Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, as we can hear from my Quebec colleagues, obviously that was not a good answer to the member's question. Liberal government documents confirm that nearly 18% of the firearms being confiscated by the Liberal gun grab are .22-calibre rifles, often used to hunt gophers or to shoot pop cans. Why are Liberals wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on .22s, or “plinkers”, instead of millions of dollars on police officers to lock up violent criminals?

Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer. Joseph Murdoch-Flowers, executive director of the Qajuqturvik Community Food Centre in Iqaluit, said this week that the centre has seen its daily meal count go from around 58,000 in 2022 to almost 91,000 last year. It has served 37,000 meals so far this year in a town of 7,500 people. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, yet 58% of people in Nunavut live in food-insecure households. After 11 years, does the Prime Minister really think Nunavut has never had it so good?

Mr. Speaker, I know third party advertising and the involvement of foreign governments in our elections is a big problem. It reared its head back in 2015. I am sure the member remembers back in the day. This is a headline from 2017: “Controversial Leadnow active in B.C. politics, Vancouver city affairs”. We originally sort of brought the evidence forward that this was occurring. The article refers to “claims filed last week with Elections Canada—and reported this week by the Calgary Herald—that foreign money 'spawned' Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.” I would ask the member to speak to this issue. It is a big deal, and we even see our colleague across the way from Toronto affected by shenanigans in elections. Maybe the member can just speak to what happened back in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great work across this country on Bill C-9. Maybe there are some well-intentioned Liberals across the way, but we made these same arguments around medical assistance in dying. We said that there was going to be pressure on seniors to end their life and that MAID was going to be pushed on people who are affected by mental health issues, and that is exactly what has been happening. If Bill C-9 really becomes the law of the land, where does the member see this going? How could it actually affect pastors and preachers at Christian churches across Canada?

