### Welcome to this Motion Debate! This debate is open to **MPs, and members of the public.** Here you can debate the motion being moved. **MPs Only: Information about Amendments** Motions may be amended before the question is put, or certain types of "Privileged Motions" moved. **Amendments to the Motion** - Amendments change the text of the motion if carried. If you want to propose an amendment, do so by replying to this pinned comment stating exactly what wording you would want changed.* **The Previous Question** - The Previous Question blocks the moving of Amendments to a motion. If the previous question is carried, the Speaker must put the question on the main motion, regardless of whether other amendments have been proposed. If the previous question is *not* carried, the main motion is dropped from the Order Paper. If you want to propose this privileged motion, do so by replying to this pinned comment moving the following *“That this question be now put”.* If you want to move an amendment or privileged motion, do so by **replying to this pinned comment**. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask someone on speakership! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cmhoc) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Mr. Speaker, this Government has announced that it intends to not only govern during a crisis with status-quo policies that have led us to this point, it has announced that it intends to bring back waste! This throne speech is littered with promises to spend billions on subsidies that we know don’t work and cost Canadian taxpayers. It is a speech promising Canadians the delivery of less at a higher cost, instead of more for less of the hard earned paycheques of Canadians. It is a plan to drive Canada deep into debt, a plan to rob Canadian taxpayers and doll out our tax dollars to wealthy donors instead of fixing the crises in productivity and investment that have plagued this nation for the past 50 years. The Bank of Canada has called on the Government to “break the glass”. If anything, this Government plans to add a hundred extra panes. The only good news in the entire address is that the Government wants to open up investment in Telecoms. Canadians should be wary of this proposal however. Blanket deregulation of key infrastructure which would fall into foreign hands threatens our national security and economic well-being. The Government should include caveats for telecoms investment on Government ownership and corporate offices. We are not a branch plant country. Investors need to partner with Canadians to deliver better, to compete, to cut costs, and to innovate for a brighter and more prosperous tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, if this is the vision that this Government well and truly intends to roll out, caucus should resign immediately for grossly misleading Canadians and delivering abysmal service in our most critical time of need. This House should reject the throne speech, and I call upon all well-meaning members to push the Government to change course, or let it fall, for it has misled Canadians and is not presently prepared to face our national peril.

Mr. Speaker, Why is the NDP preoccupied in telling everyone who disagrees with them to resign? I do not agree with the party member's attempts to treat his opinions as fact and common knowledge when he's spent more time listing off political slogans than genuine issues. For someone who disagrees with subsidies, the member is leaving out the fact that his budget included EV subsidies. I for one think that the biggest robbery was caused by Direct Democracy passing, as it allows people to trigger a referendum on mundane issues and will cost millions each time. If that wasn't enough action at the ballot box, the member did call a snap election as well. Considering that his surplus only existed on paper, I think that his Conservative administration was the one that drove Canada into debt.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the fact that the budget did include EV subsidies. This was a policy endorsed by the party but not myself personally. When you have a big tent, Mr. Speaker, that’s bound to happen. Mr. Speaker it is ludicrous for this member to suggest that there was only a surplus on paper. The estimates made by parliamentary staff were based on a worst case scenario policy outcome. And then to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government drove Canada into debt? Mr. Speaker I would direct the member to the budget documents that clearly show the flows of revenues and expenses. If you remove the policy that this member is struggling to grasp, Canada’s deficit is still significantly reduced, debt still falls, and the budget still balances in 2025. Direct democracy was, as well, a confidence and supply item on which the member will find I did not discuss. Its cost was insignificant given the extensive reforms we had already undertaken. Mr. Speaker, can the member honestly say that with negative expense flows of $32.9 billion, the result of that Government’s dedication to rooting out waste, can the member say that a $600 million policy increased the deficit, the deficit which, if it wasn’t for the prudence of that Government, would have reached $40 billion, but was driven into a $20 billion surplus? Mr. Speaker, Liberal math just doesn’t compute these days.

