Candice Bergen

[Taiwan, September 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Canada's foreign policy, the Conservative Party continues to put the fundamental Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law first. That is why Conservatives believe that we should stand up for countries and governments that value these principles.

One such place is Taiwan. Canada and Taiwan have much in common, not least of which is a commitment to democracy and human rights. Something the Liberal government could do to show support for Taiwan is to make an effort to sign a foreign investment and protection agreement with it, as well as to promote Taiwan's participation in international forums like the WHO and the UN General Assembly.

This week, the General Assembly meets in New York. The PM is at the UN right now, and the opportunity is right before him.

The Taiwanese have shown strength, steadfastness, and tenacity in the face of very large and powerful adversaries. We can and should do more to show the Taiwanese that they do not stand alone.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, this agreement was something that came before us. I was the parliamentary secretary for public safety, and I did a lot of work prior to that on behalf of law-abiding gun owners. In Canada, we have seen situations in which law-abiding firearms owners have been erroneously and unfairly attacked by previous governments. We worked really hard to ensure that law-abiding gun owners who follow the rules, are licensed, and are using their guns for legitimate purposes are not made into criminals.

We have a problem with this treaty because there is no language in it that protects law-abiding gun owners, specifically here in Canada. I did not hear my colleague talk about that. He talked about how they would like to protect law-abiding gun owners and that it does not affect legitimate gun owners, but the language in the treaty does not address this.

Why are the Liberals ready to ratify an agreement that has the potential to hurt millions of Canadians using firearms for legitimate purposes and who could be targeted if Canada does ratify this agreement?

[Taxation, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has his head in the sand, because jobs that are created by Ryan and this company are going to be driven into the ground under the tax increases by this minister. We ask again, how is it fair that someone like Ryan and a company like this are going to have to pay 73%, when millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell will not have to? How is that fair?

[Taxation, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Wildwood Transport is a trucking company in my riding that employs 55 Manitobans. Ryan, who is the owner of Wildwood Transport, has told me that the finance minister's tax increases are going to have a drastic effect on him and his employees. What Ryan does not understand is this: why is the finance minister forcing him to pay a 73% tax that not even the millionaire owners of the minister's own family-owned company, Morneau Shepell, have to pay?

[House of Commons, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative team here, I would also like to offer my thanks to a number of people today.

I want to begin by thanking the government House leader for the work that she has put into many of the negotiations that we have had over the last little while. Together with the member for Victoria, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, she and I have worked very hard.

I want to make special mention of some of our staff: Rheal and Hugo among the House leader's staff, Jeremy in the NDP House leader's staff, and a number of mine, including John and David. We have all worked very hard to do things. Sometimes we did not always agree, but I know everyone has worked really hard, and so I want to pay special tribute to those individuals.

I also want to thank all of the MPs, my fellow MPs, MPs from every side, who have been here until midnight working very hard on behalf of their constituents. I know that their staff have been working hard as well. The people who support them have been diligent. I want to thank them and wish them a very good summer.

I want to thank our clerks, our procedural experts, who sit here day after day and so faithfully serve us. We so much respect the work that they do. We admire them and are grateful to them.

I also want to echo the sentiments of the House leader and what has already been said and thank Marc Bosc for the tremendous work he has done. He will very much be missed.

I want to mention it is not just those of us here and those of us who are visible who support the House; there are so many other people, whether it is the bus drivers who faithfully get us here to the House of Commons, the protective services people who so faithfully and diligently serve us, those in the cafeterias, the staff around this place, or IT people. There are just so many people, probably 1,400 people, who support us day after day. Many of them go unseen, but I think today we want to thank them and wish them a good summer and a good holiday when this place quiets down.

I want to thank the pages who are so diligent and so generous and so gracious as they serve us. These are young people who are also going to school every day. They are working very hard on their studies. We know there are many pages who have gone on and had very impressive careers, some of them right here in this place. Even though sometimes we are busy when we ask them for a glass of water or to get us a specific document, I think we all want to express our deep gratitude for the way that they serve us and look after us here in the House of Commons.

