Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, harvest is here, right now, this very moment. Combines, tractors and grain trucks are starting up and pulling into the field. It is go time. Hopes and plans come to the test. Will the weather hold? Will there be a breakdown? What will the prices be? Everything is on the line. It is supposed to be a payday, not a pay more day. Diesel prices are at near record levels in Canada. Farmers are facing nearly double what they paid last year. One combine can now cost more than $1,100 a day to fuel. Why is the Liberal government making Canadian farmers pay so much for diesel just to bring in their harvest?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch. They are all talk and no results. Canadian farmers are already paying 32¢ a litre more for diesel than Americans are. Now potential restrictions to U.S. exports threaten to drive costs even higher. Conservatives are calling for an immediate action plan for relief on diesel prices; a cut to all federal taxes; a secure, reliable Canadian supply; and the use of every available legal power to get Canadian energy to Canadian consumers. The Liberal government is all talk, no results. Farmers need lower costs. Will the Liberals adopt the Conservative plan to lower fuel costs and save Canadian farmers some money this harvest?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Bow River. I want to begin by being honest with the House about where I usually stand on bills of this kind because I think it matters as to what I am going to say. I have argued in rooms, both public and private, that this Parliament has developed a habit. We designate days, we designate weeks and we designate months, and we do it with good intentions. We do it constantly until the calendar is so crowded that a proclamation from this place carries less weight each time we issue one. If everything is special, then nothing is. Recognition is a currency, and like any currency, it can be devalued by printing too much of it, and, wow, does the government know how to print money. With all seriousness, I do not come to this debate as someone easily moved by a proposal to name a week. I come to it as a skeptic. I want to explain to this House why. In this case, I think the exception is not only defensible but overdue. Here is the distinction I would draw. Most of what we recognize in this place is an interest, an industry, a cause, a community or a commodity. What Bill S-226 asks us to recognize is something different in kind. It is a duty. It is not chosen. It arrives in the mail, it is compulsory and it is very nearly the last one we have. We do not conscript. We do not compel Canadians to vote. We ask remarkably little of our citizens in the classical sense, not in the sense of what they pay, because they pay, but in the sense of what they are personally required to give. Jury service stands almost alone as an obligation that citizenship still imposes on an individual. It is not simply another cause asking for a place on the calendar. It is one of the highest civic responsibilities that an ordinary Canadian can be asked to undertake. As my colleague, the former member for Brantford—Brant South, stated in this House earlier this year, “Jury service is not just a duty; it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance.” That gets to the heart of the discussion, in addition to the words of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, who spoke earlier. Our country depends on institutions that most of us rarely stop to think about. We depend on elections. We depend on Parliament. We depend on an independent judiciary. We depend on the rule of law, and when Canadians are accused of the most serious offences, our system depends on 12 ordinary people answering a summons, putting their normal lives aside and accepting the responsibility of sitting in judgment on another person. That is an extraordinary responsibility. The right to a jury trial is not merely a tradition. As we know, section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the benefit of a trial by jury, and Bill S-226 recognizes the citizens who make that guarantee work. A jury brings something to a courtroom that nothing else in the building can supply. A judge who has presided over the same category of case for 20 years accumulates experience. Experience is valuable, but it can also accumulate to predisposition. A jury arrives without that. Its members have not heard the evidence before. They have not heard 100 cases like it and have formed no view of how such cases usually end. Because 12 people must arrive together at a single judgment, that judgment carries a weight that no individual verdict could. This is democracy in its most direct form. Justice is not handed down to the people from above; it is delivered by them. We sometimes speak about civic duty in fairly abstract terms, but jury duty is anything but abstract. What do we ask of a juror? A person may receive a summons with little idea of what awaits them. They may have a job, a business to run, children to care for and more responsibilities at their home and in their community. Then for days or weeks, sometimes longer, those normal responsibilities are set aside. They enter a courtroom. They listen carefully to the evidence. They are required to set aside preconceptions. They apply the law to the evidence before them, and then they enter a room with their fellow jurors and deliberate. In some cases, the question they must answer could hardly be more serious. Has the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person sitting before them is guilty? Most Canadians will never be asked to make a decision carrying this kind of weight. Instead of placing every factual determination in the hands of a single individual, citizens deliberate collectively. They hear one another's perspectives, and they arrive at a verdict according to the evidence and the law. That collective judgment is an important part of the confidence that Canadians place in our justice system. This seems a little dry, but we should not romanticize the responsibility. There is a real personal cost. Jurors in serious cases, as noted in some examples provided by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, can be required to examine photographs, videos and testimony dealing with violence, abuse, death and some of the most disturbing circumstances imaginable. Their duty requires them to pay attention because someone's liberty may depend upon their ability to understand the evidence and assess it fairly. True justice for the victim demands their attention. When the trial concludes, these jurors return home, and some silently bear lifelong wounds. The proceedings may be over, but that does not necessarily mean their effects disappear. In 2022, Parliament amended section 