Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, winter is coming, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to heat their homes. Tom from St. John's reached out to me because he cannot afford to drive, and seniors like Tom are already making impossible decisions between heating and eating. After 11 years of Liberal antidevelopment laws, Canada does not have access to affordable, reliable Canadian energy, and now the U.S. is considering restrictions on diesel exports. What is the Prime Minister's plan? Will he adopt our diesel price relief action plan and eliminate all taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day so my neighbours can afford to heat their homes?

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that in the House, we tell the stories of Canadians who are struggling. While I was sitting here, I actually got a message from a local farmer in my riding who said to me that they are paying $2.43 a litre for farm diesel. They wonder how much higher these costs can go before they can no longer afford to produce anymore. I am wondering if the member is hearing similar types of stories. Does she believe that this meaningfully addresses the concern that we often get from farmers of increased input costs that are making their businesses completely unsustainable?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians struggle with the cost of everyday life. Nearly half of working Canadians say they are less financially secure now than they were a year ago. The Conservatives have identified savings of more than $150 billion, nearly $10,000 per Canadian family. Our Conservative plan would lower housing by scrapping taxes on homebuilding and by pushing to speed up permits, free up land and cut fees. It would lower the cost of gas and groceries by removing federal taxes until at least Canada Day 2027. We are calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects stuck in federal permitting, repeal anti-development laws, remove the industrial carbon tax, eliminate the capital gains tax on money reinvested in Canada and get government out of the way so Canadians can build mines, pipelines, LNG plants, factories and homes. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need lower costs, good-paying jobs and an economy that creates opportunity at home.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has said affordability is the best that it has been in decades, even though some Canadians are crowdfunding their way through this cost of living crisis. He is so out of touch. The costly Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to drag his nation into a recession. While families spend over 120% of their income on food and rent, new data shows the Liberal Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million in luxury inflight catering over just 14 trips. That could feed a family for 55 years. Two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. In Newfoundland and Labrador, one in 10 people are unemployed, and many do not know how they are going to make it through this winter. It is not global forces. It is Liberal choices. Every dollar spent on lavish Liberal catering is a dollar stolen from lowering taxes for Canadians. Conservatives would end this wasteful spending, cut the bureaucracy and restore common sense for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, targets may not matter to that Liberal minister, but disabled Canadians rely on those supports and they certainly deserve better. Large areas of Gros Morne National Park are covered in dry timber and at risk of wildfire because of the spruce budworm outbreak. Why have the Liberals refused to join the provincial control program, putting Newfoundland and Labrador forests at risk of fire?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight with my friend and colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. It is a pleasure to rise today, as it always is, to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Long Range Mountains on a topic that I am passionate about, and that is housing. Before entering politics, I spent almost 20 years in the real estate industry as an agent, broker and real estate coach. My husband is a builder, and my daughter is a sales agent. I have watched markets right across the country, as well as in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I intimately understand the current pressures and frustrations around housing supply and home ownership. I have watched the changes in the market, and I am extremely concerned not just for the young person looking to enter the market but also the senior looking to downsize, which would create inventory for another family. I am concerned for those who currently own homes but have dreams of building another home that suits their needs, and for move-up buyers who, again, create movement and space for others to enter the market. In today's market, we see historically low inventory and upward pressure on pricing as a result, and little to no movement for others to enter the market. In addition, construction costs are high and markets are strained, even in areas of the country where there have typically been stable markets and a balance between supply and demand. Rural Canada is a perfect example, but now housing affordability even in these markets is being compromised. Housing affordability is a defining characteristic of rural Canada, and we cannot allow home ownership to become unaffordable, especially in these areas. The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors says it best: “Home ownership is the cornerstone of community stability, economic prosperity, and personal security. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this aspiration has long been within reach, with our province consistently reporting some of the highest rates of home ownership in Canada. It’s a reflection of our deep-rooted values: self-reliance, pride of place, and long-term investment in our families and neighbourhoods. But today, that dream is under growing threat. Challenges around housing supply, rising costs, and affordability are eroding access to ownership for many hard-working residents. If we wish to preserve this legacy and ensure future generations can share in the security and opportunity of owning a home, decisive action is needed”. However, the saddest housing statistic in this country is that the median age of first-time homebuyers in Ontario is 40 because of affordability, higher carrying costs, longer renting phases and delayed household formation. This means Canadians are not building equity around them until much later in life, and the dream of home ownership is slipping further and further away from young people. The Liberals' response to a strained housing market is the legislation that we are discussing today, Bill C-20, but instead of a real plan to build homes, the Liberals have continued in the same direction and delivered their fourth costly Liberal housing bureaucracy, far from building at what they call generational speeds. In fact, the Liberal government's own housing advocate stated that at the current pace of building affordable homes, it would take over 1,000 years to restore housing affordability for the poorest Canadians. Let us look closely at the facts. During the last election, the Liberal Prime Minister went across the country promising to double housing construction and deliver 500,000 new homes every single year. He promised to move at speeds we have not seen since the Second World War, yet over a year into the Liberal Prime Minister's mandate, we see the exact opposite. There are fewer permits, fewer starts and, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, national housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. That is an 18.1% decline over the next two years. The CMHC explicitly stated that we need to build somewhere between 430,000 and 480,000 homes a year up to 2035 just to restore basic affordability. What about this new $13-billion Liberal Crown corporation being created under Bill C-20? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the Liberals have no real plan to build the 500,000 homes they promised and will only add 5,200 homes per year. That is a mere 1% of what they promised the Canadian people. However, it gets worse. When the housing minister was asked about the metrics for the $13-billion new agency, he openly admitted, “There aren’t top-line targets set for the number of homes to build”. Mike Moffatt testified at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, stating clearly about this piece of legislation, “[Build Canada Homes] lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents or prices will be, and over what time frame.” The witness went on to say, “I can't tell you, five years from now, whether or not [Build Canada Homes] has been working, as there are no benchmarks for success. That's a problem.” We have watched this movie before: announce billions of dollars, build a brand new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy and never set targets or deliver tangible results for the hard-working, everyday Canadians who pay the bills. Anyone in the private sector knows that if they endeavour to do a large project and do not set targets or key performance indicators, they are unequivocally setting themselves up for failure. At a critical time when we need more supply and builders are asking for less government, the Liberals are focusing on building a new bureaucracy that is simply an expensive exercise in rebranding. Just weeks ago, a report from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy showed that in the first three months of 2026, consumer insolvencies rose 8.5% compared to last year. Canadians seeking help under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have reached levels not seen since the 2009 great recession. Today, the average Canadian owes $1.77 in debt for every dollar they earn. For the bottom 20% of earners, the very people the Liberals claim they want to help with non-market housing, that debt-to-income ratio skyrockets