Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?

Mr. Speaker, the member just responded to my colleague and said, “I believe the things I say.” She also concluded her speech with, “Our new government is on the right track.” I want to read a quote from March 10 of this year: “Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government's overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.” As for the member's response of “I believe the things I say,” how does she reconcile those two quotes from herself?

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referenced the procedural tools of the trade that are used. He decried the Conservative Party's use of the tools in the past and justified the use of the tools in this present hour. How is the Conservative Party's use of procedural tools equivalent when comparing what is being done to stifle debate at the health committee by going in camera on PrescribeIT versus what we are witnessing here today?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. Of course, we are talking today about Bill S-210, about designating September as Ukrainian heritage month. Here are some ties that bind our country of Canada and our country of Ukraine. Canada is home to approximately 1.4 million people of Ukrainian descent, and I am referring to ethnic descent. That actually represents 4% of Canada's population. Canada has the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora outside Russia in the world. The first Ukrainians came to Canada in 1891, with about 150,000 estimated to have landed between 1891 and 1914. These figures come from the Government of Canada in 2020, and I am actually going to dispute some of the numbers in a moment. Most Ukrainians from this period settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which we have heard from other interventions today. They came to obtain farmland, bringing their rich heritage of agricultural expertise from the steppes of what was Russia at the time and is now Ukraine, here to Canada, to our untamed west at the time and to Ontario. In fact, 28% of Canadians identifying as being of Ukrainian ethnic descent live in Ontario. These are the statistics from Canadians who identify as being of Ukrainian ethnicity, but as I mentioned earlier, there are others who claim Ukrainian heritage, and I count myself among that group. As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine. All four of them were actually part of the second wave of Mennonites who left Ukraine and chose Canada as their home. The first wave came in the 1870s and settled in southern Manitoba, primarily in the east and west reserves. They were also fleeing the greater intervention of the Russian government at the time into their way of life in the colonies of what we call Russia. I consider myself of Russian Mennonite background. There are two streams: Russian Mennonite background and Swiss Mennonite background. I could spend my 10 minutes and the next three hours talking about that wave of history, as Mennonites have fled war and persecution from the Russians from the late 1500s to Danzig in northern Poland, and then to Ukraine. I am going to talk specifically for a moment about the ties that bind my own family, specifically my Epp lineage, but I am fairly confident that my Neufeld, my Reimer and my Rempel sides also trace this same path of immigration into Ukraine in 1804. My ancestors spent 122 years in Ukraine and now 100 years in Canada. They came to Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great. This is important because, again, they were fleeing, at the time, greater government intervention in their lives in Gdańsk, called Danzig at the time of the Austrian Hapsburg empire, in northern Poland. They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty. Reflecting now and looking at history, that actually is not true. The Tatars had been cleared of that area, and the land was given to my forebears in 1804. It was the second wave that came into southern Ukraine. The first wave of Mennonites who came from the Prussian empire actually came in 1789, settled into the Khortytsya region, which is called Zaporizhzhya today. My ancestors, as I stated, came in 1804, settling into the Molotschna region, which is near the present-day city of Tokmak. I will come to that. They left 100 years later. They came into Ukraine and left Ukraine for the same reason, and that same reason is actually one of the reasons we are talking about the bill today. It was the fact that they were experiencing both war and revolution. Mennonites have a complicated relationship with government. When they feel that their allegiance to their faith is superseded by government, historically they have fled or moved, but we must not mistake that for a lack of service to country. That is evidenced by the members of the chamber, and it is evidenced by my own family history. I am going to get into two short stories. My great-grandfather Gerhard Neufeld was drafted into the service, in 1904, of Czar Nicholas II. Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst, the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta. My mother's father's family, the Neufelds, came from wealth, so my great-grandfather had been educated in Europe and knew that the phylloxera virus was spread by the aphid, and he saved the czar's vineyards from the phylloxera virus. He was decorated with a silver pocket watch, which remains in our family to this day. It was given to him in 1904. Those who know me personally know that I do enjoy the odd sip of wine. I do that not for enjoyment reasons but obviously because I am genetically predisposed to enjoy wine, given my Neufeld heritage. My Neufeld family, on August 1 and 2 of this year is celebrating 100 years of settlement in Canada. We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history. On my father's side is my Epp heritage. In 1926, my great-grandfather Epp bought, yes, bought, a passport in order to flee. He saw what was coming. My grandfather came to Canada on that passport at the age of 22. His parents were going to come that fall. When they had finished the harvest in southern Ukraine, they were going to join their family. For seven years, there were letters that went back and forth between my grandfather and his parents, and here is where those histories of ethnic Ukrainians and heritage Ukrainians unite. Stalin slammed the door shut on my great-grandparents. Their visas and passports were never honoured. They tried and retried. Those seven years of letters became increasingly desperate, and eventually a letter came from my great-grandfather to my grandfather stating that his mother had passed away at the beginning of the Holodomor. My great-grandfather would follow, dying of starvation in 1933. My own heritage is intertwined with the conflict that comes from war and revolution. My parents never had a desire to visit Ukraine, and neither did any of my grandparents, even when those opportunities opened up again post-1991. I, on the other hand, have been back three times. I have been to that soil, but it actually has not been my own heritage that has allowed me to go back. It has always been tomatoes and the Ukrainian involvement in the tomato industry. I could spend another hour talking just about that, but I will not. In the final minute of my speech, I want to talk about other areas in which Canada and Ukraine have become close and have supported each other. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, and since then, we have maintained a close bilateral relationship. Canada is one of the leading bilateral development assistance partners of Ukraine, and many of us continue in that work today. Our free trade agreement has allowed for the further expansion of trade. Of course, time will not allow me to get into the last four years, but it is war, again, that has brought our relationship even closer. I stand here proudly today, as proud as a humble Mennonite can be proud, to support Canada's relationship with Ukraine and the designation of September as Ukrainian heritage month.

