Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 174
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-28 14:05 [p.21423]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of my dear friend Jack Donald.
In 1964, Jack moved his family to Red Deer, where they opened a service station business called Parkland Oil Products Ltd. Through the years, Jack and his wife Joan grew that service station into Canada's largest independent marketer and distributor of fuels, known today as Parkland Fuel Corporation. There is no denying that Jack excelled at business, but Jack was also a community builder. He was president of the Optimist Club, city alderman, citizen of the year and prominent philanthropist. He, along with Joan, donated millions to causes in Red Deer and central Alberta, such as the Donald School of Business at Red Deer Polytechnic.
Most importantly, Jack was a husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather and friend. I will say to Joan, John, Kathy and all of the family that we share in their sorrow. They should know in this difficult time that Jack left an indelible mark on central Alberta and his smile will never fade from our memories.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-28 17:33 [p.21448]
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members of this House, many of whom, including the member for Courtenay—Alberni, were not here when I first learned about all-night voting. That was back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the NDP moved hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to a piece of legislation to discuss Canada Post and forced all-night voting. As a matter of fact, if the record is checked, I believe that voting went on for in excess of 24 hours. I even believe the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has moved a number of motions and amendments that created long-term marathon voting as well.
I just want to remind everybody that this is where we are actually at. The issue that the government House leader does not understand is that it is the agenda that it is trying to get passed that is actually causing the frustration in the House. The government can monkey around with all of the Standing Orders that they want, but it actually has to be an agenda that Canadians want. Canadians are rejecting the government's agenda right now. The polling numbers clearly indicate that the government and its coalition partners do not have the support of the Canadian public so everything it is doing is actually against where the Canadian public is at. If the government would just change its agenda, it would actually have the support of this House and the support of the Canadian public. If it has the support of the public, it will have the support in the House. It does not have the support of the House because the public does not support its agenda. The government can monkey with the Standing Orders all they want, but it is not going to change the fact that the government has bad ideas. That is why those ideas are not getting through the House.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-27 14:14 [p.21380]
Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. After eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, corruption, cover-ups or crime.
Only the Prime Minister can turn an $80,000 app budget into a $60-million boondoggle. When tasked with holding the government to account, the NDP voted not once, not twice and not three times to keep funding arrive scam; it was eight times that the NDP voted to give tens of millions of tax dollars to two guys in a basement for money-for-nothing contracts.
Common-sense Conservatives voted no. Had the NDP and Bloc done the same, arrive scam funding would never have happened. Conservatives know how hard Canadians work for their money, and we will not award contracts to Liberal insiders so they can hold whisky tastings and private dinners with government officials.
After eight years, it is time to fix what the Liberal-NDP coalition has broken. It is time for a common-sense Conservative government.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-13 14:11 [p.21037]
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, yet somehow the Prime Minister found over $60 million for his arrive scam app. With inflation eating away at earnings and with families having to cut back on gas, heat and groceries, the Prime Minister wants to increase the carbon tax by another 23% on April 1. It is all part of the Liberal-NDP plan to quadruple the tax on the backs of hard-working Canadians.
In my riding, the Lacombe Legion paid an extra $2,000 last year just for the carbon tax. This money, which should have been used to improve the lives of veterans and honour the memory of our fallen, has instead been funnelled to the government so it can pay off its friends at arrive scam. It is time to admit that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Conservatives would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-13 19:25 [p.21084]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his excellent work in bringing the 988 number, which is now finally implemented and seeing great use. I want to thank my colleague for always being a passionate advocate, not only for his constituents, and for always doing the right thing. I can say that I am going to rest easier tonight knowing that there is somebody who is never going to give up on me. I really do appreciate that from my colleague, and I want to thank him for joining me. We will never give up on those who feel like giving up.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2024-02-13 19:51 [p.21088]
Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by my colleague across the way's position on this particular issue and his knowledge as a medical practitioner, but for goodness' sake, it was a year ago we were dealing with this issue. The government controls the agenda; he is a member of the government caucus.
Why, instead of just punting this issue and kicking the ball down the road, did the government not put a fork in this with a piece of legislation that would stop us from having to deal with this for the foreseeable future? Did he advocate for that in his caucus? Why is Parliament going to have to deal with this again in a handful of years?
