Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, Canada has seen an explosion in crime. The Liberals' soft-on crime policies have allowed hardened, violent criminals out on bail and house arrest. I encounter off-duty RCMP officers who tell me it is so bad that the drug dealers they arrest are back out on the street in mere hours. One such case in my community cost the life of a young girl, when a dangerous criminal on house arrest kidnapped and drowned her. Conservatives want to repeal Liberal bail policies and house arrest for violent criminals and to lock up violent repeat offenders. We want to bring in mandatory prison time for extortionists, human traffickers and fentanyl dealers. We want to end lenient sentencing discounts for violent non-citizens that are designed to prevent them from being deported. It is time for the Liberals to get on board and reject their 10 years of failed soft-on-crime Liberal policies that have unleashed chaos on our streets. Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians. It is time for the Liberals to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, as Remembrance Day approaches, military chaplains representing many faiths are deeply concerned about government instructions issued over the summer directing them not to reference God in prayer or spiritual reflections. This instruction defies a unanimous motion passed by the House in November 2024 that affirmed the rights of chaplains not to be restricted or punished for referencing God in prayer or reflections. I have raised this issue with the Minister of National Defence. Will he explain why this instruction was issued over the summer and confirm that chaplains will face no consequences for carrying out their sacred duties?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives will take no lessons from these Liberals on tough-on-crime policies. After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%. What did the Liberal government do? It brought bail, not jail for repeat violent offenders. It gutted mandatory minimums. Canadians want to give law enforcement officers the tools they need to catch the bad guys and put them behind bars. What they do not want to see is government overreach, adding surveillance on law-abiding Canadians. Conservatives support getting part 1 of Bill C-22 passed swiftly, but we need changes to protect Canadians' privacy. Instead of listening, these Liberals are forcing this through with no further scrutiny—

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this very important debate today. I am a member of the public safety committee, and I have been there throughout this process. We have seen in this Parliament the failure of the government, when it brought forward Bill C-2, and the ongoing failure of the government to get legislation moved forward, with Bill C-22. I want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill. I want to make it clear that we see there is a need for changes to be made to assist law enforcement in this digital age. I saw, a number of years ago, in the wake of a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court on Bykovets revolving around the idea of the reasonable expectation of privacy in the case of a credit card fraud case, that the methods being used by law enforcement to investigate these crimes, and many other crimes that take place digitally, had been severely curtailed. I worked with my local RCMP integrated childhood exploitation unit and other stakeholders. I think a good solution is contained in what is considered part 1 of Bill C-22. That is not to say that Conservatives and I do not have issues with part 1. There are issues. There are questions about the thresholds, be it a reason to suspect or a reason to believe. One of the thresholds, the one that was chosen by the government, is far lower, but essentially, I believe, as Conservatives, we can support part 1, because we know that, if law enforcement has to reach out to a telecommunications company or an electronic service provider, they do not know whether that provider actually provides a service to an IP address, a name or a phone number, and they have to write a warrant for that process. That is a very time-consuming process for law enforcement. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack. It is very difficult. As such, part 1 of the legislation seeks to create a subscriber confirmation, and I think that this could be an effective way to have something that does not require a warrant and to ask electronic service providers and telecommunications companies a simple yes-or-no question: Do they provide services to an IP address, or do they provide services to a number? I think that this could really cut down on the bureaucratic red tape that law enforcement faces. It could help speed up investigations. That is why, as Conservatives, despite some of the concerns that experts have raised, like civil liberty groups and Canadian Bar Association, we can work with that However, where we really get into the weeds is with the concerns we set out on part 2 of the legislation. Before I get into the concerns on part 2, as they are very technical in nature, but very important, I want to provide a bit of an overview of what happened at committee. This is very far-reaching legislation. It proposes to radically remake the entire paradigm of investigations in Canada. While I recognize that there need to be reforms, when we are dealing with something of this magnitude, that is not something that can be rushed. This is not necessarily because members just want to be oppositional for the sake of opposition. However, it is actually in the government's, and all of Canada's, best interests that parliamentarians really scrutinize the legislation, because we know that the legislation is going to be contested in the courts in the future, and we want to make sure that we have the best legislation so that it is actually effective at doing the job. What Canadians fear is that the government could potentially misuse it, and maybe not even the government but malicious actors and criminal actors could misuse the vulnerabilities that the government would be creating through the legislation. At committee we heard from many witnesses, but the amount of time that we had to hear from witnesses was extremely truncated. It was over a short matter of weeks in two-hour meetings, where we had panels of very intelligent experts who had a lot to say about the legislation. Every day I was getting emails from the public safety committee clerk with new submissions and briefs. We simply did not have the appropriate time to really dissect the legislation and go deep down into the far-reaching, potentially negative impacts of it so the process became very rushed. It was a real sea change because, prior to the government's manufactured majority, it actually had to work with other parties in order to get legislation passed. The cybersecurity legislation came forward, and there were some really strong amendments put forward by opposition parties in this House that were adopted. I think it really made the legislation stronger. However, ever since the government received its manufactured majority, it has not been interested in working with other parties. Now we see that it is using this programming motion to try to ram through the legislation so that we cannot scrutinize it further. I respect the members of our non-partisan public service. At the committee clause-by-clause stage they came as technical witnesses to speak about aspects of the bill. However, during the back-and-forth, it became very clear, and they said as much, that this was important legislation to them as members of the public service, and that they were invested in getting this legislation passed. Many of the amendments that we as Conservatives and other parties put forward were based on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, who is a constitutional lawyer. He is a very intelligent man who I think put forward some very reasonable amendments. We as Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois wanted to have him sit in on the meeting so he could provide his insight on the more technical nature of some of the amendments and the issues we were talking about. The government would not allow that to happen. I think that is where this process really broke down and where it was shown that the government was not acting in good faith and not willing to work with opposition parties. The Privacy Commissioner is not partisan. He is an expert in his field. He is appointed by Parliament. Bringing him forward to committee to help us explore the very real privacy implications of this legislation I think would have done a great deal in easing its passage. It is a gargantuan bill with a number of amendments. It would have taken the committee a great deal of time to get through it, but I think the fact the government was not willing to hear from the Privacy Commissioner showed that it was not really interested in having a serious discussion on it. I want to get into some other aspects of part 2 now. I am very concerned about these metadata provisions. Metadata, for those listening, is the stuff in our phones. It is not necessarily the content of the text messages or the browsing history, but it is very important information about our location, what phone numbers we are contacting and other such things. The government is putting forward a proposal that would require telecommunications and other companies to maintain this metadata for up to a year. It has been ruled unconstitutional in the European Union to mass-keep the data of people in the European Union, yet this is what the government is putting forward. Some people would say that it is not going to misuse the data and that it would have to get a warrant in this case. However, my issue is not necessarily what the government is going to do with it, but what malicious actors would do with it. Imagine this allegory. The Government of Canada tells every home builder in Canada that they need to make a master key to open all the houses they produce and now it has the master key to open everyone's house in Canada. That is what it is asking the telecommunications companies, the Apples, the Googles and the Metas, for, a master key. Do I think the government or law enforcement are going to misuse it? That is not a serious fear, but who is to say that key is always going to be protected, that vulnerability is not going to be exploited or it would not be stolen by third party actors, foreign governments or malicious criminal networks? The government is creating vulnerabilities in encryption that would impact not just Canadians but people across the world, because the encryption is not just in Canada but across the world. This has now become a trade issue. That is why I am very concerned about this legislation.