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister. Farmers warn that food security begins with protecting valuable farmland, yet the Liberals continue to advance the $90-billion Alto rail project, despite concerns about its impact on more than 5,500 farms. While $2.5 million in bonuses has already been paid before a single inch of track has been laid, Canadians across the country pay and local communities suffer. Is the Liberals' plan for food security to slice up farmland? Is this what they call governing in a technical recession, or is it really just a technical war on agriculture?

Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. While Canadians can delay buying a home or a car, which also hurts our economy, they cannot stop buying food. Families are stretching every dollar at the grocery store, restaurant demand is weakening and our agri-food sectors are facing exploding input costs. Experts have warned that Canada's food economy cannot outrun a shrinking national economy. Why are the Liberals content to watch Canada's competitiveness and productivity erode? Is this a technical recession or technically a failure of policy?

Mr. Speaker, our “missing middle” processors have been missing. Finally, we are seeing some action, but Canada's productivity crisis did not start this year. Weak investment did not start this year. Declining competitiveness did not start this year. These are the consequences of a decade of bad Liberal policy choices. As Sylvain Charlebois recently stated: “The greatest threat to Canada's food economy isn't a recession. It's the illusion that someone else is responsible for our economic decline.” Does the Liberal Prime Minister plan to reverse these declines or just have a new definition of a recession?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to the Canadian people and said that he was going to move at speeds unseen in generations. We thought that was for major projects, and that is not what we have seen. Now what we are seeing is speeds moving and steamrolling over committees and over the co-operative work of this House. Is that what the Prime Minister meant by moving at speeds unseen in generations, ignoring the will of this House through the committee network?

Mr. Speaker, while I was not personally involved, I would like to note the co-operation between our side of the House and the Bloc in getting amendments in based on the witness testimony. As I have been following the debate today, the question I keep asking myself is this: Why? Why are the victims being ignored? Why is all the testimony being ignored, along with the amendments that the committee worked so hard to put through? Could my colleague venture as to why the government is taking this route as opposed to following the hard work of the committee?