to an astronomical 430%. More than four in 10 Canadians are now just $200 or less away from insolvency each month. They have exhausted their savings, maxed out their credit cards and refinanced their homes just to keep up with food inflation, rising rents and soaring mortgage payments. Clearly, the plan is not working. Conservatives believe in restoring the dream of home ownership and empowering the private sector to deliver the homes Canadians need, because we know we have the workers. In Canada, we have over 131,000 people with construction experience who are currently unemployed. We have 127,000 Canadians already trained with a trade certificate or diploma who are without work. We have the skilled tradespeople, we have the lumber and we have the land. What we do not have is a plan from the federal government that will empower the private sector and let builders build, especially given that 95% of supply currently comes from market housing. Do not take it from me. A witness from the Ontario Home Builders' Association testified, “As the industry association representing home builders...we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government” and “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale.” Conservatives do not support adding more Liberal bureaucratic red tape to the housing sector. Builders across this country are begging for less Liberal intervention, not more. Again I will point out that 95% of housing in Canada is delivered through the private market. We need to bring prices down by increasing supply, and we do that by cutting the costs of construction. If the Liberals truly want to solve this crisis, they should stop building expensive, unaccountable bureaucracy that drives up costs and instead adopt our plan. We want to restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to restore balance in the market by cutting the GST on all new homes sold under $1.3 million. This single measure would save Canadian families up to $65,000 on a new home and immediately unleash a massive wave of new residential building across the nation. Conservatives know applying this only to first-time homebuyers is not sufficient to get things moving in a way that would meaningfully make a difference. We also understand that many first-time homebuyers in many markets cannot afford to build. We also know that seniors looking to downsize in new construction could free up much-needed inventory for a growing family that needs square footage. Therefore, limiting this to first-time homebuyers is not the right approach. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. When this incentive is in place, municipalities, large and small, start to develop plans for growing their communities and enabling development. A Conservative government would require major municipalities to increase the number of housing permits they issue by at least 15% each year to receive their federal funds. There is a clear difference here: a Liberal government that believes the solution to every problem is more spending, more deficits, taxes and a fourth expensive housing bureaucracy with no targets that is not delivering for Canadians; or Conservatives, who believe in the power of Canadian workers, builders and local communities. We want to empower the private sector to increase supply and restore balance by removing the taxes and lowering construction costs so our young people can afford a place to call their own. For these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-20.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, who has strong ties to Newfoundland and Labrador, for that question. When we build out government bureaucracy, we build out the size of government and we increase government spending, which drives up inflation, which drives up the cost of everything, including the cost of homebuilding. That is not the answer. We want to unleash the private sector to be able to reduce those costs, so that we can spur on home construction. This would make a meaningful difference. As I said, in rural Canada, home ownership levels are very high. They never want to talk about what the pressure is on social housing, but it is that we are driving affordability out of reach and putting more people into a situation where they cannot afford home ownership. That is what we want to correct.

Mr. Speaker, when the cost of everything increases, the people who suffer the most are the young people, especially the ones who want to enter the housing market. As housing prices increase, rent prices also increase. This means that everything costs more. They cannot save for a down payment, and they feel like they are consistently on this hamster wheel. When they do not enter home ownership at a younger age, they cannot start to build assets around them. This is another reason why we are failing the next generation, by not being more serious about our approach to solve this housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker, under the costly Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In the past few days, we have learned so much more about the dire state of our economy under his watch. While the cost of living skyrockets, our economy has shrunk for two quarters straight. Businesses are fleeing. Capital investment has plunged for five consecutive quarters, and Scotiabank warns that our growth is less than half that of the U.S. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his policies caused the Liberal recession, or is he so out of touch that he thinks Canadians are just imagining their economic despair?

Mr. Speaker, clearly Liberal photo ops and empty Liberal announcements will not pay the mortgages of struggling Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just confirmed that there is less than a 1% chance that the Liberal government hits its own deficit targets. It is already borrowing $7 billion more than it admitted, while driving up bloated bureaucracy to $86 billion. The broad economic picture is getting worse, not better. Will the Liberal Prime Minister tell us, are we in a recession, or are Canadians just technically doing worse after a decade of Liberals being in power?

Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite is in his riding and he is talking to the Canadians standing in food bank lineups, facing consumer insolvency and struggling to afford groceries, I wonder if the response he gives Canadians is that we are 100% on the right track. Are these the statistics he gives them? Is this acceptable to the Canadians who live in his riding? It is sure not acceptable in my riding, when I talk to people who are struggling.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Long Range Mountains in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the most industrious and self-reliant individuals, who are asking for fairness and economic stability, not just for themselves and this generation, but also for their children and grandchildren so they can thrive at home. I rise today to speak in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which addresses the cold, hard reality facing our nation. The Liberals have officially driven Canada into a recession, and the latest data shows that for everyday Canadians, it is only going to get worse. The Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the G7 and the wider G20 to plunge his country into a recession, after driving the Canadian economy into decline in three of the last four quarters. The Liberals want to label this a technical recession, but there is nothing technical about an empty stomach or someone coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job. Hard-working, everyday Canadians are being forced to pay the price. This means that, in communities across my province, families are making choices they never imagined they would have to make. They are putting groceries on credit cards. They are postponing starting a family, delaying retirement and wondering whether they can afford to keep the house they worked so hard to buy. The Liberals love to blame global factors for Canada's economic misery. They point to international tariffs and to geopolitical conflict, but every single country in the G7 faces those exact same global headwinds, international tariffs and global challenges, yet none of them, not one, is in a recession, only Canada. Under this Prime Minister's watch, his inflationary spending, his layers of red tape and his antidevelopment laws, our economy has stalled and Canadian productivity has been choked out. Canada now officially holds the highest household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This is not a sign of success, and Canadians are not doing well as a result. Affordability has deteriorated so badly that working families are falling behind. What frustrates people back home is hearing Liberal ministers stand in the House and tell them that this is affordability, not loose slogans. They hear them say that government programs are working, that announcements are resonating and that Canadians are better off because of Liberal policies, but families back home are asking me a very simple question: If things are going so well, why are so many people struggling? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the likelihood of this costly Liberal government meeting its own fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio is less than 1%. Worse yet, the Liberals are already borrowing way over their own budget. In their spring economic update, they claimed the deficit would be $65.3 billion this year, but the PBO predicts a deficit of $71.8 billion. Where does that leave the taxpayers? It leaves them buried under mountains of Liberal debt. Federal debt charges are projected to skyrocket by 46%. By 2030-31, 13.1¢ of every single dollar of federal revenue will go directly to pay the interest charges on this costly credit card Liberal government. While everyday Canadians are being forced to tighten their belt and make sacrifices, the devastating impacts are evident. Consumer insolvencies across Canada have reached their highest levels since 2009. Newfoundland and Labrador continues to see rising insolvencies, and behind every insolvency is a family that has reached its breaking point. These are Canadians who worked hard, paid their bills and tried to get ahead, but they are falling behind because groceries cost more, fuel costs more, home heating oil costs more, housing costs more, rent costs more, and this has increased the pressure on household budgets in a way many families simply cannot absorb. While everyday Canadians are struggling, the Prime Minister's luxury inflight catering costs reached nearly $195,000 for just three trips, including premium meals and expensive hospitality at taxpayers' expense. The Liberal environment minister took a recent trip to Brazil and burned through $467,000 on luxury accommodations and another $650,000 just to rent, design and operate a single promotional pavilion. That is over $1 million spent on a single overseas trip for Liberal elites. This is all occurring under a Prime Minister who recently stated in New York that “a country that cannot feed, fuel, or defend itself is not truly sovereign”, yet he has created a reality where millions of hard-working, everyday Canadians are relying on food banks while he dines on luxury catering in the clouds and his minister stays in luxury accommodations. We cannot run an economy on expensive Liberal bureaucrats and elite menus; we need real private sector growth. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, we are in an entrepreneurial drought, with more small businesses closing than starting up. Business investment has dropped for five consecutive quarters. Capital investment fell by another 0.7% in the first quarter of this year alone, and over $20 billion in net investment has fled our economy since the Liberal Prime Minister took office. When capital flees, productivity dies. Labour productivity has fallen in three of the four quarters, and this directly impacts our labour market. The PBO noted, “The labour market has softened in line with the broader slowdown.” In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest provincial rate of unemployment in the entire country. In the first three months of this year, 1.5 million Canadians missed a debt payment, while mortgage delinquency rates climbed 32% year over year. These numbers represent real human suffering. Consistently, I hear from people right across Long Range Mountains who are telling us heartbreaking stories. Clayton from Corner Brook reached out to our office. He is a senior and requires home care but is considering cancelling because, with the rising cost of heating, rent and food, he just cannot afford it anymore. I consistently hear about young people leaving. For generations, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have watched sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends leave home for opportunity elsewhere in Canada. We know the pain of saying goodbye at the airport. We know what it means to miss birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas dinners and family milestones because opportunity exists somewhere else. A recent study examining migration patterns across Canada found that Newfoundland and Labrador experienced the highest rate of net out-migration in the country, losing the equivalent of more than 10% of our population to other provinces. No province in Canada lost more people proportionally than Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only province in Canada to experience a net migration loss to every other province in the country. Among young adults aged 18 to 24, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced net losses equivalent to nearly our entire current population in that age group over the last three decades. When our young people believe they can build a better life somewhere else, they move. When the Liberals fail to create the conditions for growth, investment and opportunity, families make difficult choices, and this has been the heartbreaking reality in Newfoundland and Labrador, a province rich in natural resources and untapped potential and opportunity. Squashed opportunity is not the only pressure. Grocery costs are up year over year, and 53% of employed Canadians report that food affordability has drastically worsened over the past year. More than one in three employed Canadians are now forced to use debt just to buy groceries. Some families are spending an unbelievable 120% of their total income on food and rent alone. Food bank demand nationwide has doubled since 2019, reaching a heartbreaking record of 2.2 million monthly visits. More than 137,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in food-insecure households. More than one-third of children in our province live in households struggling to consistently put food on the table. That is not a statistic that should exist in a country as prosperous as Canada. We cannot borrow our way out of a Liberal debt crisis. We cannot tax our way into economic prosperity, and we certainly cannot spend our way out of a recession that was manufactured by out-of-touch Liberal spending in the first place. For months, Conservatives have warned that this inflationary agenda would weaken growth, drive out business investment and leave working families to hold the bag and pay the bill. Today, the data has proven us right. The people of Long Range Mountains and all Canadians deserve an immediate turnaround. They deserve a Prime Minister who will tell them the truth and present a real plan to reverse these failed Liberal policies. It is time to end the Liberal recession. It is time to cap costly Liberal spending, scrap the inflationary Liberal carbon tax, cut the red tape and unleash the potential of our natural resources and our workforce. Conservatives understand the immense pressure that everyday Canadians are under, and we will continue to stand with them to rebuild hope, reward hard work, restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to grow and thrive so Canadians can once again believe in the future of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful province. My response is that if we do not have an economy that has opportunity for our tradespeople, we can train them all we want, but they are not going to stay in the province if they do not have those good-paying jobs. We have an offshore oil and gas sector that has watched investment completely flee the province, with a 40% reduction in investment over the last decade. This is an example of how we are failing the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. Rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador have so much untapped potential and opportunity. Newfoundland and Labrador is a natural resource-based economy, but there are so many projects that are caught up in regulatory red tape. There are so many small and medium-sized business owners who have a taxation burden. They also have a regulatory burden that they cannot get out from underneath. This is what fuels rural economies all over Canada, but especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the solutions that Conservatives would bring forward to unleash opportunity in rural Canada and especially in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember a man who was much more than Uncle Melv. He was a husband, father, grandfather, uncle and steady presence in the lives of those who loved him. Uncle Melv's story began with unimaginable tragedy. At just three years old, he and his sister were the only two survivors of nine. Their entire family died in a devastating fire at our family property, yet through his life, he showed deep resilience and strength. My husband spent much of his childhood fishing alongside Uncle Melv and his grandmother, creating memories that would last a lifetime. He shared that same love and generosity with our four children, gifting them treasured rods, reels and countless moments that they will never forget. Uncle Melv loved to weld, and one of his creations, a piece he called Boredom, stands proudly in our yard, made from old items welded together. It is a lasting reminder of his creativity and how he could make something meaningful out of what others might overlook. Our hearts are with Aunt Wavey, his three children and all of his grandchildren. We love Uncle Melv, we miss him, and we will carry his memory with us always.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the recreational food fishery. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador fair and equitable access to the food fishery by allowing them to go out on the water seven days a week to fish for cod, regardless of what zone they live in. Limited three-day-a-week access creates a safety risk as residents go out on the water in unsafe conditions. More importantly, they want the same access as the rest of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. In Newfoundland and Labrador, parents are watching their children pack their bags to leave the province because the Liberal government is driving up the cost of living, killing opportunities and local jobs. This is a full-blown Liberal recession. Statistics Canada has confirmed that in my province, one in 10 workers are unemployed. Nationally, insolvencies are at their highest level since 2009 and household debt is the worst in the G7. If Canada's recession is just about global energy and tariffs, why is it that no other G7 countries are in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, the minister can quote all the empty good-news Liberal promises she wants, but the real data has already arrived in Newfoundland and Labrador. The facts are already in, and they prove that we have the worst economy in the G7. While other nations grow, our economy is shrinking, and our young people are paying the price. With one in 10 workers unemployed at home, skyrocketing consumer insolvencies across the country and increasing mortgage delinquencies, when will the Liberal Prime Minister stop quoting out-of-touch Liberal projections, face the facts of economic failure and fix the mess that he has created?

