Debates of June 14th, 2017

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1

Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council Office

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw to the attention of the House the background and merit of certainly recently appointed senators selected under this government's reformed appointments process.

Unlike the previous government, we have made it a priority to only appoint individuals who have a record of contributing to Canadian society in their own unique ways and who have succeeded in making life better for Canadians. It is these qualities that we look for in our new senators, a refreshing change from the past.

Our new appointments process is remaking the Senate. By creating an independent appointments process, we are choosing individuals who represent Canadian communities that otherwise might not have a voice in Parliament.

I would like to bring the to the attention of members just a few of these individuals who this government has appointed to date.

Appointed December 6, 2016, Senator Dan Christmas is one of our government's latest appointments to the red chamber. Born in Sydney, Nova Scotia, Senator Christmas is a Mi'kmaw of the Membertou First Nation.

Senator Christmas has been very active in the Membertou community. He served as band manager for the community of Membertou for five years before moving to the Union of Nova Scotia Indians. There, he worked for 15 years, 10 of which he spent as its director.

During his tenure, Mr. Christmas helped the Membertou First Nation grow and become a thriving community. Through his work in his community, and outside, Senator Christmas has amassed extensive expertise and knowledge of issues relevant to indigenous communities in Atlantic Canada. His experience extends to the fields of aboriginal and treaty rights, justice, policing, education, health care, human rights, adult training, business development, and the environment.

By having such knowledge of important issues, Senator Christmas will improve the Senate's overall capacity to make informed decisions, considering the best interests of first nations in Ailanthic Canada.

Another outstanding Maritimer, Senator Nancy Hartling, was appointed to the Senate on November 10, 2016. Originally from Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, Senator Hartling earned a bachelor's degree from Norwich University and a master's degree in adult education from St. Francis Xavier University.

During her career, Hartling devoted herself to promoting social change, focusing on families and social issues. In 1982, Hartling founded Support to Single Parents Incorporated in Moncton, serving as director until the organization closed in 2016. During its more than 30 years in operation, Support to Single Parents provided single parents with affordable housing. Her long career working on social issues has given her extensive knowledge of mental health-related issues, poverty, violence against women, and economic development.

Mrs. Hartling's record of achievement in community service, in organizational leadership, and in advocacy has been recognized with several awards, such as the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case, the Community Spirit Award from the United Way of Greater Moncton and Southeastern New Brunswick, and the Order of New Brunswick.

Senator Hartling is a direct beneficent of our government's new Senate appointments process, as she applied directly under the new process introduced in 2016.

Senator Hartling's experience working on women's issues will bring the voice of an underprivileged group in Parliament.

Another November 10, 2016, appointment, Mr. Sarabjit S. Marwah, comes from a very different background. Born around the world in India, Marwah immigrated to Canada after pursuing studies in Calcutta, Delhi, and Los Angeles. He joined Scotiabank in Toronto as a financial analyst in the bank's finance division in 1979. Over the course of his career, senator Marwah rose through more senior positions, becoming chief financial officer in 1998 and a senior vice president in 2002.

Prior to his appointment in 2016, Senator Marwah had been the vice chairman and chief operating officer of the bank since 2008.

Outside of his professional life, Senator Marwah, has been particularly active in his community. He currently serves as vice chair of the board of trustees of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. He is on the board of directors for the Toronto International Film Festival.

Senator Marwah is Sikh and is a founding member of the Sikh Foundation of Canada, representing the Sikh community in Canada.

Sabi has been recognized with several awards, including the following: Professional of the Year Award from the Indo Canada Chamber of Commerce in 1994; the Sewa Award on two occasions from the Sikh Centennial Foundation; Queen’s Golden Jubilee Award; Words & Deeds award from the United Jewish Federation in 2009; and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Award in 2012.

Mr. Marwah's record of community service and success as an immigrant in the business community reflect his ambition and success, which will serve the Senate and Canadians well with this new appointment.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice the member reading from a prepared document. He seems to be reading the Senate biographies from the other place. Perhaps we could speed this up and ask for unanimous consent to simply table the website from the senate of all Senate biographies and move things along and discuss issues that are actually relevant and matter to Canadians, such as those contained in the actual main estimates.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Perth—Wellington have unanimous consent of the House to propose such a request?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Mégie exemplifies just what our government's merit-based appointments process is aimed at; Canadians with diverse backgrounds, compelling qualifications, and bold contributions to Canadian society. A member of the Order of Canada, Senator Mégie's career encompasses more than 35 years as a family doctor and nearly 30 years as a university professor and mentor to young Canadians.