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak French, but I am learning French on Duolingo every day. Today, I reached a 1,068-day streak. One would think I would know, or I should know, more French by now. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced early in her speech that the fact that we are turning the House from a minority to a majority is an unprecedented scenario. Would she acknowledge that this is the first time in Canadian history that it has also been the result of a concerted campaign from the PMO?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chief government whip for representing the largest riding in Canada by population. I am not sure if he is aware of that. The member cited a number of examples of precedents of floor crossing. However, he acknowledged that it is unprecedented that we now have a majority government by a combination of by-elections and floor crossings. Obviously, the by-elections change nothing, but would the member acknowledge that this is the first time a minority has tipped to a majority due to floor crossings and that this is a result of an orchestrated campaign from the Prime Minister's Office?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has, at times, criticized me in this chamber for not lauding the government's efforts at supporting industries in my riding, and so I want to congratulate the government for hitting a single when it extended accelerated depreciation to the greenhouse industry. However, with the new-found majority the Liberals are proposing to find at committees, would he attempt, with his government, to hit a home run and extend that accelerated depreciation across all of the industries that are hurting, because the Prime Minister did not get a deal with our neighbour of the south, as promised last July?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber, and this evening I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question to the Minister of Agriculture from March 13, when I probed why the government is closing ag research stations. Over 20 ag organizations have written in to the AGRI committee in response to our study examining these closures. “Why?” is the question. We are coming up on one year since the last general election. As part of the preparation for our policy platforms for that election, meetings were held with all ag organizations, and there are an awful lot of ag organizations. We were after the priorities that were on the minds of those in the sector. Those ag organizations do not always agree, but they did agree on five priorities. The primary focus was to maintain, enhance and support funding for research and innovation. Time will not allow me this evening to expand into the other priorities, but I just want to list them: the harmonization of regulations and elimination of red tape; the elimination of the carbon tax; realigning the mandates of the CFIA and PMRA to include an economic lens to decision-making; and finally, ensuring continued access to labour. However, the primary ask was to keep a focus on research and innovation, on science. What did the government do? It just announced three agricultural research station closures and four site-specific field station closures. When I asked the minister why the government would do this when the sector has identified research as foundational to the food sector, I, surprisingly, did not get a defence. I got a confession. When those in the sector told us about their five priorities, we assumed they had also told the Liberal Party those same five priorities. The minister acknowledged the following in his response to me. He said public investment in ag R and D is down 15%. He acknowledged that private sector research at universities has plummeted 77% and that the number of enterprises doing research has shrunk by 30%. He is right about one thing. He concluded by saying we cannot keep going down this path, and he is absolutely right, but what he forgot to say is that it has been Liberal governments driving the ship for the last 11 years. He also acknowledged that academia and the private sector are not in the position, as is sometimes misstated at committee, to take over the shortfall on research. We need to put these cuts to agriculture research in some context. Over the past decade, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 40%, but Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by only 11%. The Prime Minister has charged many departments to cut their spending by 15% over the next three years, and we absolutely agree that the size of the federal government needs to shrink, but 15% cuts across all departments cut differently when a department has only grown by 11%. The reality is that with the previous cuts to ag, that sector is going to shrink by 27% while all other departments have gone up 40% and will then go down 15%. The minister was right that we should not go down the path that the government is contemplating with these closures. Science should be supported. There are certainly other areas in the ag portfolio where we could help them identify savings. We would be only too happy to help with that. We are talking about the renewal of the five-year ag policy framework right now. I will go back to those ag station closures. The witnesses at committee were critical of both the process and the outcome of the decisions. This needs to be reversed.

Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government's approach to agriculture. I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada. Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that's 3.6. That is less than 2%. That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country.

Mr. Speaker, manufacturers like mould-makers, steel fabricators and aluminum extruders are at risk because this Prime Minister failed them. He promised a U.S. trade deal last July, but a year later, the tariffs have more than doubled. With respect to machinery parts, manufacturing materials, steel and aluminum, tariffs are way up. These Canadian companies and jobs are at risk, while lower-cost countries with non-market economies are moving in to fill the gap. When will the Prime Minister, who is avoiding his responsibility, finally secure the American trade deal that he promised last July?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. In interventions from the government side, we have heard that we should be confident that the government intends to do the right thing going forward. I want to ask my hon. colleague what level of confidence he has, given that the Prime Minister committed to having a free trade agreement with our cousins to the south, and to building things at unheard of speeds. In the past we have also heard that the budgets will balance themselves. What level of confidence does my hon. colleague have that, on its own, the government would do the right thing?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for sectors of the Chatham-Kent—Leamington economy that are vital to all of Canada: the steel, aluminum and mould-making industries. These sectors support over 100,000 Canadian jobs and form the backbone of the infrastructure we rely on every day, such as bridges, hospitals, vehicle parts and transit systems, yet today they are under immediate threat. After a year of trade turbulence, business uncertainty is critically high as unfairly traded imports undercut Canadian producers. U.S. tariffs, in some cases reaching as high as 4,000%, are devastating our mould-makers, forcing companies to hold shipments and putting thousands of jobs at immediate risk. While the Liberals did focus on upstream steel and aluminum production, they took far too long to acknowledge the downstream industries such as the fabricators, processors and manufacturers who actually turn those materials into the products Canadians depend upon. If they truly believe in building Canada, why are they failing to stand up for the very industries and workers who literally make that possible?

Mr. Speaker, 74% of Canadians report that rising gas and food prices are killing their household budgets. While the Liberals claim they care about affordability, food banks are literally removing meat from their shelves, because it is too expensive to stock. Now, add the fuel surcharges being introduced by some food suppliers on deliveries to grocery stores. Does the Prime Minister truly believe that his temporary 10¢ per litre reduction, which expires after Labour Day, will fix the supply chain crushed by his industrial carbon tax and now rising fuel prices?