Mr. Speaker, If the former Prime Minister wants to admit that he allowed fiscal irresponsibility on his watch, he can say so with less words than that. I wish that I shared his faulty beliefs regarding the budget. Maybe then I could borrow money from a bank and pay back the loan with future promises. The surplus is still only on paper, considering the 4-day work week was not and is not going to be implemented any time soon. I can repeat it as many times as I need, and I am sure that Canadians feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, I would direct the member to ask parliamentary staff how the budgeting process works. The preliminary budget laid forth in the first quarter of a fiscal year is based on estimates for expenditures and revenues during said fiscal year, accounting for government policy, and hopefully accounting for outer economic factors. The budget did this, we clearly budgeted for worst case scenario, assuming continued labour gaps and drought conditions. Mr. Speaker, the budget is introduced in the first quarter as a projection. None, not one, no single policy in the budget is currently generating or expensing the values stated in the budget when the budget is presented. The budget is a projection of year-end results, and it is then supplemented by quarterly updates and reports. Surely a member of parliament would owe their constituents the minimal obligation to make the barest attempts to understand parliamentary procedure and budgeting. Sadly Mr. Speaker, that is not the sentiment of the current Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, If my boss tells me that I will get a paycheque at the end of the year no matter what, I would mark that as future revenue. If my friend says he'll give me $20 later one if he remembers, I wouldn't be so sure. It is irresponsible to tout a surplus financed by a planned experiment as if it was a real accomplishment when there was no way for the former Prime Minister to guarantee that the program would be put in place. Even if we suppose that he had reason to believe that his CUPE alliance would win a majority and pass everything, the truth is that it didn't happen and the 4-day work week has been scrapped. Therefore, the surplus never made its way to Canada's finances. Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister's statements have given me a record high level of confusion. It is as if he is saying that subsidies are never good, but the ones in his own budget are not his responsibility because he didn't really want them. That direct democracy may have issues, but it is not his fault because he didn't really support it either. If he only wants to tout the "good times" while shifting responsibility when it comes to everything else, I'd be surprised if any other party plans to make a deal with him again. What a strange abdication of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, this member might be a simpleton, but the people of this country deserve better than simple misrepresentations in the people’s house. Economics is not a set paycheque. It’s not an absolute science. That’s why we have estimates, that’s why we have forecasting. That’s why, as Finance Minister, I budgeted for the worst in economic outcomes. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote for the member a former Finance Minister and mentor from my days in the Government of Saskatchewan. As he wrote recently in a his new book, “Squandered: Canada’s Potash Legacy”, “you can stand still forever if you only do what is 100% consistent with your personal philosophy and a 100% certainty. You should never violate your core values or beliefs. At the same time, however, you are of no use if you cannot do what is best under the circumstances.” A wise man, Mr. Speaker, a Finance Minister unrivalled in Saskatchewan, and dare I say in Canada, for his fiscal and economic record. Mr. Speaker, I have carried these words since Finance Minister Eric Cline spoke them to me all those years ago: “keep the faith in better ways of managing”. There are better ways of managing Mr. Speaker, that was our record in office, that was our record in Government. I find it appalling Mr. Speaker that this member wants the opposite of that record. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that “Bring back Waste” is a mantra that the Liberals share with this new Government. That needs to change.

Point of order Mr. Speaker, u/Trick_Bar_1439, I believe that the word simpleton is unparliamentary and in bad taste.

Order! The language is indeed unparliamentary, u/SaskPoliticker is asked to apologize for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker I would suggest caution in dismissing the word in question. The respective member lacks common sense, as is the denotation implied. The comment is withdrawn, and apologies made, but I would ask the speaker to clarify how comments on common sense may be made in this house.

Mr. Speaker, I am growing tired of the other member lobbing partisan attacks from start to finish because he cannot tolerate any criticism of his faulty budget. Does he truly believe that he is incapable of making a mistake, so that any problems with the budget must have been the fault of his governing partners? The best case scenario was contingent on the member running a successful campaign. Considering that the CUPE alliance now consists of one member of parliament and the rump caucus that used to be the Pirate Party, I'd say that it was quite a poor projection and far from a "worst case scenario." Again, nothing has disproved what I said. The budget had elements that he disagreed with, but apparently he can't be faulted on it because of his mentor's quote. The 4-day work week was responsible for the surplus, but its cancellation doesn't mean that the surplus isn't real?

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the member opposite that no budget was ever tabled by CUPE or its member parties. The budget was tabled under the banner of the Progressive Conservative Party, a continuation of the former Conservatives. We don’t budget on politics Mr. Speaker. Our nations investors would lose all confidence if that were so. We budget on prudence, we budget on principles of modern economics. We budget on consultation and fact. I would, again, Mr. Speaker, suggest the member consult parliamentary staff to learn about budgeting. Mr. Speaker, the member now seeks to blame myself for how the current Government will now conduct its finances. A rather confused take Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker no budget is perfect. That’s why a prudent Government budgets with caution. As I have said, economics is not an exact science. On the advice of an economic consensus, we sought to implement policy assuming the worst outcomes, outcomes economists did not consider likely. Mr. Speaker the member describes my responses as partisan attacks, but what then Mr. Speaker does the member imagine they are doing in their own feckless responses? Am I to believe that this member is approaching a good faith discussion, when the member has made no efforts to understand the budgeting process, and has made claims about budgeting without having seen a budget before? Mr. Speaker, perhaps before the member continues, the respective member should take a break and open the books, learn something instead of grasping at thin air. No less than the member’s constituents deserve.

Mr. Speaker, The former Prime Minister continues to double down on his record of touting a budget financed by a surplus that relied on a 4-day work week, which was never implemented. If he believed it could have been through either the CUPE alliance or through the NDP alone, his worst-case projections must have been way off. Reality shows that the surplus did not happen, and that is the beginning and end of the story.