Madam Speaker, I just want to bring up to the member across the way that his government has been in power for the last 11 years, and the Northwest Territories should be one of the powerful cylinders in our economic engine, but it is seriously misfiring. The Northwest Territories was in a recession in six of the years since the Liberals formed government: 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025, after job-killing Liberal policies were enacted by the previous prime minister and the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister does not seem to be wanting to fix it either. He just turned 30% of the Northwest Territories into a park. My question for the member is this: Is the Northwest Territories in recession, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this bill that my colleague brought to the House a while ago. My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has been stalwart in support of first responders in the Prince George community in northeastern B.C. I know the member meets with firefighters from Prince George, as I do. We hear their stories, the first-hand accounts of firefighters who signed up to fight fires but are now dealing with overdoses. That is the vast majority of what they are doing. Sadly, some of the stuff that comes along with that response to the drug side of our community is violence against them. It is really sad. It is a shame that these people who sign up to protect us and keep us safe are having to deal with violence. Maybe I will start off by saying that most Canadians expect this House to protect our first responders. For me, there are really a couple of aspects to this that I think about. It is one thing for our first responders to be assaulted while they are trying to help us. First of all, they sign up for their entire lives. They put years into university and all that training basically to serve their fellow men by providing health care. My daughter wants to be a doctor. She is studying to do that as we speak. My to-be daughter-in-law, my son's fiancée, is studying to be a nurse in the Philippines as we speak. I know this comes out of a servant heart. They really want to help their fellow Canadians, their fellow persons. The sad part is that when they do that, when they get into serving and taking care of us, that is when violence is committed against them. The expectation of most Canadians, as I was saying before, is that it is one thing for them to be assaulted, but it is another thing for us to not do anything about it. We are in opposition, and the government is across the way. Canadians are looking at us and saying the Liberal government, the former prime minister Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, are responsible for protecting these first responders. They had the opportunity in the last Parliament to do it, and for some reason, they sort of shoved it to the corner of the desk. I saw my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George working tirelessly, putting hours and hours into this, and our first responders sitting in the gallery waiting for this to be passed, all to just be ignored. Again, what Canadians are expecting of us, and what first responders are watching for, is what they have been asking for, what this member has been working on. They have been coming to him and saying they need help, that they need help to really deal with the gap in legislation where this violence is being allowed to continue. What is worse is that these people have sacrificed everything to serve us, and the government is looking the other way. That is just not cool on our watch. I am just going to read the preamble to the bill. People hear about different bills, and they hear the titles. This is what the preamble to Bill S-233 says: Whereas there are an increasing number of incidents involving violence against persons who provide health services and first responders; Whereas assaults on persons who provide health services and first responders have both a physical and a psychological impact; And whereas persons who provide health services and first responders, who care for and protect others, deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system; I think the most important line in the whole bill is that last line. They deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system. That tells me that right now it is maybe a question sometimes. They are being assaulted. They are doing their duty as a doctor, nurse, ambulance worker, police officer or firefighter, and they are being assaulted in different ways. It is mentioned in the preamble too. It is not just the physical aspect of it but the psychological aspect of that kind of assault too. Again, when that assault goes on unabated, they probably start to question whether or not they are valued by this government. Again, I applaud my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for doing this. As the member of Parliament for Tumbler Ridge, I cannot say enough about the first responders and the police officers who responded. Many of the stories of how they really stepped up and helped have not even come out yet. There is the police officer who was first on scene who lifted an injured girl off the floor and brought her to the hospital to give her care. She is alive today because that first responder acted. The story is known by most people in Tumbler Ridge, but Maya is alive today because a first responder listened to a bit of advice from her classmate Addison, who I chatted with just last week. There was, of course, all the tragedy that had happened in the school. The police came, and Addison pointed out that Maya's finger had moved. He said, “Her finger just moved.” Part of the reason Maya is still alive today is that the police officer responded, picked her up and took her to be cared for. To me, that is an amazing story, but it is a first responder's story. Here was somebody who had just signed up to be an RCMP officer in a very beautiful town, the normally peaceful town of Tumbler Ridge, and in the moment that we needed him, he stepped up. Maya is alive today because of it. I will expand on that story a bit. Many people have been watching Maya's story, how she keeps improving, on social media. She has a long way to go, but I will take the time today to send our appreciation to the nurses and doctors in British Columbia who have taken Maya under their wing and are providing her with first world service. It is just incredible. Maya is still in B.C. There have been a lot of stories saying that she was going to go elsewhere, but she is in British Columbia now. She is still recovering, more on the long-term side. I cannot say enough about the immediate service that she got from the police officers and from the nurses and doctors, both in Tumbler Ridge and then at BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver. It goes without saying that these services are here. Sometimes, that is what it is, is it not? We just expect the services to be there, and we do not always appreciate the men and women who work in those services enough. This bill is meant to recognize that service. It would be a good shot in the arm to say to responders that, even though someone may not be assaulted physically or psychologically, we would recognize what they do for us in our communities. Maybe it would be the morale boost they need. Members can imagine the issues we are seeing with some first responders. Even going back to Tumbler Ridge, the long-term effects of responding to that kind of a tragedy are profound. I have another story. Even a person involved in the funeral aspects is dealing with the trauma of the situations. I remember talking to Kaylee, one of the morticians up there. I said, “Well, I guess you are used to this.” She said, “Nobody is used to this.” It is just a tough situation all along, even for the folks who deal with this on a regular basis. I wanted to have the chance to speak today, first of all, to support my colleague and what he is trying to do. I also want to say to our men and women, whether they are a firefighter, those who work in an ambulance every day, a doctor, a nurse or an RCMP officer, and I am sure I am forgetting somebody, that whoever they are, we appreciate them and we care about them. That is what Bill S-233 is about. It is to make them feel protected and valued by the justice system, just like we do on this side of the House. My hope is that the government will decide to proceed and that we will get this bill passed as soon as we can. I thank all those who listened today and, again, I give special appreciation to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. It is a great bill.

Mr. Speaker, a headline from Business in Vancouver reads, “Councillor says $100M project denied loan over Cowichan case, bank says not a factor”. The article goes on to say, “A Richmond, B.C., councillor says a company based in the city has been refused financing for what she says is a $100 million project because of uncertainty over their site due to the Cowichan Tribes aboriginal title ruling.” We are hearing conflicting things. We hear the government say it is no big deal here and other people are saying it is no big deal there, but that is what is happening and that is the reality on the ground. Despite the empty words from the Prime Minister and the minister, to the member from Vancouver Island, what are the genuine fears you are hearing about from members in your own community on the ground?