Mr. Speaker, these Liberals are going to have to pick a lane. On the one hand, they claim that a hidden industrial carbon tax buried in the food supply chain does not affect the price of groceries. On the other hand, they offer temporary half measures of relief for Canadians from rising fuel prices, acknowledging the hidden costs, the excise taxes and fuel prices, and are still pocketing the higher tax revenues generated from those same rising fuel prices. Why did the Liberals vote against our plan to remove all fuel taxes for the entire year?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North seemed to be lamenting, in his extensive speech, that the Conservatives were not automatically co-operating. He went on to list a number of bills that, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola said, faced scrutiny in the House, which I believe is our job. What the member neglected to mention is the fact that Bill C-5 was passed in five parliamentary sitting days, giving the Prime Minister extraordinary powers. Bill C-4 was brought in through a ways and means motion first, and the government waited six months to bring it to the chamber. We passed it and co-operated on it all the way through. What is so difficult to understand? When good legislation is brought before the chamber, this side of the House co-operates and moves it through. When there are issues with legislation, we do His Majesty's loyal work and oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, our farmers and fishermen are being punished with unreliable fertilizer supplies and a rising fuel tax to 17¢ that is driving up the cost of everything. Instead of supporting them, the Liberals have shuttered agricultural research stations and fuelled the G7's worst food inflation. It is outrageous that while he plays economist, one in five Canadians over 50 is now trapped in poverty, choosing between eating and heating. When will the current Liberal Prime Minister accept responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal taxes and policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what 15 national agriculture organizations wrote to the committee. They wrote that closing agricultural research centres will undermine research that they say is fundamental to keeping food affordable. At the same time, the Liberal government is pushing ahead with its fuel tax, which is rising from 7¢ to 17¢ per litre, while also raising the carbon taxes on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment. All of these Liberal decisions have a direct impact on Canada's agriculture sector, causing production costs to rise, which get passed on to Canadians at the grocery store. These costs are imposed at home, not abroad. When will these Liberals stop driving up food prices for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last point my colleague across the way made. He said there were Muslims who support the bill and Muslims who do not, Christians who support it and Christians who do not, and members of the Jewish community who support it and members who do not. Would the member acknowledge that the members on this side of the House offered to split the bill into those areas that were supported and not controversial, and those areas to be set aside for further debate, the exact points that are controversial, in order to put in place the protections that I believe those members of the community who support the bill want? Would he further acknowledge that there was no consultation with Canadians after the Liberal Party's joining with the Bloc Québécois to remove the religious exemption?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Tonight I also bring the voices of millions of Canadians who are watching the House with a growing sense of alarm. We are debating Bill C-9, which is a piece of legislation that represents a radical assault on the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion in this country, but which the Liberal government masks in the language of safety. The Conservative Party believes that every Canadian should be safe from violence. We believe that hate-motivated crimes are a stain on our society, but as my colleague, the member for Middlesex—London so aptly stated in this chamber, we do not need more vague, subjective laws that target the peaceful. We need the enforcement of existing laws that target the violent. Bill C-9 is not about stopping crime. It is about the Liberals deciding which thoughts are permissible and which sacred texts are hateful. I cannot help but draw parallels between the government's approach to hate speech and how it approaches firearms. It targets legally vetted and trained firearms owners and does not address the scourge of gun violence from smuggled guns. Here, the government attacks the peaceful faith community as opposed to using existing laws. The Liberal justification for Bill C-9 is that Canada needs new tools to fight hate, but that is a myth. Our Criminal Code already contains robust protections against violent acts, threats and incitements of genocide, as well as criminal harassment. The problem is not a lack of laws. It is a lack of leadership. It is a lack of political will. We are in this chamber today to debate the astounding desire of these Liberals to squeeze their weight of accountability as well by putting forward a programming motion that seeks to bypass the scrutiny of the House of Commons. The Liberals are seeking to bypass the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by forcing “deemed moved” status on all amendments and forbidding adjournment until the bill is disposed of. This means no more debate. Again, I cannot help but think of the parallels between firearms and how the Liberals are trying to go ahead. We offered to split this bill into the portions that were well agreed upon in this chamber and the contentious areas that we would debate and continue to look at. That offer was rejected. I think we would all like to know why there is such a rush to silence debate in the House and at committee. As someone of faith who is active in my own church community, I know that Canadians are not asking for more vague, subjective laws that police their speech. They are asking for a government that has the courage to enforce the laws we already have. They are asking for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They are asking for protection, not persecution, for the peaceful. Again, I think about how the Liberals are approaching firearms. However, the reality for too many Canadians is that our streets are being ruled by repeat criminal offenders. The government's hug-a-thug bail reforms have created a revolving door where someone can be arrested for a violent assault in the morning and be back on the street by the