Madam Speaker, that is a loaded question, but coming from that member and that party, it is quite ironic. The Conservatives are not the party that gutted mandatory minimums and brought forward legislation that made bail mandatory for violent repeat offenders. We are not the party that has overseen a rise in violent crime and extortion of over 55%. It is a direct result of the current Liberal government's policy. The Liberals call themselves a new government. They have been in power for 11 years, and that is their record. Conservatives will not take any lessons from them.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was indeed there. It was very concerning because we had the Privacy Commissioner come to committee, and I had received nothing from the Privacy Commissioner prior to the start of that meeting. The Privacy Commissioner was referencing recommendations that he had provided to the committee weeks before, and I had no idea what these recommendations were. There were issues with interpretation and technical issues, but I could not even get transcripts from the meeting that had taken place three weeks before, where we had former justice Deschamps from NSIRA come and provide recommendations to the committee. I could not even reference past committee meetings. Because the government is rushing through this legislation so quickly, we could not even do proper due diligence. It really did impact my ability and all members' ability to be effective in scrutinizing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the member talks about being a member of a new government. It is the same member, and people can check the Hansard, who has been speaking in this place for nearly 11 years. It is the same talking points. It is the same failed Liberal policies. It is the same Liberal government. In fact, the Liberal Prime Minister was advising former prime minister Justin Trudeau on many of these failed economic policies that we are seeing today, and now we have this legislation coming forward. Canadians, in the last election, did not vote for these policies. They voted to get tough on criminals, but they did not vote for law-abiding Canadians to be subjected to this level of government surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to rise to speak to Bill S-210. I just want to commend all the speakers today, particularly the last speaker, my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I love history, and hearing the stories of people's families, where they have come from and the challenges they have overcome is always an inspiration to me. I thank the member for sharing. I know that many members of the House who are of Ukrainian heritage, or of that region, have shared stories of the hardships their families endured to come here and make Canada their home and to build a life for themselves and the generations after them in our great country. I must say, I am inspired by that. What the legislation is seeking to do is to honour the contributions of over 1.3 million Canadians who have Ukrainian heritage, including many of my friends. My stepfather is also a man of Ukrainian heritage, and I am proud to represent thousands of people of Ukrainian heritage in my constituency, Parkland, just outside Edmonton. The story of Ukrainian Canadians is inseparable from the story of western Canada and, particularly, Alberta. When the first Ukrainian settlers arrived in what is now Alberta in 1892, they came seeking freedom and opportunity to build a better life for their families. The Prairies were a vast, isolated region, largely undeveloped, yet through determination and hard work, these Ukrainian settlers transformed the landscape and turned western Canada into the developed agricultural region that it is today. Ukrainian settlers in Alberta, in particular, established farms. They built churches, opened businesses and created communities. These communities quickly became hubs for agricultural knowledge; cultural traditions such as language, music and dance; and a strong sense of community. Their contributions formed economic and social foundations for western Canada. Some of the earliest Ukrainian settlements in Canada were established just east of what is now my constituency, Parkland, and these communities still stand today. I want to talk about the service that Ukrainian Canadians have given to their adopted country, Canada. During the First World War, many Ukrainian Canadians demonstrated great loyalty to Canada by volunteering to serve in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Thousands answered the call to defend the country they had chosen as their home, including Ukrainian Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest medal of valour in the British Empire, Filip Konowal, who was also a member of the Governor General's Foot Guards, which is a regiment I serve in today. At the same time, though, there is a tragic history. Many thousands of Ukrainians who had immigrated to Canada were classified as enemy aliens by the federal government. Ukraine was not a country at that time. It was under the control of either Russia or Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was a member of the Central Powers, so many Ukrainians, unfortunately, were lumped in with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which we were at war with, and thus were interned in camps across Canada. They were forced to perform labour under very difficult conditions. Many were sent to very remote locations, including areas that would become part of Banff National Park and Jasper National Park. I think it is important that, when we pass bills such as the one that is before us, we recognize the great sacrifices that Ukrainians made, not only in standing up for our country of Canada but also the sacrifices of the Ukrainians who were put through deprivations by the government at that time. The loyalty of Ukrainian Canadians was demonstrated further during the Second World War. I just recently learned this in my research for the bill. Ukrainian Canadians enlisted in the Canadian military at the highest rate of any demographic other than English Canadians or French Canadians. They served with distinction in every branch of the armed forces. They fought tyranny overseas, and they fought to secure the freedoms we continue to enjoy today. Ukrainians have a very real experience with oppression, knowing what their ancestors faced under the Russian Empire, under Austria-Hungary and under the Soviets, and they understood the value of liberty in a way that many people could take for granted. Those Ukrainian Canadians knew exactly what they were fighting for. Since the arrival of the first Ukrainians in Canada over 135 years ago, they have enriched our country in countless ways. They have contributed to agriculture, business, science, education, public service and art across Canada and, might I say, they produced some of the best hockey players we have ever seen in Canadian history. They have preserved and shared their vibrant culture, including the Vyshyvanka, which continues to thrive across Canada. Ukrainian festivals and heritage celebrations are some of the most wonderful events that people can attend in this country. In my own constituency, we have an organization of Ukrainian dancers who play an important role in preserving and sharing Ukrainian traditions. Since 1983, they have connected countless young Canadians with their heritage through dance, music and cultural education while also recognizing and welcoming those who want to learn more about Ukrainian culture. These organizations have been critical in recent years, as we have seen many Ukrainian war refugees coming to Canada. It is always really interesting to see how people who have been in Canada for over 100 years are connecting with Ukrainians who are just coming to Canada today, in the things that they are learning about each other and the traditions that they are reviving together. These organizations are doing more than just preserving traditions. They are building bridges. My home province of Alberta is home to many significant symbols of Ukrainian heritage. The giants of the Prairies, for one, are icons of Ukrainian heritage. This includes the world's largest perogy, as well as Canada's largest Easter egg. The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, which is just 30 minutes east of Edmonton, captures the early pioneering spirit of Ukrainian Canadians. This is an open-air museum and it hosts authentically restored buildings from across the Prairies. It is host to many school programs that provide generations of Albertans with a closer understanding of Ukrainian settlement in Alberta. The Ukrainian village suffered a devastating fire back in April 2025, but I want everyone in this House and across Canada to know that the village has finally reopened this year, as of May 16, for visitors. If they do have the chance, I highly encourage visiting this. The influence of Ukrainian Canadians is found not only in the west. It is found right here in Ottawa, where the St. Onuphrius Ukrainian Catholic Church has been preserved at the Canadian Museum of History. The original prairies church is still an active parish and provides visitors to the museum a glimpse of the faith that remains the strongest among Ukrainian Canadians today. Canada has also hosted a number of firsts for the Ukrainian community, with one of the most important being the erection of the first monument to the Holodomor. This was completed in Edmonton in 1983 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this famine genocide. We know in this House and across the world that between 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by the Soviet Union. This is not natural in any way. This was not the result of a drought or a failed harvest. It was a man-made famine designed to crush the Ukrainian people. For decades, Soviet authorities sought to suppress the knowledge of these atrocities, but the truth has prevailed through the witness testimony of survivors and through the determination of Ukrainian Canadians who have sought justice and have sought to preserve the memory of those lost. Long before the world recognized the Holodomor, members of the Canadian Ukrainian community were fighting to ensure that this crime against humanity would never be forgotten. Conservatives are proud of our long record of standing beside Ukraine and the Ukrainian community within Canada. In fact, Canada was one of the first countries to recognize Ukrainian independence from the Soviets, and Canada became the first western nation to formally recognize Ukraine's independence. In 2008, I was proud that Prime Minister Stephen Harper officially recognized the Holodomor as a genocide. This recognition honoured the memory of those victims. Further, in 2014, when the Russians illegally annexed Crimea, it was Conservatives who stood up under Stephen Harper and delivered a clear message to Vladimir Putin that Russia must respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Once again, I am very proud to speak in favour of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession, with an economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the chance the Liberal government will achieve its fiscal anchor is at less than 1%. We are on the brink of a major energy crisis, with rising inflation from higher energy and higher food prices that are guaranteed. Canada is in a recession today, and it is not looking good for the rest of the year. When will the Liberal government reverse course and stop this economic slide?

Madam Speaker, this is great news. The Liberal government is finally taking responsibility for something. If it is taking responsibility for today's job numbers, it must also be responsible for the reason we are in a recession today. It cannot have its cake and eat it too. Canada's economic growth is negative. Energy and food prices are rising dramatically. Canadians cannot take it anymore. The Liberals promised an economy that would move at speeds not seen in generations, but the only thing we see growing is our massive debt. When will they reverse course and stop failing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, from June 5 to 7, thousands will gather in Stony Plain to enjoy the Stony Plain Farmers’ Days Rodeo and Exhibition. Organized in partnership with the Kinsmen Club of Stony Plain, Farmers' Days showcases the agricultural heritage, community spirit and volunteerism that make our region such a special place to call home. For three days, Stony Plain will come alive with the Kinsmen rodeo, parades down Main Street, a midway with games and live entertainment, and the Farmers' Days market featuring over 160 vendors. Families can enjoy activities, from the heavy horse pull to train rides and petting zoos, that are fun for the whole family. Farmers' Days is a celebration of the best of our Parkland region: our hard-working people, volunteers, local businesses and the strong community spirit that brings neighbours together, year after year. I invite everyone to come and enjoy this great celebration in our region. Finally, I want to thank the Town of Stony Plain, the Kinsmen Club, the sponsors, the volunteers and the organizers for making this celebration possible. I wish everyone a fun and enjoyable Farmers' Days weekend.

Mr. Speaker, after over a decade of reckless Liberal inflationary spending, young Canadians are falling further behind than ever before. Last month, Canada lost 47,000 full-time jobs, and youth unemployment is up over 14%. That is more than double the national rate. Young Canadians are now more unemployed than at any point in recorded Canadian history. Young people cannot afford rent, they cannot afford groceries and they certainly cannot afford a home. They are sending out hundreds of résumés with no response. Under these Liberals, it is more taxes, more job losses and more of the same. Why is this Liberal Prime Minister making young Canadians sacrifice for his failures?