649 of the Criminal Code. Former jurors can now talk with their health care professionals when receiving medical or psychiatric treatment, therapy or counselling related to health issues arising from their jury service. That change recognizes something very important. Our responsibility to jurors should not end when they announce a verdict. If our justice system asks ordinary Canadians to expose themselves to difficult evidence and shoulder the responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, we should at least recognize what we have asked them to do. This is where recognition such as this can serve a purpose. It does not replace mental health services. It does not resolve every challenge with the jury service. We should be clear about that. However, the recognition can provide an opportunity to talk about those challenges. It gives Canadians an opportunity to better understand what jury service requires. Just as importantly, it gives us an opportunity to talk about citizenship itself. We spend a great deal of time discussing the rights that accompany Canadian citizenship, and justly so. Rights matter, but a healthy democracy also depends on responsibilities. It depends on citizens who participate, who vote, who respect the law, who contribute to their communities and who, when summoned, are willing to walk into a courthouse and perform one of the oldest and most consequential civic duties in our democratic tradition. There is something valuable about reminding ourselves of that. We live in a time when confidence in public institutions cannot simply be taken for granted. The jury, perhaps, is one of the clearest examples. A jury is not comprised of government officials or exclusively of judges or lawyers. It is composed of Canadians, such as a teacher, a farmer, a tradesperson, a small business owner, a parent or a retiree. People who may otherwise never enter a courtroom are entrusted with enormous responsibility within it for the duration of that trial to become indispensable participants in the administration of justice. For obvious reasons, there is usually very little public recognition at all. They simply return to their families, their communities and their jobs, and they carry with them an experience few people around them may fully understand. This is why this proposal is different from simply adding one date to the calendar. It asks Canadians to reflect on an institution and recognize our civic duty. Democracy survives because people are willing to participate in it. Justice works because people are willing to shoulder responsibilities, even if it is inconvenient. In an era where institutional trust is fragile and skepticism of government runs deep, we must preserve and celebrate the direct mechanisms of civic governance. Trial by jury is classical democracy in its purest form: justice administered not by a ruling class but by the people themselves. I urge all members to support this, on both sides of the House, honouring our jurors and reaffirming our commitment to this essential civic institution.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Bow River. I spent my summer, like most of us, back in the riding. It was such a joy visiting with my neighbours, visiting with colleagues and experiencing the world of agriculture: being on the farm, being on a tractor and watching the combine start up in the fall. It is a time of life and a time of the season that brings everything home. That is payday for so many farmers and so many people in my riding. The potato harvest is under way, and there are some challenges, and the sugar beets have yet to start, but this is the time of year when the bills get paid. This is also the time of the year when costs are incurred. Before I start discussing the specific measures in Bill C-38, I would like to begin by briefly describing the sheer absurdity that has characterized the Liberal government's use of carbon taxes. I have heard from constituent after constituent about how the affordability challenges of the last decade have become an affordability crisis. The rising costs of necessities like food and housing have pushed families into a constant struggle to make ends meet. A Conservative solution to bring down the cost of living has always been on the table: Stop taxing every aspect of life. The most notorious of taxes during the last several years was the consumer carbon tax, a tax on all kinds of fuel. Canadians despise this tax, especially the residents of ridings like mine, who need affordable fuels to get around, to move goods, to do their jobs and to simply live their lives. This tax extracted money callously from producers, processors, manufacturers and the average Canadian consumer. Conservatives called over and over again to get rid of this costly tax. The pleas of Canadians who were looking for relief were only denied, dismissed and derided by the Liberal government. Let us not forget that during this time, the current Prime Minister acted as a key economic adviser to Trudeau. We were told constantly that this tax was effective, that the struggles of Canadians to pay for basic needs were worth it in the end and that anyone claiming otherwise just did not understand how great the carbon tax was. What happened as soon as the 2025 election rolled around? The Liberals had the most miraculous change of heart toward the consumer carbon tax. Seemingly overnight, the entire front bench flipped sides on the destructive policy they were so intent on keeping alive just days or weeks before. The overwhelmingly clear conclusion from this blatant flip-flop is that nowhere in the adjustment of carbon taxes is there any sincerity to improve affordability for Canadians. These changes spring up to act as a cheap gimmick when the government thinks the time is right or to counter the relentless pressure it feels from the common-sense Conservatives. The green fallacy of the Liberal caucus is starting to crumble. All of that context brings us to the subject of the discussion today, which is the extension of the federal fuel excise tax suspension until early next year. Clearly, the end of the consumer carbon tax after years of Conservative pressure did not constitute the ending of taxing fuels. The industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations and the fuel excise tax were all ready to fill the hole left after the consumer carbon tax was repealed. The effects are just the same. The costs of these taxes permeate through our economy and continue to increase the price of essentials for all Canadians. Our trucking, agriculture, fishing, forestry, housing, construction and delivery sectors are hit the hardest by these costs, but every household bears the ultimate burden. Compound taxation occurs every time energy is needed in the economy. At each of the seven to 15 times auto