Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that this side of the House supported a moratorium on immigration, which is patently misleading. What we have stated is that the non-partisan consensus on immigration has been broken by the government. For 30-plus years, between 300,000 and 500,000 people came to Canada and valued this country, and that number bounced around because of economic circumstances and the situations around the world. That consensus was broken when the numbers skyrocketed past one million per year for three years. That was not fair to the immigrants coming in, and it is not fair to Canadians who then faced housing, medical and other shortages in this country. Would the member opposite not agree?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-222. I want to add some context. This issue has been around the chamber for some time, and I want to add my acknowledgement to the work put into this by my former colleague, the member for Banff—Airdrie, who put forward Motion No. 110 in a previous Parliament. Certainly, through previous governments, we have been pushing for this from this side of the table. I want to acknowledge that that effort is paying off, and today we are finding compassionate support around the chamber to address the needs of those at some of their hardest points in life. I am going to end up speaking personally, so I will try to get there, but before I go there, Mr. Speaker, you may rule me out of order with this next statement. I know that I cannot refer to any other member by their last name, but I am unsure whether I can refer to myself. My last name, as members all know, is Epp. I am not the first Epp who has graced this chamber floor. There have been others. In fact, going across Canada, there are at least seven different Epp families that are unrelated to each other. The former minister of health under the Mulroney government, Jake Epp, was no relation to me or my wife. Why is that important? My wife's maiden name was Epp. Before any member in the chamber jumps to any conclusions, I want to state that all six fingers on both hands of all four of our daughters are beautiful. Why is that important? My wife was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, and was adopted. An adopted identical twin, she grew up in Calgary, went to elementary school in Calgary, went to high school in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and then went to university in Winnipeg, where we met. She says that she must retire in Quebec, la belle province, and retire or die in Newfoundland as she works her way across this beautiful country. We met, married and, in 1988, we were anticipating our first child. We knew from early on in that pregnancy that there would be issues, so we began the process of driving up what I now affectionately call the “bore-01”, up and down highway 401, which I have travelled innumerable times in my various capacities over my professional career. Then, it was as a young to-be father, as my wife spent a lot of time in St. Joseph's, the London hospital, preparing for the birth of a challenged child. We anticipated that he would be born with insufficiently developed lungs. That was the diagnosis because the scans had revealed intestines in his chest. When he was born, with two surgical teams waiting, the first thing he did was scream, which was not anticipated. That gave us hope. He screamed; he lived. I had been preparing myself, throughout the last two-thirds of my wife's pregnancy, to lose him. The member for Burlington spoke of how people grieve differently. I did a lot of my grieving prior to my son Brenton's birth to be there depending on the outcome. In the 37 years that have followed, my wife and I continue to grieve differently. I went back to work. We were in the middle of tomato season. He was born in 9230 season, that is a Heinz variety that we were harvesting on August 13, 1988, and he died in 6203 season, September 13. He lived 31 days. As members can hear in my voice, I have lived experience with what this bill attempts to address. My son underwent an emergency colostomy at two days old, which he survived. He then began to turn blue and actually went through open heart surgery at two weeks old, when doctors grafted his left subclavian vein. For those of us from the medical community, they grafted the vein around his aorta where the blockage was, and he survived. I am still grateful to the many friends who drove me up the “bore-01” to see my wife and child every evening, as I harvested during the daytime and saw them at night. There was only one night that I did not make that trip. We were advised that we could take him home in two days' time, so I stayed at home and slept until 2 a.m., when I received that call to “come now”. It was obviously a difficult night because we lost him that night. I said my wife is a twin. Her twin was flying from Alberta, and we picked her up at the airport that morning. She was coming for a dedication; she came for a funeral. We prepared for that, and still to this day, I am immensely thankful for the friends and family who supported us. How does this relate to government bureaucratic processes and compassion? The morning of his funeral, we received a call from a government agency that said we had made a mistake in his birth certificate application. We did not know how to fill out the baby's mother's maiden name. We filled it out as “Epp” and “Epp”, of course, and obviously we had made a mistake. There are many Epps in Canada, as there are many Smiths, McDonalds, etc., from many heritage streams, but that was the call we received. We worked our way through it that morning. The morning of my son's funeral, we were working through a government process. I do not fault or cast aspersions on the bureaucracy that made those calls. They were following through with their due diligence. However, if there are ways we can streamline our government processes to show compassion and show respect for taxpayer dollars, which is everything that this bill would do, why do we not do that? I am very heartened by the support around this chamber. It has taken a while, but I am glad the government and all opposition parties are bringing their compassion to this chamber and addressing the opportunity to make life better for Canadians in their most heartfelt and difficult times. I have lived those times, so I want to say thanks. We subsequently had four daughters. I mentioned them. They are beautiful. They do only have five fingers on each hand. My wife is adopted, but because of her last name, we went through some processes before we had them, given the experience we had with our son Brenton. Sometimes people ask me about them. I am the father of four daughters, as members can see by the colour of my hair. I am immensely proud, as my wife Charlene is, of their accomplishments. I have shared this experience with many other families that have asked me how many children I have, and whether I answer with four or five depends on how much time I have in the conversation. Today is my opportunity to acknowledge my son, because the circumstances of the day have afforded me the time to bring his name to this chamber. It is an august responsibility