Mr. Speaker, I thought that this Liberal Prime Minister was supposed to be good with money, but they just lost $175 million in less than six months on a failing diamond mine that just sought creditor protection. Young Canadians were promised opportunity, but after a decade of Liberal reckless spending, they are getting fewer jobs and less opportunity. This year, Canada has lost 111,000 full-time jobs. We have thousands of skilled workers just waiting for this Liberal government to get out of the way. Unfortunately, it is just more taxes, more job losses and more of the same. Why is this Liberal Prime Minister making young Canadians pay for his economic recklessness?

Madam Speaker, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said there are four ways to spend money, and the worst way is spending somebody else's money on others because it is the least efficient and one is least careful with it. We have seen the Liberal government put $200 million into a concrete slab spaceport in Nova Scotia. When we are talking about a sovereign debt fund of $25 billion, that is the government spending taxpayers' money. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is borrowing money right now to invest in things like spaceports.

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government, for 11 years, has been the worst investor of any government in Canadian history. There is a litany of projects, but I just want to talk about one today. Moltex Energy Canada was purporting to make molten-salt nuclear reactors in New Brunswick. The Liberal government poured $55 million, taxpayer dollars, into this boondoggle. It just went into insolvency and has been sold off for $11 million. Can the member for Calgary Crowfoot talk about the government's poor record of investment? It loves spending taxpayer dollars on its schemes, but taxpayers rarely ever get their money back.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member across said that he is very proud of the government's investments. I wonder if he would tell this House if he is proud of the government's $50-million investment in the molten salt nuclear reactor scam in his very own province by Moltex. The company has now gone into insolvency. It is being sold off for $11 million; 55 million taxpayer dollars down the drain. Is that member proud of that investment?

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that the crime rates in this country are far too high, and that is why I think Canadians were very hopeful when the government announced that it would be hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers. However, we have recently learned that of the 1,000 RCMP officers the government claimed it was hiring, only 750 of them are actually going to be frontline officers; 250 of them are going to be civilian support employees. It gets better. The government, under its early retirement incentive, laid off over 300 civilian employees from the RCMP. The government says it is hiring 250 more employees, but it has let go 300 employees and is bringing in only 750 frontline officers. This is an investment illusion under the government. Why is it failing to protect our streets, by underinvesting in police?

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal policies driving up the cost of living, Canadians are being squeezed like never before. According to the consumer debt index, 61% of Canadians say that they are experiencing financial whiplash, and 64% say that they are working harder than ever but cannot get ahead. Instead of providing relief to struggling Canadians, the Liberals voted against removing taxes of 25¢ a litre for fuel and are driving up the cost of fuel and groceries. Why will the Liberals not provide real relief instead of one-third of the tax cut for one-third of the year?

Mr. Speaker, do members know who is not struggling? It is the federal government, which is bringing in windfall taxes on Canadian fuel costs. Canadians are telling us loud and clear that they are struggling. They are cutting back. They are delaying major life decisions. They are worrying about whether they can pay their bills each month. Instead of providing real relief, the Liberal government is driving up inflation. Despite windfall revenues from soaring gas prices, the government is giving Canadians only one-third the tax cut for one-third of the year. After a decade of the Liberals' policies, even middle-class families are failing to get ahead. It is time to give Canadians a real break. Why will they not?

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the key points of contention that we could see with this legislation is the requirement for telecom providers to retain individuals' data for up to a year. In the European Union, similar legislation has been brought forward that was found to have violated the privacy rights of European Union citizens, but there are other jurisdictions, such as Australia, that have a two-year limit. I am wondering if the member would share his thoughts on the worries about the one-year limit on retaining data.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre. I want to give a shout-out to my excellent staff here in Ottawa, Harry McGuire, Aidan Plesa and Andrew Gelok, for their great work in helping me research, both in committee and in the House, this important legislation. Conservatives recognize that we need to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools required to investigate serious crime in this increasingly digital age, but as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to hold the government accountable to ensure that we can get the best legislation for Canadians. That means holding government accountable when we are talking about important issues such as expanding state powers in relation to increased surveillance. It is our responsibility as an official opposition to scrutinize, to challenge, and to ensure that any new authority is absolutely necessary, proportionate and consistent with the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This legislation has evolved from the original Bill C-2 legislation that was brought forward in the fall. It is important to give a bit of background on that legislation and why we are here today. The first substantive piece of legislation introduced in the sitting of the current Parliament was Bill C-2, which proposed a number of significant legal changes regarding Canada's national security, to disrupt organized crime and secure the border. Conservatives were and remain supportive of any efforts to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to keep Canadians safe, but we could not support Bill C-2 in its original form. We know that civil liberties organizations and all opposition parties in the House felt that Bill C-2, in particular the lawful access regime in parts 14 and 15, fell short of what was needed. Bill C-22 represents the government's second attempt at enacting lawful access legislation. While I would say that there are improvements, particularly in narrowing certain provisions, some of the structural issues remain and have to be looked into further. Law enforcement and CSIS need modern tools to deal with modern threats. The issue that the bill is attempting to address is real. Law enforcement and national security experts have long argued that they do not have the tools to effectively go after terrorists, organized criminals and child predators, who are coordinating a lot of their activity online. Part 1 of the bill focuses on investigative authorities, and in many respects it is an improvement over what was previously proposed in Bill C-2. That said, while the direction in this legislation is more measured than Bill C-2, concerns remain, particularly with respect to the legal thresholds, scope and the adequacy of any safeguards. I want to talk about the new powers and authorities proposed in the legislation. Part 1 proposes a number of changes that are clearly aimed at improving the efficiency of investigations in a digital environment. It would amend existing search warrant provisions to permit the examination of computer data during the execution of a warrant, and it would also introduce new information demands and production orders that could be used both by police forces and by CSIS. In addition, it would create mechanisms to facilitate access to data held by foreign-based service providers, which reflects the reality that much of the information that law enforcement and security agencies need in this country is not even being stored within our own borders. These would be very practical changes, and they would respond to real challenges faced by investigators. However, the details of how these powers would be structured, and the limits that would be placed on them, remain critically important. I want to talk about the confirmation of service demands. One of the proposed powers outlined in part 1 is the confirmation of service demands. This would allow authorities to ask a telecommunications provider a very narrow question, which is whether or not it provides service to a particular person or subscriber. The response would be limited to a simple yes or no. Compared to what was proposed in Bill C-2, this is a much more restrained approach. In Bill C-2, information demands could be issued to any person who provides services to the public. This would now be limited to telecom providers. One of the more concerning elements of Bill C-2 was other subscriber data. For example, there was concern that people's medical records could be accessed. Thankfully, I believe that this has been clarified and the scope has been narrowed with the new legislation. I want to talk about foreign data requests. Another significant element of part 1 of the bill is the introduction of a mechanism that would allow Canadian judges to authorize requests for data held by foreign entities. This reflects a very real challenge to modern investigation, as data is frequently being stored outside of Canada, often by companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions. Providing a judicially authorized pathway for these requests may improve co-operation and provide greater legal certainty for foreign service providers. However, it is important to recognize that this would not fully resolve the challenges associated with cross-border data access and whether there would be any way to compel foreign service providers to comply with the requests. There is also a section on publicly available and voluntary information. The bill clarifies that law enforcement would be able to receive and act upon information that is either voluntarily provided or publicly available, without the need for a warrant or a production order. This appears to be a reasonable clarification, but I do wonder if it raises questions about scope, because what exactly qualifies as publicly available information? Does it include information that has been exposed through data breaches or leaks? Without clear definitions, there is a risk that this provision could be interpreted much more broadly than seems to have been intended. This is something that needs to be addressed. I want to talk about one of the reasons the legislation was brought forward. It was partially in response to the Bykovets decision of the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that IP addresses have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case, police had received an IP address voluntarily from a financial company that had flagged suspected fraudulent transactions to the police. However, since the IP address was not acquired using a production order, this evidence could not be used. Privacy experts have raised concerns that the provisions in the bill may not actually address the issues created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. That is concerning. Part 2 of the bill would enact the supporting authorized access to information act. It is in this section of the legislation that privacy experts seem to have raised the most concerns. It would require electronic service providers to build and maintain systems capable of supporting the lawful access regime, including real-time interception when authorized. In practical terms, this means that companies would be required to design their systems in such a way that law enforcement could access communications once the appropriate legal authorization has been obtained. With respect to the scope of the application, one of the key concerns with part 2 is the breadth and the definition of what an electronic service provider is. As the bill is currently drafted, this is not limited to traditional telecommunications companies and could extend to a very wide range of entities, including digital platforms, messaging and cloud services, and potentially businesses where communications are only an incidental part of the business. This could create both practical and legal challenges, as well as uncertainty about who is captured by the legislation, because almost all businesses these days have some sort of electronic recording or storage. There is a possibility that smaller or non-traditional actors would be subject to complex obligations that they are, frankly, not equipped or cannot afford to meet. If the objective is targeted modernization, then the definition needs to be more clear. Unfortunately, as was recently the case with Bill C-8, many of these specific details were left blank and have been left to regulations. Another area of significant concern in part 2 is the retention of metadata. Under the act, ESPs could be required to retain metadata for a reasonable period of time of up to one year. This is particularly concerning since that data may reveal a person's location. While there are provisions on the retention of information that could reveal private communications and web browsing history, experts have raised concerns that Canadians who are not accused of any wrongdoing may still have their data retained that could reveal their location. It is important to note that similar provisions that were put in place in the EU were actually found disproportionate and unlawful. In his analysis of the legislation, privacy lawyer David Fraser explained that requiring companies to create capabilities that do not currently exist within their systems to assist law enforcement could lead to creating vulnerabilities within the systems themselves. This can include the development of interception tools that resemble traditional wiretap capabilities adapted for modern environments. In 2023 and 2024, multiple U.S. telecom companies were compromised, and hackers were able to access data from millions of customers and obtain audio recordings of calls made by senior government and elected officials. I raise this example because U.S. officials subsequently reported that the hackers exploited vulnerabilities that the companies had installed in order to comply with lawful access requests from law enforcement. We need to be very aware that we could be creating a risk if this is not done properly. The legislation would also have practical cost considerations that cannot be ignored. We know that the compliance costs could be significant, and we do not want those costs to be borne by taxpayers. In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-22 addresses some real and pressing challenges. It contains provisions that can include the effectiveness of investigations, but at the same time we need to ensure that these new powers would be effective and necessary, and that they would not unnecessarily infringe on the freedoms of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I think committee is a great place to hash out legislation and to hear from experts on civil liberties, privacy and law enforcement. When we have all those voices, as we saw with Bill C-8 at the public safety committee, we are able to put forward proposals to fix things. When I was talking, in the wake of the Bykovets decision in 2024, to local integrated child exploitation teams, they were so disappointed, because a lot of the tips we receive in Canada actually come from the FBI. A lot of the child sexual abuse material being circulated is coming from Canada, but they are finding it only on computers in the United States. Under the Bykovets decision, that information could not be used, because it was not being obtained by a production order and a warrant. We need to ensure that our system is stronger so we can ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for people who produce child sexual abuse material.