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-14 15:51 [p.20114]
Madam Speaker, we know, from information from various sources, that thousands of employees from Korea and other places will be coming in to take jobs that are subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. If my colleague had had an opportunity to be at the drafting table for this piece of legislation, would he have put in something to ensure that foreign workers would not be getting the largesse from the publicly funded investments into electric vehicle battery plants here in Canada? Why are we not actually protecting Canadians with an investment using Canadian tax dollars?
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-14 17:58 [p.20133]
Madam Speaker, I begin this debate a little heavy-hearted, because this is an issue that is near and dear to me and I just want to reiterate what I just heard.
I just heard the member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview advocate against jobs in his own riding in the Calgary airport, jobs of shipping horses. This is from a bill from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
Apparently this is the pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not affordability. It is not any other issue, like day care, crime or violence in our communities and streets or people using food banks; the most pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga apparently is what some Métis people in Alberta are doing, and a few farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec are doing, when it comes to horses.
It is a niche market, as I will freely admit, and my constituents admit that, but it is an important issue. I am referring, obviously, to this notion of somehow singling out horses for export from our agricultural community. In essence, the government and its acolytes in the Senate have launched a two-pronged attack. The first bill here is Bill C-355, which we are debating today, and the second is Bill S-270. Both of these bills would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of slaughter. The primary difference is that Bill C-355 would only restrict that export by air, while the Senate bill would do so more generally and broadly.
Since this issue is not often discussed in the public domain, other than in misinformation campaigns, I would like to begin my speech today with a few statistics and some key information about this valuable industry.
There were only 347 exporting breeders in Canada, and they exported a total of 2,600 animals for slaughter in the last year, 2022. For the education of my colleague for Calgary Skyview who just spoke and said that we used to export 7,000, that was because we used to have PMU barns and we used to produce a lot more horses because of that pregnant mare urine, which is a biotic used for the creation of birth control. As that was phased out in favour of therapeutics, the number of horses has gone down.
However, we still need a market for these animals, but that member would not know that. I do not think there are a whole lot of horse breeders or horse raisers in Calgary Skyview, which is fine. I always find a lot of humour in listening to my Liberal colleagues from urban areas talk about how much they clearly do not know about agriculture. That number is complemented by another 10,840 live horses that are also exported, but not for the purpose of slaughter. Basically, a five-to-one ratio of horses that are actually exported are not for slaughter, but who is going to know what the motives are of the buyer of that particular horse when it is purchased in Canada and shipped on an airplane?
While the distribution of this industry, as I said, is spread across the country, the greatest number of these animals comes from my province of Alberta, as well as Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that 25% of these horses come from indigenous herds. I remember when this government used to say that there is no relationship more important to it than the relationship with first nations people; a quarter of this industry is actually providing income and stability to the economic viability of first nations, primarily the Métis in Alberta.
Canada consumes 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes of horsemeat every year. This is mainly in la belle province of Quebec. As well, over a billion people—16%, so almost two in 10 people on this planet—consume horsemeat, so almost 20% of human beings on the planet consume horses. That is an astounding number, but apparently it is not good enough for those who do not know the industry, do not know anything about agriculture and never represented anybody in agriculture, and they are just going to shut down this industry.
It is also very healthy meat, with 20% more protein than beef, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the iron of a beef sirloin, so I do not know why my colleagues across the way are protesting so much.
Now that we have a picture of what this industry looks like in this country, I would like to stay with what the Liberals propose to do with Bill C-355, and it is nothing short of shameful. The bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This includes a signed declaration, to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the horses are not being exported for slaughter.
Can members imagine? The pilots have about five minutes when the plane pushes back from the gate when the pilots have the authority to get their documentation, get everything signed, push back and take off.
Now, we would have to have an approved letter from the Minister of Agriculture just before push-back. I am sure that would be an interesting bureaucratic hoop to jump through. This declaration must then be in the hands of the pilots of that aircraft and the chief customs officer of the airport. If it is contravened, the consequences of this act would be devastating. On the higher end, fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or both may result.
