Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, last year, I warned the government that wildfires, landslides and accidents regularly shut down Highway 97, leaving Okanagan residents stranded. The Liberals responded that they were committed to working with provinces to find a solution that works for everyone. Since then, the Bald Range wildfire cut my region in two, and this week, a serious accident closed the Bennett Bridge for hours. West Kelowna mayor-elect Stephen Johnston said, “we need immediate action to create greater stability”. Will the Government now honour its commitment, work with British Columbia and upgrade the FSR 201 before the next closure becomes a crisis?

Mr. Speaker, there has hardly been a more challenging time for Canada's small wineries, craft breweries and distilleries. My bill, Bill C-262, would allow Canada Post and other carriers to ship their products directly to Canadians across provincial borders. When I tabled my bill this past March, the minister responsible said he supported the goal of removing these barriers. With President Trump's ban on Canadian alcohol imports taking effect next week, our small producers need action. When will the Liberals get off the sidelines, adopt my bill and let our producers sell their made-in-Canada products directly to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna to present e-petition 7258, in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-262 in order to allow beer, wine and spirits produced by Canadian producers to be shipped by Canada Post or other trusted carriers to anywhere in the country. This is in recognition of the work done by Ron Kubek of Lightning Rock Winery in Summerland. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has put a ban on Canadian importations. Now is the time for the government to act and to help out producers such as Ron Kubek and all the great small family wineries, distilleries and breweries across this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I know that in question period it can be very difficult to have everything running the way you would want, but I will bring to your attention that the hon. member, the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency, in his response to a Conservative member's question, did indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to use a member's last name. In fact, the use of the term “long-term” effect, is salting his statements—

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary, being so well briefed on the subject, will be able to shine some light on it. In part 3 of Bill C-39, there is a significant change to the geographic certification process. I would ask the good parliamentary secretary to please speak to it, to explain exactly what the government is trying to do and how significant this change would be. It used to be that only a union could ask for certification of this site, but what the government is planning is quite different than that. Also, is the government going to be putting any kind of charter statement on those provisions in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals wanted to say they were going to fix supply chains, they created a supply chain office. When they had issues with building homes, they suddenly built Build Canada Homes, which is a very original name. When they had issues with major projects, they built the Major Projects Office. In this bill, Bill C-39, they want to deal with a national trade corridor, so they are going to create an office to deal with that. Does the member see a pattern, and does he think any of these things are helping on any of the issues I have mentioned?

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification. As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?

Mr. Speaker, on TV this weekend, the transport minister gave a master class in dodging simple questions. When asked if airport privatization will hike prices, he said he could not say no. He actually promised partially regulated fees. If a pilot announced that the landing gear was partially working, nobody would fly, and under this government, soon no one will be able to afford to. The Liberals are out of touch and costing Canadians more. Is the minister so out of touch that he thinks a partially regulated price hike is a bargain for families, or is he selling our airports just to enrich Liberal insiders and friends?

Mr. Speaker, it has been 11 years, and it is getting worse all the time. In fact, the minister's dodge ball routine in the House might win him points with the Prime Minister, but every time he ducks, the Canadian taxpayer behind him takes the hit. Canadians asked for lower airfares, not a new Liberal surcharge on visiting grandma. The Liberals are all talk and no results. Our Conservative plan is to save Canadians money. Which is it? Is the minister going to admit he has completely given up on keeping air travel affordable for families, or does he just want to turn our airports into a country club for the wealthy and elite?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the leader of the official opposition's speech today. I would like him to comment on the following examples. I have noticed a pattern with the Liberal government and with its predecessor. In 2023, the Liberals established a national supply chain office, because they were all concerned about supply chains. They created the office, and yet we see food inflation being quite high in Canada. It continues to be a concern, especially in my riding. We saw, in 2025, in Bill C-5, that they created a Major Projects Office that is supposed to get big projects built. As we have seen, and as the member has said, zero projects have been built or have been approved by that office. We now have the Minister of Transport creating a national trade corridor office to do the same thing. Does he see a pattern and is this bureaucracy actually helping or hurting?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia, I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver—Capilano on his victory and welcome him to this chamber. I remember that when I came to Ottawa, my predecessor was also a minister. I know how difficult it is when people say that we have big shoes to fill. I took it as a challenge. I hope the member does too. In the member's speech, he talked about a lot. I would like to hear how his election was, what he heard on the streets of his riding and what his priorities as a member of Parliament in this parliamentary session are.