that we have as members to speak. It is a privilege. I have had the chance to introduce my two granddaughters to this chamber. How many people in Canada get to do that? I want to give a shout-out to the House of Commons orientation staff who oriented me six years ago. They impressed upon those of us going through that process the unique opportunity we have as members to represent Canadians. Boys and girls today dream of potentially becoming NHL and, maybe now, baseball players. A truly Canadian dream is to become an NHL player or PWHL player. As we walk the tunnel between the welcome centre and the temporary home of the House of Commons, we see the plaques from the first Parliament to the 43rd. I have served in the 44th and we are now in the 45th Parliament. We see the names of all parliamentarians who have had the chance to serve. There are fewer of us who have had the chance to speak in the chamber than there are people who have played professional hockey in our country's history. That is how special the opportunity is that we have as parliamentarians to represent our fellow citizens. Let us cherish that. When there are moments when we can come together, when we can join our voices to make life better for Canadians, let us be thankful for that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support. Mental illness is a complex that can include suicidal thoughts as a symptom. The lives of many Canadians with mental illness are at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House to support Bill C-218, which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to those suffering from mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Ukrainian Canadians who support fellow community members who fled Ukraine following Russia's brutal aggression in their journey to become permanent residents. Since 2023, under the watch of the Liberal government, the family reunification pathway for Ukrainians has seen an abysmal approval rate of just 1.6%. Fewer than 400 of the more than 23,000 applications have received final decisions. Thousands more cannot even access this limited program. While Ukrainian Canadians are calling on the government to create a dedicated, one-time permanent residency pathway for those here under the CUAET agreement, the undersigned are urging the Liberal government to prioritize and expedite family reunification applications so that families can be reunited without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I present, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, a petition on religious charities. They play a significant role in the charitable sector and in the life of our country. More than 30,000 charities fall under the purpose “advancement of religion”, roughly 42% of the charitable sector. These religious communities foster vibrant social networks, mobilize outreach, spark local volunteerism and foster community resilience. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the government to reject the finance committee's recommendation to remove advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, but I take no joy in it. I take no joy in us, as the opposition, having to bring this motion before this chamber. My question is, why? Why is the Prime Minister taking this country to the precipice? He comes from the private sector. He has personal wealth. Is he not hurting himself by bringing these disastrous policies to our country?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place. I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. While the Liberal government claims this bill would improve accountability and help with reconciliation, my Conservative colleagues and I must oppose it. Let me very clear from the outset. Conservatives fully support treaty rights, negotiations and the ongoing process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We recognize the importance of advancing self-determination and self-government. This is a priority we all share. However, this bill would miss the mark. Instead of addressing the real issues, it proposes creating another layer of bureaucracy, an expensive new office here in Ottawa that would audit the government's performance and report to Parliament. What would that really accomplish? The answer is very little, because the government already has the tools for oversight. The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits into treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-governance agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlements. It has completed nearly two dozen audit reports, including six audits on indigenous treaty implementations, since 2005. These reports clearly show where the federal government has fallen short. What the Liberal government is saying through the introduction of this bill is that it prefers to audit itself as opposed to having the independent Office of the Auditor General do the work. Why spend more taxpayer dollars at a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, inflation and growing inflationary deficits in order to create another bureaucracy, a new one, to tell us what we already know? We do not need that. We need action. This is not a structural failure of oversight. This is a failure of political will and leadership. The ministers and the departments that they lead are responsible for ensuring that treaty negotiations and implementation happens effectively and transparently. This is what Canadians deserve of their government. On that note, under the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, we negotiated five modern treaties within just six years. What about the Liberals? They have been in power for nearly 10 years and have negotiated how many? They have negotiated zero. For almost a decade, we have been bombarded with flashy announcements. The Liberals tell us they are in negotiations with 70 indigenous groups and we are supposed to believe they are doing something substantial, but here is the truth: It is nothing but a public relations exercise. These are announcements designed to impress the public, with no real outcomes. It is 10 years and there is not a single modern treaty deal. Now, the Liberals want to create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation and present it to the Canadian public as a new office, a new title and a new bureaucracy. However, do not be fooled. This is not about achieving results; this is about avoiding scrutiny. This is not about the heart of the problem. The government does not want transparency. It does not want accountability. It wants to create another office that looks good on paper but does nothing to ensure that the indigenous communities see the benefits of real, concrete treaty implementation. It is all about appearance, not action. This is a failure, plain and simple, and it is the indigenous peoples of Canada who pay the price. I know reconciliation is not easy and we do not claim that it will ever be so, but it does require honest, transparent communication and mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. It requires the government to stop standing in the way with secrecy and indecision. Let me elaborate. My riding includes the Caldwell First Nation, which, incidentally, is located within a kilometre of where I presently live, and I recently joined the first nation for its first annual competitive powwow this past August. Caldwell First Nation concluded a settlement agreement, which culminated a decades-long process. In 1998, the Liberal government reached a settlement agreement in principle with Caldwell, but never followed through. It was the Conservative government led by former prime minister Stephen Harper that returned to the table in 2006 and finalized that $105-million settlement by 2010, which was then ratified by the community. The Caldwell First Nation officially secured reserve status in November 2020. This settlement did not hand over land directly, but set a 30-year timeline for the community to purchase properties at market value, from willing sellers to willing buyers, and then go through a federal additions-to-reserve process. This, too, is reconciliation in action: willing buyers and willing sellers working together, not a top-down Ottawa mandate. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government is not living up to that standard of transparency or respect for local municipalities and first nations. In July of this past year, a status report on claims by the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs was provided to a neighbouring municipality that had inquired about the status of a second claim made by the Caldwell First Nation. The information presented to the public regarding the status of that claim clearly stated that the second claim was not accepted for negotiations. However, behind closed doors, it has been revealed that this claim is considered open and is actively being used in land acquisition negotiations. It is this uncertainty that has caused tensions and concern for both Caldwell First Nation and the neighbouring municipality, which found themselves negotiating with the Government of Canada over the same piece of property. It is this type of inconsistent communication and lack of transparency that has caused first nations and neighbouring communities to have strained relationships due to misunderstandings. When information cannot be trusted, relationships between first nations and neighbouring communities are broken, stopping the advancement of reconciliation for everyone involved. This secrecy does a disservice to all Canadians. It hinders reconciliation. It undermines the ability of indigenous communities and their neighbours to work together on the basis of mutual respect. Both first nations and non-indigenous communities require clarity to plan their futures responsibly. This is a failing of government to do its due diligence of communicating to all parties in a treaty or settlement process. This is not something that will be fixed by adding another layer of bureaucracy within which the information has another chance to be lost, confused or misplaced from the public record. Reconciliation cannot be forced or imposed by Ottawa. It cannot be a one-sided declaration or a hidden agenda. It requires honest, open and transparent communication by all parties: indigenous and non-indigenous communities and the federal government itself. The current government seems more interested in creating new bureaucratic offices to audit and then report on itself, rather than rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. Reconciliation must be built on mutual respect, open communication and transparency. It requires all sides to have a seat at the table and, most importantly, to know what is on the table in the first place. Bill C-10 would do nothing to fix these problems. It proposes yet another office, another layer and another report, all while the government continues to withhold basic information about the status of existing claims. That is not reconciliation; that is obstruction. Let me be clear: My comments are not about opposing oversight. They are about opposing wasteful and ineffective oversight when existing tools, offices and audits are being ignored or sidelined. Bill C-10 risks spending more taxpayer dollars on bureaucrats who will audit the government's own failures without addressing the underlying issues. Rather than demanding accountability from the “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating more new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. What Canadians need is political will and action. They need ministers who take responsibility and provide direction, and departments that follow through on commitments and the direction provided. If the Liberal government is serious about reconciliation, if it truly wants to honour the treaty process, then it must stop hiding behind additional bureaucracies and start doing the hard work, and it is hard work, that these audits have already identified and that reconciliation demands.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. I know that his heart is in first nations communities and indeed all of Canada. The Conservatives support accountability. They support oversight. In fact, we go through an exercise here on a daily basis at two o'clock where we hold the government to account. That is part of our democratic process. The process of implementation and holding the government to account for the treaties negotiated should be done through the mandates instructed to the ministers. Then the House has the function, the duty, to hold the government to account for the implementation of the very treaties the government negotiates. What we do not need is another bureaucratic process where the government looks at itself. We have the opportunity to do this right now through ministerial mandates and through the accountability mechanism right in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I will discount the first option, because that is another unneeded layer when the mechanisms exist. As I outlined in my first response to my colleague across the way, the ministers have this authority. The Auditor General has already done the job, and I can list the six audits that have been provided. Why can the minister not empower and direct the departments to implement? That accountability mechanism exists, and the oversight of the minister exists through the processes we go through here on a daily basis, at two o'clock every day and 11 o'clock on Fridays. I will go with the expanded second option from my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we are not opposed to oversight. We are not opposed to the effective functioning of government. We will see, on October 35, what exactly the state of our nation's finances are in. Additional spending that does not lead to meaningful outcomes for the benefit of Canadians in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities does not perform anything other than add to our inflationary debt. What we do not need is another function that can audit without the authority to compel. Those two things, the combination of the Auditor General's office and the ministerial functions that have the authority to compel, are the two ingredients we need in order to address the shortcomings of these treaties. We are not there yet; I acknowledge that, but we have the tools. What we are missing is the political will to enact those tools.