afternoon. Instead of reversing these failed policies, the Liberals are focusing on Bill C-9, which targets the words of law-abiding citizens rather than the actions of violent criminals. Canadians want a justice system that puts the rights of victims above the rights of repeat offenders to terrorize their neighbourhoods. This programming motion seeks to rush through a bill that would remove a critical constitutional bridge. For decades, the Criminal Code has protected those who express, and this is important, “in good faith” an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. This was not some loophole. The Supreme Court recognized that this defence is a constitutional necessity. It was the bridge that allowed our hate speech laws to coexist with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-9 seeks to dynamite that bridge. By removing this safeguard, the government is signalling that the Bible, the Torah and the Quran are no longer protected in the public square. If a pastor stands in a pulpit and reads a passage on traditional morality, or if a Rabbi speaks on the historical covenants of his people, they are now one subjective interpretation away from a criminal investigation. We have already seen the former Liberal justice minister label portions of these texts as “clearly hateful”. When a minister of the Crown begins labelling scripture as hate and then introduces a motion to shut down debate on the very bill that would criminalize it, every person of faith of every faith should be deeply concerned. The hypocrisy here is staggering. While the Liberals use priority House resources to rush Bill C-9, they have been utterly silent on the actual physical violence against houses of worship. This programming motion is a guillotine motion. It is actually a censorship motion on a censorship bill, as has been stated numerous times throughout the debate today. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute report shows that arson against churches has doubled. Thirty-three churches have been burned to the ground since 2021, including in indigenous communities like the Osoyoos Indian Band, where the congregation had to meet in a band council office because their church was in ashes. Over 96% of these arsons remain unsolved. Furthermore, we see a 150% rise in hate crimes against our Jewish community. We see synagogues targeted and students harassed on campuses. Does Bill C-9 stop one brick from being thrown through a window? It does not. It does nothing to address the rise of anti-Semitism or the glorification of terror. It only empowers bureaucrats to police the speech of the peaceful. Where is the Liberal intensity for these crimes? Where is the bill to protect these sacred spaces? The government's silence is deafening. It has no problem trying to keep faith out of the public sphere through legislation, yet it offers no protection for those same faith communities that are literally under fire. We are seeing the glorification of terror on our city streets, but instead of using the present Criminal Code, which already provides protections against violence, threats and incitement, the Liberals are focusing their resources, the House's resources, on Bill C-9. They are trying to make Canada unsafe for those who profess their faith, by removing legal protections while their hug-a-thug bail reforms allow repeat offenders to walk free. It makes no sense, unless they are actually trying to divide Canadians. A Jewish family in Toronto or a Christian family in Ottawa should feel safe in their place of worship. Under this government, they are safe nowhere, not in the street, and soon not even in their own pews. I think of the people of my own congregation, or a member of my own staff who meets friends at a local coffee shop. They pray together, read scripture and discuss how to apply these ancient words to their lives. Under the vague definition of Bill C-9 and the removal of the good-faith religious defence, will my staff member be criminalized for a private conversation in a public space? Under this bill, and without the religious defence, a simple conversation in a public space could be interpreted as intimidating or hateful by a motivated activist. The bill does not provide safety. It provides a weapon for the state-sponsored harassment of people of faith. What about the churches across this country, including those right here in Ottawa, that go into the streets every winter to provide food, scarves and warm clothing because their Bible tells them to take care of the least of these? This is the practice of faith in the public sphere, but if the government decides that the motivation behind that charity, the scripture itself, is hateful or intimidating, does that work become illegal? I would surely hope not. This is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff. That is why Conservatives are fighting this programming motion, which seeks to push the justice committee to the point of not being allowed to adjourn until the bill is disposed of and to allocate only one day for report stage and one day for third reading, so the Liberal government will have accountability at the committee to not make the mistake of going over the edge of the cliff. The Conservative Party will not stand by while the government uses procedural tricks to silence the concerns of literally millions of Canadians. We don't need Bill C-9 to tell us that violence is wrong or that hate speech is wrong. We need a government that actually punishes the violent. We need accountability for those who burn down churches and attack synagogues. We need to protect the constitutional rights of Canadians to live according to their conscience and their faith without fear of the state. I call on the government to scrap this programming motion or to split the bill, as we have offered to do before. Let us focus on the real criminals and bring safety to our streets and freedom and safety to our places of worship. Let us unite Canadians instead of dividing them by their beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. Early in his speech, the member rightly referenced, right from our motion, that the interim program cost $211 million, and he said early on that it has gone up a bit. Now, he did come back to the numbers. It is now $896 million. Would he define “up a bit” as quadrupling in four years? The second question is regarding “interim”. Could the member define interim? Is this program going away, or does interim refer to just the period during which people are qualifying? What do they mean by interim here? Last, the member said they are going to address the cost by copay. As part of our motion, we are projecting that the cost will go to $1.5 billion by 2029-30. Does he agree with that assessment, and will—