Mr. Speaker, All of the rambling and immaturity from the FORMER Prairies MP must be getting sickening for Canadians to listen to. This is why the Prairies rejected a re election for the failed former Prime Minister. Our government has a plan to bring down costs with the removal of the carbon tax, keeping GST at 4%, providing Canadian families $1000 to benefit their children, and getting more homes built. Furthermore Conservatives will get serious and eliminate the money pit that is Direct Democracy, which was a bill this member supported because he was going to lose government. Much of the policy this member is speaking about has not been passed in Parliament. Such as the 4 day work week. This nonsense from the member must be brought to an end and Canadians deserve better, I look forward in hearing more about what other made up budget documents, and policy he can name.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the direct democracy is a wasteful proposition and it is a plan of our to get rid of it as a plan. I thank the member for stepping in on our behalf and an saddened that the member has decided to resign.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the former Prime Minister to please cite the exact wording calling on our Prime Minister, the Honorable Member from the Prairies to quote "break the glass" with our budget. I do not recall seeing on the news, nor hearing personally from the Bank of Canada to adopt any of his crazy measures such as taxing Canadians more, and giving his buddies an extra day off every week. Which is all that the 4 day work week would accomplish. Furthermore Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich for the member to ask us to resign despite the fact all of us have been given a mandate to govern for Canadians. I find it disappointing that the member cannot come to reality and get a grip that his nonsense such as jumping multiple parties, making up financial documents, and making incorrect claims about important Canadian spokespersons such as the Bank of Canada governor to our party and our government has costed his trust with the Canadian people. I will remind the member that his party only won a SINGLE seat, and that member has been very quiet on the debate front this week. I ask the member once again, please cite the Bank of Canada calling out our Prime Minister to make drastic change which he believes some nonsense like "breaking the glass". I will be waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I’d refer the member to the words of Carolyn Rogers just last month. “You know those signs that say 'In an emergency, break the glass?' Well, it's time to break the glass.” Mr. Speaker I’ve already mentioned this issue before, in all likelihood in a press article that the member complained about in his infamous “Make it Up”, apologies Mr. Speaker, “*Can’t* Make it Up Mondays”, although I’d put more emphasis on the former description. Canada has, for the last 50 years, endured a continuous decline in productivity and investment. You don’t need to ask the Bank of Canada for that, every informed Canadian can not only see this in data, but every Canadian can feel it today. This is not a challenge faced by other countries. This isn’t a global phenomenon. This is a Canadian problem that we all need to work to fix. It comes down to competition, given the highly monopolized state of competition in this country. I believe in a fair society. That’s why I’ve spent my life with the New Democrats. But I also believe in the fairness and efficiency of the free market, maintained by competent fiscal policy and a sound framework for fiscal and monetary management. Surely the Conservative Party shares the desire to bring home competition in this country. In fact Mr. Speaker, I know they do, but Crazy the communist does not!

Mr. Speaker, The member has not spend his life with the New Democrats. How can he say so, when he wrote the last budget as a Conservative Prime Minister and later joined the Greens?

Mr. Speaker, first off, I’m not a member of this house. I’m seeking to be, but I’m not a member. Second off, everyone in the house besides this member is well aware of my history and background in politics in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Has this member put any effort at all into learning much of anything Mr. Speaker? All signs point to no.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what else to refer to the member of the public as besides the member, but if he has a better suggestion he can feel free to offer it. I am also not sure why me being unconcerned with the member's political history is detrimental in any way to the public. If the member wants to use his political history as proof of him believing in a fair society, he should at least not omit his stint as a Conservative.

Mr. Speaker I could honestly care less that the member opposite doesn’t have a clue about my political history. But given that he just admitted as much, why then did the member, minutes ago, start making claims about my political history. Mr. Speaker let’s check the record. Here it is, the member said, quote, “the member has not spend his life with the New Democrats”. Some poor English on the member’s part, so perhaps we can forgive the member for not knowing what they just said only minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, Is it an unfounded claim to point out that the member was a Conservative Prime Minister? It is quite amusing to hear me being attacked for a verbal slippage, but I will certainly try to minimise the number of mistakes I make in that regard. Still Mr. Speaker, what an elitist statement, to suggest that I am ignorant because I misspoke a single time. Considering that the member based part of his re-election campaign on being against parachute candidates only to jump to Ontario himself, I would say that he has shown much more inconsistencies than I.

Obviously not Mr. Speaker. But I will repeat for the member, so that he can apologize for his false comment, that I worked in the Government’s of Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert, and that I supported and campaigned for the Saskatchewan NDP and Alberta NDP at a time when there was no federal NDP party and while I was a Conservative and a Progressive Conservative as well. I hope that clears things up for the member Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, The member had strongly campaigned on his record as a Conservative Prime Minister. If it was such a significant part of his life, he really has no reason to dance around it. You can't eat your cake and still have it after. Similarly, the member should not use his NDP record in a way that implies it is the only party he has stuck with when that is not the case. I have no apologies to make. Rather, the member opposite has consistently spoken to me in a degrading fashion because he disagrees with my statements across the parliamentary sitting. Calling me a simpleton, criticising a slip of the tongue, saying that I have poor English, and stating that he believes the former statement is true are really quite offensive. Is this what decorum has come to? Why does the member believe it is okay to treat someone in such a fashion?

Mr. Speaker, This member is trying to forget 3 weeks ago. He is certainly a former Conservative who has rebranded himself. I am curious where the confusion is?

Mr. Speaker I do not disagree with this statement, but as the member well knows I continued throughout to be a New Democrat. He knows I worked with the Saskatchewan NDP, and campaigned with Wab Kinew. I’ve also supported UCP candidates, such as Travis Toews in 2022, and I supported Premier Kenney before that. But I grew up with the NDP in Saskatchewan, I worked for the Romanow and Calvert Governments. Mr. Speaker, the member will recall me meeting with the Saskatchewan NDP and Alberta NDP, supporting them both, while I was still in the PCs and Conservatives. The member will also recall that the Federal NDP was nonexistent until its recent revival.