Mr. Speaker, with Thanksgiving just around the corner, let us reflect on some of the costs of the staples of the season: Apples are up 13%, sweet potatoes are up 8%, and chicken is up 10%. These increases are a direct result of the government's hidden food taxes: the industrial carbon tax, fuel standards regulations, the plastics ban and, especially, inflationary deficits. Given these costs, what exactly are Canadians supposed to be thankful for this year as they struggle to put a turkey on their table and the necessities in their refrigerator?

Madam Speaker, what grade should we apply to the following statements? The average family of four is expected to spend over $800 more on food this year. Some 61% of Canadians fear that they will not be able to afford groceries in six months. Poverty and food insecurity have risen 40% in the past two years. Saddest of all, there were two million visits to food banks in 2023, with four million visits expected this year. Since the Prime Minister said he would be judged by the cost of groceries, how does it feel for him to flunk his own final exam, the one he himself wrote?

Madam Speaker, let me explain taxes to the people across the way. The consumer carbon tax was designed to raise the price and discourage use. Why do the Liberals not understand that, when they applied four more taxes to food, the prices would rise? They have applied the inflation tax from deficit-inducing margins and the industrial buried carbon tax. What else have they done? They have added a clean second carbon tax disguised as a fuel standard, and a fuel packaging tax disguised as a plastics ban. That is why food prices are rising. Does that not deserve an F grade?

