Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 50
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-19 14:37 [p.29387]
Mr. Speaker, breaking ethics rules is par for the course for the Liberals. There have been so many ethics investigations of the Prime Minister and his caucus that there is probably a speed dial from the commissioner's office to the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister himself has been found guilty of breaking four laws with his illegal vacation.
Could the Prime Minister tell us, with all of these scandals, exactly how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner. Is he proud of his legacy of scandal, corruption and entitlement?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-01-30 14:47 [p.25021]
Mr. Speaker, never before has a government been so mired in ethical scandals as those Liberals: the Prime Minister himself broke ethics laws; Liberal ministers involved in shady cash-for-access events. Now we have just learned that the former Liberal MP for Brampton East, the same one who has a massive gambling debt, had a huge Liberal fundraiser, where he reportedly raised approximately $600,000. There are a lot of questions around this fundraiser that so far the Liberals are not answering.
Could the Prime Minister tell us this. Did the Minister of Innovation or any other one of the Liberal ministers—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-01-30 14:49 [p.25021]
Mr. Speaker, that was entire fabrication. I know the Prime Minister has problems with the truth, but maybe it is time that he actually came clean with some facts.
There are questions around this $600,000 fundraiser. Who went to the fundraiser? Were there ministers in attendance? What happened with the over $600,000 that was raised for a Liberal MP with massive gambling debts?
These are simple questions with simple answers. What is he hiding? Who is he protecting?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-12-04 15:10 [p.24412]
Mr. Speaker, we wholeheartedly support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I would like to reserve the right to add more to this question of privilege.
It is important to note two citations. At page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it tells of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.
Moreover, in a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux at page 6709 of the Debates stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”
On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of the Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way:
Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected.
This is very serious. This goes to the very heart of what we do here in Parliament.
The Liberal government said that when it was elected, it would be open and transparent. I recall the government House leader saying that we must have tough conversations in this place.
We are asking legitimate questions and to be met with these kinds of threats is very serious.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you would give us the opportunity to further add to this important question of privilege.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-11-30 11:15 [p.24261]
Mr. Speaker, there was a troubling media report last night claiming that the Liberal member for Brampton East and the Minister of Innovation were both given confidential information about a real estate transaction in Brampton. The report said that the results of the investigation into this deal have been referred to the RCMP.
My question is for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Is this media report true? Did the minister receive confidential information about a real estate transaction in Brampton?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-11-30 11:16 [p.24261]
Mr. Speaker, there is still so much we do not know involving the saga around the Liberal member for Brampton East. What we do know about this saga is that it involves a police investigation touching on drugs, money laundering, international terrorism and a million dollar gambling debt. The Prime Minister and these Liberals need to come clean and tell us what else they are hiding about this growing scandal.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-11-30 11:17 [p.24262]
Mr. Speaker, the House leader needs to get her story straight, because up until now both the Prime Minister's Office, the House leader and the whip have been saying that they learned of these problems on November 22. However, we just learned that the Prime Minister's Office is now saying it was told about an RCMP investigation on November 17. Which is it?
The deception and cover-up just keep getting worse. Canadians deserve some honest and clear answers. Let us start with something very simple. On what date did the Prime Minister and his office become aware of this RCMP investigation?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-03-28 15:58 [p.18216]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-71. I will note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
I am going to be very clear. I will not be supporting Bill C-71, and I will tell the House why. There are three basic reasons, although there is a whole list. I could probably give the House the top 10, but there are more reasons than that.
First of all, the Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to firearms legislation that would do anything to get firearms out of the hands of criminals while at the same time protecting and respecting law-abiding Canadians. The Liberals cannot be trusted.
There is a statement we have all seen that is true, and that is that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. What have we seen from the Liberals when it comes to gun legislation? We all know about the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that was introduced by the Liberals. They defended and supported it. It cost $3 billion. It penalized and made criminals out of law-abiding Canadians.
That was the very first thing the Liberals did when they had a chance to do something to combat crime. Now they are back at it. They told Canadians that they were going to introduce a bill on firearms legislation.