Mr. Speaker, this is second reading of the legislation that has been put forward. If the legislation does move forward to committee, I think that will be an excellent opportunity to hear from witnesses, possibly the Canadian Bar Association, to hear their concerns. I know that we are meeting with many different stakeholder groups to talk about various concerns with the legislation that is before us today. I think the ultimate goal is to ensure that we have the best piece of legislation, one that balances the freedoms of Canadians with the digital tools that law enforcement needs to keep Canadians safe and to keep our country a place that criminals cannot treat like their own backyard.

Mr. Speaker, ministerial orders are very powerful tools. I think we need to ensure that they are the appropriate tools and that they are the necessary tools. I do note that an improvement to the legislation is that it is very clear that judicial authorizations would be needed in the vast majority of the cases that are dealing with the legislation. I think it should give Canadians some relief to know that this would be added, but we need to ensure that these measures would be proportionate and that they would actually be effective in getting the job done in the way that we want it to get done.

Madam Speaker, it was a true pleasure working with my colleague on the public safety committee. I want to talk about one particular area where we worked together to improve the legislation. Often, we have seen, when passing new or novel legislation that would give the government new powers, we put in review clauses to ensure that, after a specified period of time, usually five years, we could review the legislation to make sure that it is working as intended. Unfortunately, we have seen many pieces of legislation passed for which these reviews have never taken place. I am very proud that I was able to work on what was initially brought forward by my colleague to try to strengthen that, to ensure that the government has to complete a review. It cannot just keep kicking the can down the road. I want to know what the member's thoughts are on that particular amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to this legislation that I brought forward. I want to start by thanking the McCann family, my colleagues of the House and all the supporters of the legislation and the victims' families. This has been a nine-year journey for me. I was first inspired to bring forward the legislation before I was elected. I was inspired by the model put forward in Australia, and I was also inspired by advocates in the United Kingdom fighting for justice through Helen's law, so I want to thank them for inspiring me. The legislation is named after Lyle and Marie McCann. Their killer remains incarcerated, but he is currently eligible for parole. He has refused to disclose where he hid the remains of his victims. The victim's family, the McCanns, has never been able to hold a proper funeral or have closure. I believe that the continued withholding of that information by convicted offenders is an ongoing crime against the victims and their families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The possibility that people could be released on parole and be walking our streets while knowing where they hid their victims' remains, or that they could pass by their victims' families on the streets while they still know that information, is abhorrent to Canadians. I want to address some of the criticism brought forward with respect to the legislation, and I do appreciate the opportunity to address it. I think it is unmerited. The fact is that the Parole Board does not need to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate and/or admit to their crime as a factor in parole hearings. I would like to quote directly from the transcript of the killer in this case's parole hearing in December 2024. The Parole Board clearly stated that accountability and co-operation is not a requirement to be granted parole. Ryan Nash, a member of the Parole Board, stated to the killer, “You are entitled to hold your position of denial of accountability and responsibility, and it is not required to be granted parole that you admit to your offences.” I think this summarizes why the legislation is so needed. In debate today, there were some other criticisms brought forward. My colleagues claimed that the legislation could result in killers' receiving a shorter period of parole ineligibility than is currently prescribed by law. That is simply not the case. In Canada, first-degree murder already requires that there be a period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, and in second-degree murder cases, a period of parole ineligibility of 10 to 25 years. In the McCann case, as well as others, the killer was not found guilty of first- or second-degree murder but was found guilty of manslaughter and was eligible for parole after a period of seven years. In cases where someone is found to be withholding crucial information about the remains of their victims but is not convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the legislation could be utilized by the judicial system and parole boards to increase the period of parole ineligibility and to deny parole. I want to assure all members of the House that there is nothing in the legislation that would dictate to judges, parole boards or correctional officials what they must do. They would retain full discretion to utilize the tools that Parliament provides them in the legislation as they find appropriate. I know that the people who work in our criminal justice system, our judges, parole board members and correctional officials, are professionals and may have reasons why they may or may not consider the co-operation to find a victim's remains as a factor in their decision-making. For example, if they have a reasonable belief that the remains of victims will never be found, of course it would not be appropriate to use this legislation in that case. The only requirement the legislation would impose is that our judicial system actors consider this very important factor, and I think that is the least we can do for victims' families. It would also require that, in cases where they choose not to utilize these tools, they provide reasons for not utilizing them. Again, I think that providing those reasons to victims' families is the least we can do. I want to read a letter from Bret McCann, the son of Lyle and Marie: “On July 3, 2010, my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann, were murdered. The individual responsible was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, yet he has never acknowledged his crime nor disclosed the location of my parents' remains. As a result, our family has been denied the most basic elements of closure: truth, accountability, and the ability to lay our loved ones to rest. “Bill C-236 addresses a profound gap in Canada's criminal justice system. Meaningful rehabilitation and any credible assessment of parole eligibility must require offenders to accept responsibility for their crimes. In cases such as ours, the responsibility includes providing information about the whereabouts of victims' remains. Without such accountability, parole processes risk compounding the harm suffered by victims' families. “Comparable legislation has already been adopted in other Commonwealth countries, including Australia's ‘No Body, No Parole’ laws and the United Kingdom's Helen's Law. These measures recognize that compassion for victims and public confidence in the justice system demand more than silence from convicted offenders—

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers. They cannot even keep up with losses. The Liberals are failing to recruit, train and retain the police we need to protect our communities. In rural Canada, which I represent, police are stretched to the breaking point. They cannot keep up with the wave of violent crime that the Liberals have unleashed. The Auditor General has now reported that under the Liberals' watch, the RCMP is short 3,400 officers, and the gap is continuing to grow. The Liberal Prime Minister and his party made big promises to Canadians. They promised 1,000 new officers, but they are yet again failing to deliver any results. It is time for these Liberals to stop promising and start delivering. Why will they not?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can try to distract and make Canadians look away from their absolute failure. The Auditor General's report is damning: 3,400 RCMP officers short. The Liberal government is continuing to fail to train and retain the officers we need to protect our communities, and it could not come at a worse possible time. After 10 years of the justice minister's failure to toughen up our justice system, there is a wave of violent crime rushing across our country and our police are completely burnt out. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister failing to live up to his promises to strengthen law enforcement and protect our communities?