Mr. Speaker, what gives is that food inflation this past August was 3.4%. What we are talking about today is the price of food and Canadians having access to safe and affordable food. What we are talking about is inflation. That is what Canadians are concerned about, not what is perhaps on or off a website. Canadians are not looking for that every day, but they are going to the grocery store and trying to fill their fridges.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. On food and food security, governments around the world have the desire and, indeed, the responsibility to ensure that their citizens can afford food. What has an impact on the price of food? There are obviously many things: weather, the cost of inputs, trade wars, government policy and many other things. I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient way to transfer the value of goods and services between buyers and sellers, between parties, and to account for all the impactful factors that I previously mentioned. This applies to all sectors in our economy and, indeed, to agriculture and the agri-food industry. However, markets only work sustainably when there is a balance of power between buyers and sellers. Over time, structures and regulations, if we want to call them that, have developed to bring about that balance of power. The less the better, obviously, but over time, four things, in my mind, particularly apply to agriculture and, to a varying extent, to different food products. The first factor is the perishability of food. I will illustrate. If we were to negotiate the price of a glass of milk, a tomato or a bushel of wheat, but we do not agree today and want to come back two weeks later to pick up the discussion, the value of those three different items will have certainly depreciated differently. Therefore, there are different mechanisms that bring about a timely response to perishability and determining price. The second factor is the ratio of buyers and sellers. We know about oligopolies and monopolies. We have discussed in this chamber and at the agriculture committee the food retail sector and the development of a grocery code of conduct to address concerns about how values transfer between our food processors and manufacturers to the retail sector. This obviously also applies to the areas of telecom, airlines and banking. The third factor is the complexity of the biology, or the size of the investment. It is a little different when one builds a dairy herd, a vineyard or an orchard. There is an expression that one plants pears for one's heirs. It takes seven years to bring pears into a full harvest, versus the annual crops I am used to, which I have another shot at next year. The last and most important factor is the international trading arena. At times, especially in today's environment, everything, from border measures to tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, etc., has an impact on how food is marketed. Why do I say this? What is my point? Government policies can have a positive impact on the cost of food for citizens by creating the climate that balances the power between buyers and sellers, through healthy competition, which drives innovation and drives lower costs to the final consumer. Every functioning government around the world is involved in agriculture and agriculture markets to different degrees to bring about food security. I should quickly mention one other area, and that is the whole area of production insurance or crop insurance. No private sector insurance company takes on the massive risks that our farmers do without some form of government intervention to aid with those costs. The private sector simply will not do it on its own. Farmers need to survive to another season in the face of disastrous losses. Government policies also have a negative impact on the cost of food, and that is why we are here today. The Prime Minister said at the swearing-in of his cabinet on May 13, “Canadians will hold account by their experience at the grocery store.” The grade is in. Food Banks Canada gave Canada a D on poverty and food insecurity, which rose almost 40% over the past two years. The poverty rate in Canada has risen for three straight years in a row, and one of the main factors in food insecurity and poverty being up 40% is the fact that food prices are up 40% since the Liberals took power. We have heard the numbers today. In August alone, food inflation came in at 3.4%, well above the Bank of Canada's targets. According to the Food Banks Canada report, 25.5% of households are struggling to afford food; this is up from 18.4% in 2023. The Daily Bread Food Bank expects four million visits to its food banks in 2025, double the visits from two years ago. Food bank use is up 142% since 2015. From the field to the fork, costs and, hence, prices are rising. It is often said that farmers are the first link in the food chain, which is actually not quite accurate. Farmers have many input suppliers, but whether it is from skyrocketing input costs, higher interest rates or burdensome regulations, Canadian farmers are being squeezed harder every year. Another expression is that farmers buy retail, sell wholesale and pay the freight both ways. I will come back to that in a moment. That is why Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to stop taxing food by eliminating the following four things. First is the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment. Statistics Canada has reported that realized net farm income fell 26% in 2024, the largest single decline in a decade. Meanwhile, rising costs for fuel, fertilizer and feed continue to make farming less economically viable. While the consumer-facing carbon tax has been removed, the buried industrial carbon tax remains, and its costs are embedded in several inputs in food production, including farm equipment and the production of fertilizers. Canada also remains the only G7 country to maintain tariffs on Russian fertilizers, effectively raising the cost of fertilizers sourced from anywhere in Canada. The U.S. never applied the tariffs, and this past year its imports of Russian fertilizers have rebounded higher than they were the last two years. Second is the inflation tax, the money-printing deficits. The previous Liberal government increased the money supply by 40% to address massive deficits while the GDP grew only 4%. The result, obviously, could be expected: inflation. Revenues now from the GST flow almost exclusively to cover the interest on the debt, and that is before we have this upcoming budget. With the budget delayed until, what is it now, October 35, we will only know about the budget two-thirds of the way into this fiscal year. Again, the PBO report this morning anticipates what those deficits will be. Canadians deserve a government that will cut wasteful spending so Canadians can afford to put food on their tables. There are human consequences to these policies: more empty stomachs. The Prime Minister promised affordable food, but now Toronto's food banks are expecting those previously mentioned four million visits. Also, 86,000 jobs were lost after he promised more jobs. The third thing to be cut would be the clean fuel standard, better known as “carbon tax two”, again adding up to 16¢ or 17¢ per litre of diesel. Fuel is not an option for farmers. It drives the tractors. The consumer-facing carbon tax is gone; this cost is not, and it is buried. It is not transparent, and it gets passed on down to consumers. I mentioned before that farmers pay the costs of freight both ways. Transportation is involved in almost every step of the food value chain process, not only on the farms. That fuel cost is buried in every step of the way. Lastly is the food packaging tax, the plastics tax. Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental costs. According to the government's own analysis, banning single-use plastics would actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. The ban would also dramatically increase food waste costs that are embedded back into the system. The answer here is not banning single-use plastics but increasing recycling. We are the loyal opposition. We will oppose bad policy, but we will also propose solutions. Moving forward with positive actionables, here is what Canada must do. We must build a national agri-food brand and make Canada synonymous with safe, premium, innovative foods. We must treat food security as a national priority. We must modernize the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Approvals must take months, not years. We need to back entrepreneurs, cut costs in our transportation sector and other areas, and invest in processing. We will oppose, and we will propose, but we will also expose. We call on the government to appoint Jason Jacques, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for a full seven-year term; to be honest with Canadians about “how money-printing deficits will again cause rampant inflation of food, housing and other prices...when Canadians are [so] broke”; and to explain to Canadians “how big a financial mess [the Prime Minister has] made, with what is expected to be a 100 per cent increase in the deficit under [his] watch”. Just from the PBO's report this morning, in the absence of final financial results for the past year, we expect there would be a budget deficit of $51.7 billion in 2024-25, $68.5 billion this coming year and rising from there. To conclude, government policy can affect, positively or negatively, the price of food. The record over this past decade is self-evident. The new Prime Minister said he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Well?

Mr. Speaker, I will state upfront that I do not know what the government is going to do. I can see what it has done so far, and it is obviously not working. As I said in my comments, what we need to do, what the responsibility of government is, is to create the climate for the market to work, to drive innovation, to drive competition and to drive prices lower while maintaining profitability throughout the food value chain. There is nothing wrong with profit in there, but when there is unnecessary regulation, unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy that interferes with that, it adds unneeded costs and reduces profitability throughout the food chain.

Mr. Speaker, regulation is not a bad word. Regulation is necessary. The point is that we need efficient regulation. We need an economic lens that is applied to regulatory structures so that we balance food safety with a proper response so that markets can function. Specifically, within the agri-food committee right now, we are looking at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are looking at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. When it takes 11 years to review a project, that is ridiculous. Situations like that impose costs and delay on the industry. The burden of regulation is something that has come up over and over again. Regulation, properly done, is necessary. What the industry is experiencing now is unfathomable.

