Branden Leslie
- Born
- near Portage la Prairie
- Career
- Conservative political staffer; policy and government relations manager with Grain Growers Canada
- Political Experience
- Campaign manager for Candice Bergen; Elected to the Canadian House of Commons in a by-election on 19 June 2023
- Notable
- Criticized Friesen for his role as Manitoba's health minister during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pro-life. Would have voted against the ban on conversion therapy.
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before entering federal politics, Branden Leslie had a career in political organization and agricultural advocacy. He is known to have served as the campaign manager for his predecessor, former Conservative MP Candice Bergen. He also reportedly worked for the Grain Growers of Canada, an organization that represents the interests of grain farmers across the country.
Key Relationships & Connections
Branden Leslie has a well-documented political relationship with former Conservative cabinet minister and interim party leader, Candice Bergen. He worked as her campaign manager before succeeding her as the Member of Parliament for Portage—Lisgar. Through his previous employment, he also has established connections with the Grain Growers of Canada.
Public Controversies
Branden Leslie's 2023 by-election campaign attracted significant media attention, largely because he was running against People's Party of Canada leader Max Bernier. During the campaign, Leslie's public statements and views on certain topics, including the World Economic Forum, were reportedly the subject of media coverage and public debate. The race was often framed as a test of the Conservative Party's appeal to its right-wing base.
Where Branden falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
Branden Leslie won with 31,889 votes (69.4%)
Total votes cast: 45,965
How does Branden Leslie's voting record line up with your values?
Mr. Speaker, the government is correctly identifying the problems after we point them out. They are self-imposed problems, but the problem with the government is that all it ever sees is a nail to hit, and it always seems to hit it with a new bureaucracy. As my colleague outlined, whether it be housing, energy or anything else, all the government tries to do is build new government bureaucracies.
C-69 Mr. Speaker, let me take members back in time a few years. When the Liberals introduced Bill, they told us that the new process would make project reviews more efficient, predictable and timely. Now, eight years later, that sales pitch has not aged well at all. C-39 C-5 Now we have Bill, and the government's own explanation says its approval system suffers from lengthy timelines that delay
Mr. Speaker, for millions of families, payday is no longer a chance to get ahead. It is simply the day to hopefully pay the bills. The National Payroll Institute says that more than half of working Canadians are spending every dollar they take home, leaving absolutely nothing to save, and only 18% say that their pay is keeping up with the cost of living. The Liberals seem to insist that their
x Mr. Speaker, I support seniors living on fixed incomes, families and anybody who lives in my riding or across this country having the highest possible standard of life. We have vastly different views. As I outlined in my speech, the government sees any problem as an opportunity to create some big new bureaucracy, spend a whole bunch of money and then, when asked about the results, say, “We
Mr. Speaker, for all of us, one of the best and the worst parts of this job is hearing people's stories, because it is important that we know them, but sometimes they are very difficult to hear. I am sure we have all heard those seniors who say they are making $20,000, and we wonder how on earth they are living and how they are eating. We all go to grocery stores. We all try to drive to medical
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time in this fall session. I would like to talk about what it means to be an average Canadian. We all know there is a moment that has become so familiar for so many Canadians. Someone pulls up to a gas station, they get out of their car, they put the nozzle in their tank and they just stand there watching those two numbers race each other. One
Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be happy that we have His Majesty's loyal opposition to put forward good ideas that have been at times embraced by the government, such as the extension of the excise tax, or putting it on to begin with. I wish I had the Hansard record to count the number of times that the member defended the carbon tax as neutral for families and said that everyone was better off.
Okay. It is as it is. I mean, that's a pretty good description. You look at it, and it is as it is.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to see everybody back for another fall session. Given that we broke before summer after hearing the testimony from the sponsor, I had a lot of time to review this legislation and, in turn, some of the amendments. If you'll bear with me, Madam Chair, I have a number of questions that I plan to direct towards Mr. Grant as the parliamentary secretary and the mover
Should it be more prescriptive, then? The problem I see here is that it's not prescriptive at all. It's very subjective. Do you want to jump in on that one, Mel?
If I'm either a retail seller or somebody planning to sell his or her boat in the future, how would I be satisfied with this law? For the text you just described, how would I be satisfied with that as a comfort level in a future sale?
It's not unreasonable for the seller to then be asking for financial disclosures or for evidence of ownership of property where the vessel could be stored. In theory, there could be a potentially huge onus on the seller to reach his or her own level of satisfaction based on what the law would be if this amendment comes into force.
What if, on the seller's obligation part, in my description of the state of the vessel, I just put “sold as is”? Would that suffice as the seller?
It's “as is”.
Sure. I'll buy time and ask some follow-up questions, if that's okay. Am I next on the list?
It will be in minutes.
Okay. A marine survey would be the most exhaustive version of that. That's several thousand dollars that the seller would have to take on prior to transferring the boat to that buyer, because it seems entirely reasonable that the seller of the vessel might not have a detailed list of every possible defect within the vessel unless they had that marine survey. Is that correct?
Thank you for that. It still leaves a lot of question marks. If I'm the seller of this vessel, how satisfied I have to be to be satisfied is not a very strong legal position for future potential ramifications. Just to be crystal clear, this amendment does not expressly require me to inspect the buyer's finances, insurance or facilities. It just requires me to have him write something down, and
Given the uncertainty of the amendment and, in turn, this bill if passed, do you expect to deliver a lot of those warnings since people probably will not understand what their obligation was supposed to be at the time of sale?