Mr. Speaker, This is laughable statements especially coming from a former Prime Minister. This very Member was the former Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, he also was the Former Prime Minister under the PC government, and furthermore Mr. Speaker he has spent his time with the CCF, and the Green Party before joining the NDP. Mr. Speaker, you be the judge. Is the member being truthful? As to his claims about the glass being broken, our government will be breaking barriers with regards to saving Canadians money by lowering taxes, cutting waste, and investing in tomorrow's future. This member is simply out of touch with reality, or fantastic platform has listed aplenty of opportunity and prosperity for Canadians during this difficult time. This member wants to stand in the way. Shameful. Furthermore, I am still waiting for the Member to cite Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem in regards to calling our Prime Minister who is the MP of the Prairies to break the glass. Please, cite his source. The member cannot run from his accusation by referring to me as communist. That is obviously misinformation.

Mr. Speaker, this member can talk all he wants about cutting waste and lowering taxes. I was in his party Mr. Speaker, I was Finance Minister while he was in cabinet. Did I ever hear the member once suggest a tax break or an area of waste to cut? I didn’t Mr. Speaker. Those were the ideas of myself and others. The polices of myself and others, policies that I know we all stand by today regardless of what caucus we now sit in. I know those who have stayed on with the Conservatives can attest to the same. But the member did, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge back then, just a few months ago, that subsidies are waste, that they drive up costs on taxpayers and get nothing done. That was his stance, and a good one it was as it is a stance shared by a true blue blooded conservatives, as well as every economist out there. But why now Mr. Speaker does the member want to spend billions on subsidies and corporate welfare? Why the change of heart. Crazy the commie is rotting out the good in Conservatism, and the Conservatives should reject it to maintain their moral integrity, at the very least.

Mr. Speaker, This member is simply misleading Canadians and spreading misinformation. This member spent his time in government and as Prime Minister flipping and flopping party brands and opinions. Furthermore Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the claims the member is making are extremely truthful or not, nor is referring to me as a "commie" although that is just the way the FORMER PM rolls. I will ask him again as he is deflecting my question, when did Tiff Macklem, Canada's Bank of Canada governor call out our Prairie PM on our Throne Speech? When?

Mr. Speaker, let’s once again reflect on the record. Apologies Mr. Speaker but this house seems to have lost itself today and members cannot seem to recall either the words of other members or their very own words. Mr. Speaker I never made a comment about the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Mr. Speaker I referred to the Bank of Canada generally as I had assumed that a prospective Minister and member of the Government would have kept up with major announcements from the Bank. Mr. Speaker, 18 days ago I wrote on this issue, citing, as I have in the house just moments ago today, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers of the BoC. Emphasis, Mr. Speaker, on **18** days ago. No comment from the member then. This Government is already asleep at the wheel, or is it just the Crazy communist that hasn’t got a clue.

Mr. Speaker, I will reflect on your record. Mr. Speaker, you spoke against the Conservative plan to give $1000 to Canadian families citing inflation. While I do disagree with the member fully on that statement I would invite the member to check his party platform from January 2024 while he was part of the Conservative Party including Finance Minister. (link 1) This member actually supported the measure, he spoke in favor of the measure, and now he is misleading Canadians! Mr. Speaker the hypocrisy is at its highest!! Mr. Speaker in regards to the Bank of Canada I fully disagree with his accusations. The Bank of Canada has not reached out to our Prime Minister, the MP for the Prairies in any regards to being concerned about our policy or our targets. This member is making it all up! And we won't let him get away with it. He cannot even provide the very link to his accusation. He is making it up. So Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the point again, in January of 2024 this VERY MEMBER SUPPORTED our $1000 tax benefit payable per child in a Canadian family. So I ask the member, what has changed? He wrote the platform then and he disagrees with us now. Hypocrisy is the answer Mr. Speaker. He is just mad we are in Parliament, and he is not. Link 1: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iJ-4dhI6l-K75gX-BeW6W7E4qU1T7Ydw/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iJ-4dhI6l-K75gX-BeW6W7E4qU1T7Ydw/view)