Mr. Speaker, despite his promises, the Liberal Prime Minister is all about more costs, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He said last May, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store”. Everyone knows that when fuel prices go up, food costs go up. Mike Beaulieu of The North West Company said that a jug of milk now costs two to five dollars more because of higher fuel prices. Why is fuel so expensive? It is because of high Liberal taxes, including the newly renamed carbon tax. Will the Liberals scrap all gas taxes all year, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, those empty words will not fill empty stomachs. The Liberals tell us that gas prices are up because world oil prices are at $100 a barrel. Do members know when oil was also at $100 a barrel? It was in 2014, under our Conservative government. The price at the pump then was $1.38 per litre, not $1.99 for gas or $2.29 for diesel, as it is today in Fort St. John. Will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the illusion and scrap all gas taxes all year so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win on trade by last summer, but from his recent video, he seems to be throwing in the towel. The Council of Forest Industries said that last year softwood tariffs had tripled, to 45%, since 2022; 15,000 forestry jobs have been lost; and since 2023, 21 more mills have closed. I ask the Prime Minister how many thousands of B.C. forestry workers need to lose their jobs before he keeps his promise to negotiate a win?

Mr. Speaker, on the Wet'suwet'en issue, many Canadians were captivated by what was happening in their territory, where a pipeline was being blocked, a project was being blocked. I met Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day. She came to me and said, “Bob, 80% of us in the Wet'suwet'en really support this project.” Elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs supported it, and there was a small group of hereditary chiefs who were opposed to the project. Guess which group the minister at the time from the Liberal government was sent out to negotiate with. It was only with the people who were in opposition to the project. We talk about “in good faith”. Does the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley think the Liberals really do want to work in good faith with first nations?

Mr. Speaker, when the member was part of the NDP, we had spoken. She has not really been the strongest supporter of natural resource projects in the north, specifically Nunavut. However, we know how natural resource jobs are incredibly important to residents of Nunavut. We are seeing some of these mines develop; it is a great thing for Nunavummiut and youth. Does the member believe that adding a commissioner will actually enable more natural resource development and more jobs? Does she think it is going to be a positive for the economy of Nunavut?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberals, affordability is getting worse for northerners, despite what they tell us. I quote from their own recent nutrition north report: In the Northwest Territories, 60.7% of Inuit are food-insecure. In Nunavut, 76% of Inuit experience food insecurity. Will Liberals vote for our Conservative motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel, so that Canadians can save 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year, or will they keep voting for half measures?