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is my honour. I would also like to take a brief moment to welcome our newest members in this place. I am certain I am not alone when I say that a member's first time sitting in the chamber is one they will never forget. Mind you, things work a bit differently these days from when I first came as a new member of Parliament. Much like our new members of Parliament, I too first joined this place as a rookie MP on the government side of the House with a majority, only in those days, if a majority government introduced an omnibus bill the same way the Liberal government has with Bill C-39, the crowds went wild, and I do not mean in a happy way either. Whether “anti-democratic”, “dictator” or “bully”, the accusations and media headlines were rampant. Heck, omnibus bills were considered so bad that in one election, the Liberals even promised that, if elected, they would never, ever use them, and yet here we are. To be fair, I always looked at omnibus bills a little differently. I went on the record at the time to suggest that when facing challenging times, it is better to be accused of trying to do too much instead of too little, and indeed, this bill proposes to do some interesting, but also some very different, things. Many have suggested the bill could have and should have been split up. We are still early in this debate, and I am sure that topic will be coming up. The Liberals will argue, and I quote them on this, “Canada’s new government has a mandate to build big, build bold, and build now.” Wait a moment. I got it wrong. That is what the Liberals said about the last mega bill that would build Canada strong. Members might remember it as Bill C-5. For Bill C-39, the Liberals' new talking point is, “This legislation will give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Members will, please, forgive me for getting those two quotes just a little mixed up. They sound so similar that it is easy to understand how the Liberals even get mixed up. Now, I credit the PMO's communication shop for creatively saying basically the same thing over and over again, only slightly differently so that, hopefully, people focus more on the words and less on the results. Of course, as an opposition member of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not point out that over this past year, not a single shovel went into the ground for a brand new project that did not exist more than a year ago. There were literally no new projects. It has gotten so desperate that Liberals now try to claim pre-existing projects as proof of progress. “Building at speeds not seen in a generation” was the promise, but in reality, it is about talking about building at speeds not seen in generations, but the actual building part, not so much, and the building part, let us all agree, is really the most important part. Here we are today, once again, with a new bill that would “give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Apparently, the reason nothing has been done over the past year is that we lacked the tools we need. This is the country that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and so much more. It is amazing how over the past 159 years, we have built the greatest country on earth, with all kinds of amazing achievements, but suddenly we no longer have the tools we need to build any more. This begs the question, what happened to the tools? Well, in 2015, the Liberals happened. It is interesting that there is a segment in the backgrounder for Bill C-39 that reads: the [Canadian Energy Regulator] will conduct the assessment under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with the Impact Assessment Agency. Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel. Let me just read that last part one more time: “Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” I hope everyone here heard that. Let us go over that again. Since the Liberals brought in the Impact Assessment Agency review process in 2019, “no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” How many projects? None, zero, zip, nada. That is an incredible feat when we think about it. It has been seven long years and not a single project has ever met the threshold imposed by the Liberals. Here is the best part: along come the Liberals proposing to remove the very same red tape they themselves created. Think of all the lost opportunities over those seven years. It was so damaging. I know that on the government side, there is a particular minister fond of saying, “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives”, unless, of course, it is axing the carbon tax, repealing the electric vehicle sales mandate, rolling back the planned capital gains tax increases or temporarily removing part of the federal fuel excise tax. These are all things that Conservatives called for. However, let us be fair. We did not ask for some of the changes to the Canada Labour Code that are proposed in this bill. In fact, we are having a hard time even understanding where the Liberals came up with some of these proposals. They said they spent the summer consulting different groups, but which groups and where? It all seems a bit suspicious to us. We all know that the bill also includes a new power that would allow the Minister of Labour to intervene to end a work stoppage, but only if the work stoppage is deemed to be contrary to the national interest. That is where this bill becomes extremely concerning for Canadians. The modern Liberal government has gotten into a very bad habit of doing things that serve the interests of Liberal Party friends and insiders, rather than the interests of Canadians. If my colleagues doubt that, I will give them an example. Not so many years ago, the Liberals gave the green light to and approved the Rogers takeover of Shaw. Critics warned the Liberals not to do that and warned what would happen if they did, but the Liberals of course know better. The Liberals promised that more jobs would be created and that rates would go down, and just in case there was any doubt about this, the minister promised that he would watch Rogers like a hawk after the takeover. What happened? Let us go through it. Shaw was popular in my riding. Citizens started bringing in their new Rogers bills with rate increases. Even though they had contracts with Shaw, those contracts were raised by Rogers because the fine print allowed Rogers to charge more for the old Shaw equipment they had been renting. This happened to seniors and single mothers. As for the jobs that were promised by the minister, there is a new Rogers call centre in Morocco, and I am certain that the good people of Morocco probably appreciate those jobs. This was a complete and total massive failure by the Liberals that benefited their friends on Bay Street and sold out Canadians on main street, like my constituents, and across the whole spectrum. As for the minister who promised to watch this deal like a hawk, he will say he does not take any lessons from Conservatives, or, it would appear, from anyone else for that matter, because there were lots of people who warned him. Getting back to the bill we have at hand, it is easy to understand why many Canadians are a tad uneasy when the Liberals say that a Liberal minister gets to decide what is and what is not in the Canadian interest. People who have those concerns, of course, are even more skeptical because the Liberals packaged all of those changes up in a nice omnibus bill. I mention this last point for the benefit of the new Liberal members of Parliament who may be unaware of some of the greatest hits from previous Liberal governments that were authored by members of the current Liberal government. Before I close, I also have to reference that this bill also proposes some changes from an environmental perspective. One of those changes is a timeline to complete certain reviews in one year. At the same time, the Liberals are also promising indigenous communities and environmental groups that everything is going to work out like it previously did, and telling them to relax and not worry. Believe it or not, when you propose to do things differently but promise that nothing will change, that causes people to worry, and even more so when it is buried in an omnibus bill, where some people think the Liberals intentionally did this shocker to avoid proper scrutiny. Now, let us keep in mind that I am simply passing on concerns. Madam Speaker, excuse me. I would like to take a moment to catch my breath.