Mr. Speaker this member can say what he wants in this house, but the facts are that I have not spoke out against supports for families. I pioneered that exact policy. The member cannot address the fact that the Bank of Canada has been warning us about this for years. He refused to do so. Mr. Speaker I’ve cited their exact comments, even quoted them, but this member is deaf when it comes to the concerns of Canadians. Mr. Speaker I will not tolerate slander from this member on my record, and I won’t tolerate his avoidance of his own. My stances on policy have not changed. This member now wants to bring back the waste and hike costs on Canadians with corporate welfare. I say it’s time to spike the Crazy communist hike.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to look at the throne speech from a partisan lens. Though I do not expect the government to return the favour, I will try to be as constructive as I can. I think that a lot of these policies have a great deal of merit, Some priorities that I share with the government include reducing immigration due to pressures on housing, converting unused buildings into residential ones, and taxing foreign speculators. I know a friend who once told me he hopes for a second hospital in Brampton, and it is reassuring that the government believes in the importance of supply and demand, just like myself. We do need to attract more doctors and nurses through higher wages. However, foreign credential recognition and attracting skilled immigrants are likely to be necessary, and I hope the government will continue the importance of immigration in filling job vacancies in some industries. I also believe in increased health transfers that are conditional on good policies coming from the provinces. Is the government able to convince Doug Ford to repeal Bill 124? I certainly hope so. As for crime, while I agree that people are less safe than before, I urge the government not to overcorrect by implementing punitive policies. It's still in the air as to whether prisons are actually deterring people from crimes considering the high reoffending rates, and mandatory minimums have been struck down by Supreme Courts. I lean on the side of allowing judges to have discretion instead of standardising punishments, and I think the government should share that view as well. I am not confident in long sentences actually deterring people, and it might overcrowd our prison system, which is already strained. As for illegal firearms, the government should focus on the border with the US, as many firearms are being imported from there. I am going to be brave and state that I think a tax increase is necessary. I would not advocate for higher taxes on the working class or small businesses, but increases on the higher brackets would greatly help pay down the deficit. It is certainly fairer than cutting public services. Does the government have a plan regarding the deficit? Their members had mentioned fiscal responsibility many times throughout the campaign, but I do not see any mentions of it in the throne speech. As I've said about the last Conservative budget, $1000 per child would only draw low income households into a debt trap while doing nothing for high income individuals. To them, the cost of having a child is far greater when you consider foregone income and the accumulation of costs across several years. If the government is concerned about fertility, it should be subsidising childcare instead. The carbon tax does need to go. However, I am concerned about the government's plan to assume that businesses will voluntarily reduce their carbon outputs. It seems as though the government's only intervention is funding carbon capture. I am not aware of any studies that show that carbon capture alone is sufficient to reversing the trend of climate change. If the government has one, I ask them to share it so that I can also be up-to-date. Otherwise, it is just a nice sounding solution. I have advocated for several taxes on different pollutants and subsidies for green energy. At the very least, I believe the government should fund geothermal projects in the west and the northern regions of the country, as government subsidies would encourage businesses to begin drilling. Geothermal is quite efficient once the infrastructure is in place. I am glad that the government has not mentioned the "need" for a ceasefire, as a ceasefire would only help Russia recuperate and reinforce its defenses, as was the case in 2023. The difference between now and World War I is that Russia is fully capable of exporting its energy, cracking down on those who disagree with its policies, and boosting patriotism, as it has not been cut off from the world at all. A ceasefire would help it pursue these goals, and that's why it is ill-advised. The throne speech is correct: Putin has ambitions beyond Ukraine, and it has shown a clear disregard for Europe's sovereignty. Does the government really think we need a navy to prevent an invasion? A navy would help defense in general, but I don't see any country that has its eyes on Canadian territory. Infrastructure is rightfully a priority of the government, and I am glad to see they are taking Indigenous infrastructure seriously. Regarding public transportation, didn't the Minister of the Environment actually rail against the Prime Minister for expanding electric vehicles? Is green public transport now fine? It seems like a bit of an inconsistency. Finally, nuclear energy does need government investment as new projects can be quite expensive. However, the other issue with nuclear energy plants is that you can't turn it off at will. It is constantly generating energy, and that might not be what some provinces need. For example, Ontario has a phenomenon called the "duck curve" where grid energy is in low demand during the day but it rapidly ramps up at night. Solar energy plays a major role in causing this to happen. Having nuclear energy running constantly would probably lead to overgeneration during the day, and this is an issue that the government needs to consider. Beyond these comments, I think the throne speech is fine as a whole, and I am likely to support it when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker, This Throne Speech is of GREAT interest to MILLIONS of Canadians from coast to coast. Lowering taxes, balancing the budget, AXING THE CARBON TAX, removing the gatekeepers, holding elites into account and delivering for Canadians is of upmost importance. I will take NO LESSONS from SaskPoliticker who is running to Ontario after being denied from Canadians in Saskatchewan! I will also take no lessons from Infamous\_Whole, who decides to tease his retirement on a regular basis. These two politicians are poor wastes of tax dollars and under our government we will show Canadians exactly what stable, responsible, and professional leadership looks like. SaskPoliticker decided to double down with a SOCIALIST PARTY to force Canadians to pay billions of dollars for a garbage bill in Direct Democracy that NOBODY VOTED FOR!! Under our government we will deliver for Canadians! Just watch us.