Mr. Speaker, what I believe is that Canadians were paying 3.4% more for their food this past year. Inflation is rising, that is what we are talking about, and it is because of government policies. That is what our opposition day motion is about. That is what we are trying to hold the government to account on. Not only that, but we are proposing solutions for it, and we are asking for the waste and deficit spending to be exposed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Mr. Speaker, as members rose and gave our first speeches in this place, we thanked our families and our volunteers for helping us get here. Now, as we carry out our legislative agenda, we rely on others to help us carry out our work. They do not often get the recognition they deserve. They are our staff. On June 30, Cheri Elliott will retire after nearly 20 years of tireless service to our Conservative team. She began her journey in 2004 with Merv Tweed, the former member for Brandon—Souris, and went on to serve the hon. Vic Toews, the hon. Rob Nicholson and the hon. Candice Bergen, as well as Damien Kurek, and I can say his name today, and myself. Last night's gathering showed that Cheri has been much more than a staffer. She has been a mentor, a friend and a trusted guide to many across the Hill. For 15 years she also organized “Party Under the Stars”, a non-partisan fundraiser supporting veterans and first responders through post-traumatic wellness programs. To Cheri, I give thanks from me and from Canada.

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague to the chamber. I, too, come from the private sector. On the subject of light bulbs, the government of Ontario did not ban incandescent light bulbs. To the member opposite, what it did was put a target out there. We met yesterday, and a year ago actually, with global and domestic automakers, and they said to give them targets. They are not opposed, and neither is the Conservative Party opposed, to EVs. However, we are saying the private sector will find the most efficient and best solution to get to targets. That is what we are hearing from global manufacturers. Would my colleague agree that the private sector is best positioned to meet the challenges that we, as a society, face?

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that you have acknowledged me, I want to say you look good in that chair. I want to congratulate the member across the way for his impassioned speech about how the Liberal government knows better than Canadians know about what they should be doing with their futures. Is it the intention of the government to expand this mandate to tractors? I come from the farm. Will it be expanded to tractors, possibly to construction equipment, and if not, why not?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say that the new Prime Minister has introduced something new, and I wonder what my colleague thinks of it. He has proclaimed that he is going to account for things differently. He is going to separate spending into two categories, operational and capital. My colleague referenced the deficits that have been announced, the deficits that are projected out for the next three years. How would this accounting make a difference on the interest that Canadians pay and the debt that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will incur?

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome to the chamber my colleague across the way as a new colleague. The new Prime Minister, as the party wants him to be known, has also introduced the concept of new accounting. With all the measures that the member outlined in her speech, what would be her rationale for the thought that the government should now split the main estimates and the record of debt into two separate categories: operational versus capital spending? Is it to capture differential interest rates on our debt, which keeps on growing and growing? What would be the rationale for that? Is it actually to provide the mirage of a balance in one portion while we continue to incur debt for our next generations?

Mr. Speaker, through questioning Liberal ministers last week, we know they had no clue why $64 million was paid to GC Strategies for work not done. The Auditor General found the following: security requirements were not enforced, contract monitoring policies were ignored, procurement policies were not followed and deliverables were not confirmed before payment. The Liberal ministers responsible for this fraud were promoted upwards. Why? After cheap talk of the government saying it is not the old government, when will the new government vote in favour of getting Canadians their money back?

Mr. Chair, the answer is we cannot find it in the main estimates. We can find, however, on one line, the International Joint Commission because it flows through the Global Affairs budget. Does the minister agree, supported by independent legal opinion, that flowing funds from the Canadian treasury through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the fishery commission and then having the Department of Fisheries and Oceans contract with the fishery commission represents a structural conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first substantive opportunity to rise in this Parliament, I want to thank the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington for the honour once again. By population, it is now the second-largest riding in Canada, and summer in Chatham-Kent—Leamington is a special experience. Whether camping and boating on Lake St. Clair in Mitchell's Bay or frequenting the beaches and birdwatching in Point Pelee National Park or many other locations, Canada's south is truly inspiring. However, one thing I heard at the doors during the election was that the beauty of my riding cannot mask the fact that parents are struggling to feed their families. They know that pretty beaches or pretty speeches cannot feed their kids. My constituents know both families and businesses have to manage their budgets, and they expect their government to do the same. They want to know how the government will pay for all of its massive spending promises and how that will affect their bottom line. Will the Liberals commit to transparency, and will they deliver a spring budget?

Mr. Speaker, with the extended prorogation period and then an election campaign, I found myself missing some things about this place, and other things not so much. Earlier in the day, there was a 20-minute intervention by my friend, the member for Winnipeg North. I did listen to his intervention, and I gathered from those 20 minutes that the Liberal Party supported the consumer-facing carbon tax when it was popular, and then when the consumer-facing carbon tax was not popular, it dropped its support. Would the member, being a new member to this chamber, agree that this was the primary driver for the Liberal Party to drop its support for the consumer-facing carbon tax?