parts cross the Gordie Howe bridge, costs compound for businesses. Every time food moves from planting to harvesting to processing to the warehouse to retail and finally to the trip home to get to the family's kitchen, tax costs are compounding for families. Putting this in terms that anyone driving through Bow River this month can see with their own eyes, it is harvest. Right now, combines are running from the moment the dew burns off until well past dark. A modern combine burns 60 to 80 litres of diesel every hour it runs. On a 12-hour harvest day, that is about 800 litres for one machine on one farm on one day. That is before we count the grain trucks hauling to the bins, the tractor pulling the grain cart or the dryer running through the night. There are an estimated 50,000 combines working across western Canada. If each one runs about 300 hours this harvest threshing, that is more than one billion litres of diesel burned just to bring in this year's crop. That means every cent of the federal tax on a litre of diesel will cost western farmers more than $10 million this harvest. The federal excise tax alone takes more than $40 million. The 25¢ a litre in fuel taxes that the Conservatives are calling on to remove is more than a quarter of a billion dollars out of farm families' pockets in one harvest just from combines. Conservatives spent months fighting the fuel excise tax to win Canadians more savings as the cost of everything is rising. The finance minister, after an agonizingly long delay, finally announced the half measure of temporarily delaying the Liberal gas tax hike planned after Labour Day. After even more months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals are now offering an extension to this delay. My constituents would like to know why the government keeps putting up such a tremendous fight against bringing Canadians long-term relief from this tax. If the Liberals are now admitting that fuel taxes matter and that affordability depends on this critical necessity being cheap, then why can they not commit to permanently reducing the cost of fuel for everyone? It seems almost like the Liberals get a kick out of constantly keeping Canadians on the edge of whether or not this tax will be suspended or renamed. Keep in mind that energy poverty leads to real poverty, and our economy writ large is in crisis. I was listening earlier to members from the government talk about this bill as a great measure for Canadians. One of them described it as an example of the Prime Minister's “commitment to affordability”. A temporary suspension of the fuel tax is not a commitment. It is another Liberal half measure getting rolled out after months of Conservative pressure. At a time when citizens need real relief from the Liberal-created affordability crisis, Conservatives are calling for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. Gas prices have skyrocketed nearly 26%. The measure would save Canadians up to 25¢ a litre and would bring as much as $1,000 in savings for the average Canadian family. This is not a small or negligible sum. When Canadians are facing an unprecedented cost of living, where many are $200 away from not being able to balance their chequebook at the end of the month, all savings matter. Of course, it is more than just Conservatives who are demanding a permanent change. Polling shows that 63% of Canadians oppose the federal government from bringing back the fuel excise tax, and that includes 43% who strongly oppose it. When this many Canadians are against a fuel tax hike, the government has more than enough support to follow the Conservative plan to bring down the cost of fuel. I want to quickly return to my neighbours. A family running two combines on a grain operation near Tabor will burn roughly 40,000 litres of diesel this fall on the two machines alone. At 25¢ a litre in federal fuel taxes, that is more than $10,000 on one harvest. That is $10,000 that is not going to new tires for the grain truck, not going to school clothes for the kids, not going to paying down the operating line that carries the whole year's risk and not circulating through the community. Farmers cannot pass that cost on. They do not set the price of wheat or canola. They take what the market gives them, and every extra dollar at the pump comes straight out of the family's bottom line. The federal excise tax alone will make about $1,700 from one family this harvest. Every week that the government drags its feet on that tax, it is families in Bow River who will pay for it. Canadians everywhere are feeling the pain of filling up their gas tanks. The best the Liberal government can do is offer a temporary suspension of their gas tax. That is not good enough. If the Prime Minister is serious about a commitment to affordability, then this is a great opportunity to demonstrate his commitment by permanently removing the tax. When the Prime Minister talks about his commitment to affordability, I would invite him to come to Bow River and stand in the field this October at 10 o'clock at night while a farmer and his son are running because the forecast calls for rain. He should ask the family what a temporary half-measure tax suspension means to them. They will say they need certainty and need to know what the cost of fuel will be. In conclusion, Conservatives are not asking for anything complicated. We are asking for the common-sense elimination of this and other fuel taxes instead of an insincere half measure. Canadians are looking for real relief, and a temporary measure will not cut it. I hope the government will be able to get on board with this demand as it addresses this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member across the way. By and large, the constituents in my riding do not think that the current Prime Minister is really helping them with affordability. They look at the history of the Liberal government over the past 11-plus years, and they see typical, standard Liberal dogma driving the narrative. This is not good. The current Prime Minister was the trusted adviser and the whisperer into the ear of the previous prime minister, and his fingerprints are all over the economic policy from the last Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic question from my esteemed colleague from the biggest riding in northern Alberta. As long as there is common sense, this is what Conservatives have been asking for forever: tax relief and affordability for Canadians. If the proposed legislation from the government makes sense, then it is easy to support, but if it is loaded up with poison pills, if it is contradictory internally or if it has all kinds of omnibus-type consequences, then it is really hard to support. If the government sticks to the issue and presents common-sense legislation, it makes it easier to support.