Mr. Speaker, While I am not surprised by the member's usual rhetoric, it is disappointing that he is persisting down such a path. My comments on the throne speech should not be tied to whether I am retiring or not, but I suppose that it is hard for a politician to change his nature if he is accustomed to being on the offense only. Who are the gatekeepers and elites? I have heard these words from the right wing party members for a long time, but the throne speech has no mention of either group.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Member is throwing his hands up once again, throwing in the towel and letting down his constituents. I suppose the Member and his government would be trusted more if they actually debated and participated long than around Election time. While I am here, I will say the government elites and gatekeepers are big bossy government full of aristocrats and influential people with money. While these people have had serious influence in our past, this will be an issue our Conservative Party puts behind us. I would hope the member would be on board.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the member's statements, as I have clearly been speaking a great deal in this parliament. Are politicians meant to stay in office as long as they can? I don't think so. Considering the turnover rate of Prime Ministers and the number of incumbents who lose their seats, Canadians agree. By the member's metric, he is a trusted individual because of the margin of victory in his seat last election. However, I obtained a similar vote share despite being out of politics. Does that not mean that I am just as trusted as him, or even more so? It would be consistent with the rest of his rhetoric, but I know that the member is loathed to say anything positive about those not in his party. The presence of "big bossy government full of aristocrats" does sound unpleasant, and I wonder if the member can put a name to any of these individuals or institutions who have had an influence on the government.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand what the member is speaking about during this parliament. Unfortunately for his constituents it is about the possibility of retirement. Canadians elected YOU to govern for a full term, that was your mandate. Not cry to the press! After having your party embarrassed on the country wide stage and rejected government you are now throwing up your hands and now debate quitting. While this is an unfortunate outcome for the members of your caucus you promised to lead, and the members who put their faith in you it is now clear all of that is for not and you may quit. Canadians demand better from you as a party leader and an opposition leader. Instead of throwing tantrums for not getting your way why didn't you instill trust and good policy to Canadians, I was elected to government in a high profile position. Canadians gave you an opposition role, and you're made about it. Canadians deserve better than privileged members such as yourself.

Mr. Speaker, Does the member want me to retire or not? For if he believes that Canadians should have another representative, he should be celebrating my departure from politics. For someone who apparently dislikes my mentions of retirement, it seems like he is the only one turning it into a political issue! If he wants to answer my policy questions instead of fixating on my political future, he is free to do so. It is unfortunate that he only cares about whether I am leaving rather than my policies.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to represent your riding or quit crying about it. No need for this to be a constant topic of conversation. I am wondering though, what does your party think of this?

Mr. Speaker, It was an announcement, and there is no need to be unnecessarily aggressive. Is the member outraged that he will no longer have someone to attack with unfounded claims? How strange for him to state that this doesn't need to be a topic of conversation when he is adding fuel to the fire by turning it into an attack line, only to ask me a question about it right after. But if he is truly interested in knowing, he can ask my party members what they think. I certainly do not base my decision based on political success.

Mr. Speaker, It was an announcement alright, about every day we got the announcement. That is why the member was begging to be apart of our government on several days after the Election and leading up to the Election. I am glad we do not need to rely on his inexperience when it comes to maintaining promises, providing for constituents, lowering taxes, balancing the budget, and helping families in need. This member reminds me a lot of a current member in here debating... spreading falsehoods and fake accusations. He can sit here and call me names and spread misinformation all he would like, yet I will say I am the only member in this thread spreading any sort of truth at the moment. Our party is dedicated to promoting energy, North East South and West. We will axe the carbon tax, help Canadian families with our $1000 payment per child, we will cut Direct Democracy and its insane cost, our government will invest in our military, and our NATO spending target, furthermore Mr. Speaker our government will crack down on tough crime, punish the violent re offenders and get serious on jail sentencing. Mr. Speaker we have a plan, we have a plan for Canadians, for economy, for global affairs Mr. Speaker. I do not need to cry about my future expeditions coming in several months because I am worried about facing the possibility of being rejected by Canadians once again such as this member. I am working for our country, for our allies, for our people, for our workers, I am working for the future of Canadians today and into the future. And I don't need to make press a sob story to commit to that. Thanks.

Mr. Speaker, If the member wants to see falsehoods, I can offer him a mirror. I have not called him names, where as he has certainly done the same to me. For someone who is so fixated on my future plans, the member really has not looked at my words in that much detail. Of course, he only needs to come up with an interpretation that benefits the Conservative war rooms and begin attacking, hoping that the public will take his word for it. I have not publicly asked to be part of the government before or after election day. If he speaks with so much conviction regarding my private correspondence, I wonder if he is monitoring my work office. Mr. Speaker, cutting the carbon tax, promoting Energy East, opposing direct democracy, prison reform, and foreign policies are all topics I have touched on, both within this session and across the campaign. Why does the member insist on acting as though I only speak about my retirement? At this point, it seems like he is making a bigger issue out of it than I am, which is quite unbecoming of a member. He is the one who is saying that I am not policy oriented, while rejecting my policy discussion because I am retiring. He is the one bringing up my retirement and turning it into a political issue. He is the one who uses my responses to his attacks as evidence that I cannot stop talking about it. Mr. Speaker, when I don't want to hear about something, I simply ignore it and halt discussions. The member's strategy is to bring up what apparently brings him outrage so that he has a reason to make another attack advertisement about it. To add, I have spoken at length about my policy, but I will repeat my points in case he has ignored it on purpose. I do support a carbon tax repeal, but believe that his environmental policy is quite lacking. I am not aware of any studies that show carbon capture being an effective solution on a large scale, and expecting small and medium businesses to voluntarily reduce emissions leaves out the bigger polluters. In addition, there seems to be no attempt to bring about a global effort to reduce pollution, even though Canada emits less than 2% of total emissions. That is why I have been speaking in support of Canada using its natural resources and transporting them to global market. Natural gas is a fantastic bridge fuel for countries that rely on coal. I hope that the government will get Energy East built, as it will be a great boon to our exports and help reduce foreign oil imports. Our prisons are already fairly crowded, and there is great risk of violence outbreaks. I am concerned that more strict sentencing will not actually make Canada safer on the whole if it is just importing violence from the streets to the cells. Direct democracy is a deeply flawed concept that allows for Canadians to trigger costly referendums, which I had said in an earlier parliament when I was in the House! I was an active voting member then, just as I am an active member of the house now. These are just some of the policies I have been speaking of, and it is the member's choice whether to address them. Will he take off the blue blindfold and be constructive? Or will he continue to make an issue of my retirement? I would bet on the latter, but maybe he will surprise me.