Madam Speaker, bear in mind that I am merely passing on concerns that others have expressed to me, because, at the end of the day, choosing to introduce an omnibus bill is a choice, and that choice has consequences. We must not forget that there is a reason why a previous Liberal government promised never to resort to omnibus bills. Of course, that promise was sincere, was it not? Surely the Liberals would never make a promise they had no intention of keeping just to get elected, would they? Did they say they were going to spend less? I am getting off topic. For a recap of where we are today, I feel it is a bit like a sci-fi franchise movie. In episode one, the government needed a big bill to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-5. About a year later, when everything promised in year one did not happen, it of course needed a sequel, another new omnibus bill, to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-39. I suspect next year or later in this Parliament we may live to see another so we can finish the trilogy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of petitioners who have asked that the government recognize the very real pain that is being inflicted upon Falun Gong practitioners by the repressive government in Beijing. Recent events include a bomb and shooting threats targeting Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally by the Falun Gong community that showcases traditional China before Communism and exposes these atrocities. The petitioners publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong and to end transnational repression abroad. I would like to thank the petitioners who were key to this: Mike and his friend Kelloway. I would certainly be open to meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, either in his office or in my study, to further discuss the petition. I wish everyone a good summer.

Mr. Speaker, for whatever reason, the Prime Minister has told us affordability is the best it has been in decades. Perhaps if he spent less time in Europe, he might be aware that we now have full-time workers living in RVs and trailers. Families who do not have the benefit of luxury, million-dollar inflight catering are spending over 120% of their income on food and rent alone. Some Canadians, who are not Liberal friends or insiders and do not receive luxury Liberal appointments, have even turned to crowdfunding to make ends meet. In my riding, the Central Okanagan Food Bank is now serving 12,000 people. That is a 20% increase. Despite record deficit spending after he promised Canadians he would spend less, the Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to take his country into a recession. Make no mistake. The Liberals' inflationary spending and antidevelopment policies created this recession and cost of living crisis. These are Liberal choices. Only the Conservatives will end wasteful spending, cut bureaucracy, restore accountability and replace Liberal excess with results.

Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground, but ultimately Bill C‑26 is a sham of a process. Why? It is because the minister and the government already have the ability to come to provincial agreements. He could go to the NDP government in our home province of British Columbia and do a deal, and then go to the Minister of Finance and have it funded through the estimates process. To be wasting time in this chamber is, in my belief, more to address the minister's shortfalls when it comes to being seen as politically competent and when it comes to supplying housing, a priority that was made out in the last election. Will the minister not just admit today that Bill C‑26 is a fig leaf for his government's lack of action and a waste of the time of this House?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is also a pleasure to be speaking today about Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. In a former Parliament, I served as the critic for the environment for the Conservatives. One of the big criticisms I had of Liberal policies was about the Liberals' promise, in one of their platform pledges, that they would make all home appliances Energy Star. One might think that Energy Star sounds like a very good thing. If everyone had Energy Star appliances in their homes, they would have access to the lowest electrical usage machines available in Canada or in North America for laundry, dishwashing and all things. However, many people do not know that, first of all, Energy Star is an American designation that essentially says that to be Energy Star, a product has to be among the top 25% most energy-conserving products out there. Someone might ask what is wrong with that. The first thing it does is it raises prices, because energy-reducing technology costs more. It usually uses advanced technology and chips, which also costs more. Essentially, if a person is a private citizen of low income, like a pensioner, is someone who is starting out or is a single mother, and suddenly their dryer, washer or dishwasher blows out and they have to go to the local store, they would only get access to a quarter of the inventory out there, with the most expensive products only. This would push people into used ones, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, but only wealthy Canadians would probably be able to afford to buy new. Now fast-forward to this bill. I will quote the preamble: Whereas Canadian households bear significant costs when they have to replace electronic products and essential home appliances prematurely; Whereas consumers increasingly depend on electronic products and essential home appliances in their everyday lives; Whereas product durability and repairability help protect consumers, reduce household expenses and boost the competitiveness of a responsible economy; Whereas transparency about the useful life of products and the support available for them fosters a fairer and more competitive market; And whereas Parliament considers it desirable to establish a national framework for products marketed in Canada in order to promote minimum standards of durability and repairability; These are all noble things, and I am happy to see the Liberal Party, or at least one member, recognize that we should all be focused on affordability. This exactly opposite to their approach in previous iterations. The Trudeau government was trying to raise standards to make things more costly. Now this particular member is doing a U-turn. Where have we seen this before? It is in other environmental areas, such as the carbon tax. Many of the people who are currently sitting in the Liberal Party used to say that Conservatives should support a carbon tax, which would save Canada, lower our emissions, stop forest fires, and everything else. During the 2021 election, a minister of the Crown said to me that I had a “moral failing” for failing to support their increased emissions targets, which were going from 40% to 45%. Because I would not support that increased goal, they said I had a moral failure, yet now the same Liberal Party members of Parliament have done a U-turn, and so much so that even the former Quebec lieutenant has said that he does not feel that he can be effective in that caucus anymore and has simply said, “I'm out.” It is very interesting to see these changes, and I am sure that some members opposite would understand why some of us feel like we have political whiplash because of the quick changes. It is really important for us to point out a couple of things. First of all, this particular bill tries to push manufacturers on the aspect of durability. One thing we have to bear in mind is that none of these manufacturers are here in Canada. We are very integrated north-south. In the North American market, almost all of the manufacturers for washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are in the United States. Obviously, some come from places like Korea and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that this particular bill is trying to push manufacturers to do things differently when they are not here in Canada. Therefore, there is, first of all, that disconnect in the approach that is taken. The second thing I would say is that the Liberals always seem to believe they have an outsized influence on these things. If a manufacturer is in the United States, who are they making their products for? They are not making Energy Star products specifically and marketing only them. They are selling to a wide variety of people. One of the biggest challenges here is that if we are asking to make things more durable, industry will say this makes them more expensive. How does that work? Well, if something is more durable, perhaps it requires more steel. If something is more durable, perhaps it uses less plastic. To make something more durable, perhaps it has to use a more expensive alternative refrigeration system. Again, these are important questions to be asking, because, essentially, asking for something to be more durable and wanting it to be cheaper are contradictory concepts. This is being placed in a far-removed conversation, because they are not Canadian manufacturers and the manufacturers do not consider Canada to be their primary target. In fact, we benefit here in Canada by having access to other markets because the economies of scale in places like the United States give us cheaper products. If we were to suddenly say to them that they have to do these things, when they are not our manufacturers and are not manufacturing things with the Canadian market in mind, that conversation would not go anywhere. This bill states this in the “National framework” component: The Minister must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial governments responsible for consumer protection This is an interesting part, because provinces can, if they choose, set a level playing field when it comes to things like warranties. Warranties are consumer protections, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion here, but would a foreign manufacturer listen to Prince Edward Island? I do not know. I do not think that would be the case, because, while I respect the members who come from Prince Edward Island, it has a small population. It is one of those curious aspects of our Constitution, to wax eloquently about our Constitution for a moment, that at the founding of our country, we gave authority to deal with these large manufacturers to the provinces. The provinces can enforce basic standards of contract, which include things like warranties. However, the federal government would be expected here to create, through the Minister of Industry, a framework that would affect things all across the country and a group of companies that are not Canadian. I am opposed to this particular bill, but I do look forward to hearing the arguments of other members on it today.