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of all British Columbians who love to fish for salmon and who are also deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy that would decimate regular recreational fishing opportunities for coho and chinook in British Columbia. Changing this common property principle risks turning a shared public resource into an exclusive privilege, reducing access for many Canadians and undermining confidence in fisheries management. Petitioners note that it would be devastating to our tourism economy and the millions of dollars that flow into conservation efforts. Constituents are calling on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who brought up the pipeline. As it was planned initially many years ago, the cost was substantially lower. I believe the cost at the time was $4.9 billion, when the private sector was going to get that pipeline to tidewater. I just want the member to answer a simple question. I can answer it for him if he wishes. It was supposed to be $4.9 billion. It ended up costing quite a bit more than that. Does the member actually know what the final price tag was? It was closer to $30 billion or $40 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all those watching out there in Canada. I am glad to have them watching us tonight. Really, Motion M-15 is about the Liberal commitment to the 30 by 30 agenda, the ever-growing commitment, as it grows to 50 by 50, which is half of our land mass and waters in Canada. There is also the commitment to funding the groups that promote this agenda. This agenda threatens public access to large tracts of land and waterways that have previously been utilized for hunting, fishing and resource development. This motion would ensure more loss of public access. Despite the Liberals trying to give us the impression that this is about conservation, it is really about protection. For the audience out there, I asked a group just last week at UVIC what the difference is between protection and conservation. Conservation is the principle that we will conserve things so we can use them. An example would be some people I know very well, our salmon fishermen and fisherwomen, who go on weekends to clean up garbage along the river and the streams, all to promote those salmon spawning again. That is, again, conservation so it can be used. Protection is completely different. This group is proposing to support more protection, and it is really building fences around areas in the country and really preventing accessing from what used to be public land. I am going to quote the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who spoke on this earlier. He said that this debate is not simply about conservation policy. It is about who makes decisions over Canada's land, resources and economic future, whether those decisions are made here in Canada by elected representatives accountable to Canadians or whether they are increasingly shaped by international frameworks and targets negotiated outside this country's democratic institutions. I will speak first-hand because I have a couple of personal examples. It all really started around PNCIMA, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area, where I was first exposed to MPAs, as they are called. Where it really hit home for me was the caribou closures that happened in my riding. It started with a meeting with the mayor and council in Chetwynd. They said that they were worried that, if these caribou closures really took hold, we would lose mills and we would possibly lose coal mines in the area. They were very concerned about what this closure would do to access to resources. Well, the closures came to fruition, despite community outcry and many community meetings saying this would be devastating for coal development, snowmobiling, hiking in the backwoods, skiing, etc. The government, despite all our recommendations, proceeded to go forward with this closure policy. We have since lost two mills in Chetwynd. We have lost access to snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains, where people from Chetwynd go to recreate and people in the Peace region go to recreate. We saw this land closure do exactly as we had predicted with the loss of public access to previously accessible lands and waters. Another example is the bluffs of Pender, which are off Victoria. We met people who fish in Victoria and they have little boat businesses. This contributes about $1.3 billion to the provincial GDP. In this one really key area just outside of Victoria where people fish, the closure was proposed for the protection of the southern resident killer whales. Well, the southern resident killer whales are only in that particular area for five to seven days per year, yet they are going to close down the entire area for the entire year. These closures have not gotten smaller, even though the southern resident killer whale population and the other killer whale populations have done very well and are very healthy. The MPAs, or the marine protected areas, keep expanding all because of this 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. I will speak to another example that just happened recently, and this is under the current Prime Minister's watch. It is a closure that is happening and has been implemented in Northwest Territories. I will just read the article, and this is an American article. Again, another highlight for us in this particular issue is that it is not just Canadians talking about these protections. It has actually had a lot of foreign influence, which has really shut down access to those public lands. The headline reads, “Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led...”. It is not really indigenous-led. It was an initiative led by these other groups, and they got eventual buy-in from indigenous groups. I will read from the article again. It states: Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led Initiative to Protect Northwest Territories WASHINGTON—.... The agreement, initially funded through an investment of CAD$375 million (approximately USD$270 million) in public and private financing.... The initiative will protect [not conserve] a vast area of intact forests, rugged mountain chains, and wetlands, lakes, and rivers, resulting in a significant contribution to Canada’s pledge to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. Again, protection is putting a big fence around a large area of potentially resource-rich territory in the Northwest Territories. The article continues: Private donors will match the government on a 1-to-4 basis, contributing CAD$75 million over a 10-year period. Guess where that money is coming from? The article says it is coming from the Pew foundation, so the international donors, of which there are not many, include the Pew Charitable Trust. Here we have this foreign influence that really threatens access to the public not only to fish and hunt but also to mine. We know we are already struggling to have mining in Northwest Territories. The last mine is about to close at the end of 2026, and here we have another impediment to future development. I will just read this in terms of scale. When we say the scale of 30% and 50% and those kinds of things, what does that actually mean? This is a quote from an article in The Canadian Press about the size of 25 by 25 and then what 30 by 30 will mean in a tangible way. It states: To hit “25 by 25,” Canada must further protect more than 1.2 million square kilometres of land, or approximately the size of Manitoba and Saskatchewan added together [a massive amount of territory]. To get to 30 per cent is to add, on top of that, land almost equivalent in size to Alberta. It is massive. It continues: The federal government would need to protect another 638,000 square kilometres of marine territory and coastlines by 2025, or an area almost three times the size of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By 2030, another area the size of the gulf would need to be added. Therefore, here we are, influenced by foreign non-governmental environmental organizations about closing key areas that we could formerly access publicly to fish, hunt and develop our resources, all shut down by these groups. I met Crawford Patkotak. He is an Alaskan Inuit leader and he spoke to us about this very issue. Listen to his approach to these radical environmental groups: Environmental groups, animal rights groups, these are the same organizations that come into our communities and try to split us all apart, split all the corporations, the tribes, the governments because they have an agenda [it is called the “30 by 30” agenda] and if they had their agenda we wouldn’t be able to hunt today. If they had their agenda, we wouldn’t be able to develop the oil we have in the ground. That would cripple us economically. He said that they told these groups to get lost. I would say that is an example of an indigenous leader who knows exactly the benefit of having access to be able to fish, hunt and develop their resources. Therefore, Motion No. 15, while well-intentioned perhaps, would really set the stage to have a lot more closures and protections in Canada, and 30 by 30 is already causing Canadians to lose access to our beloved fishing, hunting, areas of recreation and other examples I have laid out tonight. That, I simply cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, last week a Christian family of eight was killed in Nigeria. Two weeks ago, on Palm Sunday, an attack on a mostly Christian Nigerian town left 28 dead. Since 2009, Boko Haram and others have waged a brutal campaign attacking Christians in Nigeria. Millions have been displaced, villages destroyed, churches burned and entire families murdered. Reports indicate that over 7,000 Christians were massacred in 2025 alone. Three churches on average are being destroyed every day, with over 18,000 churches destroyed since 2009. These attacks are not just political disputes; they are violent attacks against innocent people just because they are Christians. Canada must speak out and stand up for the persecuted Christians and push the international community to act. Freedom of worship and freedom of conscience are core Canadian values that we cannot ignore. To our brothers and sisters in Nigeria, we have not forgotten about them. Stay strong and keep the faith.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Christian groups. I am a Christian myself, and Christians across the country are concerned about this overreach, as the member just said. We have seen recent examples of government overreach as recently as four years ago, when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. I do not believe we can trust the current government with respect to restraining its authority, especially when a sitting minister says that biblical texts could possibly be implicated in this legislation. I just would ask the member a simple question. We have the Bible here in its entirety for a reason. We believe in it. Does the member believe the Bible in its entirety or the interpretation by the current minister for Canadian heritage?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a great job of highlighting the Christian heritage of Parliament in Canada and the dominion from sea to sea and the many references that are in this place. I have been hearing from Christians across the country who know me, Christians in my own church, about the threats of Bill C-9 to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. What is the consensus in Canada around Bill C-9? Is it a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, to the Tumbler Ridge families of Zoey, Tiki, Abel, Ezekiel, Kylie, Shannda, Emmett and Jennifer, we say that we continue to grieve with them. I thank our leader, the Prime Minister and all the federal leaders for making the trip to Tumbler Ridge to support us. I thank all members who have reached out over these last four weeks to give kind notes to me in some semblance of trying to pass on their peace to me. I thank the people around the world who have been praying for the Tumbler Ridge community, who have been praying for Maya and other victims and who have been praying for me. Jesus has been the light to me in this darkness, as he has been to so many of the victims' families in this tragedy. Tumbler Ridge families, though, are now are asking what can be done so this never happens again, so I ask the Prime Minister this: Will he commit today to a full public inquiry into the Tumbler Ridge tragedy?