Mr. Speaker, it is an example of hypocrisy, the way I see it. This is, I think, a good bill. It would give affordability for Canadians, but it is short-term. If it is so good now, why was it not good six months ago? Why was it not good a year ago? Why was it not good five years ago, when these measures and taxes on fuel and energy were raised and raised again? It was the current Prime Minister who was whispering in the ear of the previous Parliament to institute the carbon tax. He thought that was fantastically good policy. That hypocrisy is on the table now for Canadians to see.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Conservatives' dissenting report to the flood damage report. Canadians do not need another report telling them that floods, fires, droughts and storms are costly. They see it when basements flood, roads wash out and communities are forced to evacuate. What they need are flood maps and, when they are finished, warnings that arrive on time, infrastructure that holds and disaster programs that small and rural communities can actually use. This dissent makes one thing clear. Announcements do not stop flooding, press releases do not protect homes, and excuses do not rebuild communities. Canadians deserve results before the next disasters, not apologies. I present the report in both official languages.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are less safe today than they were a decade ago. Violent crime has risen by 55% since 2015. Liberal weak-on-crime policies have left Canadians feeling less secure. Police need effective tools to stop dangerous criminals. With proper judicial authorization, lawful access is key to investigating serious crimes. That is why Conservatives are prepared to support part 1 of Bill C-22. Part 2, though, raises serious questions. I have heard from many of my neighbours who fear elements of this legislation are overreaching. They likely infringe on the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has warned that part 2 risks creating a “surveillance state”. Canadians should not have to choose between public safety and protecting their fundamental freedoms. The Liberals promised to listen and make changes. Instead, they are ramming a contentious bill through Parliament. The Liberals are ignoring legitimate concerns raised by experts and Canadians. They should be embarrassed. The government should swiftly pass part 1, give police the tools they need and then go back to the drawing board with part 2.

Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I find it so rich that the Liberals now find some urgency to do this. The Conservatives have offered multiple times at committee to advance this legislation, bring it forward faster, get things done, include common-sense amendments and deal with the loopholes that could have been presented. Now we have loopholes that have again been put into the bill through the amendments from the Senate. These need to be addressed. Those loopholes need to be removed to make this a solid bill so that the Canadian public can once and for all have safe streets again, after 11 years of the Liberals' mismanagement of the justice file, among every other file.