Since being appointed by the Prime Minister last November, she has proven her mettle on the Senate committee on social affairs, science and technology, the committee on official languages, and the committee on aboriginal peoples.

Senator Mégie has provided her quiet strength to the red chamber in a way that inspires and honours Canadians and encourages us all to meet the standards she sets for parliamentary excellence.

The senator not only embodies the hard work and integrity that the upper house requires, but she embodies a vision for the future of Canada and proves to young women of colour what they can be capable of if they work hard and believe in themselves.

This kind of representation, where Canadians of all backgrounds can see themselves represented in their leaders, is paramount to the strength of our democracy and the engagement of young Canadians. Every day the senator gives her focus and energy to our country to advance the interests of Canadians, using her expertise in health and education to help Canada find its way forward.

Our government is committed to achieving a less partisan and more independent Senate with merit-based appointments. In the time that Senator Mégie has dedicated to Parliament, she has proven that those efforts are working. I believe this process will prove to be a new era for accountability and efficacy of the Senate of Canada.

Another member of a group of senators appointed November 10, 2016, Lucie Moncion, has an outstanding record of leadership in her field and represents a unique community in Canada.

Originally from Ottawa, Senator Moncion earned her bachelor of business administration from Laurentian University and an MBA from Moncton University. She has extensive knowledge of the cooperative financing sector, was the first woman in Canada to be appointed as head of a caisse populaire federation, and served as the president and chief executive officer of L’Alliance des caisses populaires de l’Ontario for 16 years.

Active on various corporate boards of directors, she has chaired the audit and governance committees of Groupe Média TFO. She was vice chair of Nipissing University's board of governors, treasurer of the Direction Ontario board of directors, chair of the Circuit Champlain and Coalition of Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires working groups, and a member of the board of directors at Collège Boréal.

Aside from her professional experience, Senator Moncion has extensive knowledge of the Franco-Ontarian community.

Over the course of her lifetime, she has developed an in-depth knowledge of northern Ontario, its economy, business climate, needs and communities and has recognized experience in the cooperatives and social entrepreneurship sector.

In the Senate, Senator Moncion will bring her knowledge of business, entrepreneurship, and cooperative financing, but also an understanding of one of Ontario's social minorities. Senator Moncion's experiences will help the Senate build a better future for all Canadians.

Another esteemed parliamentarian, Senator Pate, demonstrates the strength of this appointment process. Senator Pate is a nationally renowned advocate for women and youth issues, and has for 35 years, been a voice to the marginalized, the victimized, and all those who society has failed. Her work on the prison system, feminism, human rights, immigration, indigenous affairs, and mental health, as well as her legal expertise, make her contribution to the Senate something few can match.

Her progressive wisdom, temerity, and single-minded quest to bring justice and compassion to the voiceless is evident to all parliamentarians. This government knows she will bring that record of excellence to the Senate. We are tremendously lucky to have someone with her heart on Parliament Hill.

To quote Senator Pate's maiden speech, “I have—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to understand how reading, word for word, a senator's biography has anything to do with the main estimates. I know, as Speakers often remind us, there is wide latitude. However, I am struggling to see how reading from the biography of a senator from a website, word for word, is contributing to the debate on the main estimates.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope for his intervention. As he alluded to, the main estimates affords I would say probably the greatest of latitude with respect to topics before the House because it, frankly, incorporates just about every aspect of the ministries' responsibilities across government, including that of appointments. I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. However, of course it is the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington's time and he is able to incorporate in that the subject he wishes and believes is relevant to the issue that is before the House.

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to quote Senator Pate's maiden speech, she said, “I have often found myself driven either by rage or despair as I've tried to address that which I could not and will never accept”. The entire chamber rose to applaud her fearlessness after delivering this speech. Her journey fighting injustice in Canada's prison system was featured in The Globe and Mail, where she was described as having braved “a numbing world that tests the souls of all who touch it, filled with extremes of...apathy and...barbarity.”

It is incredible to me that the senator weathered that storm, yet still has so much to give to Canadians. I am humbled that she chose to join the ranks of parliamentarians. Like all of her colleagues I have discussed, she presents a new standard of excellence, not just for our team on Parliament Hill but for all Canadians. Her example teaches us to raise our voices, sharpen our minds, and commit to always opening our hearts.

The appointment of these individuals, and 21 others, through our government's new appointments process, is remaking the face of the Senate. Once a house of patronage appointments, with little credibility as a democratic institution, we are striving to change the Senate for the better. Our government is filling the upper house with qualified Canadians who represent diverse backgrounds and unique communities in Canada. These community leaders will represent the interests of groups whose representation might otherwise be overlooked by Canada's democracy.

