Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there were headlines in all major newspapers across Manitoba. For the second time in a year, there is a blockade on a public road that prevents licensed, regulated hunters from accessing public Crown land. There are no provincial closures on this road or on the land. The province has done the science and set the quotas. Hunters have the legal authority to hunt during hunting season. The only people acting out of order here are those imposing the blockade. Imagine the standard that is being set. Why will the minister not instruct the RCMP to maintain law and order in northern Manitoba?

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is the government's mandate. There is a blockade on public infrastructure and public land blocking licensed hunters during a short hunting season. Some of these hunters have waited years for this opportunity. Canadians have a charter right to freely travel, and there is no provincial designation restricting access to Crown land or the roads in the area in question. The RCMP will not deal with it, likely because the NDP minister in Manitoba and the Liberal minister here in Ottawa condone the blockade. These are the same Liberals who are hell-bent on taking away our hunting rifles and our right to fish for salmon. Are they trying to take away our right to public land too?

Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in, and the Prime Minister is in way over his head. He is the only leader, not just in the G7 but also in the G20, who has led his country into a recession. What does this mean practically? Since the Prime Minister will not stand in this place to answer questions about his record, I will: two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table; 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their personal finances; 40% lose sleep over how far they can stretch their paycheques; 38% face food insecurity; and last year, a whopping 2.2 million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's office spent nearly $1 million in the last year alone on luxury inflight catering, including $175,000 for one trip last November. That catering bill would have been enough to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Every dollar spent on luxury catering is a dollar that cannot go towards lowering taxes, building homes, improving public safety or helping Canadians put food on their own tables. Conservatives are here and ready to get to work. Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Liberals demonized law-abiding gun owners and banned over 2,500 models of firearms. Since then, violent crime and gun smuggling have only increased. Now the Supreme Court of Canada has slapped the Liberals' wrists, extending their hard-line amnesty period on their ridiculous gun grab. Since the Prime Minister loves off-ramps so much, will he take this one and abandon this billion-dollar boondoggle that even his own public safety minister admits does not work?

Mr. Speaker, let us expand on what the government House leader just said. Given the fact that the proposed changes in Bill C-25 would do nothing for the inter-writ period as far as election financing is concerned, and given that the government has complained so much about other pieces of legislation dealing with economic and crime issues, I find it kind of odd, since the ill-gotten majority the Liberals have means that the next election, in theory, is not going to be for another three years. Why would they use the extended hours at the end of the session to discuss an election bill, when it would not do anything in the inter-writ period?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this government legislation again, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee and have scrutinized this proposed legislation in my capacity there. I also spoke about this bill a couple of months ago, in mid-April. In that speech, I highlighted that this is a much-needed piece of legislation, one that Conservatives have been calling for since before the 2019 election. There are some good things in the bill, some much-needed tools to help handle foreign interference in our elections. However, as I noted not even two months ago, it does not go far enough, especially with how it pertains to third party fundraising and foreign contributions. As we heard clearly from expert witnesses at the procedure and House affairs committee, Bill C-25 would improve the protection that Canadians have with respect to the electoral process, including from dangers posed by hostile foreign actors. However, it would leave some major holes, primarily regarding foreign contributions outside the election period. How do we know this? We know because we as Conservatives are the ones who have been advocating for changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with this very issue for quite some time now. I will take some of the folks in this room way back with me to May 8, 2019. That is the day that my private member's bill, Bill C-406, was voted down at second reading in this very chamber. The goal of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to foreign contributions, was to deal with exactly this problem then, the same problem we are talking about now, seven years ago and three elections before the one that we just had. The bill I proposed, Bill C-406, was a bill that would have amended the Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes. This is very important to me, because third party funding certainly comes in the form of advocacy and is used by third parties in campaigns to campaign against what I would consider to be the financial interests of the people I represent and of my home province, Alberta. I also understood at that time that, just out of a matter of principle, Canadians and Canadians alone should be the ones funding, debating and voting in a Canadian general election. It does make sense. Foreign entities and countries outside our borders likely should not be able to fundraise or spend money for political purposes here in Canada. That in itself is a breach of public trust and is, I think, by very definition of course, a semblance of foreign interference, whether it is happening covertly or not. If we do not know about it, it is a problem. My private member's bill would have stopped that foreign fundraising that influences our elections here in Canada. It would have addressed the very issues that Bill C-25 claims to address. Here we are, nearly a decade later. Members will never guess what happened. The Liberals voted against the bill, including the Liberal MP for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, who is now the public safety minister, the same one who is now overseeing a new foreign agent registry that was recently introduced by the Liberals, despite his having been rabidly opposed to such a registry when it was the Conservatives, my former colleague Kenny Chiu, who proposed it. This is one of those that make a person go, “hmm”. It is almost as if the Liberals will support a good policy only once they have been dragged through the wringer to actually see that it is a good idea. I do not know why that is, but they just genetically oppose every idea we pose to them until their ideas start to miserably fail and afflict Canadians some four to eight years later. Then, all of a sudden, they see the light and do the things we have been telling them they should have been doing all along. It does not exactly breathe confidence into the issue of dealing with foreign interference, does it? We know that this is a theme. The Liberals often chastise Conservatives for big, sweeping policy ideas, but give it half a decade, and once the chickens come home to roost on the cabal of bad ideas across the way, they will eventually adopt Conservative ideas, rebrand them and package them as their own. The Prime Minister did it at Oxford with his thesis and is doing it here as well in the House of Commons. I only wish the Liberals had long ago adopted my idea of banning foreign nationals and entities from donating to and supporting third parties for election advertising purposes. It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle. We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions. In other words, there would still be a gaping hole that would allow foreign entities to send money to third parties, which could end up influencing, affecting or being spent in our general elections. The bill would crack down, but it would not prohibit. It would not go far enough. There would still be wide open loopholes for foreign funding to pour into Canadian elections. Foreign contributions for political purposes would still be allowed in Canada; Bill C-25 would not change that. Lots of witnesses who came before the procedure and House affairs committee testified that, in their opinion, this is completely unacceptable. I think that most Canadians, if they knew money was coming in to third parties from outside Canada and being spent on elections advertising, would be quite concerned. What also came out of our foreign interference study at committee, perhaps most notably, was our former candidate Joe Tay's testimony. Mr. Tay was our Conservative candidate of record in Don Valley North. Former Liberal MP Paul Chiang put a bounty on him during the 2025 election. Chiang encouraged folks to turn Mr. Tay in to the Chinese consulate in Toronto for a cash reward. There was already an arrest warrant for Mr. Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way. We also know, based on testimonies at the committee from volunteers on Mr. Tay's campaign, that they were stalked, followed, intimidated and harassed by individuals. These were campaign volunteers, for crying out loud. It is hard enough to find people to come out to participate in our elections. The last thing we need is foreign entities and foreign funds coming in to discourage, intimidate and harass campaign volunteers, regardless of the political party they are helping. This is just wrong across the board. It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody. Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnerships. Just over a year ago, on the debate stage during the 2025 election, the Prime Minister admitted that the biggest threat to Canada's security was the Communist regime in China. I am not sure, but I would like to know where that Prime Minister went. Across the aisle, the Liberals expect us to believe that they are serious about halting foreign interference. They will have to give me a bit of a break, because I am not buying what they are selling. I try to make it make sense, but it just does not. We are talking about the individuals who are interfering in our elections and meddling in our campaigns. They are targeting our people, and they are spending money on propaganda campaigns that endanger Canadians, especially those in specific diaspora communities. The bill would do nothing to solve these problems. Sure, the bill would crack down on foreign spending during the writ period, but it would leave a massive hole for foreign entities to pour money into political advertising outside the writ period. For folks that are watching at home and wondering what the writ period is, I will explain. There is a writ period, and when we have a fixed election, there is a pre-writ period, and then there are the three years in between. During those three years, third parties will not be required to separate the molecules, per se, so any money that comes in to those third parties from foreign entities during that time frame will not be scrutinized by Elections Canada. They can just bankroll all these things in the pre-writ period and then spend as much as they want during the writ period during a fixed election. Do not take my word for it; this comes directly from constitutional legal experts who gave their testimony at a committee and said that they agreed with the exact interpretation we had when we read the bill. It would still leave that gaping hole. Conservatives have been talking about foreign interference for nearly a decade. After 2021, our leader at the time brought up the issue of foreign interference in our elections. He was supported by our former colleague, Kenny Chiu from Steveston—Richmond East, who warned for years about foreign interference before being a victim of it himself. These are the issues we have had. We have had a public inquiry into foreign interference. The government dragged its feet on that and finally succumbed to the mountains of pressure that were put on it at the time. It seemed to be reluctant the whole time. It is almost as if the foreign interference regime that had been orchestrated in the last couple of elections had a blind eye turned to it, because it obviously benefited somebody in the chamber. I am glad to see that it looks like the government is trying to change its ways and is presenting this bill. Conservatives still have massive concerns with it, but we will be supporting the bill and would make sure the Canada Elections Act is, if not perfect, at least better than it is today.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that are certainly a bit problematic. I laid that out in my speech. I trust that my colleague, who sits on the committee, was also there when we were asking specific questions about just how third party funding is still allowed to happen in the general elections of Canada. Our position as Conservatives is that we should be clamping down on that even more. Is it being clamped down on a bit more than it was before? Yes, it is. Has it gone far enough? No, it has not. Are there still issues with the commissioner of elections potentially having a bit too much power and authority now, without having a second set of eyes like a judge or somebody? The amount of administrative penalty that can be levied right now is certainly a bit problematic. Obviously, we are happy with what has happened with the longest ballot committee, but we think more could have been done there as well, and it would be nice if we could finally get that foreign interference registry stood up.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not on the procedure and House affairs committee anymore, but we spent years there, particularly in the previous Parliament when foreign interference was front and centre and prevalent not only at the committee but also in the national spotlight, and I want to thank her for her work there. The Bloc Québécois has some issues with the bill. The Conservatives have some issues. Some of those are the same, some of those are different, but we broadly support the measures contained in the bill. We are disappointed that the government voted down certain important amendments that we put forward, like mandating better security at ballot boxes and closing third party advertising loopholes, for example. We are going to continue to call on the government to strengthen the Canada Elections Act to make sure that we can have confidence and trust in the institutions of the Government of Canada, particularly in the institution that is responsible for delivering elections, which are the foundation of our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies and I would have very similar constituents. They are hard-working, honest, patriotic, law-abiding Canadians who love going hunting and fishing. They work in forestry, mining, oil and gas and agriculture. These are folks who are very concerned about foreign money coming from foundations. Folks at home who want to go and look this up can take a look at some of these foundations, like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation or the Tides foundation. These organizations do not just have a few thousand or a few hundred thousand dollars, or even a few million dollars. They actually have assets worth billions of dollars, and they are able to create organizations, like Leadnow, in another country and then fund them, with this massive foundation that they have, to influence policies in another country. This is very problematic. A good friend of mine, Vivian Krause, has actually exposed much of how this money gets brought into Canada to fund various organizations and groups to block resource development in Canada. It is very frustrating.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country that is in a recession. In the past few days, we have learned much more about how dire the state of our economy is under his watch. Here are the facts. The economy has shrunk in two of the last three quarters and in three of the last four. Two major banks, BMO and Scotiabank, both forecast that Canada's economy will grow less than half as much as America's. Our per capita GDP is lower than it was three years ago. Our economic picture after a decade of Liberal rule is getting worse by the day. Will the Prime Minister do his job, stand up and tell Canadians why he has led Canada into a recession?