Mr. Speaker, in her intervention, my colleague stated some projections, and if I caught them, she said that the projected global EV sales would go to 40% globally and the plan was to have them go to 90% by 2040. What happened to projections? We had an EV mandate that I am sure also came along with projections. Obviously, that failed. They did not come about. Where is the confidence that these projections are anywhere close to something that is going to happen? Under the previous EV mandate, the domestic auto manufacturers had to ship money south to Tesla until the EV mandate was rolled back. Now we are shipping money south in a different form. Where is the confidence in the new projections?

Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's 10th Agriculture Day, recognizing farmers and agri-food workers. While this should be a day of celebration, the government has instead allowed Canada to lead the G7 in food inflation. This is not a failure of Canada's farmers or our agricultural sector; it is the result of short-sighted government policies. Rather than cutting costs where they actually matter, the government is piling them on. The industrial carbon tax, labelling and packaging regulations and the fuel standard tax drive up the cost of groceries. At the same time, Ottawa is cutting in the wrong places. CFIA's decision to scrap destination inspection services without industry consultation, along with ag research centre closures, undermines reliability, competitiveness and trust in Canada's food quality. This makes Canada a weaker trading partner, leading to higher prices. If the government is serious about food affordability and security, it must stop making short-sighted decisions from Ottawa and start listening to the people who actually provide our food. Canada's farmers do not need to be managed; they need to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, my question is actually along the same lines as my colleague from the Bloc's. In her speech, the member referenced lessons learned from the past, and that a consultation is part of the expropriation process. However, I read and hear, right in my office, about the farmland potentially being expropriated in Clearview Township for DND's project. Consultations occurred, but they were right in the heart of harvest season for the farmers who are so affected. How is that effective consultation? All parties support strengthening Canada's defence, but how is taking 4,000 acres of prime farmland and consulting with farmers in the middle of harvest season appropriate?

Mr. Speaker, on February 4, my parents, Abe and Susan Epp, will celebrate their 65th wedding anniversary. The world has changed in extraordinary ways since 1961. Humanity has landed on the moon and has survived the Cold War, Canada adopted its flag, and global adoption of the Internet and mobile phones has transformed how people connect, work and understand the world. Daily life today would be nearly unrecognizable to the young couple who began their journey all those years ago. Changes often arrive faster than anyone expects. While technology and all facets of society have shifted, my parents built a life rooted in commitment, adaptability and love. Their story reminds us that while the world may change at breathtaking speed, the values that truly matter, partnership, resilience and care for one another, can endure and still give us hope and optimism for what lies ahead. I ask my colleagues to please join me as I congratulate my parents on 65 years of space travel, smart phones and surviving each other.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, for all the work he does on behalf of persecuted peoples from around the world with his work at the immigration committee, the public safety committee and other venues in this place. His knowledge of the bill and his effort is obviously evident from his speech. Bill C-12 arises from an original bill, Bill C-2, which was tabled in Parliament way back when as part of a large omnibus bill. Would the member comment on how this place could operate efficiently? We are now to a point where there is some co-operation, but the ideas of reform here were initially introduced through a large omnibus bill. Does he think that is a good idea when the government had said that it would not do that?

Mr. Speaker, as the MP for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, a riding on the shores of Lake Erie, I know how vital the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterways are to the economy, culture and identity of Canada and North America. My communities see every day how these waters sustain jobs, transportation, fisheries and recreation. The stewardship of this shared ecosystem is also a remarkable example of the quiet, effective co-operation between Canada and the United States that has strengthened both countries for decades. We are all better off when we work together. Later today, a delegation of organizations dedicated to protecting and sustaining these waterways will host a special event for members of Parliament, senators, officials and staff. These conservation, research and governance representatives will be available to discuss their work to keep these waters healthy, resilient and economically strong. Great Lakes hospitality based along Canada's fourth coast is second to none, and I encourage all members and staff to attend to see for themselves and to learn more about this amazing natural resource.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise and bring forward the voices of Canadians who call on the government to present stronger measures in response to the Chinese Communist Party's engaged campaign for 26 years against the Falun Gong. Falun Gong practitioners have endured severe human rights abuses, mass arbitrary detentions, torture, killings and organ harvesting. These Canadians call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and their repression abroad. They call on the government to impose sanctions and pursue accountability for CCP officials and their proxies who are responsible for these human rights violations and to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by these foreign repressions.

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member characterized this as a Conservative budget. While there were elements of it lifted from our election campaign, and I want to thank the government for including some of those measures, I will agree with her in that we both opposed the budget but, obviously, for varying reasons. What makes this not a Conservative budget is the fact that there is a $78.3-billion deficit. Would the member across the way not agree, with the fallout of a $78.3-billion deficit, the inflation that will surely again fall, the bills that will be in today's and future taxes on our children and our grandchildren, those effects affect the very people the member across the way is purportedly trying to help? The effects fall disproportionately to the lower socio-economic levels, the very people she identified in her speech as those she wants to help.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's perspective as he identified the mismatch between what Bill C-15, the implementation bill of the budget, tries to do and the reality of the economy we are facing right now. He is not alone. Would he comment on the fact that the PBO has identified only a 7.5% likelihood that the government is going to hit its massive $78.3-billion deficit? Could it also be that he is identifying a mismatch between what is said in the budget and the probable outcomes of it?