One gets less for violating a gun prohibition order in this country. This is the way the folks across the aisle think about these particular issues. There is nothing more damaging to Canada, apparently, than a farmer.
This is not speculation. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, for Canada has expressed concerns. It represents 95% of the unionized pilot workforce employed at 21 airlines.
The result of this bill would be to essentially restrict the air transportation of all horses in and out of Canada for all purposes. Not only would this bill impose an unfair burden of proof on the pilots and exporters, who cannot always be assured of what the end use is of the horse that is on board, but it would also dissuade them from even taking any live horses as cargo because of the overly punitive fines.
As previously mentioned, Canada exports 10,840 live horses for purposes other than slaughter. This bill would inadvertently hurt those producers as well, as it would make it harder for them to find air shippers that are willing to take their cargo.
For example, this may cause delays for those who need to fly horses engaged in Olympic or other equestrian competitions, as well as horses that are simply sold for their genetics and used in breeding programs elsewhere in the world.
These delays could jeopardize their opportunity to compete and represent their country internationally. We would lose things such as the Spruce Meadows and show jumping. We would have all kinds of problems, even applying for an Olympic bid in this country, because somebody would bring their horse here and would like to take it home with them. “Not a chance in Canada,” say the Liberals.
I must say that this bill is not just about the export of horses. It is part of a larger issue, which is the general assault on the Canadian farmer, who is already burdened by costly carbon taxes and excessive regulations.
We saw this disregard for farmers again recently, when the Liberal-controlled independent senators blocked Bill C-234's passage through the Senate. Finally, when they did pass it, they amended it to gut the bill of its impact. Instead of healing the urban-rural divide, the government is still stoking division.
This debate is personal for me. The horse export industry is prominent in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. A testament to this importance can be found in some of the feedback I have received from constituents and stakeholders. As one can imagine, in mixed and rural ridings such as mine, the impact of such legislation can be of outsized importance. This includes a member of an Alberta Métis group.
As part of a larger statement to us, they have stated, “There has been no consultation with indigenous producers and people on the plan to ban the export of live horses. The Canadian government has a history of stepping on indigenous farmers.”
There is a duty to consult in the Constitution, and they have not done that with this bill. I would also like to point out that the rationale for banning the bill, based on the so-called premise of animal welfare, is all based on misinformation and untruths.
This is especially the case when it comes to claims of mistreatment and abuse of these animals during their transportation. I can tell members that I grew up on a farm. On the farm, our animals are the most important thing we have. They are part of our business. We have to treat them well and with respect, because our business and livelihood both depend on the health and viability of these animals.
Since 2013, over 41,000 horses have been exported. The mortality rate at all stages of transport, not just on the airplane, is 0.012%. Basically, this is statistically insignificant. I want to highlight that no deaths as a result of the transportation of these animals have occurred since 2014.
We have veterinary oversight. We have very stringent transportation rules for animals. This is a clear campaign by misinformed individuals who simply want to make an emotional argument to try to shut down an industry that they disagree with ideologically.
This is absolutely frustrating, not only for my constituents but also for all farmers. It is a slippery slope. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-14 18:26 [p.20137]
Madam Speaker, what an ironic situation to be standing in the House talking about concurrence in a committee report dealing with strengthening food processing capacity after we just spent an hour of private members' business talking about a Liberal private member's bill that is going to shut down an entire portion of Canada's agricultural economy.
It is bizarre to stand here today and talk about food security in the context of the greatest food insecurity time that we have ever had. Since food banks started recording information in 1989, there has never been more demand at our food banks than right now. We have had eight years of the Liberals, now propped up by the NDP, making bad policy, bad law and bad budget after bad policy, bad law and bad budget. We find ourselves in a scenario where inflation, caused by the doubling of our national debt, all previous prime ministers combined, came to a little over $600 billion. For the current Prime Minister, it was $600 billion in just eight years, making the cost of everything go up.
The Liberals' proudest moment was when the Prime Minister stood in this House and announced he was going to implement a carbon tax, a tax that we as Conservatives said would be a tax on everything. Here we are. Canadians are choosing between heating their homes and eating. Seniors are moving back in with their children. Children are not even able to move out of their parents' house. Parents are wondering if they are going to have their kids and parents living in their house. There are a lot of people asking themselves those questions right now.