Mr. Speaker, I care about this place, and I hope you do too and that you can listen to what I have to say. If you are going to be cutting someone off because they did not put an inflection at the end of a question or they did not deliver a question properly, if you do that to the leader of the official opposition, it could happen to any of us in this place on the opposition side. When previous Speakers have not chosen to regulate the quality of answers from the Prime Minister and the government, why—

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes. I want to begin where we should always begin, with judgment. Archibald Lampman, a Canadian poet who worked right here in Ottawa, once wrote, “The pulse of the great machine goes on forever, dead and blind, and no voice or sound of human will disturbs its deep and ceaseless grind.” The reason I share this is because Canadians are watching the decision about Maritime Launch Services in such bewilderment. They are asking if this is an actual attempt at Canadian space sovereignty or something else altogether. Many who have looked into this decision closely have questions. The more they look and the more they research, the more this looks like a decision that was hastily made and that just happens to support well-connected Liberal insiders and lobbyists surrounding Maritime Launch Services. The Liberal members will stand in this House and argue this $200-million expenditure is a necessary investment to secure Canada's place in a global space economy. They will justify this spending, just as Liberals always justify deficit spending, to grow the economy, meet the moment, invest in our future and protect our sovereignty. We have heard it all before, over and over again, with the superclusters, the SDTC green slush fund, planting billions of trees and subsidizing EV battery plants. I could go on and on. Liberals will always find new ways to burn tax dollars on projects that benefit Liberal friends and insiders, but these projects always fizzle out and leave nothing but debt and unanswered questions behind. Let us look at the so-called space sovereignty spending, the $20 million in this allocation. If this was truly a national investment, we would, of course, be building a national asset. As an example, when Norway decided it needed its own sovereign launch capacity, it acted with the discipline of a sovereign state. It built its own infrastructure, it owns the land, it owns the pad and it owns the capability. It has an asset directly under its control. Who owns NASA? The people of the United States through the U.S. government. Who will own Maritime Launch Services, the spaceport that we are talking about? This is where it gets a tad murky. At the present time, online information suggests that 26% of the ownership is held by individuals, close to 12% is listed as institutional owners and the remaining balance of 60% is unknown. This is for a national asset, something that the Liberals tell us is necessary for our space sovereignty. In other words, the Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what other democratic countries are doing when it comes to protecting and creating space sovereignty. This means we are not building a true national asset. Instead, we are building a private company's balance sheet. We are paying $200 million for the privilege of using a facility we do not own, under terms that strip away our sovereign leverage and hand it to a private entity. That is the difference between acquiring an asset and assuming an obligation. They are not the same thing. Make no mistake, this is giving away public tax dollars to create private equity, a scheme that a Brookfield investor would no doubt approve of. The government claims this is about growing the economy, yet the math reveals a different reality. This is not a market player; it is a public dependency. When 97% of a company's revenue is derived from a single taxpayer-funded contract, that is not a commercial enterprise. That is a ward of the state. We are told that this is a burgeoning spaceport, yet look at the reality at Spaceport Nova Scotia this week. We are being asked to cheer for suborbital test flights that generate zero revenue and serve only as public relations demonstrations for a foreign firm. In this case, we have a launch happening very soon with T-Minus Engineering testing their technology on our soil. Who is T-Minus Engineering? It is a privately held Dutch company. The government's position relies on the claim that we are buying capability, but are we really? How can this Liberal government claim to be buying capability when the regulatory framework to govern that very capability does not even yet exist? Now, the Minister of Transport had admitted in this House that we needed Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, to establish a proper framework. Meanwhile, the Liberals are bypassing the legislative process, stretching the outdated Aeronautics Act to fit rocket science and pushing the machine forward without the very safety, environmental and financial guards they admit are necessary. Let me just say this again. Two foreign-owned, Dutch Barracuda rockets will be tested suborbitally, and they are paying no revenue to Maritime Launch Services. Through public disclosure, we can see that this is, again, a company 90% of whose revenue is from one single contract with the Government of Canada. The government claims this arrangement protects the national interest, but it is also ignoring that with these tests it is putting on right now and the launch pad, the Government of Canada bears the ultimate legal and financial liability. As proposed within Bill C-28, the minister gets to pick what private operators are indemnified and what public taxpayers will pay in case of a catastrophic accident or spill over the ocean. Those things do