Mr. Speaker, costly Liberal policies drive inflation up, forcing Canadians to pay more for gas, food and rent. Members do not need to take my word for it. The April stats prove it. Inflation, gas prices and food prices are all up, yet the Liberal Prime Minister keeps spending: $290 million for the failed PrescribeIT scandal, $200 million for a gravel space pad in a Liberal riding and $742 million for a failed gun grab. It is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste. When will he stop?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want empty promises and empty announcements. The minister can deflect, but the reality is that rent has skyrocketed. After years of costly Liberal housing failures, energy prices rise because the Liberal government's identity is to punish Canadian energy and target regular families. With the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more costs, more inflation and more of the same. He is just another Liberal. Will he finally admit that his tax-and-spend agenda has failed, stop using the credit card and support the Conservative plan to make Canada affordable again?

Mr. Speaker, after too many years of this costly Liberal government, Canadians are broke. They are lining up at food banks, and our streets are more dangerous than ever, yet the Liberal government has spent over $742 million on a failed gun grab. While in Newfoundland and Labrador, hard-working Canadians are choosing between gas for their trucks and heat for their homes, the Prime Minister is wasting nearly $25,000 per gun to target law-abiding hunters. It is more cost, more corruption and more Liberal waste. When will the Liberal Prime Minister cut the waste and cut the gas taxes so that Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, to start, Conservatives would cut $20 billion in consultants. The failed gun grab is another example of the trillion dollars of spending by the costly Liberal government. The Prime Minister is more interested in $524,000 being spent on food for his private jet than in making life more affordable for hard-working Canadians who actually pay the bills. It is more cost, more cover-up and more Liberal waste. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. When will the Prime Minister remove all the taxes on all the gases for all the year, so Canadians can get real relief?

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my earlier speech on Bill C-30, the Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, but they should walk into any grocery store in Long Range Mountains and ask families how they are managing. They do not want to hear about billions for international conferences. They want to know how they can afford to drive their kids to hockey or keep food on the table. Seniors on fixed incomes are falling behind. Entrepreneurs are wondering how to make payroll instead of how to grow. At a time when we should be bringing costs down, this bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no wealth behind it, only borrowed money. The cost of servicing the Liberal debt will reach $59 billion this year. That is more than the federal government transfers for health care, and it costs every Canadian family $3,400 just to cover the interest. Despite this unprecedented spending, our economic fundamentals are weakening. We face some of the worst indicators in the G7: high debt, unaffordable housing and weak productivity. Newfoundland and Labrador has the resource potential to be a global energy superpower, but we have been held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks and a punishing industrial carbon price. Conservatives believe Canada can do better. We believe in fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and unlocking our natural resources so that Canadians benefit from our country's wealth. We have enormous resource potential, but we need the government to get out of the way so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do what we have always done: work hard and provide for our families. Canadians are not asking for more Liberal empty announcements. They are asking for a government that understands the pressures they face and their realities. The people of Long Range Mountains are resilient. We have survived the hardest winters and the toughest seas, but we should not have to survive the Liberal government's costly credit card economic policies. Bill C-30 fails to provide relief or a sustainable path forward. Therefore, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way consistently stands up in this House and is always the person to ask questions of members opposite. However, if we do not have an economy that has opportunities for our young people, we can train them all we want but at the end of the day there is no job for them to go to. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have enormous resource potential, but we have an out-migration problem because we have not developed our natural resources sector to be able to retain our people in our communities. We need to talk about how we can unleash our untapped potential in order to provide some opportunities for our young people.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what the hon. member mentioned in his comments, the Liberals also cut out private training colleges from Canada student grant applications. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a full ecosystem of universities and colleges that meet the demands of the private sector for the workforce. I completely understand this frustration and concern. There is always a top-down approach that does not translate well, especially in rural Canada, and these are the ultimate implications for communities as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and friend's excellent explanation of exactly the same thing that I hear time and again whenever I am in my riding. I go to the grocery store and I see how people are struggling. I have constituents consistently reaching out and talking to me about impossible decisions that they have to make between eating and heating their homes, and seniors who cannot afford their medication. In light of the fact that we hear, day in and day out, this constant “good news” and “great announcements”, at the end of the day, on the ground in the communities, people are struggling. This is what we are trying to address, as responsible members of Parliament, especially as it relates to rural and coastal communities across this country.

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions with the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He is just another Liberal who is completely out of touch. The Liberals tell us that gas prices are up to $1.83 only because world oil prices are at $100 a barrel. In 2014, under the Conservative government, oil was also $100 a barrel, yet gas was only $1.38. The Liberal government is the problem. Taxes pile up, the loonie drops and Canadians get gouged at the pump. When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the illusion, adopt our plan and scrap all gas taxes for all of the year so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, that simply does not answer the question. Families in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve better than her talking points. They know that the math does not add up. Oil prices are the same as they were a decade ago, but the price at the pump is skyrocketing because of a weak dollar and higher Liberal taxes. Our economy is struggling. Our dollar is devalued. Therefore, energy and food cost more. This is a made-in-Canada cost of living crisis fuelled by the Prime Minister. Enough with the excuses and the illusions. When will they adopt our plan, remove all of the taxes on all of the gas for all of the year, unblock our oil and gas production—

Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible speech. I just want to draw attention to, once again, the heckling and comments about majority rules, while my colleague was trying to communicate during his speech. I just want to give the member an opportunity to speak to what further message that sends to victims and other people who may be looking to see what the government's response is on this important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, the latest Statistics Canada data is heartbreaking for our country. Nearly 10 million Canadians, including 2.4 million children, are now living in food-insecure households. At home, this means parents in Cow Head and Mainland are skipping meals so their kids can eat. It means seniors are choosing between heat and meat, yet this week's budget shows the Liberals are still addicted to credit card spending, which drives up the cost of everything. The Prime Minister has doubled Trudeau's deficit. How many more children in Newfoundland and Labrador have to go hungry before the Liberal Prime Minister stops his costly credit card spending and makes food affordable?