The agriculture committee studies food processing. That is part of the entire supply chain, so let us take a look at how we get food here.
Liberals would have us believe that Canada cannot produce its own food, that we somehow need to support other countries around the world in order to have food here. That is not true. We are one of, I believe, only five nations in the world that are net food exporters. That means that Canada can make more than enough food for ourselves and can export food around the world. That is what we do with beef, grain, oilseeds, pork and hopefully still horses if there is any sensibility in the room. Imagine the arrogance of a government knowing what people should be able to choose on the shelf. Imagine it being so knowledgeable that it can do people's shopping for them right here in the House of Commons and tell them what they can and cannot have. We see that all the time with the government. It is not just with respect to the food we eat, but the energy we can use for our vehicles and homes, the modes of transportation we can use and the firearms we get to use when we decide to go hunting. A lot more people are hunting these days. Madam Speaker is from a riding with a lot of hunters in it. That is not necessarily because they want to, but out of necessity because of the cost of food. There is a lot of uptake in hunting, which is a good thing. I am a hunter. I like that.
This is all premised on the notion that the Liberal government has no trouble berating its own industries that it does not like. It berates our oil and gas sector, even though we have one of the cleanest oil and gas sectors on the planet. It berates our agricultural sector, even though we are one of the most advanced societies relying on technology. We have to be innovative. We only have four or five months of a growing season in the year to grow crops. If we were not innovative, we could not compete with countries that can grow grass 12 months of the year. We would not keep up with them.
We need to be innovative with greenhouses. In my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe, we have great greenhouses. Guess what we do to increase the efficiency of food production in a greenhouse. Does anyone have any idea what we might pump into a greenhouse to make plants grow faster and help the crop be more productive? It is carbon dioxide. That is what we put into a greenhouse.
What goes into fertilizer? It is natural gas to create urea. We need this so we can use our innovative farming techniques for single pass. When I was a kid growing up on a farm in central Alberta, we used to have things like rod weeders and all kinds of other equipment we would use. We would even contemplate summer fallow, which is leaving the ground empty for an entire growing season just to deal with the weed problem. We do not have to deal with that anymore because we have so much innovation making our land more productive and reducing our input costs.
How do we reduce our input costs? It is by using the innovative technologies I just talked about, which all depend on things like natural gas for the creation of fertilizer. However, now that is taxed.
We are talking about Bill S-234 right now. It was in the Senate. It was passed by this place so that farmers could have a bit of an easier go when it comes to drying their grain. Some years they can take it off dry; some years they cannot. They do not get to pick and choose.
Farmers in my riding are showing me their carbon tax bills: $18,000 a year to dry 90,000 bushels of grain and oilseed. Where are they going to recoup that cost? Are they just going to pass it along to the consumer or the next purchaser? They are already paying more for their fertilizer because there is a carbon tax on that as well, before the inputs even get there.
With the shipping of new farm equipment to their farm, like a new truck, tractor, cultivator or harvester, now there is a carbon tax. It is not only on the creation of the machinery but on the shipping of the machinery. Before they even get a kernel of grain or raise a cow, they are already paying the carbon tax on the items that were brought to the farm.
Now they go through their growing season and are harvesting, and everything they do is taxed. They get a few little exemptions on farm fuel but it is taxed. Then what happens? They put grain in the truck and take it to wherever the market is. They are marketing it to the grain terminal or taking their livestock to the auction market, wherever that happens to be. There is a carbon tax on that fuel and a carbon tax on that vehicle.
Then it gets purchased by a buyer and gets shipped someplace else in the world. There is a carbon tax anytime the stuff moves or changes hands. Hopefully it ends up at a processor, which is what this report is all about. By that time, it has already had a carbon tax applied two or three times directly or indirectly just to get enough grain over to a terminal, where it is sent to a processor. Now that processor is paying a carbon tax on the electricity being used in the building and for the shipment of all the boxes and everything other type of thing they might have. Their entire production line is going to consume energy, which means a carbon tax.