happen. This would fall on the Government of Canada. Again, if these rockets fail, cause damage or contaminate our water, the responsibility does not reside with the public firm, which is the Dutch company I was mentioning, nor with MLS itself, but with the Canadian taxpayer. We are socializing the risk of catastrophic failure while privatizing the potential gain for shareholders and lobbyists. Let me address now the financial absurdity at the heart of this deal. The provincial government lets this land for roughly $13,500 per year, yet, through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. This is not an investment. This is an excessive, indefensible transfer of wealth. While the public carries the liability, the corporate structure shows all the hallmarks of a venture designed to enrich the insiders rather than to launch satellites. We have seen massive share dilution, with hundreds of millions of shares issued while insiders reduce their own exposure. The Liberals have been totally silent about this. This is not how a healthy, productive market behaves. This is an inversion of market principles, where the government is using public money to insulate a company from the rigours of competition, or from the risks that come from the business itself. The government's position is that we must pay this price to play this game. My position is that we are paying a premium so private corporations like MLS can play the game. Some might ask why Conservatives are not ambitious enough, why we are not for the type of investment this represents for our space sovereignty. Well, ambition is not the issue here. We all want a robust Canadian space sector, but ambition without discipline is a policy of failure. By the government's own test, the capability is not demonstrated. The value is not realized. Ownership is absent, and the risk is entirely public. This is not an investment. This is an obligation with downside exposure. Canadians are paying up front, bearing the risk and carrying the liability for a capability that does not yet exist. We are being asked to trust the great machine as it grinds onward, indifferent to the taxpayer. As Conservatives, we refuse to participate in this gamble with other people's money. For these reasons, we cannot support this allocation. Again, I would just remind the government that this is not a case of problem and solution, where the problem is a lack of space sovereignty and the solution is MLS. This solution has been imposed on the Canadian taxpayer. Conservatives will not support it, and we will fight against a government that puts its own needs and those of insiders before our sovereign ability to advance this field in a proper fashion.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating $20 million, one of 20 years' worth of payments that are going to a private company for an asset that we would never own. As I mentioned, in Norway, when they wanted to create sovereign space capacity, for approximately $30 million, they did it themselves. Here, we would be giving $200 million. I would ask the member opposite what $200 million could do in this economy. There are so many other priorities that would be better suited from here, but perhaps, if the Department of National Defence needs this capacity, it should own the asset, operate the asset and get the benefits to Canadians, not to MLS.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about $20 million that would be allocated from the Department of National Defence and given to a private company. As much as I appreciate the member's concern for seniors, the fact is that if we as an opposition, whether the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens or the Conservatives, simply talk about anything other than what the government is actually doing, it is taking our money and giving it to a private interest. There are already signs of huge profits being taken for a company that, a year ago, disclosed to its investors that it was not a going concern, meaning it was close to bankruptcy. I recognize that under the Liberals, not only are seniors close to bankruptcy but MLS was too. Where did the government choose to put its money in bailing out MLS versus seniors? That is what we are here to talk about, and that is what I will be talking about here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. The government has gone completely radio silent when it comes to transparency on this. It is claiming that MLS answers a problem it has not properly defined. As I said, in Norway they spent about $40 million to create their own infrastructure, which the people own. The Liberals would be giving $200 million of taxpayer money, financed by bondholders. We deserve answers. Maybe the member might want to go to the national defence committee and ask for a production order in relation to this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this debate to the floor. It is a deplorable situation where people are exploited, particularly in their golden years, out of everything they have made and hope to pass on to their children. I appreciate the member doing that. One of the challenges is that bank officials do not necessarily understand, and when someone comes in who seems to have full use of their faculties, they are loath to either start asking questions or even stop a transaction. Provincial governments can make a big difference. Right now, if someone loses the ability to make good judgments for themselves, oftentimes a court order has to be received by family members who are concerned. Basically, it is like a light switch, saying that someone who had autonomy to make their own decisions is no longer able to do that. I know the member has Mr. David Eby's number on speed dial. Is he prepared to talk to the province about changing the provincial laws so they are not like a light switch?