Finally, to you, Mr. Speaker, I know that sometimes the waters here can be a little turbulent and you are navigating turbulent waters. I thank you for the service that you provide, as well as your deputy speakers and the other individuals who occupy that chair. I express my gratitude to you and to your colleagues. I wish you a very good summer.

I wish all of my colleagues a good summer, not only with their constituents but even more importantly with their families and friends. When we leave this place, the people who will remain and will be there for us are our families and our friends. I believe that we need to continue to invest in those relationships, and summertime is a really good time to do that.

Thank you again. I wish everyone a good summer.

[Finance, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's refusal to answer that question shows why this infrastructure bank is a complete disaster.

Over the weekend, when asked a direct question, the Prime Minister refused to say when, if ever, he plans on balancing the budget. Given that our children and our grandchildren will be the ones stuck paying off his excessive spending habits and his multi-billion-dollar tab, they deserve an honest answer to a simple question.

In what year does the Prime Minister plan on balancing the budget? Will it be the year that pigs fly or the year that hell freezes over?

[Infrastructure, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's proposed $35-billion slush fund, also known as the Liberal infrastructure bank, is a disaster in the making. Even worse, we have learned, according to what the finance minister said last week, that the slush fund will not be run by Canadians.

Can the Prime Minister please explain why he will be appointing foreigners, who do not have Canada's best interests in mind, to the board of the Liberal infrastructure bank?

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do recall quite fondly the 26 hours of voting that ensued at that particular time. I do recall the end result of what the member is referring to.

Obviously there are a number of tools that both the government and the opposition have to achieve the results that they want. The opposition has to do what it can to fight against what the government wants and the government will be held to account for what it does.

In this case, our initial approach to the government was for it to put a group together, whether a group like the Jean Chrétien model, the Pierre Trudeau model, or the Brian Mulroney model. If we could have at least started with that, we could have had more input even from other parties in the House, but we could not get to that base. We were stalled at every turn.

We are now at a place where we can somewhat agree on what we are going to disagree on. However, make no mistake: the government is doing this the wrong way. This is not the right process. This is not a success for the government.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what that member asked that the Liberals have not learned one thing from this entire episode.

We have given numerous examples where previous governments under Liberals and Conservatives did have discussions around the Standing Orders. No substantive changes to the Standing Orders can be made without a full consensus. That is a fact.

The fact that the member brought up the NDP opposition day motion is proof of our point. The only way the NDP motion would have passed in the House is if that party would have been able to build a consensus and been able to persuade opposition members that its proposal was a good one. It was not able to do that and the motion did not pass. That is the way it should be. What the Liberals did was the opposite. They are able to pass anything they want because they have a majority and they do not have to care about building a consensus.

The member's logic is flawed and his illogic proves our point, that being that we should only change the Standing Orders with a consensus. That means make the argument, persuade everybody that it is not partisan, and the change will happen.

We are seeing that everything the Liberals want to do is fully for their partisan benefit, and that is another reason they did not want to build a consensus.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my hon. colleague, the NDP House leader, for the way we have been able to work together.

The fact that the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who disagree on pretty well everything, agreed on this showed how important it was that they could not ram changes through. It really showed the substance of our argument.

In regard to the long hours we have been sitting, it is clear how the Liberals have mismanaged the House of Commons and the very few bills it is trying to get through. The fact is that even a week and a half ago, while we were sitting until midnight, while they were using time allocation, the Liberals brought two motions before the House that we had to debate. They really had no lasting impact, whether we voted on them or not. There was one on the Paris agreement and one on foreign policy. It just had to do with the Liberals trying to find more ways to pat themselves on the back, and maybe try to divide this caucus, which did not work.

The fact that the Liberals had time to play those kinds of games and engage in that kind of self-indulgence really shows their motivation. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister does not respect this place. He does not think it is necessary. He does not want to be here. He treats this place like a nuisance, and that was clear in how he had his House leader try to carry out the agenda of the Liberals.