Mr. Speaker, the world is facing the biggest energy crisis since the 1973 oil embargo. Millions of barrels have been taken off-line, and Canada is one of the few countries that could provide critical energy to our allies. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Canada would do its part, but the Liberal government has no plan to get our energy to world markets. After 10 years of Liberal anti-energy policies and economic mismanagement, we have missed the greatest opportunity to show up for our allies in a meaningful way to address this energy crisis. Meanwhile, today's job report shows that Canada lost 84,000 jobs and that unemployment is up to 6.7%. Last year, this Parliament gave the Liberal government the power to build at unimaginable speeds, but the Prime Minister has failed to deliver, and Canadians and our allies are suffering the consequences. We can not afford another 10 years of Liberal anti-energy ignorance. It is time to lay some pipe, create jobs and get our country back on its feet.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Lakeland for that very impassioned and personal speech. I was very moved by it. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this very practical and reasonable legislation that I think would make a significant difference in the lives of victims' families, something that I have been very passionate about ever since I was first elected to Parliament just over eight years ago. I want to frame my remarks around the principle that our justice system has to strike a balance between protecting the rights of offenders and recognizing the lifelong suffering endured by victims and their families. I believe that my colleague has brought the bill forward because Canadians have identified a very real problem in our parole system, one that is forcing families to repeatedly and regularly re-undergo the trauma of their loved one's loss through parole hearings that can happen as often as every year. I am supporting this legislation because I want to ensure that we have a justice system that does not impose these unnecessary traumas on families who have gone through the worst experience imaginable. I want to talk about what brought this law forward. It is called Brian's bill for a reason. I am referring, of course, to Brian Ilesic, a father, a son and a hard-working Canadian whose life was taken in a brutal murder in 2012. I remember where I was the night of the HUB Mall shooting. I was working the night shift at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona, Edmonton, and I could see the helicopters flying overhead. All of us working on the job site were asking ourselves what had happened. It was a fatal shooting, a fatal and evil betrayal. Brian was working as an armoured car guard with his colleagues at the University of Alberta HUB Mall in Edmonton when a co-worker, somebody who should have had their back, turned on them and murdered them. In that attack, Brian Ilesic, Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano were murdered, and another colleague, Matthew Schuman, suffered severe and life-altering injuries. When I reflect on that tragedy, I think about the families of those victims and the entire community in the Edmonton area that knew them. I want to focus for a moment on the families that were left behind, because they are the people who must carry the consequences of this tragedy for the rest of their lives. I think about Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, who are here today and who lost their son in this tragic, senseless act of violence. I think about Brian's daughter, who was only a child when her father was murdered and who grew up experiencing many of life's milestones without him. When I consider those realities, it reminds me that the pain of losing a loved one to violent crime does not simply fade over time. It is not something that heals. In my view, our justice system does not reflect and recognize that reality. It does not ensure that the processes that we have do not unnecessarily reopen the pain those families feel every day. I think of the McCann family, who I have been advocating for through my private member's bill, which I hope to get passed in a couple of weeks here in Parliament. They have to go through parole hearings for the man who murdered their elderly parents. I want to quote from a CBC article that quotes the Parole Board head in the most recent Parole Board meeting, stating that it is not a requirement that the offender admit to their crimes. How traumatizing is that for families, to have somebody brought before a parole board, face the uncertainty and the potential that this person who murdered their loved ones could be released, and hear the head of the parole board saying to the offender that they are not even required to admit to what they have done? When the murderer in this case was convicted, the court imposed a life sentence with no chance of parole, at 40 years. At the time, that sentence reflected the seriousness of a crime that had taken three lives and permanently changed the life of another. I understand that for those families that were involved, this significant sentence provided some degree of certainty and reassurance that they would not have to repeatedly confront that offender through the parole process. However, that situation changed dramatically in 2022, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bissonnette. That decision struck down legal provisions allowing for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. As a result of this decision, parole timelines for offenders have been significantly reduced. I fully recognize that our courts have a role in interpreting the charter and our laws, and I believe Parliament has an important responsibility to examine the broader impacts of those decisions and to enact the democratic will of the Canadian people through the laws we make. In this case, one of the consequences of this court decision has been the increased uncertainty and distress for victims' families who believed at the time of the sentencing of their loved one's killer that they would not have to go through these repeated annual parole hearings but now, because of this decision, are being forced to. Under the current system, once somebody who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder becomes eligible for parole and applies for it, if that application is denied, the offender can apply again the following year. When I think about that process, I imagine what it must be like for those families to receive notice of another parole hearing year after year. I know some people might say these families do not have to attend the hearings, but I can tell members that every single victim's family I have spoken to feel it is their duty, as a family, to their loved one to show up to every one of those hearings, so they can stand up for their loved one who cannot be there because of the crime. That often means a very painful experience of preparing victim impact statements and revisiting the details of the crime again and again. I am not saying this process is completely flawed. Obviously, we know, it is necessary for people to have the right to a parole hearing. However, to force these families to go through this process year after year is a grave injustice. When I look at other cases in Canada, I see how these repeated parole hearings can have a deep impact on families. One example we are very familiar with is the Bernardo case. His parole hearings have required the families of his victims to repeatedly revisit the horrific crimes committed against their daughters and their friends. When I hear the testimony of those families, I am reminded of the emotional toll of those hearings and that the process itself can create more trauma. These examples reinforce my belief that the parole system must be reformed and structured in a way that respects victims and victims' families. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-243. I believe it proposes a reasonable and balanced solution. It would not eliminate parole eligibility, nor would it prevent offenders from having their cases reviewed. Instead, it would ensure that after a parole application is denied, the next review would occur at the automatic review period already established in law, which is approximately five years. I see this as a practical adjustment that would reduce these unnecessary repeated hearings while maintaining a fair process for evaluating parole eligibility. It would also reduce the administrative burden within the system while ensuring that families are not forced to revisit their trauma year after year. When I consider everything we have discussed in the House today, I believe that Bill C-243, which is supported by a wide range of law enforcement and victims groups, represents a balanced and compassionate reform to Canada's justice system. I see it as legislation that would acknowledge the pain experienced by victims' families and seek to reduce their unnecessary hardship within the parole process. Supporting the bill, in my view, is about ensuring that families like the Ilesics and others are treated with the respect and compassion they deserve. It is about ensuring that our justice system would recognize not only the rights of offenders but also the enduring impact of violent crime on families who have been left behind. For these reasons and many others, I strongly support Bill C-243. I encourage all members of the House to support this bill to get it to committee so we can finally get it passed and stand up for victims' families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is in my neighbouring riding. He will be well aware of the history of the Michel band in Sturgeon County, one of the only first nations in Canada that was forcibly enfranchised. I am wondering if he can talk about the impact this legislation would have on first nations peoples like those in the Michel band and how we can do a better job of creating reconciliation to recognize first nations' status in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to stop criminals from stealing our cars. Vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, from exported vehicles are being used to sell stolen cars. The CBSA has a record of these VINs but refuses to share them with Canadian used car dealers, who would use them to identify stolen vehicles. Instead, the government has given an American company a monopoly on this data, charging Canadians $40 million each year just to get access to our own data. It is absurd. Why will the Liberals not give Canadians access to our own data so that we can stop car theft?

Mr. Speaker, the situation out there is dire. After 11 years of Liberal inflation, housing unaffordability and job insecurity, Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are facing the consequences. We used to take pride in this country when we said that the next generation would be better off than the one before, but for young Canadians today, that just is not the case. Under the Liberals, the well-off are better off than ever before, but people struggling to get ahead are falling further and further behind. When will the Liberals finally get off the backs of Canadians for a change?