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today to represent the people of Bow River, and the river keeps flowing. I rise to speak to Bill C‑14 and to the Senate amendments that have been returned to the House. Before addressing those amendments themselves, I want to return to my maiden speech, which was not much more than a year ago. I came to Ottawa because I was tired of watching common‑sense Canadians feel like nobody was listening to them. I came here because farmers and families, teachers and nurses, doctors, mechanics, oil field workers, seniors and residents across Bow River told me they were worried about the direction of this country. They were worried about a government that seemed increasingly disconnected from everyday realities. They were worried about public safety, and they were tired of hearing the same stories over and over again. Just this year, a man from Okotoks was charged after police found more than 500,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material in his home. Investigators described it as one of the largest collections they had ever encountered and involved tens of thousands of victims. Following his arrest, he was released on bail, which sparked outrage and concern throughout the community. The RCMP warned the public against retaliation, threats and vigilante actions. A criminologist from Mount Royal University, Kelly Sundberg, said that stricter bail conditions could help the community feel at ease. I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge. It is maybe not a grand scheme, but it is a culture that has insidiously infected our judiciary and that has resulted in deference to the perpetrator. Where does this leave victims? Where does this leave the public when they are worried about crime? The crime wave that is sweeping across this country, which we have been enduring for years, is sometimes bringing our communities to its knees. The people I represent do not believe public safety should be controversial. They do not believe accountability should be controversial. They certainly do not believe that protecting victims should take a back seat to protecting criminals. That is why Bill C‑14 matters. This bill is really important. The original purpose of Bill C‑14 was straightforward. It was intended to strengthen Canada's bail system and restore confidence to a justice system that many Canadians believe has become far too lenient toward repeat offenders and violent offenders. The intent was to ensure that meaningful safeguards were in place when accused persons were released into our communities. I just spoke about how our communities feel and how they feel unsafe. These safeguards are what Canadians expected from Parliament when it began studying this legislation. Unfortunately, we are here today because the Senate has chosen to weaken one of those safeguards. Before turning to the amendment itself, Canadians and parliamentarians need to understand the broader context. Throughout this Parliament, Liberals repeatedly stood in the way of common-sense criminal justice reforms. They voted down Bill C‑220. They voted down Bill C‑242. They voted down Bill C‑246. These were not half measures, but substantive legislative proposals designed to address real and growing public safety concerns facing Canadians. Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act, would have strengthened Canada's bail system for repeat violent offenders. Canadians have watched too many tragic cases unfold, where dangerous individuals repeatedly cycle through the justice system and are released back into communities despite extensive criminal records. The principle behind that legislation was simple: Public safety should come first. The Liberals voted it down. Bill C‑246 would have strengthened sentencing provisions for serious sexual offences and recognized the profound and lasting harm that these crimes inflict on victims. Victims deserve confidence that the offenders will face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes. The Liberals voted it down. Bill C-220 represented another serious effort to strengthen accountability within our justice system and restore public confidence in a system that too many Canadians believe is failing to protect them. It would have amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences resulting in sentences of six months or more inadmissible to Canada and subject to removal. It sought to close loopholes that allowed serious offenders to avoid removal proceedings through lengthy appeals and technicalities. We have heard time and time again in this place, in question period and in debate, just a small sampling of the examples from across the country where this is happening in real time. The consequences for our communities are palpable, real, tragic and avoidable. The Liberals voted it down. Additionally, the Liberals just voted down Bill C-232, which dealt with blocking transfers of dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety, like Paul Bernardo, to medium- or low-security prisons, ensuring they remain in maximum-security prisons. When Parliament finally had an opportunity to study Bill C-14, the Liberals repeatedly blocked progress there as well. If we think back to December, they prevented the justice committee from studying this legislation not once, not twice, but 18 separate times. If the government was so anxious to get this legislation enacted and have it receive royal assent, it had every opportunity at innumerable times to progress it through the parliamentary process. It would be in force today, and we would not be having this debate in the House. I cannot help but think what the impact is in communities because we, the Liberal government, delay. If we had been permitted to do this work earlier, we would be much further along in the process. I would like to share some stories from my home, from where I live, remarks on the impact of crime and the impact of repeat offenders. At home, it is now commonplace to hear about copper theft. It may seem like a fringe or a fad, a petty theft kind of circumstance, but the impact to communities and, in this particular case, farmers is significant and massive. Petty criminals will go and raid an irrigation pivot for less than $100 of copper, sometimes less than $50 of copper, but the cost to get that equipment repaired is tens of thousands of dollars. More importantly, that machine is not available when the crops need water. It impairs the farmer's ability to grow food. It makes the farmer feel vulnerable. He does not know what kind of bad actor he is going to run into when he is out in the field, checking the equipment and doing the work, growing the food for Canadians. I have visited multiple RCMP detachments across my riding. I make a point to visit them. Every time I have a chance to visit a community, I stop by the detachment. I speak to the sergeant in charge and to the constables. I ask them what they worry about. I ask them what problems they see. Habitually, it is the repeat offenders who have been kicked out on bail, who have not been rehabilitated and who keep coming back into the system. They deplete RCMP resources in these areas that are, using the words of the constables, “police deserts”. There is a 40-minute or an hour to two-hour response time. That is what the detachment staff tell us. I know this from personal experience. I had bad actors out in the middle of the field in the middle of the night, and it was four hours before the RCMP were able to get there, to get to us. My neighbours and I were alert all night long, in the middle of the night, in the winter, vigilant to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. It turned out that the individual was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant and from Winnipeg. He had been on the lam for more than a year and