It is the belief of our government that by reforming the Senate, the red chamber can be refashioned into an institution that enhances the quality and representativeness of Canada's Parliament.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in response to the biographies offered by the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington. That really is what it is. It is reading the biographies off the Senate website, word for word, in most cases. Certainly, there is wide latitude provided to members of the House to debate on different matters related to the main estimates. However, to simply read word for word from the biographies on the website brings this process into a grave area, when we should be debating the most important issues before us.

However, I want to ask the member something about the independent senators that I had asked another hon. member. Currently, Senator Pratte, the independent senator appointed by the Liberals' new process, is working in the other place to split off the infrastructure bank from the main budget bill. If they are so proud of their new senators, I would like to ask the member whether he will be supportive of that measure or if he will to wait, like his other colleague, for the cabinet to tell him how to vote.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very supportive of the members in the red chamber and the work they are doing. It is a testament to their independence that they have come back to the House with outstanding amendments and recommendations on different bills. In fact, they came back with some very thoughtful, provocative, and carefully thought-out amendments for the bill on medical assistance in dying that this government did accept.

Therefore, I agree that this totally validates why we have made the changes we have made to the chamber, and we will continue to do so because it increases the level of diversity of thought. The different life experiences that these senators bring allow us to send bills to the Senate chamber that we know will come back after careful thought and deliberation.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from my hon. colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, referring to the Senate biographies the member was reading verbatim to show the excellent people who have been appointed. The Senate has also taken great umbrage to the fact that the government has tried to raise taxes year after year, into the future, as far as the eye can see, without ever coming back to the House to ask for the permission of the elected members of Parliament on things like an escalating beer tax, escalating wine tax, escalating spirits tax, escalating camping fees, and escalating all kinds of user fees without asking the House to vote on that.

Does he agree the fiercely independent senators, whose biographies he read verbatim, are doing good work by opposing the tax increases the government is trying to bring in by stealth?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about the outstanding backgrounds that these senators bring to the chamber, whether it is finance, or dealing with indigenous issues, women's issues, tax issues, all of them. It adds to robust debate in both chambers that we can have, respect, and maybe agree on amendments in some cases, as we did with assisted dying, and not in other cases.

It is up to the Senate to do what it feels is the right thing to do, because that is the right thing to do. When they bring that to the House, we will determine whether we agree it is the right thing and that it would benefit all Canadians after our chamber has had its ability to debate the same issues.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would enlighten us by telling us what he thinks about the current process for nominating senators versus another process we saw on the eve of the election, by the previous government, of making numerous political appointees. How does he think our new process measures up to that?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question allows me to shine a light upon this really outstanding process that has selected highly respected, well-thought-of experts in their fields to be now part of the Senate. That would never have happened previously, especially in the previous government. We saw what happened under the previous government, the absolute mess it created and the toxic environment it created within the Senate.

I am so grateful that we have had the opportunity to bring these incredible senators to the red chamber. They are going to benefit all Canadians for many years to come.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to a previous question, the member said they will accept some of the amendments from the Senate and will reject others. It might depend how the cabinet feels that day. Would it not be more appropriate if the government listened to the elected members of Parliament who have the electoral endorsement of the population and listen to the amendments that we bring forward in committee and at report stage, rather than the unelected other body, which is still regionally unbalanced and still does not have term limits or an electoral mandate from the people?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member of the benefits of the Westminster-style democratic system we have in our great country. We have a chamber that provides sober second thought. It is by appointing such qualified individuals as we have under this new process that we enable that chamber to provide sober second thought to the elected officials, where the final decision is made. That is of utmost importance.

Canadians have elected us as members of the House to make those large decisions, but as long as we continue to appoint highly qualified senators that come with different areas of expertise, which perhaps some members of the House may not have, it only makes our system that much better and that much stronger. That will continue to benefit Canadians for generations to come.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have been having some fun here after the member read quite a few biographies into the record, but in all seriousness there is a real threat here to the government that the Senate will completely stall the agenda. It is an agenda that I do not happen to agree with, but the government does have a mandate at least from the people of Canada.

The Liberals have been elected by people to implement an agenda and now, because there is this independent Senate they put into place, it is jamming up the government's agenda. Does the member not see that by doing this half-baked idea of Senate reform without actually reforming any part of the Senate, just putting people in who now believe they have a mandate to jam up government legislation, that down the road, even with his own government, this could be an absolute train wreck that will have perhaps constitutional ramifications?

