Damien Kurek

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I find interesting that the parliamentary secretary seems to be fantasizing about the fact that Conservatives actually like their leader, while that is certainly not the case for many within the Liberal Party and its leader, the current Prime Minister.

Quite recently, it was reported that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had some issue with the recent proposed tax trick. Since the parliamentary secretary spent so much time in his speech talking about control, I would ask if, first of all, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is okay, because we certainly have not seen him since he shared some criticism about the Liberal government over the proposed $250 giveaway. He tweeted, “It's incomprehensible to me that our government can create an affordability package that leaves out some of our most vulnerable in society. On Sat evening I advised the govt that I cannot support an affordability package that does not include support for seniors & people with disabilities.”

It certainly seems that, when it comes to control, it is the Prime Minister who does not have it. He certainly does not the support of his own caucus, and maybe it is time for an election so Canadians can pick who actually runs the country.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise specifically in relation to the fact that you have taken the amendment to the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, under advisement. I would like to add a little context as to it being within the scope of the discussion. The report does, in fact, talk about the net-zero accelerator and therefore makes this amendment relevant.

Concurrence motions and amendments to them have been used time and again to structure a committee's follow-up study, including, and I would list a number of examples, deadlines for reports, topics to study, new recommendations to be made and witnesses to hear from, and that includes witnesses being ordered to appear. Therefore, it follows that the House can support a committee by ordering documents to be reviewed as part of that study.

Therefore, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the amendment my colleague moved is not only relevant but pertinent and follows the precedent that has been set in this place. I would further note, and I know the parliamentary secretary is not very happy about having to debate these sorts of things, it appears that Conservatives have a better grasp and control of the House than the governing party does.

[Tax Break for All Canadians Act, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is quite specific to the provincial jurisdiction side of this. A number of agreements have been signed with provinces that have a harmonized sales tax and also with provinces that just have the GST, or that have the GST and the HST. There are aspects of the act that governs those, which actually seem like what the Liberal government has proposed and are supported by the NDP. They would actually be in violation of those things, which would then, in fact, be a direct attack on provincial jurisdiction.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could talk about whether she has heard that. Has she had a chance to look into the impacts this bill would have and the possible impacts that would specifically be related to Quebec, which I know would be similar in the province of Alberta and in those other jurisdictions that have HST?

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, when I read the bill, there is a whole host of problems, some of which have been articulated this evening. However, specifically, it treats different regions of the country, different provinces, very unfairly. I would suggest, it is in violation of the agreements that the federal government has signed with provinces in regard to HST and other shared taxation.

I am wondering if my colleague from the Bloc could expand on that.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, because this is such an important issue for democracy, Conservatives ask for a recorded vote.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I know many Canadians are asking themselves a question. The Liberals, supported by the NDP, are offering a small tax trick for a few Canadians, including on Christmas trees, but only if they are bought after December 14. If it is anything like in my household, the tree has already been set up for a few days.

The question is very simple: Why do the Liberals not reject the tax trick and instead vote to axe the carbon tax for all Canadians for good?

[Privilege, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague, the chair of the incredible ethics committee, just made because I think it touches on an incredibly important point in this whole saga. We have a culture of corruption that has been allowed to flourish within the Liberal Party, to the point that Canadian news coverage looks like a Netflix, binge-worthy, Hollywood-type drama.

I am wondering if my colleague from Ontario could share some of the ways the ethics committee has been working to ensure that some answers are found regarding the lack of ethics that we are seeing in the Liberal government.

[Privilege, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives stand for democracy; therefore, I request a recorded vote.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand on behalf of Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and table, in both official languages, a dissenting report to address an important aspect that was missed during the consideration of the report on the national forum on the media. The message is clear and simple, and it might be the shortest dissenting report ever tabled in the House. It contains three words: Defund the CBC.

After failing to produce content that Canadians actually want to watch and want to listen to, missing key performance metrics, cutting hundreds of jobs, and giving $18 million in bonuses to CBC executives and managers amidst declining trust, viewership and ad revenue, the solution is to simply defund the CBC so that we can encourage creative and free journalistic expression and so that we can let journalism thrive through the work of journalists, not by the heavy hand of a bloated, bureaucratic, woke, biased and outdated model that the CBC represents today.

[Committees of the House, November 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, even the president and CEO of the CBC, Catherine Tait, and Liberal members acknowledged that Parliament brought the public broadcaster into existence, and Parliament can decide its future.

That is so important to highlight because we have an example where, in our system, Parliament is supreme, yet the Prime Minister and the Liberals are doing everything in their power to reject the role that this place has in preserving Canadian democracy. It is shameful, and anything other than a government needing to heed the will of this place is a constitutional crisis. The Prime Minister and the Liberals have normalized constitutional crises in this country, and it is time for better.

Conservatives would bring home better when we run in the next election and offer a common-sense plan to Canadians. We do not take for granted one single vote, but when it comes down to it, Conservatives would offer a plan to Canadians and Canadians get to choose.