Madam Speaker, before the Liberals took power, children and families did not need school food programs to feed their families. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. A new report from Dalhousie University confirms that one in three Canadians is now forced to borrow money just to buy groceries. Canadian families are being crushed by a decade of Liberal credit card budgeting. The Liberals keep spending more while Canadians get less. Why has the Liberal Prime Minister doubled the deficit? When will he stop his costly credit card spending so families can actually afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out some financial indicators we have right now, particularly as they pertain to small business. The CFIB has said that for six quarters in a row, we have had more small businesses closing down than are starting up. It has described us as being in an “entrepreneurial drought”. About 55% of entrepreneurs are saying they do not suggesting opening a business. How do the Liberals square that with their economic update?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time. It is always an honour to rise in the House, and I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, on the spring economic update. Unfortunately, the legislation confirms what Canadians already feel in their daily lives: that after years of costly Liberal fiscal policy, life is becoming more expensive, less predictable and harder to manage. Before I dive into the details, I would like to set the stage by looking at how the nation is actually receiving this update. If we want to know how far the Liberal rhetoric is from the Canadian reality, we only have to look at the headlines from The Globe and Mail and the National Post this week: “Canada Strong is still Canada deep in debt”, the Liberals’ “upside-down [fiscal] world”, and “[Canada’s] 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”. To summarize the content of these headlines, if someone has been wondering what meaning to attach to that irritating phrase the Liberals are so fond of, “Canada’s new government”, they should wonder no longer, as the spring economic update makes abundantly clear that it means nothing. There is no use in being disappointed; we should all be managing our own expectations. The new government is no more interested in arresting our economic decline than the old one was. It is clear the Liberals have no intention of changing their high-spending, high-taxing ways. Economists have sounded the alarm. Without aggressive measures to boost productivity, our country will continue to slide, yet in the bill, we see no commitment to deep deregulation, no effort at broad tax reform and no plan for growth. This is not progress. This is just more of the same, wrapped in a new coat of paint. As always, I want to speak specifically about how this impacts the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains. When they look at this, they do not see a plan for growth. They see a document written for a boardroom full of Liberal elites. It bears no resemblance to the reality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when hard-working Canadians are looking for relief, this offers something very different. It offers a costly credit card approach that doubles down on spending, increases the deficit and risks driving inflation even higher. The Liberal Prime Minister has now doubled the deficit left by his predecessor, from $31 billion to $65 billion, and the consequences of that decision will be borne not by the government but by hard-working Canadians. The Liberals certainly do not consider the unique challenges that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador face, especially the challenges of the island portion of our province, where most of our fresh produce and everyday essentials must be shipped in. Building materials have to be brought across on the ferry. In Long Range Mountains, fuel is not a luxury but a lifeline. We do not have subways; we have vast highways with no cellphone service and unpredictable coastal weather conditions. The bill doubles down on fuel taxes that act as a geographic penalty on rural, remote and coastal Canadians. Across the country, families are already stretched thin. The rising cost of food, housing and basic necessities is forcing difficult choices at kitchen tables across the country. Seniors are being squeezed by fixed incomes that no longer go as far as they once did. Young Canadians are postponing major life decisions because the cost of home ownership feels out of reach. They are losing hope in their future in this country. When a father in Deer Lake fills up his truck to go to work, he is paying a premium for the Liberal government’s ideology. When a senior in Burgeo looks at the cost of home heating fuel, she is being squeezed by a Liberal plan that makes her life harder every single day. In that context, one would expect the legislation to show restraint and focus on affordability, but instead, it introduces $37 billion in new Liberal spending, on top of tens of billions already committed. It proposes the creation of a sovereign wealth fund that has no wealth behind it, relying instead on borrowed money. It would allocate billions more to international climate finance, millions for conferences and billions in subsidies that would do little to address the immediate pressures facing hard-working Canadians. This is not a targeted plan to help families. It is an expansion of government at a time when Canadians need the exact opposite. Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, yet if we talk to any small business owner or walk into any grocery store and ask how they are managing to navigate in this environment, they do not want to hear about billions of dollars for international climate conferences. They want to know when prices are going to start to go down so they can manage to drive their kids to the activities they love and, at the same time, keep food on their tables. Seniors still living in their homes on a fixed income want to know when their money will once again be enough to live off. Entrepreneurs want to have confidence that they can grow their business and hire more staff instead of constantly facing more costs that create uncertainty and stress. They want to innovate and work on their business instead of constantly wondering how they are going to make payroll. They want to continue to contribute to their communities instead of having to cut back because of constantly higher costs. At a time when we should be focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Canadians, the bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no actual wealth behind it, only borrowed money. Meanwhile, the cost of servicing the national debt continues to climb. This year alone, debt interest payments will reach $59 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care and more than it collects in GST revenue. This translates to roughly $3,400 per Canadian family just to cover the cost of Liberal borrowing. This is money that could otherwise be invested in Canadians' priorities, but instead it is consumed by the growing weight of Liberal debt. Even more concerning is that the government's own projections show slow economic growth and rising inflation. In other words, despite unprecedented levels of Liberal spending, the fundamentals of the economy are weakening. Canada now faces some of the most challenging economic indicators in the G7, including high household debt, unaffordable housing, weak productivity and declining investment. These are not short-term fluctuations. They reflect deeper structural issues that this bill fails to address. We hear a lot about team Canada, but there is a massive gap between Liberal rhetoric and the reality being felt by hard-working Canadians. We have young people in the trades who want to build their lives at home. We have resource potential that could make us a global energy superpower, but we are held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks. Whether it is the punishing industrial carbon price or red tape preventing us from developing our own resources, the Liberal government is standing in the way of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic prosperity. Conservatives—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are feeling the pressure every time they pull up to the pump, and they are not getting the relief that they were promised. The Prime Minister claims affordability is a priority, but his plan only scrapped a fraction of fuel taxes for a fraction of the year, leaving Canadians still paying almost 15% more than the Americans because of high taxes and a weak dollar. In Newfoundland and Labrador, families are already stretched thin, paying more at the pump, more for groceries and more to heat their homes. Conservatives are calling for real relief: the removal of federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of the year, including the GST on fuel. That would mean up to 25¢ per litre in savings, about $20 every time a family fills up and over $1,200 this year. At a time when Statistics Canada reports the worst food inflation in the G7, Canadians should not have to choose between buying groceries and filling their tanks. Conservatives will keep fighting to lower costs and deliver the real results Canadians are still waiting for.