Mr. Speaker, Liberal spin cannot avoid the facts. Under the Prime Minister, the rich are getting richer while working Canadians are falling further and further behind. Liberal inflation has made the bankers rich, but the cost of food, vehicles and housing is out of reach. Young people are facing record-high unemployment, and even those who are lucky enough to have a job cannot even afford to pay their bills, let alone save for the million-dollar homes the Liberals are talking about. We need to restore jobs with powerful paycheques to ensure that the next generation can be better off. Conservatives are fighting for that future. When are the Liberals going to get on board?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, an act regarding modern treaty implementation. At the outset, I want to say I am very proud to represent the Treaty No. 6 first nations in Alberta, including the Enoch Cree Nation and the Paul First Nation, as well as the area of the Michel First Nation, which remains the only first nation that was forcibly and involuntarily enfranchised in 1958. It remains a very sensitive issue to this day. It is still seeking a return to its previous status. For the last decade, the Liberal government has spoken about reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. This new office of the modern treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders across the country have not already told us: that the government continues to fail and that outcomes for indigenous people continue to be poor. The proposal of a new office of the treaty commissioner is presented as progress by the government but would not address the root cause of the problem. It would only go to further creating bureaucracy and bloating a government that continues to fail indigenous peoples. For the past decade, we have heard repeatedly from the Auditor General and indigenous peoples about where the government is failing to live up to its commitments to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Repeated findings by the Auditor General remain unimplemented by the government. Just this past October, the Auditor General report on programs for first nations stated that, overall, “Despite an 84% increase in the department’s spending on programs since the 2019–20 fiscal year, significant challenges remained in improving services and program outcomes for First Nations communities.” It went from $13 billion to $24 billion. Accountability for this inaction rests with the cabinet and the government and should not be delegated to another layer of bureaucracy. I want to talk about what a modern-day treaty is. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Métis or Inuit group and the Crown. In this case, the Crown is the federal government and, in some cases, provincial governments. Modern treaties are aimed at resolving long-standing disputes related to land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. Therefore, modern-day treaties can include land and resource provisions, financial compensation, and/or governance and decision-making authority. Once they are implemented, modern-day treaties are enforceable under federal law, and modern-day treaties can replace or clarify indigenous rights under historic treaties. A self-government treaty is an agreement that recognizes and establishes an indigenous government. These agreements grant indigenous groups the authority to make laws in specific areas, including education, health care, culture and local services. The aim is to give more authority and administrative powers to indigenous peoples. These self-government treaties may be part of a modern-day treaty, or they may stand alone. I want to be clear that Conservatives support modern-day treaties. In fact, Conservatives were responsible for negotiating a number of modern-day treaties when we were in government. However, Conservatives do not support the assumption that increasing the size of bureaucracy and spending can compensate for the failures of the Liberal government. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the previous Conservative government signed five modern-day treaties in six years. That is a good record the government should take some lessons from. The five modern-day treaties include the Tłı̨chǫ Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, which happened in 2006; the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, in 2009; the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, in 2009; the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement, in 2013; and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, in 2015. In over a decade in power, despite all the rhetoric, the Liberal government has not negotiated a single modern-day treaty. The previous prime minister began his tenure by stating that there was no relationship more important to him and to Canada than the ones with first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and yet the former prime minister's rhetoric and the actions of his government did not live up to that promise. Across the country, basic services and community safety in indigenous communities remain far below our national standards. Indigenous police continue to be underfunded. Housing conditions remain unacceptable. Enoch Cree Nation, a relatively well-off first nation right next to a major metropolitan area, cannot even get funding for sewage from the federal government. We also know there is no lack of documented evidence and reports of where the government has failed. The Auditor General has documented those failures repeatedly and outlined specific ways to address them, yet the government has not acted on them. I would ask the House if the creation of a new modern-day treaty commissioner would require the government to actually act on the obligations it makes to indigenous communities, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked. There is nothing in the bill that would require that. If the government is not implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General, what would be any different with a new treaty commissioner? The October 2025 Auditor General report states: During our 2021 audit, on November 1, 2020, 60 long-term drinking water advisories were in effect in First Nations communities, despite federal commitments to eliminate them by that year. As of April 1, 2025, there were 35 such advisories. Nine of these advisories had been in effect “for a decade or longer.” ...we found that the department took initial actions to address several of our recommendations on access to primary health care services by completing studies and assessments, but did not follow through on those steps to improve services. ...some Indigenous Services Canada programs to support First Nations communities do not have clearly defined service levels. For instance, the department has defined service levels for First Nations communities with only 1 province for evacuations during emergencies, and it has not defined service levels for comparable access to health care. Creating a new bureaucracy in the form of a commissioner would not build any more houses. It would not hire any more indigenous police officers, and it would not ensure clean drinking water. Reconciliation needs to be measured by results, and ministers and their departments should be focused on meeting their existing obligations under treaties and under our Constitution, rather than shirking off those responsibilities to a new office that would table reports that would go on to be further ignored by the government. One area of particular concern for me, and I have raised this in the House before, is the government's failure to adequately fund services for at-risk first nations children. Jordan's principle is intended to fund services for these children. It exists to ensure that no child is caught in delays, conflict or jurisdictional confusion, and it is rooted in a principle that we can all agree on: that care for children, not jurisdictional squabbles, should come first. I want to read part of a letter I received from Nicole Callihoo. She is the education director of Paul First Nation in my riding. Here are some excerpts from the letter: “We are writing today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of urgency. Despite submitting full Jordan’s Principle applications and following every step as required, our school has not received the funding necessary to continue services for our students. We are now in the fourth month of the school year, and these delays contradict both the spirit and the purpose of Jordan’s Principle. “In the true way of our ancestors, we did not wait for approvals before taking care of our children. We honoured their needs and began services immediately so they would not experience further hardship or delay. These supports have brought powerful changes. Students who were once quiet and unsure have begun to speak. Those who carried worry and heaviness have started to open their hearts. They look forward to their sessions. Families have shared that they notice new calmness, confidence, and connection in their children. These are not small steps—they are the beginnings of healing. “However, because the funding [from the government] remains outstanding, we now face the painful reality of stopping these services. Ending supports after children have finally begun to trust and feel safe goes against our cultural teachings and against everything Jordan’s Principle stands for. Interrupting care will undo progress, break relationships, and cause harm that could have been prevented. This type of disruption echoes the very history that Jordan’s Principle was created to stop.” I wanted to share that story because it is an example of how the government is already failing to stand up for first nations communities in my riding. Vulnerable indigenous children, whom the courts decided the federal government would have a responsibility to support, have had their funding from the government cut when they go to school off-reserve. I can tell the House that in communities like mine and communities across the country where there is not a comprehensive K-to-12 education system on-reserve, indigenous students have to go off-reserve to go to high school or junior high. When they do that, when children suffer from impediments like those, Jordan's principle should be there to provide funding for them. The government cut that funding, and it has been devastating for those families. We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing. We are here talking about it in the House right now. We need action to support those families that are being hurt by the government's cuts related to Jordan's principle. We need real action to support all of those first nations that are facing boil water advisories and facing a government that has been continually breaking its word with first nations. That is why we are going to stand up here and represent them and fight for them.

Madam Speaker, we talked about these solutions in the last election campaign. We wanted to give more powers to first nations to take control over their resource development and allow them to collect the revenues needed so that they could build up their own nations. They could build up local services. That is not to say we want the government to take a step back. The government could lean in, together with those increased resources for those first nations so they could be empowered to support their citizens. Enoch Cree Nation in my community is a great success story, with the River Cree Resort and Casino. It has had oil and gas development and agricultural development. When first nations are empowered to develop their own resources, we see prosperity created on first nations, and we need government to lean into that as well.

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the first nation community in the member's riding. My ancestors came to this country with the Mohawk peoples in 1783, fleeing the United States at the time. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations continue to face these challenges in a country as wealthy as Canada. What we are seeing with issues like talking about creating a new commissioner is a government that is talking about window dressing, when what we really need to be talking about are tangible investments to make life better for indigenous peoples in this country. It is performative, and what we really need is accountability. That is why I am very proud, as a member of Parliament who represents communities in the Treaty No. 6 area, to stand up in the House and fight for them and hold the government accountable, to ensure it takes action to live up to its promises.