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals talk about the Maritime Launch Services lease they say it is an investment, that somehow it is giving us space sovereignty within Canada. When Norway sought to create its own spaceport, it partnered with the private sector. However, for approximately $60 million of today's Canadian dollars it was able to own 90% of the asset and partner with a private sector proponent. What we are saying here is that the $200 million going to an asset that we will never own, and for which 60% of the shares are unaccounted for as we do not know who owns them, is a big mistake. It is not a solution, but a bad deal for taxpayers. What does the member have to say with respect to that?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country that is in a recession. Shirley is a senior from my riding who lives alone in Summerland. She tells me that she does not drink, smoke or gamble. Her only luxury is a swim pass to the local public pool. Every time I speak to her, her tone is increasingly dire. Shirley and her friends do not see anything getting better, and they believe that the Liberals have forgotten seniors. Another recycled rebate is not going to fix it. Can the minister tell Shirley whether the reason she cannot pay her grocery bills is that we are in a recession, or is it just that it is a technical recession?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the departure of the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano, who will be leaving this place to serve Canada abroad in a new capacity. The member and I have spent a good deal of time on opposite sides of some very important debates, such as on net-zero legislation, the 2 billion trees initiative and broader Conservative concerns about the government's environmental approach. Those disagreements were real. I stand by them, just as I am sure the hon. member does. While most of those exchanges were during his time as the minister of the environment and minister of natural resources, I also want to thank him for his service as the minister of fisheries. I know he cared very much in that role about salmon policy, and it is always welcome, as I have said many times, to have another British Columbian voice in Ottawa, particularly one in a position of authority. In fact, when it comes to the debates we had, I suspect we may both continue to believe we were on the right side of those debates. Perhaps the only fair way we can resolve that is to compare notes in the years ahead, say, in 2030, and maybe again in 2050, when the results of those policies are clear. What is worth noting is that even through those disagreements, we never lost the ability to have a conversation. Whether it was in the House, at committee, at the parliamentary gym or even when we found ourselves seated next to each other on a long flight, there was always professionalism and mutual respect. As a fellow British Columbian, I can attest to the travel demands that come with representing a riding on the west coast. It is not always an easy schedule. I recall mentioning to the member at the gym that perhaps in his new role, he might finally find himself ahead of events happening in Ottawa rather than living life feeling three hours behind. I recall one moment during COVID at committee when I yielded my time, and of course, members would know that the opposition never has tricks for ministers when they show up at committee. When I yielded my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to question the minister on his net-zero bill, in that instant, a minister's staffer sprung, or I should say flung, into action, diving onto the desk, pulling one book out and somehow switching it with a completely different book. It was a small moment, but it allowed the minister to switch the answers fitting the perspective of a Conservative to that of a Green member of Parliament. It may have been a small moment, but it reflected not only the preparation but also the strength of the people we count on. Moments like this remind us that none of us do this work alone. We often rely on dedicated staff who work behind the scenes, often under pressure, to help us perform our duties as elected officials as ably as possible. They may not often be recognized, but they should be, and we should thank them not just today but, I believe, every day. There comes a time when many who serve here look for new ways to continue contributing. Canadians have been well served by former parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels who have stepped into roles abroad. It was Prime Minister Harper who began appointing experienced political leaders such as Gary Doer, followed by Gordon Campbell. Prime Minister Trudeau continued this practice, with Stéphane Dion and John Horgan of British Columbia. These individuals said yes to continuing to serve and to putting their years of insight and experience to work for Canada in a new way. I suspect having a prime minister make that personal call helps in one's decision-making. I would just point out before I finish that there are many experienced parliamentarians who have since left active political life whose insight and perspective could likewise be drawn upon. On that basis, I wish the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano well. While I have said we have disagreed, I respect his willingness to serve and have no doubt he will continue to do so in his next role.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for standing up in this House on the very important topic of air passenger protection regulations and the government's absolute mess of it. The member mentioned that we are in a recession and the economy is contracting. What is not contracting? It is the backlog of the CTA. It has around 97,000, perhaps even 100,000 cases in backlog. That means people are waiting three years to have someone hear their case. Instead of the government fixing the system and simplifying the rules, it provided $75 million over three years to make the CTA process faster, and by this particular provision in the bill that she mentions, it shows that it has been a complete disaster. Could the member please let us know if she thinks that this is the best use of her constituents' money in this bill and by the government?