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair. As this is my first time rising in this chamber, I thank the constituents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington for allowing me this opportunity. As someone of Mennonite faith and heritage, I want to thank the member across the way for his references to the New Hamburg sale, the community and the community spirit. In fact, if someone in my community wanted a ride, I would be more than happy to give them a ride, but I, my immediate family and my extended family have joined the legions of Canadians who have experienced auto theft. In fact, we have had three vehicles stolen in the last eight months from our immediate family. My charitable spirit, I will admit, does not go quite that far. The member referenced bold action in his speech. It has been 10 years of the Liberal government. There are promises of border enhancement and security. From where do we get the faith for that? We brought an opposition motion last fall for enhanced scanners and enhanced personnel, as was referenced in a Bloc Québécois speech. From where should Canadians get the comfort that these promises are actually serious and going to be carried out?

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Friday, May 10, be concurred in. I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, and as we move to the end of this session, I want to extend Christmas greetings to my colleagues, to members across the way and all the staff of the chamber, to the Deputy Speaker and his staff, and especially to all of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, whom I have the honour and privilege to represent in this chamber. When I bring my constituents' voices here, I often speak of some of the major attributes of my riding, the rich agricultural and agri-food capabilities of my home riding. I often speak of the manufacturing sector and the vibrancy there, but today, I want to bring a fish story. Why would I talk about fish from Chatham-Kent—Leamington? I live one and a half kilometres from the shores of Lake Erie. Lake Erie, one of the five Great Lakes, is actually the shallowest Great Lake. It is the warmest Great Lake and the most productive from a fishing perspective. Indeed, I have several commercial fishing harbours in my riding. Lake Erie is home to walleye, or pickerel, depending on what side of the creek or fence one is speaking from; white and yellow perch, yellow perch being my favourite; whitefish; and numerous other species that bring value and food to our communities, locally, nationally and internationally. This is a fish story. Those are the beautiful fish I just named, but my fish story is about a very ugly fish. Biologically it is a fish, but it looks more like an eel. I am going to be speaking today about the sea lamprey, an eel-like fish parasite. My story begins on November 30, 1829. Why does it begin then? That was the opening of the first rendition of the Welland Canal. In Ontario, we host one of the seven wonders of the world, the great Niagara Falls, which served as a barrier for entry of this north Atlantic-living fish parasite, the sea lamprey, for eons and decades. However, with the opening of the canal, and the great prosperity that it brought, came challenges. The canal allowed the sea lamprey to begin its way into the Great Lakes system. There is documentation as early as 1897 of discussions across the border with our American friends about this problem of a fish that is actually an eel about so long, and ugly. It has a sucker-like mouth. If anyone ever has the opportunity to have the Great Lakes Fishery Commission folks stick one to your hand, as they come here at least once a year, take the opportunity. It is an ugly parasite and it began decimating our fishing stocks in the Great Lakes, in particular in Lake Erie. It attaches itself to the fish, making the fish unmarketable. So began the attempts to control it. Largely, this was done parochially by the eight states that border Ontario. To a smaller degree, Quebec also has shoreline, but not on the most productive lake, Lake Erie. I should mention one other fact. While it was documented in 1897, the problem began to really escalate with the reopening of the much larger Welland Canal in 1932. Attempts to address it were largely unsuccessful and the commercial fishing sector was decimated until the treaty of 1954, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, which resulted in agreement and the creation of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission in 1956. It consists of eight commissioners, four Americans and four Canadians, and it worked very well. It began to address sea lamprey control and was housed under what was at the time external affairs in Canada, which provided the funds from our Treasury. Similarly in the U.S., the State Department transferred the funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In Canada, it was transferred over, post-1979, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In hindsight, that is when an error was made. The machinery of government function was transferred in the administration of this commission from the department of external affairs, as it was known then, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That was a mistake because it created a structural conflict of interest. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the agent that carries on the sea lamprey work here in Canada. Back in 1956, there was an agreement struck between the Americans and Canadians that 69% of the cost of sea lamprey control would be borne by the Americans, as that was their share of the Great Lakes, and 31% by Canada. For decades, that worked. Research and other activities were cost-shared at fifty-fifty. For a long time, that worked and was managed binationally. However, over time, when the funds flowed from our Treasury through to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, were transferred on to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and then, under contract, were transferred back, the DFO decided that perhaps instead of sending all the funds over, it would just keep what it thought it needed and send on what was not intended to come back by way of contract. That led to the great temptations of withholding funds, of keeping too much and removing the decision-making process from where it ought to be at the binational commission, and it was housed in the ministry itself. This led to friction at the table. The U.S. felt so strongly about the value of the commission that even though Canada was not paying its share for so long, the U.S. actually funded our share. Over time, the arrears built up to over $77 million. Pressure increased on the government to finally pay Canada's share. In the 2022 budget, the Minister of Finance allotted a budget line item of $44.9 million over five years to fully fund Canada's share, but even that was not enough to solve the issue. Why? Prior to the 2023 negotiations, the DFO informed the commission that it was not going to be forwarding all the funds, as it was so ordered. It retained funds again, causing the U.S. commissioners to walk away from the budget-setting process and walk away from the table. That had not happened before. Now we have an ugly fish starting to cause an international incident, to the degree that U.S. congressmen have written letters directly to the Prime Minister's Office. This was a matter of discussion when the U.S. President was here in May 2023. This ugly fish was a topic that had to be taken to the highest levels because Canada was not funding its proper amount. The U.S. commissioners had had enough and boycotted. Can anyone imagine this happening? Let me read an excerpt of the letter from the congressmen dated June 6, 2023: We are writing to draw your attention to a matter of great concern regarding the implementation of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries of 1954.... As members of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, we were pleased to hear about the attention given to the Great Lakes during President Biden’s recent visit to Ottawa. However, we are concerned by the breakdown in the functioning of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (or Commission), which is responsible for coordinating cross-border fishery management and controlling invasive sea lamprey.... They go on to identify the structural interest. The commission itself secured a legal opinion by Fasken over the studies the fisheries committee did. It has asked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' counter legal opinion. None was provided. The request has been sitting on the Prime Minister's desk since April 2022. It is my understanding that the machinery of government is finally being transferred over. What is the lesson for us? The lesson here is that governance is important. Accountability is important, as we are seized with in this chamber on a daily basis now. I will close with another biological metaphor. The problem is that the tail has wagged the dog. It is in the chamber and through committees and governments that we are to enable the legislation and direct our bureaucracies. That is not what has been happening and I most certainly do not want to see this happen again.