had been in and out of the justice system again and again. These are not petty crimes. These are crimes and activities that tug at the fabric of the communities that hold Canadians together. Also, these long wait times do not impact just the community at large but sworn members themselves. They fear they are going to miss a call when something bad happens. They are stretched too thin because they are consistently dealing with repeat people. They cannot be in the community where they need to be when they want to be there because they are busy dealing with failures of the justice system. We cannot let this stand. It is my hope that we do not. I think of the impact on farmers, small towns and rural communities, whether it is pickup trucks, cars and vehicles parked in front of the local co-op that are stolen in broad daylight or a spree of 14 vehicles, in a town that only has 150 residents, stolen over the course of a day and a half because the perpetrators are out on bail and looking for a joyride. It is irresponsible of the government to allow this to happen. It is because of these realities that Canadians expect Parliament to strengthen public safety. We need to strengthen these measures, not weaken them. These measures were debated in the House, and the House of Commons gave clear direction as to what the expectations were prior to sending the bill to the Senate. That is precisely what the amendment before us would do. It concerns sureties. For the Canadians watching at home, a surety is not someone who simply signs paperwork. They play a critical role in the bail system. They are expected to supervise the accused, to encourage compliance with bail conditions, to report violations and to help ensure the accused attends court and does not pose a danger to the public. These are serious responsibilities. Being a surety is a privilege, not a right. That is why the House adopted a simple and common-sense rule: If someone has been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years, they are not eligible. They have not earned back the trust of society to stand as the caretaker of someone who is in the system. The principle is straightforward. If a person has recently demonstrated a serious disregard for the law, they should not be entrusted with supervising another individual accused of breaking the law. Most Canadians would consider that common sense. The House agreed. Parliament agreed. However, the Senate has now chosen to weaken the rule. I cannot understand why. The Senate amendment would create an exception that allows judges to approve individuals with recent indictable convictions as sureties if the judge believes no other surety is available and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. This is a loophole we could drive a bus through. This exception swallows the rule whole, like Jonah and the whale. Jonah escaped, but I am not sure we will. The original provision was clear that a recent indictable conviction would mean an individual is not eligible. It was simple. The Senate amendment would change that standard: eligible whenever no better option could be found. Public safety and the public perception of safety demands better than that. That notion transforms the prohibition into a guideline, which then, with the judicial culture we have today, makes it optional, an exception, if the judge feels like it. When safeguards become optional, they are no longer safeguards. We were deliberate in the provisions that were put in the bill sent from this place, and they were debated vigorously. Canadians should ask a simple question. Parliament determined that a recent indictable conviction makes someone unsuitable to supervise an accused person, so why does that person suddenly become suitable simply because there are no other alternatives? Well, it is because there usually are alternatives, but the accused person does not like them. The answer is that they do not have to like them. The standard has simply been lowered. The Senate presents a false choice. It suggests that if an accused person cannot find an eligible surety, then detention becomes the only option, but that is not so. It is simply not true. Canadian courts already possess numerous tools within the bail system. Courts can require financial pledges, impose cash deposits and set a number of other conditions in order to ensure that the public remains safe. The answer is not lowering the standard that Parliament deliberately established but maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system. The public demands it, and our honour demands that we deliver that to the public. Polling cited during the Senate debate found that 72% of Ontarians supported limitations on who may act as a surety, 71% supported cash bail for violent and repeat offenders and two-thirds believed that Canada's bail system was not strict enough. Canadians are clearly asking for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones. The Senate amendment would also undermine accountability. Sureties are expected to supervise accused persons, report breaches, encourage compliance and ensure attendance in court. Those responsibilities require trustworthiness. Canadians expect the person carrying out these responsibilities to have demonstrated respect for the law and, if they have lost it previously, that they have earned it back adequately. It is not an unreasonable expectation. It is common sense. The Senate amendment relies heavily on the phrase “the interests of justice”. That sounds reasonable, but it is vague. When I spoke earlier about judicial culture, that is the thin edge of the wedge allowing the system to accommodate unreasonably. Different judges may interpret it differently. Different courts may apply it differently. This place deliberately established a clear rule, and clarity to the judiciary is required to meet the expectations of Parliament. The Senate is replacing certainty with discretion, and therein lies the loophole. Canadians deserve clear standards, consistency and confidence that public safety measures will actually be applied. Bill C-14 was introduced because Canadians have lost confidence in the bail system. They have watched violent crime increase, repeat offenders cycle through the system and governments talk about public safety while failing to deliver meaningful reform. The House provision would help restore confidence. The Senate amendment would weaken that confidence. The Senate has argued that some marginalized communities may face difficulties. We should absolutely recognize the challenges faced in some communities, but compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. The purpose is not merely to find someone willing to sign a form but to find someone capable of providing meaningful supervision and accountability. If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards. The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk. What about law-abiding Canadians who expect the justice system to prioritize their safety? Victims deserve meaningful safeguards before accused persons are released into their communities. Weakening those safeguards does not strengthen confidence in the justice system. It weakens it. This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: When public safety and convenience come into conflict, which side should Parliament choose? Conservatives believe the answer is clear, and it is that recent indictable offenders should not supervise accused persons released on bail. The Senate amendment abandons that principle and replaces it with a loophole. Bill C-14 was supposed to strengthen bail, and the Senate amendments would weaken it. For that reason, and for the countless Canadians who expect Parliament to put public safety first, Conservatives cannot support these amendments, and we hope the government will reject them as well.