Madam Speaker, this is a huge issue in my riding, in my hon. colleague's riding and in ridings across the country, where school divisions, which are primarily provincially funded, have been receiving support from the federal government following the court decision on Jordan's principle. That court decision stated that for at-risk indigenous youth, the federal government would be there to provide support for educational assistants and additional supports to help many of these children, who are struggling with very unique challenges, to get ahead and up to the same level. The government members have decided to withhold funding from groups like the Parkland School Division, resulting in layoffs of over 100 educational assistants in our area. That is hurting not only indigenous children but all the children in the school district, and the federal government is squarely to blame.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, one of hockey's most legendary goaltenders passed away. Glenn Hall was a true prairie boy, and throughout his life abided by the values of hard work, humility and determination. He is survived by his children, grandchildren and many friends. In the 1955 season, Glenn made his NHL debut, earning the title “Rookie of the Year”. In 1961, he won the Stanley Cup, earning the nickname “Mr. Goalie”. In 1967, he earned the Conn Smythe Trophy, a rare feat for a player whose team did not win the Stanley Cup. A three-time Vezina Trophy winner, Glenn changed the game of hockey forever through his butterfly style of goaltending. In 2017, he was honoured as one of the 100 greatest NHL players of all time. A farmer, avid hunter and sport shooter, Glenn was a pillar of the Stony Plain and area community. Our local arena is even named in his honour. He will be sorely missed, and his impact on the sport of hockey and the community of Stony Plain will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill S-210, an act to establish September as Ukrainian heritage month. The legislation would recognize and honour the contributions of more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. I count many friends and members of my family as proud members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, and I am proud to represent thousands of people of Ukrainian heritage in my constituency of Parkland. Ukrainian Canadians have served our country in every war since at least the First World War, and despite the sad, regrettable internment of Ukrainians during the First World War, thousands of Ukrainians signed up to fight and to defend Canada, including Filip Konowal, whose story I would like to share today. Born in Ukraine, then under the Russian empire, Konowal was already an experienced soldier and tree-feller when he moved to Canada in 1913. In 1915, he enlisted in the 77th Canadian Infantry Battalion. He was a member of my own regiment, the Governor General's Foot Guards, the regiment whose tie I wear today. Konowal took part in two of Canada's greatest military achievements: the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Battle for Hill 70. For his bravery at Hill 70, Konowal, a Ukrainian, was awarded the Victoria Cross by King George V himself. The citation describes his gallantry: For most conspicuous bravery and leadership when in charge of a section in attack. His section had the difficult task of mopping up cellars, craters and machine-gun emplacements. Under his able direction all resistance was overcome successfully, and heavy casualties inflicted on the enemy. In one cellar he himself bayonetted three enemy and attacked single-handed seven others in a crater, killing them all. On reaching the objective, a machine-gun was holding up the right flank, causing many casualties. Cpl. Konowal rushed forward and entered the emplacement, killed the crew, and brought the gun back to our lines. The next day he again attacked single-handed another machine-gun emplacement, killed three of the crew, and destroyed the gun and emplacement with explosives. This non-commissioned officer alone killed at least sixteen of the enemy, and during the two days’ actual fighting carried on continuously his good work until severely wounded. After the war, Konowal continued to suffer from his wounds, physically and also mentally; we know this today as PTSD. Konowal later sought his family in the Soviet Union, only to learn that his wife had died during the Soviet-induced famine, the Holodomor. In his later years, he actually worked as a custodian in the House of Commons. Later, he was even hired by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who recognized this custodian's ribbon: the Victoria Cross. Konowal was just one of many Ukrainian Canadians who have proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces to this day. I want to pay tribute to another great Ukrainian Canadian, my dear late friend Leo Korownyk. Leo was born October 14, 1930, in Ukraine, and passed to join our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, on March 1, 2024, at the age of 93. He is survived by his wife, Anne Korownyk; his children; and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Leo and his family are members of my church, and I was so blessed to know him. Leo was the last known survivor in the Edmonton area of the Holodomor, the systemic genocide through starvation imposed on Ukrainians by Stalin's evil regime in Moscow. Leo survived not only the Holodomor but also the Second World War, before eventually making his way to Canada, where he established his family and flourished like so many others. It is incredibly difficult to imagine what the decision to flee his homeland must have entailed. Leo later wrote, “When the Second World War erupted in 1941 between the Soviet Union and Germany, and also when in 1943 the Germans began retreating, thousands of Ukrainians and millions of Europeans [became refugees]. Our father then said aloud what he was thinking: ‘When the front moves back, whether I'm dead or alive I won't spend another single day under the Communists.’” In the final stages of the war, Leo, his parents and his siblings, with all their belongings loaded onto a covered wagon, walked westward, fleeing the advance of the Red Army. I remember hearing this incredible story recounted at Leo's funeral: “That one small wagon, already on three wheels only and carrying the youngest member of our family, our sister Luba, had also on it a large shawl, the kind that usually women would wrap around their shoulders when the weather got colder. Mother had made that shawl...back in Ukraine; it was strong and it stretched, and she took it at the last minute. So now Father and Mother took that shawl...and tied [it] together, so that it formed a loop. Father...inserted the wagon's axle and carried the weight of [the wagon], while Mother pulled the wagon” [westward, out of Ukraine]. Like many immigrants, Leo struggled at first to make his way in Canada. He became a door-to-door salesman selling Fuller brushes. He later took up a position at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, where he worked servicing surveying equipment for 18 years. An incredible writer, Leo's extraordinary contributions to Canada and Ukraine are reflected through his extensive literary achievements, which are collected in his published works, I lived there, hungered, but survived, a collection of poems remembering the Holodomor. Leo was incredibly passionate about language and preserving the language and culture of his beloved Ukraine, and for many years Leo would read his powerful poems at the annual Edmonton commemoration of Holodomor. I would like to share a poem by Leo, which describes the horrors of the Holodomor and Stalin's attempt to destroy the Ukrainian people: At times I sit alone and meditate about the world, the human race, chaotic history, uncertain faith, and shadows hide my downcast face. For in Ukraine there was a restless sky, yet independence she proclaimed. There was great joy in every eye, “Long live our country!” all exclaimed. And yet, my country's future was not bright. On the horizon, stormy clouds, a sign there may not be real peace inside. Instead, uncertainty and doubts. For Russia always was our neighbour for engaging in a cunning ploy, thus causing wretchedness and much great woe. She thought her gift was to destroy. So 1930 was the start to liquidate the kulak class, and Stalin acted with a stony heart. Did more evil, never less. He sent a quarter million of our people East, and thousands died while going there. Still others, quietly in exile, were deceased. If some survived, lived in despair. Then, in 1931, horrific deeds were taking place. A fearful sight. Great famine had begun. But Stalin tried to save his face. 150,000 starved to death, but that was nothing to what would come. What you will hear may take away your breath, or even make your body numb. For Kremlin agents and the troops have gone, to peasants' homes with clubs and arms, to plunder them with zest like Genghis Khan. Then drink and dance in burning barns. Thus myriads of such Kremlin's rank and file, like pythons coiled around our chests to choke our life, and all our land defile, and poison into hearts injects. Our world was tumbling like an old brick wall, thus causing ruin and despair. Exhausted people could not walk, but crawl. It was a yawning, open hell. So three years passed, of hungry nights and days, of Kremlin’s shedding blameless blood. All of Ukraine was in shock and dazed. Disease and death came like a flood. Ten million people Stalin starved to death. Our fathers, mothers, children, youth, he took away God-given life and breath. He hated God and us and truth. His mission was to see our country die, but we resolved to save our lands. He tried to kill us, jail and crucify; we kept our saber in our hand. We called the world, “please come, we starve, help us!” They heard us well, and yet passed by, then said, “Why do these people fret and fuss?” We shrugged but did not blink an eye. Though many decades came and now have gone, the memory still lingers on. And now, we honour those who loved Ukraine till death, for they believed in her undying breath. Dear God, all those who died of famine, genocide, grant them eternal rest. May they, in peace, abide. Leo's legacy will forever endure in the hearts of those who had the privilege to know him. His dedication to Canada and Ukraine, his literary contributions, his humanitarian work and his unwavering faith in God serve as an inspiration to all. Ukrainians like Leo and Filip Konowal made immense contributions to Canada, and I am honoured as a member of the Governor General's Foot Guards to recognize a heroic Ukrainian Canadian warrior who served in my regiment. I am also honoured to be given the opportunity today to share the story of my dear friend Leo Korownyk. For Leo and the thousands of other Ukrainians who fled starvation and war, Canada served as a beacon of hope. I will miss seeing my friend again at church on Sunday, but I have faith that I will see him again.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives supported the passage of Bill C-5, which gave the Prime Minister extraordinary authority to approve nation-building projects fast. The Prime Minister claimed that with these powers, the government would unleash our economic potential. He claimed that we would build at speeds not seen in generations. Sadly, the Prime Minister's promises are not reflected in reality. Canadians in the mining sector, the oil and gas sector and other sectors tell me the Liberal government has not lifted a finger to make it easier to get permits and build projects. That is why Conservatives are calling for the passage of the Canadian sovereignty act, which would remove the barriers and cut the red tape that is stopping these projects. We want the Prime Minister to live up to his promises. Conservatives are giving him the tools to get the job done. Why is he not using them? The Prime Minister has no excuse. The time for fancy rhetoric is over. The time for action is now.