The Liberals are having a lot of trouble right now around the disastrous India trip. They are having a lot of trouble because they are breaking promises. The Prime Minister is failing Canadians with his ethical lapses, so the Liberals had a brainwave and decided to go after law-abiding gun owners again; that would work.
As I said, the Liberals cannot be trusted. Gun owners know and Canadians know that the Liberals are going after them instead of going after the people who are actually committing crimes.
In 2009, I was a new member of Parliament, and I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-391, which would have ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. There were a whole lot of Liberal MPs who had told their constituents that they would vote to end the long-gun registry, and the first chance they had to fulfill their word, they did what Liberals do. They broke their promise, which would result in law-abiding Canadians being penalized. I want to remind the House of some of those members who broke their word and are here in this Parliament and will have to answer to their constituents.
For example, the member for Yukon broke his word to protect law-abiding Canadians. He supported the long-gun registry. The next one on the list I will not name. The third one is the member of Parliament for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. He, as well, had an opportunity to support law-abiding Canadians. What did he do? He supported the long-gun registry. The member for Malpeque promised his constituents that he would vote to end the long-gun registry. What did he do? He supported the long-gun registry. The Minister of Public Safety himself, when he was part of the opposition, had a chance to end the long-gun registry. He voted for it and supported it.
One might ask why I am bringing this up now. As I said, the Liberals cannot be trusted. They want to target law-abiding Canadians, because it is easy. It is very easy to target people who are already obeying the law, people who get a license to own a firearm or store owners who already keep records. What easy targets for the Liberals. It is so easy to go after people, under the guise of doing something to combat gun crime, who are already following best practice and already obeying the law.
First and foremost, I do not trust the Liberals. I do not trust them on ethics. I do not trust them on balancing the budget. I do not trust them on keeping their word. I do not trust them when it comes to any kind of gun legislation that would do anything to penalize criminals.
Let us remember, the Liberals actually like to protect and reward criminals. It is quite interesting that we have returning terrorists who have been fighting with ISIS who are being protected. They are being told, “We believe in you. We think you can be rehabilitated.” There is no legislation coming for ISIS terrorists who return to Canada. They will get a nice little group hug and probably more money. However, for gun owners and stores that sell firearms, like Canadian Tire, the government is coming after them.
People who have fought against our allies, like Omar Khadr, get a big payout. The Liberals had no problem just laying that down. Everything Omar wanted, he got. However, they are not standing up for gun owners. It is a whole lot of talk. The only people who actually get protection with the Liberal government are criminals. Therefore, I do not trust them.
I want to talk about the actual substance of Bill C-71, which is the same old, same old. There is nothing here that will protect anyone or do anything to fight crime.
Let us talk about the part of the legislation that will ask store owners to keep records. They are already keeping records. This is like a solution in search of a problem. Crimes are not being committed by people who are legally purchasing firearms. I will provide the statistics on that:
Analysis of a Special Request to Statistics Canada found that between 1997 and 2012, just 7% of the accused in firearms homicides had a valid firearms license (or 2% of all accused murderers).
A person in this country who has a licence to own a firearm is 50% less likely to ever commit a crime with a firearm. It is not like we have some big outbreak of people buying firearms at Canadian Tire and using those firearms in the commission of crimes, and Canadian Tire is saying to the police that it will not give them that information. That is not happening. That is not a problem that needs to be fixed.
I will tell members what is happening. I am going to refer to John Tory, the mayor of the city of Toronto. He noted that only 2% of gun homicide victims in Toronto had no connection to either gangs or drugs and that 98% of the crime that is going on has to do with gangs and drugs. That is where the problem is, and that is what needs to be addressed.
As I mentioned in my question earlier on, this bill does not even mention the words “gangs” or “organized crime”. However, it does mention words the Liberals love, like “registry” and “reference number”, which is their new one, 26 times.
Let us be clear. As per the normal Liberal way of doing things, this is getting ready to create a backdoor registry, which will then very easily turn into the regular, wasteful, and ineffective type of registry the Liberals like to promote.