Mr. Speaker, at some point, I will answer the question far better than a Liberal government will answer a question. I have spoken with members across my riding, and they are so concerned about the repeat offenders who are going to get out. If they are unsupervised or supervised by someone who has not earned the trust of society, then the problems are not being solved. The root cause and the root problem here is that the amendment undermines the entire premise of the bill. The Liberal government had 11 years to work on this and fix it. I have already talked about December last year and all the work that was done in committee to advance this. It is rich that the government is urgently getting to it now.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the accommodation by the member down the way in giving me time to make sure I clearly understood her question. It goes, I guess, to the root of the problem, in that there is a concern about the public trust in the judiciary, the judgment of our judges. It is a separate arm of government. We have to have an independent judiciary, but it is equally incumbent on the Parliament of Canada to have absolutely clear legislation as to what we expect judges to do. It is the ambiguity in the loophole that brings into question the problem. That brings into question judges having the latitude to interpret things that Parliament has already decided must happen. In those cases, we need to tighten up the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it goes again to the same thing, which is the confidence the Canadian public demands of Canada's justice system. If there are loopholes in the system, then the bad guys will learn how to use them. They will figure out how to convince unreasonable leniency from the courts. To the Bloc member's point, I have numerous cases of events here in Bow River and around southern Alberta where the judges just did not bother to write the reasons down. It was arbitrary. There are so many things that go into this circumstance about resources to police and resources to the judiciary that contribute to this. I grant that. However, that should not be a free pass for Parliament to water down legislation when we had already unanimously clear expectations in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I take a directly opposed view of the circumstance. I spoke with numerous members across the riding, and unanimously they wanted tougher bail conditions without fail. The RCMP's sworn members, in every detachment that I visited in my riding, universally wanted tougher bail conditions without loopholes and without judicial discretion because they know that the bad people need to be dealt with in the system and not unleashed on the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that this is my first full year in the House, and I find it a bit disappointing, in fact a lot disappointing, that the government had all year to get this work done, yet it is imposing closure. A bill such as this, which arguably does not have a lot of controversy attached to it, would have been very easy to pass with the process that we had allowed, yet we have these games from the Liberal government. We are here to work as long as possible to make sure that we shine the light of transparency onto everything the government is doing, and I really would appreciate a comment from the government as to how transparency is served by closure.

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Canadians are being told to tighten their belts while the Prime Minister cannot stop spending. On a single trip, taxpayers were billed more than $17,000 for salmon, which is more than many Canadian families spend on food for an entire year. Meanwhile, the environment minister said it was reasonable to spend half a million dollars on luxury accommodations in Brazil on a junket. With all the extravagant spending, will the Prime Minister stop dodging and tell Canadians the truth? Are we in a recession or merely a technical recession?