Mr. Speaker, in spite of everything the minister just said, Canada is still in a recession. However, we already know that the Prime Minister cannot do his job, because Canada is the only country in the G20 that is in a recession. After a decade of Liberal rule, businesses are not investing. Capital investment has fallen for the fifth quarter in a row. The government's new Parliamentary Budget Officer has just reported that there is only a 1% chance that the government will meet its fiscal anchor. The Prime Minister claims he is a crisis manager and a master economist. If he truly is, could he stand in the House and tell Canadians why he has led Canada into a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I am happy to stand today and represent the fine folks of Ponoka—Didsbury. I am happy to report that my leader does not yell at me in caucus meetings and that he listens to all my concerns when I bring them to his attention. I humbly rise to speak against this piece of government legislation, Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. The Liberal Prime Minister and his government have been big on their promises over the last year, much like they are big on their bureaucracy, big on their spending and big on creating big-time failures. This piece of legislation is a fraction of the action off the back end of a big promise that guarantees big bureaucracy, big spending and an even bigger deficit. When elected to a minority government last year, the Prime Minister said he was going to “build, baby, build”, but, oh, baby, he has not built a thing. How did we get here? Well, it was through broken promises and the promotion of failure. Failing upwards is all we are seeing, it seems. The Prime Minister ran an election campaign on a promise to double our homebuilding construction to 500,000 homes a year and to move at speeds not seen in generations. They have not been seen because we cannot see anything moving when nothing is moving. There is nothing to see. Whom did the Prime Minister hand-pick to help him deliver on this promise to complete the most housing completions in Canadian history? He chose the member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby. Listen to this: When he was the mayor of Vancouver, the member raised development charges by 141%, increased the price of homes by 149%, watched the average rent jump by 50%, and saw homelessness increase by 38%. Wow, talk about failing upwards. Under his watch, Vancouver became one of the most expensive markets in North America. It is not just one of the most expensive markets in North America but one of the most expensive in the world. The member is whom the Liberal Prime Minister tasked with delivering on this housing crisis, the same minister who said on day one of the job that home prices in this country do not need to come down at all. It is no wonder homes are not being built in this country. Nothing is being built. There is a theme here: no homes, no pipelines, no energy projects and no infrastructure. The Prime Minister cannot get anything built. It has been more than a year since the PM's grand promise to build half a million homes a year, and the result is in: fewer permits, fewer starts and a housing crisis that is rapidly becoming a nightmare. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one of the government's four housing bureaucracies, has declared that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for up to a decade to restore 2019 levels of housing affordability. The Prime Minister promised he would build these half a million homes a year, and he said that a big proponent of this building would be the new Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes. However, the reports since that promise suggest that Build Canada Homes has the capacity to build only up to about 400,000 homes across six different Canadian cities. This is a mere 1% of the Liberals' original homebuilding promise of 500,000 homes. Where will the other 496,000 come from, if not from this new $11.5-billion agency? Those six sites across the country are not even new announcements, I will remind everyone. Each and every project is an old project that the Canada Lands Company, one of the government's other housing bureaucracies, was already working on. The government has taken these sites and reintroduced them under a new agency, and it is calling this progress. It is not progress; it is an abject failure. No new homes are being built. It is an expensive photo op, just like the fake construction site the Prime Minister spent $35,000 on last September when he announced this very Build Canada Homes project in Ottawa, a fake solution to a very real Liberal housing crisis. The CMHC says that housing starts in Canada are projected to drop from 270,000 this year to 212,000 by 2028. National housing starts will drop by 18.1% over the next two years as developers are facing skyrocketing building costs. This is an issue that is compounding. Every day it gets worse, and we simply do not have any more time to waste. A year after the promise of half a million homes a year, there is a catastrophic collapse in the market. Maybe the Prime Minister's new Major Projects Office that has not approved a major project yet will take this lofty goal on. The problem is delivery. Deliverology is not working for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds never seen before, at a generational speed, but here we are, a year into his term, and we are just now debating Bill C‑20, which has the capacity to build only 1% of the homes the government promised. The minister said a key component of Build Canada Homes is speeding up housing construction. He is not off to a very good start. It took him nearly a year just to bring legislation to the House, which is still not getting anything done. In recent years, the CMHC's data, which is the government's own data, shows that housing starts are falling in this country, and they will continue to fall nationally this year and next. The Canadian Real Estate Association says national home prices have increased 2.2% from this time last year. The average home price has increased in every province across Canada. The territories have seen a worse fate. The average home price in the Yukon has increased by over $80,000 from this time last year. The housing crisis is not getting better. It is spiralling out of control. What is the government's solution? It is more bureaucracy, consultants, photo ops and broken promises. The job of His Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government accountable, promote sound policy and correct the government when it needs correction. One would think the government's job is to listen, but that has not been working. The role of the opposition is integral to the function of Parliament, and it plays an even more important role in the rightful minority Parliament that the Liberals were elected to last year. This job as opposition was given to us by over 8 million voters across the country. Our leader has been clear that we will oppose bad policies and support good ones. This policy is bad policy. It is expensive, it does not deliver any new homes, it pays bureaucrats and consultants and it duplicates the work that several other federal housing agencies already do. It is needless. When the housing minister took office as the mayor of Vancouver in 2008, the average price of a detached home in the city was $942,000. On his last day in office, that same home price had soared to $1.8 million. This is the same theme we are going to see nationally. Home prices have remained at unattainable values and costs, there are no buyers, sellers or new builds, and there is no market. The Liberals' response is an $11.5‑billion housing agency that may have the potential to build up to 4,000 homes. My hon. colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka has offered a substantive, good housing policy that will move the needle and get homes built across the country, but the housing minister will not listen. He is stuck in his ways. They are the same ways that saw Vancouver become the most unaffordable housing market in North America and one of the most expensive in the world. The Conservatives do not support adding more bureaucratic red tape to our already highly regulated housing sector. We support and have encouraged the government to do the following things. Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. In turn, this would save families up to $65,000 on the purchase of a new home and unleash new building in every market across the country. Tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding to incentivize construction and new builds. Municipalities would have to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year in order to receive federal infrastructure spending. Cut development charges by 50%. The Liberals promised this during the last election campaign, but refused to deliver. This would lift a massive fiscal anchor off the backs of Canadian builders and allow them to do what they do best, which is build houses. End the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada. This would unlock billions of dollars of investment in our country's homebuilding sector. These are substantive, difference-making policy proposals for our housing sector, but they are met with crickets from the government benches. The GST tax cut on all new homes under $1.3 million, for example, is a policy proposal that building experts, both Liberal and Conservative, have been calling for for over a year now as a policy that would actually enact change. The housing minister is not listening. In fact, on a podcast last summer, the minister referred to our proposed GST tax cut as “a big, large sweeping change to make”. Under the government's watch, Canada is facing a housing crisis we have not seen since the Second World War. Instead of rising to the occasion, the government has failed and has made things even worse. Maybe big, large, sweeping changes are exactly what we need to get Canadians into the houses they want.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to revisit the Harper-era policies. Some of the main housing-related policies were the home renovation tax credit in 2009, which saw massive investments in Canadians to invest in their own home. It helped with expenses of over $1,000 and up to $10,000. There was $1,350 in tax relief for people to stay in their homes and keep those homes current. The first-time homebuyers' tax credit in the 2009 budget was worth up to $750 at the time, helping offset the closing costs for the purchase of new homes. With the expansion of the homebuyers' plan, the government increased the amount Canadians could withdraw from their RRSPs from $20,000 to $25,000. Economic action plan infrastructure spending invested in lots of community housing. We tightened mortgage rules. We made sure that we did not get into a fiscal crisis. We regulated the environment, rather than try to do everything for everybody else. We built two million homes while the population grew by only 3.2 million. We kept up with the increase in population, which is something these guys have failed to do, miserably.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague knows the answer to this, but here is how the Liberals do it. They take whatever the global agenda happens to be. Financial markets and central bankers, like the current Prime Minister, create global scarcity for a certain product, drive up the demand for it by creating that scarcity and then come up with socialist-type deficit spending to solve the problem, which all of the insiders, their friends and their big corporate interests, then grift on. That is why we are in this mess. They can apply this to housing or any of the other aspect of our economy. Have members ever noticed that nothing ever gets done in this country unless the government spends a bunch of taxpayers' dollars along with it? It does not seem to work, does it? All that happens is our deficit goes up and things get worse.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell everyone about an incident that happened in this House. It was the day the former prime minister announced the consumer carbon tax. The member opposite came and sat beside me, trying to pitch to me that my kids were going to love this new consumer carbon tax because it was the woke thing to do. Right now, my kids make great money and they are living in the basement in my house. They cannot afford a house because she has been a member of Parliament here for the last 11 years, making a total disaster of this country.