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that comes from many Christians across the country who are concerned about the effects of Bill C-9 and that its effects could criminalize passages of the Bible. Petitioners say that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and to share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister ran on being the more responsible economic adviser type, saying he would do a much better job with our economy and would spend more wisely than his predecessor. Justin Trudeau was going to add $154 billion to our debt over the next five years. The current Prime Minister is adding $321 billion to our debt over the next five years, and this new program is going to add another $12.4 billion to that debt. Can the member speak to those people who voted for the Prime Minister expecting a more responsible Prime Minister? Is he indeed more responsible?

Mr. Speaker, we voted for Bill C-5 so the Prime Minister could approve projects quickly, but nothing has changed. I was in Yellowknife last week. Diamond mines used to be 20% of NWT's GDP. Only two mines are left, and one will close in March. In the last 10 years, 1,600 resource-related jobs have been lost, but our Canadian sovereignty act would repeal federal blocks and penalties to development and reward the territories, provinces, businesses and workers who build and invest right here in Canada. When we export and build more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable. Will the Prime Minister support it?

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian sovereignty act is meant to get our economy going, but I listen to the Liberals, and we have listened to them for the last 10 years. They basically destroyed our economy. One would think they would support this particular act and our bill. I was surprised to hear their opposition to it, as I am sure the member is. Our motion is supposed to repeal federal blocks and penalties to development and reward territories, provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada. For clarity, is Canadian sovereignty meant to help our economy or hurt it?