Some of my colleagues mentioned some of the areas where gangs are getting guns. Let us talk about this seriously. We need to get tough on gangs and on violent crime. When we were in government, there were a lot of things we did. We had the Tackling Violent Crime Act. It provided mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences and stricter bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms. It tackled the problem and did not go after law-abiding gun owners and store owners.
We passed the Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to organized crime and the protection of justice system participants, which provides police officers and officials with important tools to help them fight organized crime.
Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe that criminals and people who use guns in the commission of crimes should know that the penalty will be swift and just. We do not believe in attacking law-abiding Canadians who are using firearms for legitimate purposes, nor the store owners who are legally, and in a principled way, selling those firearms.
Because of all their failures and the problems they have encountered over the last number of months, the Liberals are trying to import a problem that is occurring in the U.S. The U.S. gun control situation is completely different from Canadian gun legislation. However, they are trying to bring that here and somehow say that they are fixing a problem that actually exists in the U.S. It is window dressing. It is disingenuous. It is the typical Liberals saying one thing and doing something completely different. It is bad legislation, and it should be revoked.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-12-05 14:29 [p.16022]
Mr. Speaker, no matter how hard the Liberal spin doctors spin, the finance minister's ethical problems are not going away. There is just too much Canadians know, but still so much they do not know.
They know the minister did not put his assets in a blind trust and he was found guilty for hiding assets in France. What Canadians do not know is what else he was hiding in his other numbered companies where he was managing other assets, all for his own benefit. Canadians do not trust him.
How can the finance minister continue in this role?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-12-05 14:31 [p.16022]
Mr. Speaker, the integrity of Canada's CFO must be beyond reproach. However, the minister's ethical lapse has compromised his ability to keep the confidence of Canadians.
He has been found guilty of breaching a law and he is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner for introducing legislation from which he could benefit. Now the commissioner is looking into his November 2015 sale of Morneau Shepell shares. On top of all of this, we do not know what else is lurking in the shadow of the finance minister.
Why will the finance minister not do the right thing and just step aside?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-11-28 14:40 [p.15687]
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the finance minister has been pretty busy lately sorting out his ethical lapses, and raising taxes on Canadians while sheltering his own from taxes. His mind has been pretty preoccupied. Maybe that is why yesterday he could not quite remember what he did in November 2015. However, 24 hours have passed and I am hoping the Prime Minister may have spoken with his finance minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if the finance minister sold 680,000 shares in Morneau Shepell in November 2015, yes or no?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-11-28 14:41 [p.15687]
Mr. Speaker, in November 2015, someone sold a whole lot of Morneau Shepell shares and in the process saved a whole lot of money. Either the finance minister does not know who sold them, knows who sold them and it was not him, or knows who sold them and it was him. It is one of three answers. It is very simple. There should be no more threats from the Liberals. I do not think they are in any position to threaten us. They should just answer the question.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-11-27 14:21 [p.15616]
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister refuses to answer questions about what assets he has owned over the last two years. He says that he does not need to answer, because currently he has told the Ethics Commissioner everything and it is all good.
However, the fact that he is refusing to answer this question directly and that the Liberals refuse to support our motion, demonstrates his unwillingness to be transparent with Canadians.
Why will the finance minister not simply answer the question and reveal to Canadians what assets he has owned over the last two years?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-11-27 14:22 [p.15617]
No, Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. The finance minister did not disclose everything to the Ethics Commissioner. He forgot that his Morneau Shepell shares were not in a blind trust and he forgot he had a villa in France. This is why his credibility is on very shaky ground, and he is doing nothing to get himself out of that situation.
He answers to the Canadian people. He seems to have forgotten that. Will the finance minister simply come clean and publicly disclose what assets he has owned over the last two years?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2017-11-22 14:44 [p.15426]
Mr. Speaker, we know the finance minister has already been found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act. That is clear. What is not clear, maybe as clear as mud, is how many other conflicts of interest he is in. Therefore, the finance minister has a choice to make. He can continue to keep Canadians in the dark, or he can reveal what assets he has owned in numbered companies over the last two years, or what exactly the finance minister is trying to hide.
Yes, we are focused on the finance minister.
Results: 1 - 15 of 50 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data