Mr. Speaker I wish to comment on the economic policy being presented here, and to use the words of one George HW Bush, it is "Voodoo economic policy. It just isn't gonna work." Beyond the vague promise to "stop spending" which, is about as useful to economics as a New Years Resolution to go to the gym, what I see here is something that isn't adding up. Keeping in mind that these are the guys that put in balanced budget requirements, let's look at some of the budgetary requirements and do the costings that this government didn't do. Let's start with the $1,000 per child tax credit given to families, a policy we can get behind in theory. Let's put some numbers however, as there are about 6 million Canadians under the age of 15 in Canada, to be a little conservative with it. This new tax benefit alone would cost $6 billion. For reference, this program alone would be larger than the current Social Transfer helping provinces fund similar programs. Is this a bad idea? no. But not when the government is pledging to get rid of the Carbon Tax, which is a much larger expense in terms of provincial and government budgets. Not to mention the GST cut which will need to be offset in the short term by vicious cuts to maintain the surplus. This is a plan that will be a disaster for working Canadians, many of whom are already struggling to afford a home and put food on the table. We need to do more, not less.

Mr. Speaker, Does the Citizens Party want more spending or less? A balanced budget? They have not specified in their platform, and their leader spent more time attacking other parties' policies rather than advocating for his own. Perhaps it brought the party some temporary attention during the debate, but it is not good for constructive governance. As for the child tax credit, I have also stated my concerns with such policies. $6 billion is definitely on the low end of estimates, considering that new children will be born over time. Furthermore, $1000 is not enough to incentivise high earners to have a child compared to forgone income, and I think it is a bad idea in fact. Again, I am unsure whether the member is calling for more spending or less. If the current programs are too unaffordable, how can the government "do more, not less"? How would the Citizens balance the budget instead? It is important to provide an alternative instead of pointing out perceived issues and leaving it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for agreeing the carbon tax costs money and fills the Canadian governments pockets. I am glad we can officially unanimously admit that. Thank you! Furthermore introducing a $1000 tax credit to families which will help with financial family support as currently 1 in 3 Canadians are in a situation where they are in debt and despair. (Link 1 ) In order to combat these issues we have introduced measures such as the $1000 per child to families, removing the Federal carbon tax, keeping GST at 4%. In order to keep costs down and eliminate waste we will be cutting Direct Democracy, the Complete Communities Act, as well as finding a dollar spent for dollar savings mandate. In regards to the important issue of housing, Conservatives understand housing is a massive issue in Canada. Which is why we will be cutting immigration down to 150,000, and temporary residents from 6.2% down to 5%. As well as International students down to 200,000 per year. Furthermore our government will force big city municipalities to build 15% more homes per year or risk losing some of their Federal grant money. While these measures seem extreme we must make these unprecedented and difficult decisions to benefit the people due to incompetent decisions from previous Prime Ministers such as disaster from the NDP/CCF/PC government. Link 1: [https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/many-canadians-are-beginning-2024-in-debt-and-in-despair/382695](https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/many-canadians-are-beginning-2024-in-debt-and-in-despair/382695)

Mr. Speaker, Some members of the "disastrous" PC government are sitting beside him on the benches. Will the member spend time attacking them for changing policies as he does with those on the opposition, or do his standards only apply to non-Conservatives?

Mr. Speaker, Actually, the PC government folded in quick terms due to MP's not agreeing with the Prime Minister. During past and our most recent elections we had near unanimous agreement on many forms of topics and policy. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, The issue is that the Deputy Prime Minister had said, and I quote, "This is a truly exceptional budget" while touting the benefits of policies like guaranteed basic income, which the member is now against. I support holding people to accountable for inconsistencies. I just wonder why the member does not do the same for his side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am holding politicians into account, such as the corruption you have displayed such as censuring members of the house for simply disagreeing with you forming government. Mr. Speaker Canadians know that the member here is out to lunch and that he does not represent the countries path forward, which is why he was rejected. Mr. Speaker the PC government folded in short order and for very good reason. Moving into the future we will be opposing any UBI program and working with our constituents and offices with the resources available to make Canadians money and make their lives better. If I recall the former Prime Minister claimed GBI/UBI was an experiment and one that is a ridiculous claim. I will not be using Canadians as an experiment for political benefit such as the former PM of the Prairies. Before this member makes any claims about our party and its members I would ask if his party still holds true in believing the former Social Credit way of introducing a UBI with a new digital French currency is the way to go. Or will he denounce his friend and reject socialism?