Mr. Speaker, the substance of the issue is at the very heart of what we have spent two months doing here. We are talking about accountability. There was not accountability within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in respecting the will of the chamber and transferring the funds from the Treasury to the international commission that was created by treaty. Canada was not living up to its obligations there, and our bureaucracy was not living up to obligations. We are talking about the government not standing up to the orders of the chamber. It is the very same issue. The answer is no. We are preventing a great deal of problematic legislation from coming forward and we are absolutely willing to debate the issues of the day when the government respects the orders of the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have both received that award. While not a sitting member of that committee, I have certainly subbed in because this issue is so very important to me. Have we solved this issue? We have had indications that the government is going to transfer the machinery of government. What we have not seen yet is evidence that the monies are going to flow directly from the Treasury to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and then, after its decision-making, flow respectively to the DFO. Let me put on the record two other things. First of all, as we worked on this at committee, there was largely multipartisan support for the transfer of the machinery of government. It was recognized at committee that there was a structural conflict of interest. Second, the solution was basically agreed upon. I have lost my train of thought for the moment. Anyway, I am not convinced yet that we are at the end of this road. There are indications that the government is going to respect that, but we have not seen that evidence.

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I want to add first-hand testimony. I too was trying to access my office that morning. I was prevented access to the building by the Parliamentary Protective Service. I was intending to go to my office to meet with stakeholders. I did make my way around to the back, through the basement, and as previous interventions have outlined, a number of stakeholders were in the basement. Unfortunately, instead of talking about AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis with stakeholders that morning, we spoke about how our building was being taken over.

Madam Speaker, the collective western history of wealth creation has largely followed the history of energy densification. What do I mean? First, we cooked our food and kept ourselves warm with wood and then charcoal, followed by coal, fossil fuels. We now have today's options of nuclear and there are tomorrow's possibilities of hydrogen, etc. Each progressive fuel is denser and has less of an environmental impact. The current government's focus on punishing our oil and gas production sector, coupled with a punitive carbon tax on consumers, is misplaced and bad environmental policy. Do members know what year the world consumed the most coal? It was last year, and this year we will break that record. LNG has half the GHG emissions of coal, and the world wants cleaner-burning, affordable Canadian LNG. Instead of using the wealth generated by clean LNG to fund our own energy transition, the government has given Canadians a carbon tax, which makes us all poorer, and it has virtually no impact on the world's GHG emissions. We would axe the tax and sell the world cleaner fuels that would lower global—

With regard to the former chair of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) Board of Directors, Tim Murphy, leaving his post to become Executive Vice President and Chief Strategic Affairs Officer at Aecon: (a) was there a conflict-of-interest process put in place by the WDBA, and did it include a ban preventing Tim Murphy from engaging in further dealings with the WDBA; and (b) if so, what were the details of the conflict-of-interest process regarding Tim Murphy’s lobbying of the WDBA on behalf of Aecon?