Madam Speaker, to listen to this minister complain about and blame Conservatives for the situation of our justice system in Canada today is laughable. When Bill C-75 was passed, Conservatives opposed that bill because we knew the damage and the consequences that bill would wreak on our justice system. Jody Wilson-Raybould, the minister at the time, said that passing that bill would speed up all of the delays in the court system, delays that seem to still exist. Arif Virani, during the debate, defended the government's use of time allocation and argued the opposition was blocking. Randy Boissonnault did the same thing and argued that Conservatives were holding things up. We were simply trying to warn Canadians about the damage these guys were doing. Fast-forward to Bill C-5. David Lametti, as this bill's sponsor, said that Bill C-5 needed to move forward quickly and efficiently, and again blamed Conservatives for stopping the government from removing mandatory minimum penalties. Now, fast-forward to the current public safety minister and Mark Holland arguing the same thing. All of this is evidenced in the Hansard and the Debates of those parliaments. For this minister to stand here today and actually blame Conservatives for telling them that they were wrong and we were right all along is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, folks can grab their hats, dust off them boots and polish up them buckles. The arena lights will be blazing, the chutes loaded and the thunder of hooves shaking the ground. The 90th Ponoka Stampede is just around the corner, and it is fixing to be one for the books. At the get-go, the Ponoka Stampede was a two-day event organized by local cowboy and veteran George MacKeddie. With an admission price of 25¢, spectators could see saddle bucking, bareback riding, chariot racing, pony races, Roman races and more. Soon after, chuck racing and premium bucking broncs were added to the stampede, which put Ponoka on the map as an internationally acclaimed show and one of the top rodeos in the world. Each year, over 800 volunteers put in over 3,000 hours during the week-long celebration, with support from over 30 local community organizations. From 3,000 spectators in the mid-1930s to over 100,000 spectators today, the Ponoka Stampede sets the standard for celebrating our great western heritage. Folks can come on out and join us in Ponoka between June 25 and July 1 for a grand old time. Yee-haw.

Madam Speaker, I want to wind the clock back to 2022 when, in this place, the Liberal government of the day passed Bill C-5, which actually removed mandatory minimum penalties for a number of serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. There were no mitigating court cases or rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada that actually mandated that Parliament do that. That was an ideologically imposed piece of legislation that removed them. Now the Liberals want to bring back mandatory minimums, with what they call a relief valve, which makes them voluntary mandatory minimums. I have also heard voluntary mandatory when it comes to their gun buyback program. Is there anything that is anymore oxymoronic from the Liberal government than this?

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I stood up in this place and went through a bill that the then Liberal government had passed. It got rid of a number of mandatory minimum sentences. I think it was Bill C-5, if I remember correctly. It got rid of the mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm. I said at the time, “Hey, that must be a lot of fun, having somebody shoot at your house or hold a gun to your head and extort money out of you.” What has happened with extortion in Canada since then?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 long years of the Liberals, crime is up everywhere, not just in big cities but in small rural communities as well. Many people will recall a recent case where a Wetaskiwin man shot and murdered another man on his own doorstep. Ten months later, the same murderer was out on Liberal bail when he beat his girlfriend to death in her home in Ponoka. When is enough going to be enough? How many more families have to suffer losing loved ones before Liberals get serious and put dangerous offenders behind bars, where they belong?