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in support of Bill C-234, introduced by my colleague and friend from Edmonton Manning. This is a bill I often speak about when I am home in Long Range Mountains and I am asked to share about my work in Ottawa, not only because it concerns heroic Canadians, but also because it demonstrates what can be achieved when members work collaboratively for the benefit of remarkable Canadians we have the honour of representing, individuals who make tremendous sacrifices for others. It highlights Canadians who make an extraordinary decision to give a part of themselves so that someone else can live. It also brings awareness about the importance of living organ donation. Today, I would like to begin with a story about two of these incredible Canadians that begins with a close family friend, Robin. Robin's journey began when he was in his twenties. He was diagnosed with diabetes and, years later, learned that his kidneys were beginning to fail. Robin's illness was severe. For as long as I knew him, he spent much of his life unwell before eventually passing away. However, what always stood out to me was that, despite his illness, he remained the funniest person I knew. He never focused on his illness but instead lived his life to the fullest. When our families would visit, we would all be crowded around him, waiting for the next funny story he would tell us. We hung on to his every word. He loved to laugh. In addition to his remarkable sense of humour, during his journey, like many Canadians with complex health challenges, he did not stop. He always kept going. He pushed through fatigue. He continued running the family business and focused on providing for his family. Over time, it became clear he would need dialysis. For a year, Robin travelled back and forth to the hospital for treatment. Anyone who has experienced or witnessed dialysis knows how demanding it is physically, emotionally and mentally. It was during that time that his brother Dan stepped forward. Dan went through testing, hoping he might be a match, and he was. Without hesitation, he made the decision to donate one of his kidneys to his brother. That decision changed Robin's life but, as we know, transplantation is not without risk. After a few months, the transplanted kidney began to fail. It was not rejection, something many are familiar with, but instead the reactivation of a virus that had been dormant. Within less than a year, the transplant had failed entirely. Robin was forced to return to dialysis, this time at home, using a hemodialysis unit. His story does not end there. Seven years later, another person stepped forward, his sister, Mollie. Like her brother before her, Mollie went through testing. Like Dan, she made the decision to give a part of herself so that her brother could live a fuller, healthier life. Both Dan and Mollie put their lives on hold: Their work, their routines and their responsibilities all took a back seat. They underwent major surgery and accepted real risks. They faced recovery periods that were not easy and yet they never described what they did as a sacrifice. They saw it as an act of love for their brother. That is what living organ donation is. It is selflessness in its purest form, choosing to put someone else's life ahead of one's own comfort. Thanks to his sister's donation, Robin was given a new lease on life. He was able to travel and spend time camping with his grandchildren. He was able to enjoy the moments that matter most, moments that might not have been possible otherwise. He remained deeply grateful, and his family remains deeply grateful, not just for the outcome but for the generosity that made it possible. The transplant gave Robin years of his life without dialysis, and that meant a much fuller life. Robin's story is powerful but, unfortunately, it is not unique. Across Canada, there are thousands of similar stories of families, friends and even strangers stepping forward to give the gift of life, and yet, despite the profound impact of these acts, we do not have a formal national way to recognize living donors. That is what Bill C-234 seeks to change. It proposes the creation of a living donor recognition medal to be included within Canada's honours system. It is not about reward, but about raising awareness and acknowledgement, saying in a meaningful and lasting way that what these individuals have done matters not just to the recipients, but to all of us as parliamentarians and Canadians. When someone steps forward as a living donor, they are not only saving a life, but also strengthening families, supporting communities and easing the burden on our health care system. They are quite simply giving a gift that cannot be measured. Next week is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week in Canada, a time to reflect on the importance of donation, to have conversations with loved ones and to consider how each one of us can make a difference. It is also a time to recognize those who already have. Bill C-234 allows us to do that tangibly. It allows us as parliamentarians to come together and affirm something important, that acts of extraordinary generosity should not go unnoticed. It would be deeply meaningful to the Canadians who give so much of themselves to be recognized by the country they have helped strengthen. Robin's story and the actions of his brother Dan and his sister Mollie remind us of what is possible when compassion leads the way. This bill is about honouring that compassion, ensuring that stories like theirs are not only told but remembered, and encouraging more Canadians to consider how they too might one day give the gift of life. I am proud to support this bill and have this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the request that the government reconsider its policy on the distribution of student grants based on the type of regulated institution where students are studying and instead align with decisions about eligible institutions made by the provinces and territories. Student financial assistance for students from rural, remote and coastal communities, where access is limited and the cost of post-secondary education is often higher, is extremely important. For many Canadians, access to grants is what makes post-secondary education possible. It allows students to pursue training, build skills and contribute meaningfully to our economy. In addition, and most importantly, in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is an important component in helping us train and therefore retain our youth. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are used effectively and that student aid programs deliver strong outcomes. Any changes to student aid must consider how students are actually accessing education and training across the country, with an understanding of students from rural, remote and coastal communities like Long Range Mountains. This is where the current policy raises some important concerns. While we have much in common, regions across the country have unique profiles of challenges and strengths. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are current, pervasive and ongoing workforce shortages across industry sectors based in part on the retirement of the baby boomer generation. There are more people retiring from the workforce than there are people joining the workforce. Newfoundland and Labrador has a much higher percentage of its population that is older and a much lower percentage of its population that is younger relative to Canada overall and to the rest of Atlantic Canada. Not only must we train more people for ongoing operations and business succession plans, but we must also become more productive and more diversified in order to grow our economy. More broadly, there is the question of access and affordability. Many students who attend career colleges rely on these grants to finance their education. These programs are often more targeted and designed to lead directly to employment. They are particularly important for individuals looking to re-skill, enter the workforce quickly or pursue practical, in-demand careers. Removing grant eligibility for these career colleges will discourage enrolment, increase financial barriers and limit opportunities for lower- and middle-income Canadians who are seeking to improve their circumstances through education. In fact, I can speak personally to this. After completing a university undergraduate degree, I was not employable with that skill set in the community I lived in and