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians go through airport security, they submit to invasive screening. Medical implants are flagged. Personal items are confiscated. They are even emptying their baby bottles, yet a worker at Pearson says someone could bring a cruise missile through without detection. Canadians have already been detained abroad because of security failures here at home. Will the part-time Minister of Transport admit that these failures put Canadians at risk and apologize to those whose lives and reputations have already been harmed by his inaction?

Mr. Speaker, who is minding business at Pearson right now? That answer of 1,000 members someday is not going to work. If these gaps exist at Pearson, our largest airport, why would Canadians believe they do not exist somewhere else? Will the Liberal government commit, yes or no, to conducting the same security audits at every major airport in Canada and tabling those findings here in Parliament for all Canadians to see? If they will not, is it because this part-time Minister of Transport has no idea how bad it is, or does he just have no idea of what to do?

Mr. Speaker, during question period, you suggested that I should be using the proper title of a minister or a member. In my comments, if you review the tapes, I did quite rightly refer to the Minister of Transport. I understand you did not like, or maybe the Liberals did not like, the term “part-time”, but had I said the “effervescent” Minister of Transport, that would have been an adjective, the same as I would say a “part-time” Minister of Transport. If you do not find that this is correct, could you please inform me as to whether or not I should be referring to the “sometimes” House leaders—

Mr. Chair, I realize the minister has been here for a couple of hours, but he has not answered very many questions, if any. I am hopeful he will answer this one. Internal documents outline a strategy for massive station area land assembly stretching up to two kilometres around a station, explicitly based on the Hong Kong “rail plus property” real estate model. Since his bill, Bill C-15, fails to include land abandonment or buyback provisions, if the route changes in an Ottawa neighbourhood like Eastway Gardens, who keeps the excess land and development profits? Is it the government, Alto or the private consortium?

Mr. Speaker, a Pearson ramp worker said, “I walk right out through the terminal doors.... Nobody checks you”, and “We joke that you could walk out carrying a cruise missile”. That is from a W5 investigation exposing organized crime using travellers' baggage to traffic drugs through Pearson airport, a scheme that has been happening for a very long time. Given the transport minister's silence on this brazen security failure, Canadians want to know, with the FIFA games set to start in weeks and over a billion dollars committed to security, if the Liberals are not taking this seriously now, why are Canadians to believe they ever will with our security?

Mr. Speaker, we have Liberal members rise to talk about this all being part of reconciliation, but a judge in New Brunswick had a very different interpretation. In fact, when there was talk in a court case in New Brunswick about extinguishment and how it related to private property rights, the judge identified that the one way to dial reconciliation back in a negative direction would be to put the private property rights of the people who I mentioned at risk, those homeowners and business owners who have done everything that has been asked of them under the law. It causes frictions between first nations in British Columbia and Canada and the interests of homeowners and business owners, and now the government is making it all worse. We need to work together to get back to a situation where everyone is comfortable with those relations moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia land title certainty is foundational. Families buy homes, secure mortgages and plan their futures on the strength of our land registry. Today, homeowners in Richmond are being told that certainty no longer exists because of the Cowichan decision. That ruling followed a federal choice. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. Why is the Prime Minister choosing Liberal ideology over British Columbian homeowners by continuing to tell federal lawyers not to defend their private property rights?

Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians are afraid and they do not have certainty right now. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14 telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. The Prime Minister likes to talk about things that we can control and focusing on them. Would the leader of the official opposition maybe tell the Prime Minister what is under our control here in Parliament and what the leader of the official opposition tends to do about it.

Mr. Speaker, all throughout today's debate, Liberals continue to say that it is Conservatives who are being divisive and creating misinformation, among even worse items. Now, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, wrote in a letter from the city to all the landowners who were affected that the “City of Richmond was the only party at trial arguing that the Crown grants of fee simple necessarily extinguished Aboriginal title. The federal and provincial Crowns were each labouring under litigation directives that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment”. Does the member believe that the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, is offering misinformation and being divisive, or is he simply calling out both the federal and provincial governments for their failures to make arguments to protect B.C.'s private property owners' rights?