Madam Speaker, listening to the heckling from the other side, we get a sense of what is actually going on here. The issue is what I consider a mafia mentality from a Liberal government that does not let anything happen in the country. It blocks things with regulations and taxes people into oblivion because that makes people and businesses dependent on the government for an announcement where the Liberals get to stand up and say, “See how much we love the cultural sector.” They get to pick the winners and losers that way. I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is not just this sector that is run this way but virtually all sectors of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, despite his illusions and phony promises, the Prime Minister is no different from the last guy. He is just another costly Liberal. The true diplomatic work on trade with Europe was done long ago by the Harper government. Canada signed trade deals with 48 European countries under the CETA. The Prime Minister has not signed a single new trade deal. His most recent EU tour was just another photo op. The real barrier to selling to the European market is the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said a new pipeline was more probable than possible, but there is no start date, no route and no plan. He then promised to build at speeds never seen before. They have not been seen before because there is nothing to see. In fairness, I will list the Liberal accomplishments over the last 11 years. They have the largest deficit outside of COVID, the largest national debt on record, the highest youth unemployment in generations and the only shrinking economy in the G7. Our biggest accomplishment should be selling energy to our allies, not racking up half-a-million-dollar catering bills for the Prime Minister's plane. It needs to be Canadian energy. He should end the illusions and export Canadian energy now.

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way. It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation. The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it. Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time. The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it. Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime. The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight. Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not? We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers. There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way. Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election. Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power. Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong. Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May. The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control. Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker. Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information. We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience. There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians. There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information. Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast. It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different. The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again. The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of consternation. The member actually did not list a single thing that I said as being untrue or wrong. Is that not funny? Not one thing that I actually said did he disagree with. He just spoke loud, yelled and made a big production, as if he was somehow offended by all of the facts that I presented here in the House today. Does the lawful access regime in this bill do some good things? Yes, it is going to do some good things. It is going to do some things that law enforcement needs. As a former law enforcement officer, I know that we actually need to give tools to the men and women who protect us and keep us safe every day. The problem is the Liberals never get it right the first time. Every piece of legislation that he talked about has to do with undoing things or restoring them. Well, he is undoing his own mess. He is restoring things that Conservatives have done. One cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, there are some potentially groundbreaking and new precedent-setting provisions in this legislation, but we also have to have some of the tools in place that will allow police to operate in a digital environment. There are lots of laws in the Criminal Code about the things we can and cannot do in real life, in the real and tangible world that we are not allowed to do. We cannot harm each other. We cannot steal property. We cannot do many of those things, yet the online world seems to allow a greater opportunity for these things to happen. I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. I think that is the place where some of these questions will actually need to be addressed and where we get the proper experts. I think the member who asked me the question is right to have the questions he has. I am sure their member on the committee will flesh this—

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter what aspect of life in Canada we look at, but if someone had, at any point in time, a disagreement with the policy of the government in the last 11 years, they would be squarely in the crosshairs of the government's mean-spirited implementation of programs. For example, groups running summer camps for kids have to sign an attestation form to go against their own values, in order to access their very own tax dollars from the government. That is just one example of how the Liberals actually only govern for themselves and the people who agree with them, and they—