Does the member not see the writing on the wall with how things are going already with this beautiful process that he has been so happy to endorse here tonight?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again I appreciate the opportunity to address the question. I think the member misses something very important, and actually I am very disappointed in his negative, cynical view of the Senate and its ability to be that chamber of sober second thought. We have created an incredible democracy in this country, and the Senate is an integral part of that democracy as long as it is not a rubber-stamp chamber as existed under the previous government. When it is actually there and it is enabled to do the job that it was meant to do under the original Constitution that was framed in this country, it serves as a tremendous benefit to all Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about the main estimates. There are two topics I am going to cover tonight. The first is the President of the Treasury Board's misguided and rather cynical attempt to change the estimates process—solely, by the way, to prove that he is actually doing something, anything at all. The second is to talk about some of my favourite spending plans from the estimates, a rogue's gallery of waste.

Paul McCartney wrote:

You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
And in the middle of negotiations
You break down
But oh, that magic feeling, nowhere to go.

That is where we are with the estimates: no reform and nowhere to go. It is just a discussion document that is funny paper at best.

When the government cannot get the opposition to agree to changes in the Standing Orders and negotiations break down, this is where I am going to switch to a Judas Priest quote: “Ram it down” their throats.

Last year the President of the Treasury Board brought forward his solution to the issue of the budget and the estimates not aligning. This was supposed to be a solution to the issue of the estimates being difficult to understand. Despite the government having proved completely unable to fix its own internal administrative processes, the President of the Treasury Board decided the solution was to take away two months of parliamentary oversight of the estimates, changing the Standing Orders to allow the government to move tabling of the estimates from March 1 to May 1, leaving parliamentarians just one month before the estimates are considered reported. It would allow the opposition party just an hour or two to review the estimates before being required, on the same day, to name the two departments for a committee of a whole, and it would take away supply days. We were told that moving the estimates from March 1 to May 1 would allow the government to ensure more of the budget is in the estimates.

We asked President of the Treasury Board about these concerns in committee, and we were told not to worry. We were told the government would just change the Standing Orders for a couple of years, that we should trust it, and that it would get around to changing them back when things were fixed. We were also told that the government did not really have an answer about the committee of the whole, but it would work out the supply days and we should just trust it to move ahead.

We were told not to worry about having only three sitting weeks in May to review the estimates, because the government would guarantee ministers would show up at all committee meetings regarding the main estimates. I accept that the current Minister of Public Services and Procurement is off on leave looking after family, and I respect that, but I also note that the fill-in minister and parliamentary secretary were both no-shows for estimates in OGGO, the government operations and estimates committee.

We asked the President of the Treasury Board why, if there was an alignment issue, the budget could not just be moved up to an earlier fixed date, as was recommended in the all-party 2012 OGGO report on the estimates. We were told that parliamentarians did not want to be bothered with unproductive busywork. I, for one, do not believe that the role of Parliament, the oversight of spending, is just busywork. It is the reason we are here.

I am not the only one who thinks the government is completely out of touch here. The PBO noted:

Before agreeing to the changes proposed by the Government, parliamentarians may wish [to] revisit the core problem that undermines their financial scrutiny: the Government's own internal administrative processes.

He states that moving the date would have little to no effect on aligning the internal processes if budget and spending approval are not reformed.

The PBO proved this point by pointing out in his supplementary estimates analysis how many new budget measures are in each supplementary estimate document. In the 2016 supplementary estimates (A), 70% of new spending announced in the budget was present in the supplementary estimates (A). A year later, after the government's commitment to hard work and improving the alignment, we see a total of 44% in the 2017 supplementary estimates (A).

In his response to the failure, the President of the Treasury Board said it was progress. Dropping from 70% to 44% is progress. Maybe in the Superman Bizarro world it is, and that may be something he has to hang onto.

I asked the minister to share his plans to achieve alignment and reform the internal process, and he refused, referring instead to a general aspirational document on where he wants to go. He said his plan was to make progress, with no details on how to get there. It is clear the government does not have a plan.

When asked if he would follow parliamentary tradition and make no changes to the Standing Orders without unanimous consent of the opposition parties, he said—well, actually he did not say. It was like the Prime Minister's infamous performance when he refused to answer how many meetings he had with the Ethics Commissioner. I asked the President of the Treasury Board and the chair asked repeatedly, but we got nothing.

Kevin Page, the respected former PBO, said of the minister's plan:

With great respect to [the TBS president]...the specific proposals in the report do not far to strengthen Parliament's financial control.