grew up in. Accordingly, I went on to complete a paralegal certificate program at a private career college, Academy Canada in Corner Brook, that was not available through a traditional university pathway. It was a practical, career-focused program that allowed me to enter the workforce with the skills I needed to support my family. After completion, I was actually employed by my instructor in a small firm in the community I grew up in. It was a career I was interested in, and I knew there was a need. Therefore, I was able to transition out of the food and beverage industry into a career that I loved. Thereafter, it also created the strong legal knowledge that I needed for my longer career in real estate. These opportunities will become constrained, as many would not be able to attend career colleges with these programs without financial assistance. Again, this program was not offered in the public colleges or universities. Opportunities in more rural areas of the country can be limited, and it is important that we do not negatively impact those seeking to live, work and thrive at home. Limiting access to student grants for these institutions will disproportionately impact those communities where opportunities are already more difficult to access. These institutions are part of a broader, collaborative post-secondary system. They are regulated at the provincial level, are operated under established frameworks and work alongside public institutions to meet local labour market needs. I have heard directly from hard-working Canadians, students and stakeholders who are very concerned about the impact of this policy, including institutions like Academy Canada and Keyin College in Newfoundland and Labrador, which play an important role in training students for in-demand careers in the province. These institutions have indicated that hundreds of students in Newfoundland and Labrador alone could be affected, particularly in programs that are longer than one year. I would like to point out that they have strong institutional integrity, as they are regulated career colleges that support strong oversight, clear accountability and effective enforcement of existing legislation and policy directives. There is the broader question of workforce development. Canada is currently facing significant labour shortages in a number of sectors, including skilled trades, health care and applied professions. Career colleges play a vital and important role in addressing these shortages by providing targeted job-ready training aligned with local labour market needs. We should be encouraging participation in these programs. This policy risks the opposite. It will reduce enrolment in areas where demand for workers is already high. Over time, that will contribute to widening workforce gaps rather than closing them. Education is primarily a provincial responsibility. Provinces and territories determine which institutions are recognized and regulated within their jurisdictions. They oversee quality, accountability and outcomes. The recommendation in the report, that the federal government align with provincial and territorial decisions on eligible institutions, is appropriate. It reflects the reality that provinces and territories are best positioned to understand their own education systems and workforce needs. If the government's objective is to achieve cost savings, that objective should be pursued in a way that is equitable and proportionate right across the country. To simply shift the impact onto a specific group of students raises legitimate concerns about fairness and effectiveness. I want to acknowledge that the government has indicated there may be flexibility to consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis. While that may provide some relief, it would also introduce additional uncertainty and administrative complexity. Students and institutions benefit from clarity and predictability, particularly when making decisions about education and investment. A system based on exemptions does not provide a clear and equitable framework. The report before us calls for a reconsideration of how these changes are being applied and for an approach that aligns with provincial decisions and treats students equitably. These are reasonable recommendations that reflect the concerns raised by stakeholders across the country. Students pursuing practical job-ready careers are an essential part of Canada's future. They contribute to our economy, support our communities and help address some of the most pressing labour challenges we face. They should not be placed at a disadvantage because of the institution they choose to attend. Educational pathways are not one-size-fits-all. Whether a student chooses a university or a career-focused institution, they deserve to be treated fairly and supported equally. That is especially true for students in rural, coastal and remote regions, where access to education already comes with additional challenges. I want to conclude on this thought. One of the reasons I left the private sector to pursue a political career is that I wanted to influence policy that impacts the next generation and their ability to live, work and thrive in the communities they grew up in. Far too often, our young people leave their homes, their families and their neighbours to go to the mainland to pursue their education. The harsh reality is that in a lot of cases, they never come back. It is exactly these types of decisions from Ottawa that are contributing to our inability to educate and retain our youth in Newfoundland and Labrador. Finally, I will end with a quote from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges, which sums it up best: “Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong, collaborative post-secondary ecosystem where regulated career colleges complement public colleges. We work with our regulators and student aid officials to ensure accountability in student financial assistance. “We communicate regularly with provincial government...and community groups to find and implement proactive workforce development solutions in partnerships with one another. To be clear, regulated career colleges provide an important service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. “We understand and support the government's desire, but we believe eliminating the Canada student grant for learners in programs longer than one year at career colleges moves Canada and workforce development efforts in the wrong direction.”

Mr. Speaker, this question was posed by the member previously and my colleague provided a procedural answer, which I thought satisfied the question. In addition to that, comments and statements like that are divisive to the Canadian people on prioritizing certain priorities. Essentially, he is saying that the concerns from coastal and rural communities about this very important issue are not as important as something that he might have on his agenda. I reject that. I think that is completely dismissing the concerns that I brought up in my speech for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I can speak to a specific example as well. In my riding specifically, students applying to be heavy-duty mechanics often try to enter programs and they are completely filled. The private institutions then look at the entire educational path ecosystem and decide which communities they would like to have their operations in. That complements the communities that have the needs and the workforce shortages. This is exactly the type of flexibility that places in rural Canada need in order to educate, train and put people to work so they can thrive in the communities that they love.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. I think it is divisive in nature. I hear all the time from people in my riding that they do not like the divisiveness that Canadians are experiencing right now. They do not like how one group is pitted against another, and this is the exact type of policy that creates this division in our communities and among Canadians. Again, we are trying to correct bad actors instead of dealing head-on with the situation that has been created. We are trying to fix a specific problem and we are inadvertently punishing a bunch of rural communities and rural Canadians in the process. This is not good policy, which is exactly why we put forward recommendations that the government reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member opposite has taken up a tremendous amount of time and not once has he spoken directly to this concurrence motion. The reality is that there are people in my riding who are really interested to know how the government is going to respond to this. He talked about being disappointed. Do you know who is disappointed? It is the young people in this country. You decided to play partisan politics instead. I have a very simple question. Is it because you do not care about this? Is that the answer?