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. There is a lot to look at in this piece of legislation. The bill contains many supportable and, frankly, some long-overdue measures. It includes long-called-for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter tactics like those used by the longest ballot committee, amendments that the Conservative Party has been asking for for a long time. It would strengthen protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. It would make changes to the third party regime as well, which we believe is an improvement to the current regime. However, there is a stumbling block here, which is that the Conservative Party has been raising issues around foreign interference for years. This is not new. We have known about this. The government has known about this. Members of our caucus and former candidates and their families have been targets of foreign interference and we have been talking about this for years, yet the Liberals tuned us out. They refused to take us seriously and now here we are. I welcome the government's legislation to strengthen our electoral system, but I ask this: Why did it take so long? For instance, the Liberal Party of Canada stood by for years while foreign interference literally ran rampant in our country. Frankly, it still does. Nothing has changed. This is a monumental issue facing our country and the Liberals have dragged their feet in dealing with it. I hope this bill will turn the tide on this generational issue in our nation, but I have some doubts. Why do I have these doubts? It is because it has taken so much and so long to implement a strategy to bring about this needed change. Conservatives have long called for strengthened protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests where interference has proven to be pervasive. Foreign interference is a serious issue, one that undermines the integrity of our electoral system and threatens to harm and does harm Canadians, especially those who belong to various diaspora groups all across our country. The government, the Liberals, including the Prime Minister, have been incredibly lackadaisical on the issue and I have a hard time believing in their sudden change of heart and sincerity. I will use the example of Paul Chiang. Mr. Chiang was the Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville who was, up until the end of March last year, the Liberal candidate in last April's election. Chiang, a former police officer, suggested to Chinese-language media at a news conference in January 2025 that people could hand over a political opponent of his, the Conservative candidate Joe Tay, to the PRC consulate in Toronto for a cash reward offered by the Hong Kong police. Mr. Tay, who was the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North, already had a bounty on his head and an arrest warrant issued by Hong Kong for making, of all things, pro-democracy comments here in Canada. According to the CBC, this bounty was worth nearly $200,000 Canadian. As if these comments were not bad enough, Mr. Tay testified at the procedure and House affairs committee in December 2025, a committee that I have sat on for a long time now, that his home was surveilled by a vehicle parked outside his driveway during the campaign. He said that his volunteers were victims of intimidation and harassment on the campaign trail, particularly by a man who followed them around in a trench coat. Tay also testified that the RCMP informed him that it would not be safe for him to continue campaigning. Imagine that, a Canadian in Canada running for political office and the top police force in our country informing that candidate that he should withdraw from campaigning because of his own safety concerns triggered by an aggressive foreign government. Mr. Tay went on to tell the committee that as his life was exponentially more in danger because of “a direct...[Chinese Communist Party] threat to our democracy through the election, and the MPs or the leaders were promoting it at the same time, it almost gave approval to the people who wanted to hurt me. It was like a green light.” I agree with Mr. Tay. It is almost as though the interference was sanctioned by the governing party of the day. What is even more concerning about this is the fact that the Prime Minister stood by Paul Chiang for several days and protected his candidate instead of doing the right thing. This was politics and party over principle and national security. At a press conference in Vaughan, the Prime Minister called Mr. Chiang a “person of integrity” who had served his community for 25 years. He also said that Chiang had his confidence and dismissed the error because Chiang himself had family in Hong Kong. He accepted Chiang's apology and was ready to move on. The Prime Minister was ready to move forward with Chiang on the ballot when Mr. Chiang was actively participating in foreign interference. That is not serious leadership. Paul Chiang eventually had to withdraw from the race after enough pressure was applied, but why did it take so long, and why was so much pressure needed to do the right thing? That should really alarm everyone in this chamber and, indeed, all Canadians. There were seemingly no repercussions. Not only did the Prime Minister fail to take the moral high ground, by wilfully and knowingly defending his candidate, but Paul Chiang was even welcomed back at the Liberal Party's recent policy convention in Montreal last weekend. Well, that is a little bit telling, is it not? Since this fiasco, the Prime Minister also cultivated deeper ties with the People's Republic of China, despite its many various violations of human rights at home and abroad, raising eyebrows everywhere. Meanwhile, the current Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville is fighting at committee with human rights advocates over whether the Chinese Communist Party uses forced labour, suggesting that if someone has not witnessed forced labour or slavery in China personally, then it must not exist. These are very strange comments. A few days after these strange and shocking comments, the Prime Minister attended a Liberal Party fundraiser that was co-hosted by the member for Markham—Unionville. The Prime Minister praised the “values” of that member, saying he is “a results-oriented individual” and is “choosing the path that creates opportunities for Canadians”. That is unbelievable. The Prime Minister not only praised that member, but he also refused to clarify his position on human rights and the People's Republic of China. Canadians deserve to know his real position. We know the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of human rights on his trip to Beijing in January with his new MP for Markham—Unionville, and why not? By refusing to take a stand, the Prime Minister is abandoning Canada's human rights commitments and putting our people further at risk by tying us closer to a Communist government that seeks to harm our citizens and meddle in our elections. This is a threatening foreign government that has meddled in our elections and has sought to harm our people, even putting two of them in jail. Why has it taken so long to address this? One riding, that of Markham—Unionville, had two candidates. They were Paul Chiang, who encouraged the kidnapping and potential deportation of a Canadian citizen who already had a bounty on him issued by a hostile foreign regime, and the current sitting member of that same riding, who defended China's human rights track record at committee. What has the Prime Minister done? Well, he has protected, defended, stood by and praised both of these individuals. Both were at his party's convention last weekend. He has cozied up to the Communist regime in China, indicating that this new relationship is part of his idea of a new world order, yet we expect him to lead the charge to protect Canada from foreign interference. He has had several chances, and he has blown them. Conservatives have been speaking out about this issue for years. The Liberals have done nothing, and their track record suggests that they are completely indifferent to this issue. At the procedure and House affairs committee, we also heard from Nathalie Drouin, the intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and a member of the critical election incident public protocol panel, as a witness on our foreign interference study. She emphasized time and again that the 45th general election was not compromised and that the election was carried out securely and with confidence. That is what we would expect, but what Mrs. Drouin refused to answer is to what degree the election was interfered or tampered with. Canadians are still left guessing how deeply and how badly. Now, no one in this House doubts the overall outcome of the election results. The Liberals won a minority government. That is not what we are talking about. What I am talking about is the fact that the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister refused to disclose how many Paul Chiang- and Joe Tay-type incidents there have actually been. Were other candidates targeted? Were other volunteers, candidates or families stopped, watched or intimidated? We do not know, because the person entrusted to be the watchdog will not say, and I guess now we will never know as she has been made the ambassador to France, a political position offered to a bureaucrat, which is nice work if one can get it. This is very concerning. We know that this has happened in the past. My former colleague for Steveston—Richmond East, Mr. Kenny Chiu, lost his seat in 2021 and immediately brought up concerns around foreign interference from the government of the People's Republic of China. Our leader at the time, immediately after the 2021 election, went public with concerns around foreign interference. No one, and many of them are still here on the government benches, took us seriously, but look at us now. Some six or seven years later, we are still talking about this. The buck does not stop with the PRC regime in China. Unfortunately, it carries on with Iran. There are currently up to 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members living in Canada right now. These are people who belong to the same Iranian government that killed 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents in January 2020. It took the same Liberal government over four years to list the IRGC as a terrorist group, and to date, it has deported only one of the 700 operatives living in Canada. There are foreign terrorists conducting illegal terrorist business in Canada at a time when thousands of Persian Canadians are protesting for freedom and the fall of the ayatollah. The Liberal government has shown, through the deportation of only one IRGC operative, not only that it cannot keep Canadians safe from foreign interference and terrorism but also that it is shockingly late to the serious issue of foreign interference. Why are these terrorist operatives still here? Why are they allowed to enter the country in the first place? These are questions Conservatives have asked the government time and again, and we have never been given a compelling response. Global News reported, on April 2, that an IRGC official lied to get into Canada by using false names. He even sued to have his mother allowed to immigrate to Canada. Why is he still here? These are foreign operatives here in our country to do harm, to influence, to manipulate, to raise money illegally and to intimidate diaspora communities. They are not here to contribute to Canadian society. This is a national security threat and a serious violation of foreign interference principles. Conservatives have proposed that all IRGC terrorists be expelled from Canada, but the Liberals do not agree and simply refuse to act. I am sorry, but I cannot even believe this is a debate. I cannot believe I have to utter these words here in the House of Commons. I cannot believe that I have to say that common sense would suggest that foreign terrorists should not be allowed to live freely and openly and do their business in our country. I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that. It is absurd. The government has a mandate to protect the people of Canada, and it will not take the first step forward in doing so. It is shameful. Conservatives have been here from the beginning, advocating in this very chamber and in committee for stronger safeguards and concrete action to prevent these very issues from happening. The government lauded its talking points and communication lines. We warned of issues arising because of its inability or unwillingness to act, but here we are speaking to the legislation on the same issues we have been talking about over and over again for years. Why has it taken so long? The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to condemn, much less punish, a candidate who encourages the kidnapping and deportation of the political candidate of his political adversary or a new MP who defends China's use of forced and slave labour. The Liberals are allowing IRGC terrorists to enter, stay in and live freely in our country. They will not expel them. However, they expect the opposition to believe they are serious about foreign interference now. Come on, Mr. Speaker; give me a break. Foreign interference and the government's response to it are eroding Canadian democracy. As the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published this past January, “When Chinese interference operations in Canada go unaddressed, regional partners draw conclusions about whether Canada can be counted on as a serious security partner”. That means our allies are no longer taking us seriously, and it means they are going to be reluctant to share information and intelligence with us. That puts Canadians at risk. This is not behaviour conducive to a responsible government. If the government does not take this issue seriously, how can we expect our allies or, for that matter, even our adversaries to take us seriously? That is not all. Liberals' standing on the sideline, watching as the Conservatives lead the charge on strengthening our elections, does not stop with foreign interference; it also speaks to the lead we have taken on dealing with the longest ballot committee, whose members are nothing more than self-indulgent limelight seekers. The Conservative Party has long called for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter the actions of the longest ballot committee. We welcome the amendments made by the government, but I still question why it has taken so long. We have called for actions to counter the disruptions of this group, which seeks not only to disrupt but also to manipulate and harm our elections by seemingly targeting very specific ridings. Its members cannot claim to be defenders of democracy when they frustrate voters and poll workers, making a mockery of our electoral system to benefit themselves. It is interesting. I have been here for seven elections. This is the seventh term that I have served in the House of Commons. For the first three or four, I had to come up with a $1,000 deposit that was refunded to me if I acted in accordance with the Canada Elections Act, behaved as a responsible candidate and earned a reasonable number of votes. This is to prevent frivolous candidacies. It was put in place for a reason. The individual who challenged that in court in 2017 just happens to be the same person who is now the head of the longest ballot committee. This shows us that this is not some spontaneous thing that has happened. This has been a well-thought-out, orchestrated attempt to make a mockery of our electoral process. It is fine for a protester to run in an election and put their name on a ballot, but it is not right to turn the ballot itself into the protest. This is a ridiculous set of logic. What is disheartening about it is that the government of the day had every opportunity to appeal that decision and protect the integrity of our electoral system, but it did not. It is amazing, the things that the government will actually fight in courts and the things it lets slide. On opening up access to medical assistance in dying, the government said it would not challenge that in court. On an unlawful use or invocation of the Emergencies Act, the government said it was going to take that all the way to the Supreme Court. This is just another example of Liberals not understanding the consequences of the decisions, or lack of decisions, that they make. Now we are scrambling to find ways to circumvent the longest ballot committee's protest using the ballot itself as the protest. Those changes are now in this piece of legislation, requiring more poll workers, more scrutineering, more effort and more expense. It is all of the above. All the government had to do was appeal that decision and explain to Canadians why a responsible government would protect the integrity of our electoral system, yet here we are again. In conclusion, I will just say this: It has been too long since we have had responsible decisions made in this place to protect the integrity of our institutions and the Canada Elections Act, to make sure that not only the overall results of the election are valid but also that the results, in every single constituency, every single electoral district, are accurate and that, without interference, the voters' will is manifest in that process. The nominations cannot be suspect; the leadership cannot be suspect, and the elections cannot be suspect. I look forward to the bill's coming to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep asking this question and getting the same answer. The reality is that the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has had the security clearance. It is not that he cannot get the security clearance. He has been a minister of the Crown and bears the title of “honourable”. He could certainly get the security clearance if he wanted to, but getting it also comes with the condition that one cannot talk about certain things. It is not in our nation's best interest nor in the best interest of our democratic system for the government to release information to its political adversary and know that the political adversary cannot talk about those things that the government provides to the leader of the opposition. It runs counterintuitive to the nature of the system we have designed. Anybody with a basic knowledge of civics, including Thomas Mulcair, who says the same thing, would know that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from the Bloc. I have to say that very carefully as an Alberta MP. We worked very hard in the previous Parliament on the foreign interference study. I will say this at risk of our friendship: She was a very good advocate in defending Canada and the interests of our electoral system. I did not talk about this in my speech, but it is another proof point about why it is always so hard to get the government to do the right thing. The Conservatives, the Bloc and others were calling for the public inquiry, and we literally had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to do it. Madam Justice Hogue gave her findings, there was a lot of examination and cross-examination, and we raised the issue in the public conscience of the nation. This does good things for Canada. Canadians are now more aware of it. I also think that the whole process put more pressure on the task forces responsible for monitoring and reporting. There were reports, finally, in the last election, for which they went to the public instead of just running around gathering all the information and intelligence and sharing it with nobody. We have gotten to the step now where we have a bit of public reporting, at least. I still think it is not enough, but we are making progress, and the member can hold her head high. She had something to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a lot of farmers in central Alberta. There are people who grow pork, canola and so on. We are all in favour of trading commodities, and we understand that we have to trade and have to find markets to access. That does not mean we have to give access back. It took a long time just to get the government to keep Huawei out of our network systems. We were way behind all our Five Eyes partners. There is something in the Liberal Party of Canada that means that it cannot and will not bring itself to stand up to the Communist regime, a regime that uses forced labour and slave labour, has human rights violations and steals organs from its citizens. In this country, if the only influence one has is to take a firm stand on principles, the Prime Minister has let us down and has let the good people under the thumb of the PRC down. It is actually shameful.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very common-sense question. Unfortunately the answer is that the window for the government to appeal the decision has already come and gone. Now we would have to use other mechanisms that would require us to basically say that Parliament is not going to listen to the courts, and we all know that this does not happen very often in Canada. Instead we are going to look at other methods, such as making sure that nominees cannot sign more than one form for a candidate. We heard lots of different proposals, such as that a financial agent could not be the agent for more than one person in a particular constituency. I expect we are going to be in a tit-for-tat with the longest ballot committee for quite some time. As I mentioned in my comments, it is limelight seekers who are doing this. They think this is good fun and good sport. Eventually, I think, we are going to have to come back to deal with this in a way that makes it so we protect the integrity of our system, but the Liberals are not there yet. They are going to run up costs and try to find every way possible to avoid recognizing the fact that they made a mistake in not appealing the court decision. Eventually we are going to have to get back to a place where something like that is looked at in order to prevent frivolous candidates from being involved, because that actually undermines the integrity of the system. Every member of the House agrees that there should be as few barriers as possible to entering into the debate and to running for elected office in Canada. I do not think anybody disagrees with that, but if someone cannot find 100 people to sign their form and give them $10 each, there is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is asking me to explain Liberal logic, and that is going to take a lot more than 45 seconds. To circle that square is an amazing thing. My colleague is exactly right. The Prime Minister said that the greatest threat to Canada and its democracy was the PRC regime in China. However, we have seen him take the candidate from Markham—Unionville, immediately enter into this agreement, and call it a new world order, while at the same time the Liberals were dragging their heels on appointing the foreign registry commissioner. The commissioner has come before the committee and basically said that all he is going to do is put names on a list and watch them. I do not think that is going to do all the things we had hoped for, but it is a step in the right direction. We are going to keep the pressure up because it is only Conservatives who actually care about the integrity of this institution and care about the values and the traditions Canada has. We are going to fight every day to maintain that here in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, what is Motion No. 15? It is a non-binding motion brought forward by one of our new colleagues, a Liberal here in the House of Commons. Its purpose is to create a discussion and take a vote on a very specific proposal to make the donation of cash to conservation or preservation organizations be treated in the tax code the same as the donation of land. In the preamble of the motion, we read, “the Government of Canada has committed to conserving 30% of territory by 2030 in order to address biodiversity loss and strengthen the resilience of our ecosystems”. Well, that sounds good, but here is the stumbling point. The House has never voted to approve the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda that Canada signed on to at COP15 on the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. The bill never passed; there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting all Canadians or the House. The Liberals are doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, through the creation of national parks and through agreements with first nations on indigenous protected and conserved areas. The government has already signed on to agreements or has begun negotiations for over 60 of these indigenous protected and conserved areas, and we do not know what is in them. I asked, through an access to information request, and I only received four agreements that have been signed by the government. I asked for these two years ago. The Liberals had 30 days to get back to me, and they have not done so on over 50 of these agreements. We are seeing a trend in Canada where the government and first nations negotiate among themselves and then announcements are dropped on the public, causing confusion and uncertainty. Now even the question of private property ownership in British Columbia is in doubt. What is the agenda? For those who are listening at home, many have never heard of this. The Liberals' goal is to preserve 30% of the terrestrial and marine environments of Canada by the year 2030 and 50% by the 2050. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity. It is not just a random 30% of Canada or 50% of Canada, but 30% of each ecological zone in Canada, which means 30% of our mountainous areas, 30% of the Canadian Shield, 30% of prairie grasslands, 30% of the parkland forest, 30% of the boreal forest and so on. Much of these areas have significant portions of the land as privately owned property. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land in protected areas. As well, because the Convention on Biological Biodiversity sets the standards of what it means to meet a conservation or preservation threshold, it will require private landowners to either sell their land or put easements or conservation overlays on that land, which would severely restrict what types of activities are allowed to happen on that private land. The mechanism to donate this land already exists. The motion seeks to make the donation of money to this cause be treated equally under Canadian tax law, which is meant to be a driver of this agenda. Furthermore, the government is using this non-binding motion to implement its global central-banker-backed philosophy. The definition, for those who do not know how this works, is that for the 30-30 initiative, a protected area is a geographically defined space managed legally or effectively to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation. This includes formal national and provincial parks, marine protected areas, indigenous protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, such as wildlife corridors or sustainable management zones. I want to focus on this for a minute, because it is these other effective area-based conservation measures that this motion is specifically speaking to. This is largely how private land can become protected and count towards the 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050. There are excellent organizations in Canada doing good work. Ducks Unlimited uses a model of conservation easements where willing landowners put restrictive covenants on their properties in exchange for cash. These easements survive change in title so that when someone buys land with an easement on it, they honour the easement. Once an easement is in place however, it does severely restrict what the landowner is allowed to do. For example, if one were going to do any development on that land, such as building a pipeline on it, the pipeline company would need the blessing of both the landowner and the holder of the conservation easement. We can see where this gets really complicated really fast. Furthermore, each easement is an individual agreement between the landowner and the holder of the easement. They are not all the same, so if one is managing a large construction project that is spanning several different easements, each one of them is written differently. The Nature Conservancy of Canada focuses more on purchasing land and will allow the continuation of farming and certain agricultural practices, but as the landholder and title holder, they would ultimately be able to decide if any other types of economic activity would be allowed to proceed on this conservation-designated land. Both organizations, I know, are well intended. As a hunter, I appreciate that I can usually access these conservation areas, although it usually comes with more restrictions than accessing private land or Crown land. Who is driving and helping with this agenda? The United Nations Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022, establishes four goals and 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. The core target includes 30 by 30, commitments to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems and halt human-induced species extinction. Financial reforms include reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually and mobilizing $200 billion a year in biodiversity funding. Emphasis is placed on indigenous rights, stewardship and integration of traditional knowledge. This means that the indigenous-protected conservation areas will rely on traditional knowledge rather than science-based management of species. This is in contravention, generally speaking, of the North American model of wildlife management, which creates confusion for wildlife managers. Targets to reduce pesticide risks and pollution, as well as to cut food waste by 50% is another goal, as is the framework for fair benefits sharing from digital sequence information, such as the genetic resources that we are looking to protect and preserve. What role does the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have in this? It acts as a facilitator and a coalition builder, supporting the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda; aligns private sector capital; and develops financial models and brings political and business leaders together to advance the implementation of this agenda. The global financial sector and banking sector have a role in this as well. Banks are a key capital allocator supporting the 30 by 30 goal. An estimated $1.2 trillion is annually needed from private sector investment in order to achieve their outcomes, addressing an estimated $700-billion annual biodiversity funding gap. Key roles for banks involve mobilizing private capital through blended finance and green bonds, shifting portfolios away from nature-negative sectors such as defunding oil and gas and other types of economic development, and developing new financial instruments, adopting the nature-related risk disclosure framework and promoting sustainable practices, which Canada already does in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. What would Conservatives do differently? I think Canadians would be surprised to know that, currently, 89% of Canada is Crown land and 100% of our water is managed under the direction of the government. Nobody owns a single square inch of the surface of water in Canada. If the management of our Crown land has sustainable development frameworks underpinning it, and it does, and if the Government of Canada, which is responsible for all our oceans, were properly managing them, then one could easily say that Canada has already met this conservation agenda. Nothing happens on Crown land without permission from a provincial, territorial or federal government. No activity is allowed to happen on the ocean without permission granted by the Government of Canada. No activity is allowed to happen on any lake or river without the consent of a province or territory. These are all governments that all Canadians are allowed to vote for. For the remaining 11% of land, which is privately owned, 7% of it is zoned agricultural, meaning that only agricultural activity is permitted on these lands. In fact when it comes to the environment, farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of the land, because it is in their own best interests to ensure the integrity of the land and the ecosystem. The land of a farmer is valuable only if it can continue to grow a crop and if it continues to yield forage or pasture for livestock, which means that this land is also very valuable for wildlife. Anybody with any hunting experience would know that pasture land is some of the most prized hunting land a hunter can access. Marginal land with trees and natural systems acting as connected corridors weaving through highly productive farmland and forage land creates an abundance of ungulates, migratory birds, upland game birds and even some apex predators. That leaves 4% of the land mass of Canada available for building roads, cities, towns and the human ecosystem. Why are land and building houses so expensive in Canada? It is because we restrict access to our own land. Fourteen million people are allowed to access only about 4% of the land for purchase, building houses and development. Now the government, through the motion, would be enabling further restrictions on the 7% of farmland that is currently zoned agricultural. This would create more barriers, preventing economic activity that is necessary to keep our country working for all Canadians. Drawing circles and lines around 30%, and eventually 50%, of Canada and locking it in place for all time simply makes no sense. I will give an example. In its desire to help the southern resident killer whales on the west coast of Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has created massive exclusion zones for fishing and other activities. The whales are rarely in these areas, because they are migratory creatures. Permanent closures and permanent restrictions are of little to no use at all in the protection of these whales. While they serve the purpose of a box-checking exercise, it is very easy to question whether the desired result of balancing ecological integrity with economic activity is what the government is actually doing. The Liberals say they can protect the environment and protect the economy at the same time, but the results of their actions say something completely different. Conservatives would gladly partner with organizations to aid in conservation and the recovery of endangered and at-risk species, with the understanding that if a necessary economic activity needs to happen, then everybody involved is consulted and the decision is made transparently. It is because of these and a plethora of other examples that Conservatives cannot, in good faith, support the agenda that the government currently has because we know that this agenda will overly restrict human activity and economic activity, as well as create friction in the socio-economic fabric of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the hard work he has done on this. I know the folks in my riding of Ponoka—Didsbury certainly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the Conservative team. We heard a little while ago from the member for Mount Royal, who cited a whole bunch of examples of why this piece of legislation is needed, yet when we look at the Criminal Code, section 264 deals with harassment where people fear for their safety in their communities; mischief is section 430, which deals with interference with people's lawful enjoyment of property; intimidation is section 423, which deals with obstruction, coercion or making people feel fearful. Plus, there are the hate speech provisions that we already know about in the Criminal Code. As such, do any of the arguments that the Liberals are using to pass Bill C-9 hold water at all?