Is it any wonder that we have seen the price of food go up? We have not even gotten to the grocery store yet. How do Canadian farmers, shippers, processors and grocers have a chance when they are taxed to bring us the food that the consumer ends up having to pay the bill for? They cannot do it.
It is time to axe the tax. We want to help innovation for processors. Let us get out of their way, axe the tax and make it affordable.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-14 18:38 [p.20139]
Madam Speaker, obviously the issue that my colleague brought up is a difficult one, and I send my support and sympathies as well.
I thank him for the question. It is really quite simple.
The carbon tax is a tax on everything, because energy is what we use to do everything we do in our lives. The entire economy rests upon our ability to have energy. It powers us in everything we do: work, play and our quality of life. When we tax our quality of life, our quality of life goes down, which is what is happening. Our productivity is going down, our affordability is going down, our cost of living is going up and Canadians are struggling. It is time to axe the tax.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-14 18:40 [p.20139]
Madam Speaker, absolutely. My colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is exactly right. He knows very well how things work from the farm gate right to the grocery store.
It is really sad to see what is transpiring in this place with the accusations from the government about support for Ukraine. If this government were actually truly supporting Ukraine, it would make absolutely certain that no products leaving Canada would ever be used against our friends in Ukraine. We see that with detonators. We have seen that with the turbine. We have seen the humiliating incident right here in this chamber when the government hosted President Zelenskyy and we had the unfortunate incident that led to the resignation of the previous Speaker. Hopefully there will be the resignation of the current one.
We will take no lessons from the chaps on the other side. It is time that we actually had a new government in this country to restore our credibility and reputation internationally and to restore some hope to the Canadian public.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-06 17:29 [p.19568]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge.
We are continuing in the debate. We just had a vote in this place, in which we amended the motion. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, which, if this motion is passed, will be dealing with the question at hand. The amendment that my colleagues have just made says that the procedure and House affairs committee would deal with the matter within the first 24 hours of the passage of the motion I am currently rising to debate, and report back to the House by December 14. That would be next week, before the House adjourns and rises for the Christmas break.
I frankly cannot believe that I am witnessing what I am witnessing, as a member of the chamber for what will be 18 years in January. It is a rare thing indeed to have a member of Parliament get elected as Speaker and then have to resign in the middle of a parliamentary term. Normally, the member of Parliament who is elected to be Speaker jokingly resists being cast into the Speaker's chair, because, supposedly, nobody wants the job. However, it is actually an important job and an important role to serve as the independent arbiter of all of the rules by which we conduct the debates and the business of the nation.
A Speaker's resigning is something I have not seen in the last 18 years. As a matter of fact, we would have to go back a long time in our history to recall a previous Speaker's resignation due to issues in this place. Now, just two months after we have replaced one Speaker in an unprecedented situation, the House is seized with a privilege question about whether the replacement of the resigned Speaker, a new Speaker, ought, himself, to resign.
I am a Conservative member of Parliament, and my party has been very clear about whether or not we think that what the Speaker has done should constitute grounds for the individual's resigning. We are not the only political party; our Bloc Québécois colleagues in this place have also indicated that they have lost confidence in the current Speaker.
I guess we will wait and see whether the motion passes the chamber. Given the fact that it was unanimous to amend the motion, as all MPs in this place just moments ago voted in favour of an amendment, one can only presume that the question would be referred to committee and the matter would probably be dealt with in the 24 hours after the vote. Likely, if it does not happen today, it would happen tomorrow, which means that the procedure and House affairs committee would be seized with this matter as early as tomorrow, or, at the very latest, Friday of this week, and report it back to this place next Thursday at the latest.
The procedure and House affairs committee is seized with a number of issues. We are dealing with a question of privilege regarding our colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in relation to foreign interference in his duties as a member of Parliament. The procedure and House affairs committee is also still seized with the general question of foreign interference in our elections. In addition, the procedure and House affairs committee has yet to begin its study on the matter of the previous Speaker's issue of having invited a former Nazi into this place during the visit of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Now, it seems that the very busy procedure and House affairs committee would have to study the question at hand as a matter of precedence either today or tomorrow, should the motion continue to get support and pass.