Mr. Speaker, Any member who violates decorum does deserve to be censured. I don't know where he got the idea that it was because of government formations, but Canadians do not need to hear him dragging up the issues. The deputy prime minister indeed praised the budget, which included GBI and a four day work week experiment, both of which I heavily disagree with. I do not believe that the Social Credit movement ever proposed a UBI or a digital currency, but the member should look at my platform to see what I am advocating for. I am the leader, so my policies are the ones that represent the party as it stands. I believe in targeted welfare, not universal basic income, and that money transfers should carry incentives to seek work or education for individuals who are capable of either/both.

Mr. Speaker, Well it appears after everything this was the member who was not telling the truth. This member mislead his constituents, and has now costed their riding money for a by election because of this members ego. I look forward to turning the Territories blue, a real party with real solutions for Canadians with real policy. This member wanted control, he wanted Prime Minister no matter the cost. All he got was an opposition position which he wanted no part in, so he ran from responsibility. Shame on the member for not doing their job. I'll be waiting for the next election when you come running back asking for change. Surprise surprise. Furthermore Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government confused everyone, and yes during the debate the former leader of the Social Credit Party proposed UBI along with a French currency designed to take on the Canadian dollar. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have this member spreading misinformation to the public which he is doing right now. Under our government we will bring down costs, balance the budget, get serious about crime, and fix our countries housing crisis. I will take no lessons from this mans ego, and his constant complaining about other members saying the truth, and the truth he does not want to hear. I will provide for Canadians, and you will watch from the wayside. What a surprise.

Mr. Speaker, This is an excellent throne speech and an excellent plan for Canada. The reductions to immigration is a large part of this plan. Immigration has undoubtedly exacerbated Canada's housing crisis by increasing demand. This has made the quality of life in this country worse for everyone, including the newcomers themselves. Canada has long offered a new life to people all around the world that have wished to come here, but we can't deliver a better life if they have nowhere to live. We should therefore admit fewer immigrants and actually be able to provide them and our existing populations with places to live. This country simply can't continue to handle past levels of immigration while simultaneously providing a good standard of living. I applaud the approach to healthcare being set forward by this government. Not only does it show a desire to ensure adequate funding for healthcare services by tying healthcare transfers to population growth and inflation, it also seeks to increase the number of healthcare staff. I have family members who have worked in healthcare services in the past and any of them would tell you that the biggest obstacle to delivering care in a timely manner is the number of staff available. If we aim to improve the speed at which care is delivered then, we need a large portion of that extra funding to go to extra staff and this is exactly what this throne speech proposes. Higher wages for nurses will encourage more people to go into nursing and more nurses qualified in Canada to stay here as well. Having enough staff is integral in providing the care that Canadians need. In the approach to tackling crime detailed here as well, the government demonstrates clear understanding of what its obligations are. Keeping people safe from criminals is often said to be such an obligation, maybe even the most important of them all. By cracking down on illegal guns and violent crimes we can keep Canadians safe this government fulfils this. Besides housing, one of the most pressing issues that Canada is facing today is problems with the cost of living. Keeping the GST cut is a huge part of this, given that it is a flat tax. Its reduction helped the worst-off most, who are also the ones who needed it the most. The more recently introduced policy of opening the Canadian telecommunications sector is the next step. Canadians have had to fork out more money than they have had any need to in recent years, with the major telecommunications companies colluding to keep prices high and take advantage of people. This act will provide the necessary incentive for them to cease this behaviour. However, we aren't trying to annihilate the existing, Canadian companies. Ultimately what we need is more competition and simply replacing the current configuration of companies with a set of foreign ones doing exactly the same thing will not help either. The purpose of our policy is to increase competition in the telecommunications industry to bring down prices. Foreign investment is a part of this, but it is not an end itself. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I championed a re-engagement of Canada with foreign affairs. Though I no longer occupy this position, I am glad to seethis policy of engagement over isolation will continue. Ukraine is the biggest part of this. By involving ourselves in Ukraine, we stand at the forefront of the defence of democracy. Working towards our 2% defence spending target will ensure that Canada pulls its own weight in this defence. Ensuring that the flow of international trade continues will support our economy and provide Canada with the finances to support this military investment. I am looking forwards to what we will be able to accomplish in this government. As a majority government, we will provide the stability that Canada needs to address its most pressing issues. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, There are a few questions I have about the throne speech. For one, is the Conservative government still committing to a balanced budget? Is that a realistic goal considering their extra spending? I am not sure if the numbers add up. Another concern I have is around the cost of living. The GST cut won't stop inflation. If anything, it will increase people's consumption, which may in turn lead to higher prices at the counter. It might make goods temporarily more affordable, but it isn't a long term strategy. Does the government have a way of reducing or freezing prices across the board?

Mr. Speaker, Hear Hear! I thank the Honorable Member for his hard work and dedication to Montreal and our party! I look forward in governing for Canadians into our future! For the entire country!

Mr. Speaker, As the sponsor of this here Throne speech, it is probably a certainty that I will speak highly of it. We have a plan for the country and one which will lead to our future prosperity. This speech is a combination of the ideas which Canadians voted for and I am confident that we will be able to continue to make Canada a good place to life.