Mr. Speaker, that feels like censorship, but it is not. I know we are just going to run out of time. I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House today for this very passionate debate on an issue that I think many Canadians are paying attention to. I would like to start with a quote from someone who is considered to be a great Liberal prime minister. Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said, “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.” Where is this freedom today in regard to religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, when it pertains to Bill C-9? Where is the Liberal Party of Wilfrid Laurier? As a matter of fact, I think many people today are wondering if there are any Liberals left in the Liberal Party. Former Prime Minister Laurier was born and baptized Catholic. In December, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote the justice minister and said the following: The proposed elimination of the “good faith” religious-text defence raises significant concerns. This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions. Courts have made clear that only the most extreme forms of speech fall within the scope of hate-propaganda offences. That says it all. Of course, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of hundreds of Christian organizations. There are hundreds of Muslim organizations. There are people from all different faiths who practise here in Canada, like the Jewish community and those practising other religions from other parts of the world. All of them have come here so they can be part of that great Canadian cultural phenomenon, which used to be that we were a nation premised on freedom. That same letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops goes on to say, “The removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.” This is called the “chill effect”. It is actually part of this legislation, not by accident, but by design. The Liberals know full well what they are proposing in this legislation and it is the chill effect that they are looking for. Meanwhile, as this is a priority for some reason for the Liberal government, violent crime in Canada has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Instead of going after violent criminals and repeat offenders, the government is targeting good neighbours, solid people and churchgoers. Folks back home in central Alberta, and indeed across Canada, have a great right to be concerned with the contents of Bill C-9 when it comes to removing the religious exemption. While violent crime surges and our local RCMP detachments are left to try and handle surging rural crime, the government has decided to crack down on religious freedoms and faith-based groups. This is insulting, it is dangerous and it is completely out of touch. My neighbours in Ponoka—Didsbury are right to be alarmed. The Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 would remove long-standing protections for religious expression and in doing so, risk criminalizing sections of the Bible and other sacred texts simply because they contain teachings that some may find disagreeable. This is a deeply troubling path. Canada has always upheld the principle that people of all faiths must be free to speak, preach and live according to their beliefs. That freedom should never depend on whether the government of the day approves of those beliefs or not. Conservatives oppose this latest Liberal assault on the freedom of expression and religion, and we will defend the rights of Canadians to discuss, debate and express their convictions. We will fight to keep the Liberal thought police out of Canadians' places of worship. Canada already has clear laws against threats, violence and inciting hatred. Section 319 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. Similarly, section 318 makes it an offence to advocate for genocide. These laws have worked reasonably well to limit harmful hate speech, while respecting the charter rights of all Canadians. What Liberals are attempting now goes far beyond that. When the government begins redefining “hate” as anything that hurts feelings or contradicts activist narratives, it endangers open dialogue and the very foundations of a free and democratic society. Over 80% of Canadians voted for either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the last election, yet the Liberals are partnering with the vehemently anti-faith, anti-religion Bloc Québécois to make amendments to Bill C-9. This would be like the Liberals allowing Albertans to make all the decisions related to oil and gas in Canada. This is what they are doing. Over 80% of Canadians voted for the Liberals or the official opposition, and one would think they would try to find common ground with the official opposition rather than a party that is basically a smaller fraction of Canada, a party that, frankly, knows it will never be in government in this country. This is who they are choosing to partner with. The Liberals are taking Canada down an incredibly dangerous path through their partnership with the Bloc Québécois. No Canadian voted for this. The Liberals are penalizing Canadians of faith through support from the Bloc Québécois to target people and beliefs that they simply do not agree with. This is an unjust and barbaric assault on the freedoms of Canadians who merely think differently from the government, while the real criminals are able to reoffend. It is quite telling that the government is using procedural tactics to push this bill forward when it could have used those same tactics to change the bail laws. It is telling that this is what the government's priority actually is.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the 157,057 Canadians who have signed the historic charter of health freedom petition, one of the largest paper petitions in Canadian history, initiated by the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Parliament has a duty to respond to a petition of this magnitude, one driven by grassroots, everyday people who want rights that guarantee their freedom to make informed choices about their own health. These rights include the right of every person to sovereignty over their own body, the right to choose how to prevent illnesses or address illness and injury, the right to access treatment options without unnecessary government restrictions, the right to make their own health decisions without undue interference from the state, respect for the constitutional role of the provinces in health care and recognition of the sovereign right of first nations people to practise their traditional medicines. The charter of health freedom calls for a new legislative framework recognizing natural health products and traditional medicines in their own category, rather than treating them as therapeutic drugs under the Food and Drugs Act. Canadians deserve a system that protects safety while respecting their ability to care for their own health, and after over 157,000 voices have spoken, now is the time for action for the health freedom of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals tried to clarify the rules behind their ridiculous gun-grab scheme. Canadian soldiers who were deployed before the gun-grab program started will return after the amnesty period ends. This means that they would have no opportunity to declare their firearms under this gun-grab policy. Because of this, many armed forces members will return to Canada as criminals because the Liberals will not extend the amnesty period. This is very troubling. If the Liberals trust our deployed soldiers with the biggest guns we have, why on earth would they not trust them with their Plinksters and turkey guns when they get home?