The current PBO says of the proposed estimate changes:

With respect to delaying the main estimates, the Government indicates that the core impediment in aligning the budget and estimates arises from the Government's own sclerotic internal administrative processes, rather than parliamentary timelines.

The PBO further notes:

...the Secretariat is further away from its goal in 2017-18, rather than closer to it. This raises a significant question of whether the Government's proposal to delay the main estimates would result in meaningful alignment with the budget.

What was the minister's response to these learned experts? He said that he did not agree with every utterance from the PBO. Yes, he actually said the PBO's well-thought-out concerns were mere utterances.

To finish on the issue of estimates reform, I want to quote William Gladstone, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and four-time PM of the U.K.:

If the House of Commons by any possibility lose the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.

With this “open by default” government, Canadians would be well advised to worry.

I want to look at examples of why the government wants to suppress oversight of the estimates and not empower parliamentarians. These examples are from the estimates, and I call them my greatest hits.

I appreciate all the talk on the new Senate appointments. We have a new Senate appointment system whereby we appoint or hire a Secretariat, a secretary's assistant, to support the advisers. Last year it was $1.4 million of taxpayers' money. We asked at the committee, and they basically said they do not do the selection process and they do not weed out resumés. They merely print the resumés and forward them to the advisory committee. That is $1.4 million. This year it is $1 million for support staff to basically print resumés.

Here are a couple of titles. We have a senior policy adviser for printing resumés. We have a team leader for selection processes. We have a senior recruitment and selection officer for printing resumés, and an administrative assistant to assist the senior recruitment and selection officer, the team leader for selection processes, and the senior policy adviser. They print resumés and then hand them on to the advisory committee.

Here is the great thing. It is $1 million this year. We looked at the website where individuals apply for the Senate and found that applications are closed till Christmas, so for about a 10-month period, we are not taking resumés for the Senate.

I asked the government why we are spending $1 million when it is closed, and I was told we are still selecting senators. However, the website is closed, but there was silence and we moved on.

The website for selecting the senators cost $400,000, I was told by the government. I asked in shock, “It is $400,000? Are you serious?” They were busy patting themselves on the back, saying, “Yes, we saved so much money because we used an existing template.”

In other spending in the estimates, here is one of my favourites: $1.8 million for grants to foreign recipients for participation in international organizations supporting agriculture. We asked the government why it was spending money to send foreigners to foreign conferences. Would they not send Canadians? The answer was “We believe in multinationalism” or something, but the government is spending $1.8 million to send foreigners to foreign conferences.

To write off a loan to Cuba, it is $18 million. Here we have the cast that has stolen billions of dollars, and the Government of Canada, which just last week voted against $19 million for autism research over four years because it was too much, gave away $18 million. We asked the government why. The response was, “We had no choice. We were forced into it by our allies.”

Another fun thing is the $600,000-plus for website support for the Prime Minister to have people sitting there around the clock to update the website, maybe in case he needs to show new socks or perhaps has a photo op. These are just some of my favourites, just a small part of the huge amount of government waste to which the government is turning a blind eye and for which it is happily trying to suppress oversight in order to get away with it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments by my colleague from Edmonton West and some of his greatest hits.

I wonder, for $1.4 million, if the member thinks that perhaps we could all collect an intern from each of our offices, maybe two or three of them, to help the government print off resumés.

I have a few hours on the weekend when I could maybe attend constituency events, print off a few resumés, and try to save that $1.4 million for the assistance of the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question, and I thank my colleague for his hard work on the file. We asked pretty much the same question last year in the estimates. How many resumés were there? It was 68. I asked if they were making sure they were qualified to be senators. Were they from the right province and so on? They said no, they just print them and send them on. I said I could do that in an afternoon over a pot of coffee and write a poorly written speech, as I just did. The government is oblivious.

The $1.4 million could probably renovate a minister's office, but it is double what the government invested in shelters for women escaping abuse last year. There was $1.2 million to renovate the Minister of Status of Women's office, $1.4 million for secretarial support, and $700,000 to support the women who actually need it. This shows the ridiculousness of the government and its out-of-touch spending.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I sat in opposition, I would see not $1 million or $2 million but $750 million. It was spent on nothing but propaganda for the Harper government, purely on ads for the economic action plan. What about $1 million-plus so the prime minister would be able to have a car he trusted in India when he made a trip there?

I am wondering if the member is absolutely confident that every dollar spent by the Harper government was a dollar well spent. I suspect there are 35 million-plus Canadians who would disagree with the member.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the party of Gomery, the party of scandal with advertising, that stole money from taxpayers to funnel into their own party, would dare--