Mr. Speaker, I bring the voices of Canadians who bring the following. The Chinese Communist Party has engaged in a 26-year campaign of eradication against Falun Gong practitioners, who have suffered human rights abuses including mass arbitrary detentions. They have not only suffered that within China but have also been subjected to transnational repression, including bomb threats and shooting threats against Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally. The G7 leaders have condemned transnational repression; therefore, petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong in China and its transnational repression abroad; continue to impose sanctions to pursue accountability for CCP officials and their proxies; and take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Today, I rise to speak to the federal budget that was tabled on October 35. I realize there is no such date in our calendar, but perhaps there is one in the Liberal calendar, where deadlines are flexible and keeping promises is optional. I was looking for one thing in this budget: hope. I was looking forward to the banker this country elected bringing sound fiscal management to government finances, which would in turn lead to affordable living for Canadians. However, once again, the Liberal government's budget is not affordable. It is late, but Canadians cannot afford to wait, because every month of delay means higher bills, higher grocery prices and higher costs for families already struggling to get by due to the government debt incurred by the Liberals' overspending. It is confirmed, on page 245 of the budget, that the government is projecting public debt charges will amount to $55.6 billion in 2025-26. This is going to grow to $76.1 billion in four years. The Prime Minister's accounting tricks are apparent to me and anyone who has been in the position of operating a business before. Business owners know the difference between capital and operating debt and that both incur interest charges. We also know the difference between investing and spending. This past Friday, November 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, tabled his report on the 2025 budget. It is clear that the government has blurred the line between capital and operating spending for political convenience. In fact, to quote the PBO, “PBO maintains its view that the Government's definition of capital investments is overly expansive.” Based on the PBO's definition, capital investments would actually be approximately 30%, or $94 billion, lower compared to what budget 2025 has to say. Because to this, the PBO warns, “Given the subjectivity involved in defining federal capital investments and their role in guiding fiscal policy decisions...the PBO recommends that the Government establish an independent expert body to determine which federal spending categories and measures qualify as capital investment”. When an independent budget officer has to recommend the implementation of an independent referee because the government keeps moving the goalposts, it is a sign of serious fiscal credibility problems. Canadians in charge of a business or household know that they must work within their means and operate with a fiscal anchor. The PBO has clearly stated that the government has abandoned its previous fiscal anchor, which was to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, a commitment made during the 2024 fall economic statement. It was a key metric “not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.” Now the Liberals have put Canada's international credit rating in jeopardy. When the government spends more than it brings in, it borrows money in our names. The federal debt now carries over $55 billion a year in interest payments alone. That is more than we transfer to the provinces in health care, at $54.7 billion, and more than the government receives in GST revenue, at $54.3 billion. These are big numbers. What does that mean to us? Each month, households across this country are effectively sending $421 to Ottawa per month, over $5,000 per year, in either today's or tomorrow's taxes, not for defence, hospitals or other social programs, but just to cover the interest on federal borrowing. Imagine people doing that for their own households, paying down someone else's credit card while their grocery bills keep climbing. That is the weight of overspending. The Liberal government's deficits have found their way back to Canadians' kitchen tables through inflation, higher prices and higher taxes. Inflation is the cruellest tax of all, in that no one Canadian ever voted for it. When everything costs more, their paycheques buy less. If one could spend oneself into economic prosperity, Canada would be the most prosperous nation on this earth, with no one standing in line at a food bank, but after 10 years and a doubling of our nation's debt, we have more than doubled our food bank lines. What is this supposed new government's plan? It is more spending and a doubling down on deficits. How long do the food bank lines have to become? History has told us the same story every time. When governments overspend, inflation follows, and food inflation is the clearest example. According to Value Chain Management International's report on food inflation in Canada, released on October 16 of this year, the average retail food basket in Canada rose by 34% between 2019 and 2025. That means food prices have risen nearly twice as fast as everything else, hitting families where it hurts the most: at the dinner table. In June of this past year, Abacus Data highlighted the growing financial strain felt by Canadians, as 61% said they lacked confidence in their ability to afford groceries six months from now. That report came out five months ago, yet these concerns are here with us today. Furthermore, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois told the agriculture committee this past month that Canada is the only G7 country that has seen four consecutive months of food inflation increases and that Canadians may have to deal with more bad news on the price of food in 2026. Inflation does not just empty wallets; it erodes dignity, and it always hurts those at the lower socio-economic levels far more than those with assets. Wages never rise as fast as costs do during periods of high inflation, so when Ottawa spends without restraint, it piles costs onto Canadians through higher prices, higher taxes and fewer opportunities. Because of that, the social programs that Canadians rely on and value so much are put at risk. When interest payments eat up more of the budget than our core services do, it is, again, Canadians who lose out. As the saying goes, every dollar the government spends is a dollar from our pockets. There is no such thing as government money; it is only the people's money. I know, and I can hear it already, that the Liberals are going to accuse me and accuse Conservatives of not supporting Canadians simply because we critiqued the budget. I expect to be asked why I do not support this program or why I do not support that program, but governments, like families, have to make choices. A family who loves their children might want to send them to hockey, dance, baseball, taekwondo or, of course, music lessons, but if they try to do everything, they cannot pay off the credit card at month's end. That does not mean any of those things I listed are bad; it means they cannot afford them all right now. If they ignore that reality, the debt grows and so does the burden on Canadians, and that is exactly what the government is doing to our country. There is hope. Canada can change course. We can build a country of bigger paycheques and lower costs, where work once again pays and families can once again save. We can cut wasteful spending. Where? We can focus government on what matters the most: empowering Canadians themselves and not focusing on increasing government reliance. What we need to do is get the government out of the way. Even the Value Chain Management International's report calls for a government that becomes a “facilitator of competitiveness” so that food and essentials stay affordable. Let us take that advice. Let us reward those who produce, who build and who seek to rebuild the foundation of an affordable Canada. Let us choose a Canada where food is affordable, work is rewarded and, most importantly, where government lives within its means. The Conservative Party will put forward amendments to boost take-home pay; deliver affordable homes and food; end hidden taxes, on food in particular; cut waste; open our country to opportunity; and clear away the bureaucracy that stands in the way of building the homes Canadians so desperately need. The responsibility now lies with the government. If this budget is to pass, the Liberals must work with the opposition and the Conservatives to ensure that it reflects the hard work of Canadians and the sacrifices they have already made, not ask our youth to sacrifice even more. If the Liberals ignore the practical solutions we bring forward and push forward a budget that leaves Canadians behind, then any election called as a result of this would not be the fault of the Conservatives or the opposition. It would be the consequence of a government unwilling to listen, unwilling to act responsibly and unwilling to provide a better future for Canadians. It is time for the government to work with the opposition, listen to the amendments we propose and deliver a budget that truly serves Canadians. The choice is the Liberals': to collaborate for the good of Canadians or to bear the responsibility—