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight on what has happened over the last couple of decades in this place. When Stephen Harper became the prime minister, he did not inherit a single tidewater pipeline project from the previous Chrétien-Martin governments. When he left office in 2015, there were four of these projects, not to mention the number of projects that were actually done in expanding our trade to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, because my colleague is from Calgary, he talks about oil and gas. He actually knows what he is talking about, unlike the guy who is chirping me across the way right now. Based on the announcement by the government on the expected value of this trade relationship with Indonesia, I wanted to ask my colleague if he can tell me what the value of one LNG tanker leaving Canada might be worth to our economy in context.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in the House tonight, in the second hour of debate on Bill C-224. As has been mentioned, this is the second Parliament I have tabled this bill in. In the previous Parliament, it was Bill C-368. It passed at second reading in this place, but it was not unanimous. It went through the committee process in the last Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper with the prorogation and subsequent election. Now we have a new Parliament, and I was very fortunate to get drawn in the first tranche of private members' business. I was more than happy, on behalf of the 80% of Canadians, some 30 million, who use natural health products on a routine basis to improve the quality of their lives at a time when it is hard enough in this country to make ends meet, to get by, to find a doctor and to look after oneself. It seemed pretty straightforward and easy for me to get behind this cause. Not only am I a user of these natural health products myself, but I know that so many friends and family members also do the same thing. All my constituents in Ponoka—Didsbury, which in the previous Parliament was Red Deer—Lacombe, have been very supportive of what I have done. I have travelled across the country to meet with health store owners, various stakeholders and Canadians on a regular basis about this. It is a very important issue, and I am glad that we are having this conversation today. As members may recall, in the previous Parliament, the definition of “natural health products” was changed in Bill C-47, which was a budget implementation bill. Nobody knew this was coming. It was underhanded and sneaky. That was the approach of the previous government in the previous Parliament. There was no consultation with the Natural Health Product Protection Association or the Canadian Health Food Association. Nobody even knew it was there. As a matter of fact, there was basically radio silence for about six months, until somebody figured out that those four little clauses in that bill had been passed and subsequent changes to the self-care framework were being implemented by Health Canada. That is when the lid kind of blew off the whole process and people started getting involved. To take us back to where we were, this is not some wild west, non-regulated area of responsibility. Natural health products have been very highly regulated in Canada for a long time. As a matter of fact, IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, not therapeutic drugs but dietary food supplements, basically had Canada's regulatory regime ranked as the gold standard around the world. We were exporting these products because importers and agencies from around the world trusted that made-in-Canada label and the natural product number. This was a solution in search of a problem, and it blew up in the government's face. There is no reason at all that natural health products should get caught up in the clutches of Vanessa's Law, a very important piece of legislation and work. We need to treat natural health products for what they are. They are a stand-alone category, and my bill seeks to take us back to where we were prior to Bill C-47. I made one small adjustment to the bill in this Parliament to exempt nicotine, because I believe many people would think it reasonable that nicotine should be managed completely differently and separately from natural health and therapeutic products. I am looking forward to my colleagues having that debate, should this bill get to committee. I want to thank my colleague in the Bloc Québécois. I think he was a little upset that I did not include the amendment to deal with recall. I know that is going to come up again in the debate, should this bill get to second reading. Before I conclude, I want to extend some thanks, if I can be permitted, even if I go a bit longer. I want to thank the Natural Health Product Protection Association, specifically Shawn and Teresa Buckley, for their continued advocacy for freedom of choice for Canadians on this issue and so many more. I thank them so much for the work they do. To the Canadian Health Food Association, particularly Jules, Sonia and Wenjing, I thank them so much for the work they do in advocating on behalf of retailers and the entire industry, the producers, retailers, everybody. Most importantly, I want to thank Canadians who are watching right now. As I said, 80% of Canadians use natural health products, and they support their own right to choose their health outcomes. They were the ones who signed the cards we all got, signed the petitions, wrote the emails and made the calls to MPs' offices. They have changed the tide of the debate in this country, and the House should be responding to them. I am very much looking forward to the continuation of this bill as it goes through the legislative process. I want to thank everybody who has been supportive.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals have repeatedly told Canadians to trust the science, but now they are firing the very scientists who help feed Canadians. The government is shutting down seven agriculture research centres across Canada, including the storied one in Lacombe. Meanwhile, the Liberals will waste $742 million on a gun grab that police say will do nothing. That $742 million that would keep the Lacombe research station open for 40 years. With 2.2 million Canadians lining up at the food bank every month, why is this government so hell-bent on wasting cash on programs that experts say will not work and killing the programs that the experts say will?