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member talked about strategies, but it is clear to me that the Liberals would like to spin the vote into anything but division within their own caucus. My constituents in Alberta do not trust the Liberal government to ever build a pipeline, and that goes for Conservatives across this country. None of them believe it will happen. We were very surprised to see the Liberals put an MOU forward, which dangled the possibility that they could build a pipeline. However, we were not shocked to see many Liberals, including the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the former minister of the environment in the government, and the member for Victoria, along with many other members, say that, no, this does not mean that a pipeline is going to be built and no, they do not support building a pipeline. This vote forces the Liberals to walk their talk. Why can the Liberals not stand up and vote for this non-binding motion that only asks them to do what they claim they are promising to do?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Liberal government's latest budget proposal, a budget that fails Canadians on affordability, jobs, housing and immigration. I am going to start with the good news first, because there is not much. The Peavey Mart in Spruce Grove has now reopened, and folks are really excited. Now we are into the bad news. After 10 years of deficits, Canada's finances are in a troubling shape. This budget adds $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice what the Prime Minister previously projected. That works out to over $10 million in new debt each and every hour. This huge deficit comes on top of a number of very important cuts that the government is also making. The Liberal government likes to talk about all its spending and generosity, but I think it should be pointed out that it is making some significant cuts to areas of importance. The Liberals are removing statutory protections for free postage for blind people who are accessing literature products that weigh more than regular literature products. These statutory protections are being removed. I wonder why the government would remove accessibility supports for blind people. My grandfather was blind. He utilized those services, and I think it is very concerning. I received a very concerning letter from a constituent, Nicole Callihoo, who serves as the education director for the Paul First Nation. I just want to read a few excerpts from her letter to me. She said she was writing with a heavy heart and a deep sense of urgency. Despite submitting full Jordan's principle applications and following every step as required, her school has not received the necessary funding to continue services for its students. They are now in the fourth month of the school year, and these delays contradict both the spirit and the purpose of Jordan's principle. For those who do not know, Jordan's principle is a principle that requires the federal government to provide funding for at-risk indigenous students. She said that in the true way of their ancestors, they did not wait for approvals before taking care of the children. They honoured their needs and began services immediately so that they would not experience further hardship or delay. These supports have brought powerful changes. Students who were once quiet and unsure have begun to speak for the first time. Those who carried worry and heaviness have started to open their hearts. They look forward to their sessions. Families have shared that they notice a new calmness, confidence and connection in their children. These are not small steps, she says. They are the beginnings of healing. However, because the funding from the federal government remains outstanding, they now face the painful reality of stopping those services. Ending supports after children have finally begun to trust and feel safe goes against their cultural teachings and against everything that Jordan's principle stands for. Interrupting care will undo progress, break relationships and cause harm that could have been prevented. This type of disruption echoes the very history that Jordan's principle was created to stop. Jordan's principle exists so that no first nations child is caught in delay, conflict or confusion. It is rooted in a teaching that the child comes first, before government processes, before jurisdictional disagreements and before paperwork, yet the current delays and the refusals to fund are causing harm to their students, harm that carries emotional, educational and cultural consequences. I just wanted to share that from Nicole Callihoo, the education director of Paul First Nation. We stand up and listen in this House every day as the Liberals talk about reconciliation and talk about their big new programs to support children, yet indigenous children, first nations children, in my region are suffering because of the government's failures to support them. The failures violate treaties and violate court rulings, and it is a shame. Despite the government's cold-hearted cuts, our national debt now stands at $1.3 trillion and taxpayers are now paying $55 billion just in interest payments every year. That is more than the Canada health transfer, and it is more than all the GST collected. It is over $3,000 per household. Meanwhile, GDP growth is stuck, and unemployment is expected to average over 6% over the next five years. The recent job numbers we received are painting a troubling picture. We are seeing part-time jobs replacing high-paying, family-supporting, full-time jobs. We cannot run an economy and we cannot support families based on part-time employment. The gig economy is not a strategy for success, yet the Liberals seem to stand up here and celebrate it every day. The Prime Minister promised to balance the operating budget within three years to ensure that there was a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that there is very little chance of meeting this. Fitch Ratings is warning that this budget weakens Canada's credit profile. What happens when our credit profile goes down? Our interest rates to borrow go up, which means that more and more of our tax dollars go to servicing our debt instead of going to essential programs, like supporting Jordan's principle, literature for the blind, and all the other programs that people depend on the government for. It is not just Conservatives who are saying this. Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, called the budget “a missed opportunity to provide meaningful tax relief to Canada’s employers.” Conservatives are proposing amendments to scrap hidden taxes on food, work, homebuilding, investment and energy, and to cap the deficits. The government rejected these ideas and instead has added new spending. This is not responsible budgeting; it is reckless, and it would hurt vulnerable people in Canada the most. The results of the Liberals' poor economic management are higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher costs for Canadians. We just read a report that this coming year Canadians can expect that a family of four will pay $1,000 more just for groceries. Statistics Canada confirms that the prices for food, gas and rent continue to rise. Some might call this a global phenomenon, but it is rising far faster than for our closest neighbour and trading partner, the United States. Food inflation is nearly double the Bank of Canada's target rate and rising 48% faster than in the United States. Between March and September alone, the price of strawberries rose by 25%, beef by 20%, ground coffee by 20%, and chicken drumsticks by 17%. A decade ago, when Conservatives were in government, individuals with full-time jobs were not relying on food banks to feed themselves and their families. Now, the high cost of groceries is exacerbating the issue of food insecurity, and we have many families who are working full-time who still have to go to the food bank. Poverty has risen by over 40% in the last two years alone. Food Banks Canada has given the government an F for poverty and food insecurity, noting that hunger is becoming normalized in Canada. More working people, seniors and young families are relying on food banks than ever before. With respect to housing, the Prime Minister has promised 500,000 new homes, yet that number has been significantly downgraded. BILD, which is an advocacy group for home builders, projects that the Liberal government's homebuilding program could actually cost the sector over 100,000 jobs. We have seen pre-construction sales collapse; in the GTA alone, they are down 82%. Developmental charges, which make up 25% of the cost of homes these days, have risen by 700% in 20 years. It is pricing many families out of the market. We have seen population growth under the current Liberal government outpace housing supply, health care services and education services because of the government's failed immigration policies. Instead of aligning our immigration system with housing and service capacity, the Liberals would make these high levels permanent, keeping over two million temporary residents by 2027. That is a 300% increase since 2015. They have no plan for 500,000 undocumented individuals or three million temporary workers whose visas are now expiring. This inaction is directly straining wages, it is hurting health care, hurting housing availability and hurting child care. Canadians deserve an immigration system that takes into account the needs of Canadians first. That means a system aligned to the realities of our infrastructure capabilities, health care, education and job market. Despite the Prime Minister's comments, young Canadians have already sacrificed enough. He said they needed to sacrifice more. Well, they have already sacrificed enough. Youth unemployment has climbed to over 13%, the highest since 2010. Students who are trying to balance school and work face unemployment rates of over 17%. It follows a difficult summer, where many returning students faced the worst job market since the great recession. Recent graduates are facing an extremely difficult job market and are unable to find jobs in their field. Now, the Prime Minister said to them that they have to sacrifice more. Well, we are seeing too many young people who should be buying their first home, starting a family and being at the peak of their career, pursuing something that they love, yet many are still having to live in their parents' basements because they cannot afford to get a home. Many people have sacrificed the dream of home ownership. They have paid the price as food costs have exploded. They have paid exorbitant taxes, delaying their ability to start a family. They have sacrificed enough. The Liberal government's spending-driven deficit takes money out of the pockets of every Canadian. It is making everything more expensive. Young Canadians should not have to suffer. Conservatives have a vision for a future Canada where all Canadians could thrive, a country where hard work is rewarded and where people can start a business, build a home, develop a—

Mr. Speaker, jobs are important. I want to remind the member of a few names he might not know about: In Crofton, 1,000 jobs were lost; in Brampton, 3,000; at Algoma Steel, over 400. In sawmill towns across western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, there have been thousands of jobs lost. These communities have been gutted, and the government has absolutely failed. What I would remind the member is that when we look at the job numbers, we are talking about part-time jobs. The government is creating a gig economy. A gig economy is not a strategy for families to buy homes, to support a growing family, or to support—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for providing this great data for the House of Commons to review. I think, for many Canadians, these numbers might seem abstract, but let me talk about how important it is to understand what it means that Canada has had the worst productivity growth in the last four years. It means we are not creating jobs in this country. It means we are not raising wages in this country. It means we are not creating the economic growth in this country that can sustain our health care system and our social safety net. Under the last four years of this failed Liberal government, our productivity has been in the gutter. The Bank of Canada is sounding the alarm, and this Liberal budget does very little to address our productivity crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting when I hear a member like my hon. colleague from the NDP calling for a return to tariffs. I can say that, in my personal opinion, I do not want to see tariffs. I want to see a country where businesses want to come here and thrive because we have good regulations, a responsible tax rate that drives investment into our country, and a strong, educated and skilled workforce that is able to provide the productivity gains needed to bring that investment and those jobs into our country. I think that when we are talking about bringing things like tariffs in, we are providing a crutch for the economy, which makes it more difficult to get those needed investments and reforms to ensure that we can have the strong jobs that we need for the future economy.