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas. The Prime Minister wrote a book called Values, in which he said that 50% of Canadian oil, 50% of natural gas and 75% of coal “need to stay in the ground”. He reiterated those points in interviews prior to the previous election. I would ask a simple question of the hon. member from Alberta. Does he fully believe that the Prime Minister really wants to build a pipeline to the B.C. coast?

Mr. Speaker, the member is a great colleague and parliamentarian. He has been around to see those previous efforts by companies to try to get a pipeline done. I am the representative for Prince George. We saw over 4,000 people and their interests represented in the consultations to do with northern gateway. The project had, like the member said, all the t's crossed and the i's dotted, and the former Liberal prime minister simply cancelled it. The government is accusing us of just playing games with this particular motion. Are we really serious about getting a pipeline done in B.C.?

Madam Speaker, it has also been pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that in the new lingo the Prime Minister uses, “spend less...invest more”, even the invest more part apparently is not true, and not just in a little sense; it is actually close to $100 billion short of his investment promise. Can the member speak to the Prime Minister's words? Should Canadians hold him to his word that he is actually going to spend less and invest more?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Prince George. We share the city of Prince George and also many of those hits that have been given to our local mills and forestry workers. We have heard that 10,000 direct jobs and three to five times that in indirect jobs have been affected by the fact that the Liberals cannot get a softwood lumber deal done. We have heard that the government has given extra EI to forestry workers and the like. Is that what our friends in Prince George are looking for, extra EI, or are they looking to get their good jobs back?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. Despite the Liberal criticism, it was a great speech. The member mentioned future generations. After five years and on of successive Liberal budgets, the Prime Minister said that he was going to spend less and invest more. However, over $321 billion will be added to our national debt. Does the member think it is responsible to saddle future generations with this kind of credit card bill?

Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech by my seatmate and colleague from Saskatchewan. We saw that the previous prime minister Justin Trudeau was declining in popularity at a dramatic rate, so much so that he even had to step down. He was planning to spend $154 billion over the next five years and to add that to our national debt. The current Prime Minister is planning to spend, over the next five years, $321 billion and to add that to our national debt. It is hard to believe and even hard to say. Does the member believe the Prime Minister is worse than Justin Trudeau?

Madam Chair, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win with President Trump by July 21, just eight months ago, but since the Liberals became government in 2015, 30 mills have closed in B.C. alone. Despite the Liberal Prime Minister's promises that he would have a great relationship with the President, U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber have tripled to 45%. In B.C. alone over the past 10 years, there have been 10,000 direct jobs lost, and more than three to five times that in indirect job losses, with more to come unless things change. This fall, Sinclar Group Forest Products reduced its production by 40% in three of its mills in northern B.C., and 350 more mill workers were affected by the cuts. When will the Prime Minister finally get a softwood lumber deal done with the U.S.?

Madam Chair, the B.C. forestry workers I know do not want handouts; they want their jobs back. BC Council of Forest Industries president and CEO Kim Haakstad said recently: The recent increase in U.S. tariffs and duties is a serious blow to an industry already strained by years of uncertainty, mill closures, and job losses. The federal government must make resolving the softwood lumber dispute a national priority. My simple question for the Liberals is, when will the Liberal Prime Minister finally make resolving the softwood lumber dispute a priority?

Madam Chair, we heard another very long word salad from the Liberal member across the way. One thing the Liberals are great at is talking a lot. The government has been in power for the last decade. I distinctly remember former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Obama were going to have a softwood lumber agreement signed, sealed and delivered when Obama came to Ottawa. However, he came to Ottawa and left with no softwood lumber agreement, and here we are, 10 years later, still with no softwood lumber agreement. Thirty mills have closed in B.C. alone.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saskatchewan on his Grey Cup win. The Liberals have spoken out many times against omnibus legislation, but here we are again, and they have done it many times. Another thing the Liberals often do is throw money at things. To note one particular statistic from this budget, after five years of Liberal governance, it would add another $321 billion to our debt. I am going to ask the member one simple question. Does he think throwing money at the problem is going to solve the issues in Canada? I am not seeing any infrastructure getting built in northern B.C. We need a bridge across the Peace River, but that has not been done. I do not see it in the budget. Does the member think throwing money at problems solves them? I have not seen that yet.