Mr. Speaker, l am very pleased to rise today and recognize the Fur Institute of Canada's day on the Hill. The Fur Institute was created in 1983 by Canada's wildlife ministers and serves as Canada's national voice for the fur trade. The Fur Institute is internationally renowned for its expertise in humane trapping and is home to the Seals and Sealing Network, which promotes Canadian seal products at home and abroad. Representing a broad cross-section of the fur trade, from trapping and runway to farm gates and showrooms, this organization represents the interests of over 35,000 Canadian trappers, fur farmers, seal harvesters, artisans and furriers, as well as governments and indigenous nations all involved in the fur trade. Trapping is an essential part of wildlife management, livestock protection, infrastructure maintenance and species recovery. In short, trappers live in harmony with the land, as opposed to living on it. Today, there are over 20 delegates on Parliament Hill who are attending the Fur Institute of Canada's Hill day. I am excited to meet them, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to recap how things work around here, and I will ask my colleague to comment on it. Conservatives are always way out ahead of Liberals when it comes to things dealing with justice and public safety. As a matter of fact, we warned them about the consequences of their changes in Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and a number of other changes they made. We told them crime would go up. We told them our communities would become less safe. They ignored us and did it anyway. We then propose private members' bills, which the Liberals across the way systematically vote against every single time until public pressure gets so great that they actually then take our ideas, bundle them up in a bill, put them before the House and then claim that we are blocking them. Is that true?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has broken his promise to Canadians. He said he would build Canada strong, but in eight months he has not approved a single new project. Instead, he is closing down agriculture research stations and firing scientists, including at the 120-year-old station in Lacombe. Conservatives introduced a motion this week to pass a Canadian sovereignty act. Will the Liberals vote for our legislation to repeal Liberal laws that block development, to reward investment in Canada and to protect Canadian innovation, or will they continue selling Canada out with their new world order agenda?

Mr. Speaker, Liberals never let solutions get in the way of their ideology. While the jet-setting Prime Minister travels the world to glad-hand and talk about his new world order, food prices are up and families are struggling to put food on the table. In the meantime, the government is closing the very agricultural research centres that allow Canadian farms and agribusinesses to be so innovative. When will the Liberals finally understand that when we learn more, grow more, build more and export more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable for Canadians?