Here is why the procedure and House affairs committee is seized with all of these issues: Trust has been broken. At the end of the day, this is all about trust. It is about trusting that the government has the best intentions and the ability to manage not only the institutions of government but also the institution of Parliament.
I would submit to my colleagues here in this place that we need to get to the bottom of this in a timely fashion, because it is another stain, I would call it, but perhaps that might be too strong a word. It is a stain on the reputation and credibility of this place.
I should note that if we were to count the number of members of Parliament in this place who serve in the Bloc Québécois caucus and in the Conservative caucus, they constitute almost half of the MPs in this place. I do not know how everybody voted. Sometimes the person who is the Speaker is somebody I voted for, and sometimes the person who is the Speaker is not somebody I voted for. That is okay because up until now, I have been able to get by in this place knowing, with some confidence and semblance of trust, that the referee who was elected, whether I voted for them or not, was actually able to carry out the duties of Speaker in a way that at least appeared non-partisan.
However, here we are. The Speaker has used the privileges of his office, put on his robes and recorded a video acknowledging that he is the Speaker of the House of Commons, for an address to an Ontario Liberal Party partisan event. That is beyond inappropriate.
Anybody who has just undertaken the responsibility of Speaker would, I assume, have been given briefings. They ought to have known the roles and responsibilities of being the Speaker before they put up their hand, or in this case, not removed their name from the list, allowing their name to stand for Speaker.
It is this overt partisanship after having been elected Speaker that has put us in this scenario today. It is a question of trust. If my privileges or those of any other member of the House are in some way impacted, we would expect that the Speaker would be able to carry out a non-partisan view of the rules and protect not only the integrity of this institution but also the integrity, the rights and the privileges of every member of Parliament. This is fundamental to the ability of our democracy and our democratic chamber to proceed with confidence, the confidence not only of the House but also of all Canadians.
I will just remind my colleagues in this place that this is not the first time that the individual who is currently the Speaker has gotten himself in trouble for being partisan. I remember quite clearly that the member wrote letters, in his capacity as a former parliamentary secretary, that breached some of the ethical provisions we have in this place. I also remember the individual's vehemently defending the Prime Minister when it came to the “elbowgate” matter with former MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau, and then his actually calling into question the integrity of Ms. Brosseau; if I remember correctly, he actually said that the incident was being exaggerated by her.
One can only draw some conclusions that the individual has shown his true colours and cannot help but be partisan in a role that is specifically designed to be non-partisan. That is why I would implore my colleagues in this place to vote for the motion and refer the issue to the procedure and House affairs committee so we can deal with the matter forthwith.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-06 17:40 [p.19570]
Madam Speaker, far be it from me to know the inner workings of the mind of the member for Kingston and the Islands, even though he purports to know what is in the hearts and minds of everybody else in this chamber.
Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee. I have been here longer than the member for Kingston and the Islands and everybody who seems to be supporting him. I have seen this show before, and I will say to any colleague willing to listen to what I have to say that I am looking forward to hearing from not only the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but also all the other witnesses who would know what the conduct ought to be in the role of Speaker. I will make a determination at that particular point in time.
I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all the witnesses who appear, including the Speaker.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-06 17:41 [p.19570]
Madam Speaker, the procedure to deal with this is the procedure when there is a prima facie case. We brought the issue up in the chamber, the Speaker had to make a ruling and we waited for the ruling. The Speaker found a prima facie case, which then invoked the moving of a motion. The Conservative House leader moved that motion, which is what we are debating right now. I am not sure what the member does not understand about the process. We are following the process as it is laid out, and we will see what happens should this motion get passed on to the procedure and House affairs committee.
I would like to thank her party, which has been clear in what it stands for. We in the Conservative Party want a fair and objective Speaker. We believe in this country, in this institution and that the person sitting in the Speaker's chair—
View Blaine Calkins Profile
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2023-12-06 17:43 [p.19570]
Madam Speaker, the members of the procedure and House affairs committee, in the limited time I have been there, debate issues robustly. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and generally get good work done, so I am confident that the procedure and House affairs committee will work constructively toward a resolution on the matter at hand should it get referred.
Results: 1 - 15 of 174 | Page: 1 of 12

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data