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned, in her speech, the government's targeting of law-abiding firearm owners. We have heard in committee, over the last number of weeks, from police chiefs and chiefs of first nations and Inuit communities. They think it is a waste of resources to go after law-abiding firearm owners' firearms. Does the member think it is a good use of taxpayer money to continue to attack law-abiding firearm owners rather than go after criminals?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the budget today. Just before I start, I want to give a shout-out to my brother Larry. He made me this pen. He has made me a few other pens. He lives in Chilliwack. I just want to recognize my brother for being a good brother over the years. Let us get to the budget. I remember when the Prime Minister said he would spend less and invest more. He meant that in reference to Justin Trudeau, but his budget does the exact opposite. As the recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer discovers, it spends billions more and invests billions less than the Prime Minister promised just months ago. I think we all remember when he was running to be leader of the Liberal Party and in essence running to be the Prime Minister. This is from February 19. He said, out of his own mouth, “The essence of this is to spend less, and invest more.” This is right from the Prime Minister's mouth. This is confirmed by The Globe and Mail, one of the Prime Minister's and Liberals' favourite newspapers. It says, “The former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England criticized the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for spending too much.” We all know that, do we not? “Total federal spending has jumped by about 9 per cent on average since the Liberals took power in 2015 and federal workforce grown by 40 per cent”. This is right out of the Prime Minister's mouth: “It is clear that the federal government is spending too much.” He also said, “At the same time Canada as a whole is investing too little.” That was the promise he made to many Canadians across the country. A lot of voters took him at his word, and it seems that just a few months after that promise was made, things changed quickly. How does Mark Carney spend more and invest less?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. How does the Prime Minister spend more and invest less? Even Justin Trudeau, in his last budget, projected his deficit for that year would be $39.8 billion. He ended up spending $61.8 billion just before leaving. The Prime Minister led us to believe that it would be easy to do, and many believed that based on the out-of-control spending of Justin Trudeau. How could the Prime Minister make any mistake by reducing the budget? We all knew that Trudeau was an out-of-control spender. We knew the government was an out-of-control spending government, so we thought that it would be a relatively easy task. However, as we have all seen, the deficit will be $78.3 billion, and we have learned that it is likely to be worse. We have seen that over and again with the Liberals. It is a major broken promise and not a good sign considering that promises were made just a few short months ago. The Prime Minister broke even more of the promises he made just months ago. Do members remember the fiscal anchors he was going to adhere to? The fiscal anchor that he promised during the election he would adhere to was the debt-to-GDP ratio, but he raising it. He promised to spend less, but he is spending $94 billion more, which is costing each household another $5,400 per year. If $78 billion in deficit spending is not bad enough, the Prime Minister is also padding the number to hide operational spending as capital spending. This is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report. His new definition of capital spending “is overly expansive” and “expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice based on the System of National Accounts (SNA), such as that adopted by the United Kingdom”. After using a more accepted definition, the PBO found that capital investment spending was 30% lower than the Liberals claimed. That is where the $94-billion amount comes from. It is a $94-billion difference. Even the promises the Prime Minister made are false. In other words, his investments are much lower than he promised, $94 billion less. Furthermore, the PBO found that the Prime Minister will not even balance the operational budget over the next five years. It is another fiscal anchor abandoned by the Prime Minister. That is a lot of broken promises in a few short months, and that is after he abandoned the Liberals' previous fiscal anchor of reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. The PBO found that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be even higher than in the last economic update and that Canada “is no longer projected to be on a declining path over the medium term.” It is a scary direction we are headed in. The PBO had previously warned in September that Canadians could be paying more for debt if the Liberals tried to change accounting standards. We know they have. In the Financial Post on November 18, two days ago, was this article: “PBO calling out the federal government's fiscal approach should raise red flags for all of us”. Indeed it should. It states: [The] Prime Minister...promised a new budgeting framework during the Liberal Party leadership campaign when he said he would separate the federal budget into an “operating budget” and a “capital budget,” with the operating budget being balanced within three years [total]. Tricks such as this are a blatant attempt to baffle people by transferring many day-to-day expenditures from an overall budget to a capital budget and crow that you are “investing.” The key to making it work is to ensure that the definition of capital is so broad that you can transfer amounts easily into the capital budget. Again, if members and Canadians out there do not want to take my word for it, they can take the Parliamentary Budget Officer's word. I think Canadians are wondering what the cost is to them, because they hear big numbers, billions and trillions. What is the true cost of the Prime Minister right out of the gate? He will add $321.7 billion in new money to the federal debt over the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable, as my colleague just said. It is more than twice the $154.4 billion that Justin Trudeau would have added over the same period. Do members remember the quote at the start, that the Prime Minister was going to be better than Justin Trudeau? Well, here we are. This budget adds another $10 million to our debt every hour. Under the new Prime Minister, federal debt is now $1.3 trillion, and interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26. That is more than the Canada health transfer of $54.7 billion. It is incredible. It is also more than the GST revenue the government collects across the country, which is $54.4 billion and amounts to $3,360 per Canadian household. The Prime Minister said out of his own mouth that the previous prime minister was an irresponsible spender, which is why he lost his job in the first place. We saw that with an out-of-control government. Many of its members are still here, but that is why he lost his job and we all know that. The current Prime Minister won under the premise that he was going to spend less and invest more than the previous prime minister. Those are some pretty significant promises he has already broken. I will say this, and I am sure the members across the way will have a problem with it: He is indeed out of control, and we definitely need a much more financially responsible prime minister. A future prime minister, I would say, is the current opposition leader. Author Kim Moody gives a great summary of the Prime Minister's budget: “It's a clever performance, but, at its core, it's a deceptive trick, one that trades transparency for theatrics and leaves Canadians poorer for having believed it.” That goes out to all the people who voted for the Prime Minister. “Government spending—capital or operating—increases government debt in the same way.” I would call on voters and Canadians out there to note this: The Prime Minister sold them the bill of goods that he was going to spend less and invest more. He is doing the exact opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate the Prime Minister's own words. Members should remember that he ran on this in February of this year, just a few short months ago. I will say the title of the article: “[The Prime Minister] promises to spend less, invest more to stimulate economy if he wins Liberal leadership”. He is actually spending more and investing less than the previous prime minister, after he said he was going to do a better job. Those are the facts. I wish members over on the Liberal side would stick to the facts.