Mr. Speaker, after years of the Prime Minister's recycled speeches and empty promises, Canadians are still waiting for relief that never comes. There was nothing new in his latest message; just the same words, while costs rise and families fall further behind. In March, Canada again had the highest grocery price inflation in the G7. In Newfoundland and Labrador, families are paying more and getting less at the checkouts and at the pumps. We are in an entrepreneurial drought, with 55% of small business owners not recommending starting a business. Why is that? It is because this Prime Minister doubled down on deficits, printed money and kept taxes high, driving up the cost of everything. There are no major resource projects. There is no plan to get our energy to market. Fewer homes are being built, while young families wonder if they will ever afford one. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not need another empty Liberal promise; they need results. Conservatives are fighting to end the waste, cut the taxes, unleash our resources, approve projects and build homes so Canadians can once again afford to live, work and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and specifically today to speak to Bill S-201, an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. To begin, I want to acknowledge the important intent behind the legislation. Sickle cell disease is a serious, lifelong condition that affects approximately 6,000 Canadians and their families across this country. It is a painful, complex and often under-recognized illness. Better coordination and improved awareness within our health system are important. For those Canadians affected, this disease has had a profound impact. Families face repeated hospital visits, chronic pain crises and uncertainty around access to consistent treatment and care. These are real challenges, and Canada currently has no coordinated data infrastructure for sickle cell disease. Therefore, we are not able to properly track outcomes, evaluate treatments at scale or ensure that best practices are shared effectively across the country. That gap is part of the reason conversations like this one are so important. In Newfoundland and Labrador, while the prevalence may be lower than in larger urban centres, we are no strangers to the challenges of rare disease management. Patients in rural, remote and coastal communities often face additional barriers simply because of geography, whether that is access to specialists, access to diagnostic services or access to ongoing treatment support. In fact, after affordability, access to health care is the second-biggest concern that I hear about in my riding of Long Range Mountains. Many Canadians living in rural, remote and coastal areas experience these same challenges, often waiting extended periods of time to see specialists. Therefore, coordination can be very useful. Bill S-201 proposes the development of a national framework that touches on a wide range of areas, from health care provider training to public awareness, neonatal screening, research networks and even the analysis of potential tax credits and changes to disability and drug coverage programs. In principle, coordination and information sharing across jurisdictions can be beneficial. We should always be open to improving how provinces and territories learn from one another and how best practices can be shared. Canadians definitely benefit from governments working together. Conservatives have supported efforts to raise awareness and improve outcomes for Canadians living with this disease. We supported the recognition of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day and have consistently supported broader efforts to strengthen frameworks that improve health outcomes for Canadians. We also recognize the importance of advancing a rare disease strategy to support treatment development and of working with provinces to improve labour mobility through nationally recognized credentials for health care professionals. These are practical steps that could help strengthen care across the country, and especially in areas where barriers to access exist. However, there are considerations that must be addressed with this legislation. We must be very careful about jurisdiction. Health care delivery is, and must remain, the responsibility of the provinces. Any national framework must respect that division of powers. If federal initiatives move too far in setting standards without clear collaboration, we risk creating friction with provincial systems that are already managing significant pressures. In fact, this bill uses the term “standards” rather than “guidelines”, which differs from comparable federal health framework legislation. The choice of language is important. Clinical practice is determined by medical professionals and provincial systems, and any federal role should be clearly advisory in nature. We have seen in previous framework legislation, including in areas such as Lyme disease and firefighter cancer frameworks, that the most effective federal role is often one of coordination and guidance rather than prescriptive direction. In this case, the bill would benefit from clearer language around what is intended as guidance and what is intended as a binding expectation to reflect reality. Second, while this bill would not include a direct appropriation of funds, it points to areas that would carry cost implications. A national research network, expanded neonatal screening programs, public awareness campaigns, enhanced training and potential expansions to drug coverage and disability supports are all meaningful initiatives, but they do come with fiscal implications that have not been fully defined yet, so transparency on those costs is important. At present, there is no fiscal appropriation and no Parliamentary Budget Officer estimate. Before this is finalized, Parliament should have a clear understanding of what the measures would cost and how they would be implemented. Third, there is a question of duplication. Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. We need to ensure that this framework complements that strategy rather than overlaps with it, so that there is no confusion over how support is delivered. When dealing with rare diseases, efficiency, coordination and clarity in policy design are essential. Families affected by sickle cell disease need streamlined support, not overlapping systems. That said, I want to recognize that the objectives in this bill align with important policy goals we have supported in the past. For example, improving caregiver recognition and support is something Conservatives have long advocated for, including making caregiver benefits more accessible and more responsive to real-world needs. Likewise, streamlining access to disability supports and improving drug approval and treatment pathways for rare diseases are areas where there is room for constructive work. We also recognize the importance of early diagnosis and awareness. Long wait times and limited access to health care professionals can create a higher risk for these Canadians. Therefore, neonatal screening, when done appropriately and in partnership with provinces and territories, we recognize, can make a meaningful difference in outcomes for patients with a rare disease like sickle cell, but again, the keyword is partnership. The framework must be developed in collaboration with provinces and territories. Conservatives believe the federal government should work with provinces on national health objectives. It must be developed collaboratively with provinces and territories, with clinicians, with patient advocacy groups and with those who are directly affected by the disease. Without that collaboration, the most well-intentioned framework can fall short in implementation. We also need clarity on accountability. The bill would distribute responsibilities across multiple departments. While coordination is important, Canadians also expect clear lines of responsibility so progress can be measured and reported in a meaningful way. The appropriate next step is to send this bill to committee. In committee, there is an opportunity to strengthen the legislation, improve its language, ensure it respects provincial jurisdiction and address the fiscal unknowns that remain. It is also the place to hear from stakeholders, medical professionals and provincial partners to ensure that the framework is both practical and effective. We believe amendments should be considered to ensure that provincial collaboration is explicit; that terminology, such as “standards”, is clearly defined in line with advisory clinical practice; and that cost implications are fully examined before implementation proceeds. These are not objections to the intent of the bill but recommendations to ensure that if the framework moves forward, it does so in a way that is responsible, collaborative, grounded in the realities of the health care system and the regions of the country, practical and respectful of jurisdiction. Canadians living with this disease and their families would definitely benefit from better coordination, better awareness and better outcomes. The question is not whether we should act, but how we act, and how we do it in a sustainable and co-operative way. For that reason, we support sending the bill to committee, where it can be strengthened and improved to ensure that it delivers real results for Canadians while respecting the roles of provinces and the importance of fiscal transparency.

Mr. Speaker, the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador in that member's riding reported that the high gas prices are driving single parents to make impossible decisions, such as whether to heat their home or put food on the table, yet $10 billion is how much this Liberal government will still collect in fuel taxes this year, while people in Newfoundland and Labrador pay some of the highest gas prices at the pump in Canada. The Liberals' plan saves just pennies, while costs hit rural and remote communities the hardest. Conservatives have a plan to cut 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year. Will they stop these half measures and deliver real relief for hard-working Canadians?