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to our question. This is not a conversation between the Prime Minister and the Ethics Commissioner. In fact, he told all Canadians publicly that he had no other option.

The question is very simple. Why did the Prime Minister say he had no other option, when in fact he did? His staff took the other option, which was a commercial flight. He knew that taking this private helicopter was against the law and that it was against his own ethical guidelines. Now we find out it was not even true.

Why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians this if it was not true?

[Ethics, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in January the Prime Minister claimed that he had no choice but to take a private helicopter to the Aga Khan's island. He said that there were no other options. It turns out that this was not true. His staff, in fact, arrived at the island by commercial plane, and that bill was picked up by taxpayers too.

It is bad enough that the Prime Minister chose to vacation at one of the most expensive destinations in the world when taxpayers have to pay, but why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians a private helicopter was his only option when he knew it was against the law and against his own ethical guidelines, and now we find out that it was not even true?