Mr. Speaker, the member's last couple of words were that this is a Conservative budget. I would take issue with that, as this is not a Conservative budget. A Conservative budget would not add $321.7 billion over the next five years to our federal debt. We are already at $1.3 trillion. I have made a video just to show the amount of money that is, which future generations will have to pay for. The interest alone is over $50 billion per year. It is ridiculous. This not a Conservative budget. We need a Conservative budget.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Cariboo—Prince George has a couple of constituents in the gallery today who are watching us as we speak. This is a real issue. I would challenge Canadians to answer how many of them actually have a family doctor. How many think the current health care system is doing great? If we had a show of hands, I bet we would not see a whole bunch of hands going up. The government has been in place for the last 10 years. It has really run Canada into the ground, and that needs to change.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan points to the fact that Liberals say one thing during elections and do another when they are actually in government. This is just further proof of that. The Liberals are cutting Veterans Affairs and many other things Canadians rely on. I hope Canadians look at this debate and see who is telling the truth about who is really going to cut crime. The Liberals have had a chance for 10 years, and they simply have not gotten it done.

Mr. Speaker, I know we need to keep going with the debate but, with regard to the member who just brought up that previous point of order, we have been talking about pretty serious issues, about crime and victims and all the rest. Their group has been giggling and laughing the whole way through. I find it a little rich that he is going to somehow challenge our member for not doing something properly when he has been completely disrespecting this place and the debate that is occurring today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Edmonton Griesbach is back in Ottawa and back in the chamber. It is good to have him back. He alluded to some of the mistakes of the previous Trudeau government over the last 10 years with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. We are really in the place we are now with rampant crime and problems because of those failures. The member alluded in his speech that Bill C-14 is really one thing: an admission of a failed Liberal attempt at justice. Does he agree?