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has again illustrated that math is not the government's strong suit. The last time I checked, the Liberals are not a majority in the House. They have not shown any willingness to work with the opposition, none at all. As I said in my speech, they need to make the hard decisions, prioritize and not add further debt for ourselves now, for our children and for our children's children. That means hard choices. It absolutely does. However, that is the responsible thing to do, rather than pile on debt. Over and over again, the Liberals are expecting a different result from the same manner of acting. Inflation always follows this massive overspending, and it is going to come again. It will lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate our housing crisis and exacerbate our food prices. Are math and balance really too much to ask for?

Madam Speaker, there are certain things that the Liberals are spending more and more on, with higher rates of inflation, and things that they are committing to less and less. The point that I want to highlight is actually a point that was brought up by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Irrespective of the numbers that the government put in the budget, he is saying that there is about a 7.5% likelihood that they are going to hit them. That makes it a 92.5% likelihood that they are going to miss him. The 3% on health might only be 2% or 1% because of all the other spending. Certainly our debt, and not only the debt but also the cost of servicing that debt, is growing much faster. The Liberals can spend more when they choose to, but it is not on the social programs we rely on because we are having to commit so much of our funding to servicing our debt.

Mr. Speaker, the long-awaited federal budget was tabled, and while a new Liberal leader was supposed to mean a new direction, this budget proves it is the same government with the same wasteful spending and the same pain for Canadians. Families are cutting back on groceries, young people cannot afford homes and retirees are watching their savings shrink. Under the new Liberal leader, nothing has changed. Actually, that is not true. Things are getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada confirmed that food inflation is rising again. Canada is the only G7 country to see four straight months of rising food inflation. Between March and September, food inflation jumped sharply across everyday staples. Coffee and tea prices rose 15% and beef and berries are up 25%. These are not luxury goods; they are essentials. Conservatives put forward a plan to lower food prices by cutting the industrial carbon tax, the food packaging tax and the costly fuel standard, and by ending inflationary deficits, but the Liberals voted it down. Canadians deserve better. Conservatives will fight for an affordable budget for an affordable life for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pocket of Canadians, and the more they spend, the more things cost. The Liberals just had a chance to lower food prices by scrapping the industrial carbon tax. Instead, they chose to make food more expensive by hiking the industrial carbon tax, which makes food, fuel and farm equipment more expensive. These costs are passed directly on to Canadians at the grocery store. Why is the Prime Minister not scrapping the carbon tax and making food less expensive?

Go ahead, mock. Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that has had four consecutive months of food inflation increases. Farmers, manufacturers and builders across the country are paying more for fertilizer, steel and concrete, costs that end up on Canadians' plates. While other G7 countries are lowering costs, the Prime Minister is ignoring the experts, increasing the carbon tax and making food more expensive. Why?