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Bow River always appreciate when I have an opportunity to speak in the House or ask questions. More than a decade of having Liberal-appointed, soft-on-crime judges who follow the tone and tenor set by the government has really eroded the confidence of people on the disposition or the delivery of justice. I wonder if the member can speak to how bills passed need to be explicit in terms of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences and how, otherwise, judges will erode the system and public confidence in the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, Alberta beef is the best in the world, produced by ranchers and farmers who are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot. While the Liberals talk about buying Canadian, they are negotiating a Mercosur deal that could flood our market with imported beef produced under conditions that Canadians would never accept at home. Canadian cattle producers are held to world-class standards, yet the government is prepared to reward foreign producers who do not play by the same rules. Why are the Liberals willing to undercut Bow River ranchers instead of standing up for Canadian beef, Canadian jobs and Canadian ranching families?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support free trade, and ranchers do not need another Liberal press release about trade diversification. They need real market access and a government willing to defend their industry here at home. This is not a game, but the Liberals are acting like the beef industry is a convenient bargaining chip. Would the Mercosur deal actually benefit farmers and ranchers in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Canadians are out of money. The latest data from Dalhousie University shows a heartbreaking reality. Affordability is now the only thing driving food choices. For it, nutrition is being sacrificed and quality is being killed. One in three Canadians is now borrowing money just to afford groceries. Families are scaling back, yet they are still spending more on food every single year. The government House leader is complaining that this is all he hears, but the pressure is rising. The Prime Minister has doubled the Trudeau deficit and Canadians are the ones being crushed. Nothing has changed. This costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending and more taxes. It is more of the same. The Liberals are spending more and Canadians are getting less. Families in Bow River and across the country deserve fairness. They deserve common sense, but most of all, they deserve to be able to afford their dinner.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' recently manufactured majority is starting to settle in. All of a sudden, they can move fast when it comes to grabbing control of committees to prevent scrutiny of their behaviour. The ethics, public accounts, and operations and estimates committees are important to ensure the public can trust that power is not being abused, and they are at risk of being taken over by the Liberals. We never seem to have to look very far for glaring examples of why oversight is so important. There was the software scandal with almost $300 million wasted on failed e-prescribing. The program did not work. This latest boondoggle makes the ArriveCAN scandal look like a warm-up act. While the Liberals complain about two-tier health care, they keep defending the $275 million spent on health care benefits for fake asylum claimants, benefits that Canadians do not have access to. This is Liberal logic. Finally, I hope, as the week is not over, the Liberals are turning a gravel pit into a money pit, with $200 million spent for Liberal insiders to get rich, and they say that they are just getting started.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today because the people of Alberta expect me to stand up when something is wrong. They expect us to fix it. As members of this House, we are guardians of the Canada Elections Act. This law is one of the foundations of our democracy. It is the contract that ensures power stays where it belongs, in the hands of the Canadian people. Our duty is to ensure that when a citizen marks their ballot, the process is fair, the choice is clear, and the results are beyond reproach. Over the last decade, confidence in Canadian elections has decayed. The very foundations are beginning to crack. Bill C-25 is supposed to patch this up. When a foundation starts to crack, we do not ignore it or paper over it. We shore it up before the whole structure crumbles. The bill would start that work, but it is late, and it does not go far enough. In my maiden speech, I said that the Bow River does not ask Ottawa's permission to flow. Even though obstructions are in the way, it cuts its path. Just across from my riding, my neighbours in Battle River—Crowfoot walked into a by-election and saw what happens when those foundations are neglected. They saw a ballot so broken it barely worked. The longest ballot committee flooded that by-election with 214 candidates. It forced Elections Canada to abandon the normal ballot process, and people had to handwrite their vote on a blank line. They were forced to manually write out names and risk a spoiled ballot just to exercise their basic right. Let us think about that. A senior who has voted for 50 years walks in, ready to do their duty, and suddenly they are asked to reconstruct the ballot from memory. If someone spells a name wrong, their vote could be tossed. If someone writes too fast or writes a name slightly off, their vote could be tossed. The government was warned by the Chief Electoral Officer that these ballots were becoming a barrier for voters with disabilities. This had been done before. It knew the longest ballot scam was threatening our democratic process, and it did nothing. It took something that should have been simple and made it fragile. I have to say, I am most concerned about my Liberal colleagues, because we all saw what happened in the House. One of the Liberals stood up with complete confidence and berated this side of the House about the supposed hockey skills of Irish kickboxer Conor McGregor. We knew he was talking about Alberta's hockey superstar Connor McDavid, but close only counts in horseshoes. We are human, and we all are susceptible to error. That is why we have to have rigid, reliable systems. It can be stressful standing up in the House, especially when the elbows-up PMO has the Liberal caucus on a strict hockey analogy quota. Let us imagine the same moment in a voting booth: Two Connors are in someone's head. They know who they mean to vote for, and they just hope they get it exactly right. That is the system the government forced on people. The longest ballot committee exposed a weakness, not in our underlying system but in the administration of it. It cost this country millions of dollars. It delayed results. Most importantly, it shook confidence. Ultimately, it creates a cascading effect of doubt. If a voter in Bow River sees a circus across the fence in Battle River, they start to wonder if their vote is next or if the whole system is broken. When people see the process break down, they start to wonder what else is not holding. Everyone saw it coming. The warnings were there, and the government did nothing. There is a deeper crack that we need to look at: foreign interference. While people were dealing with a system that was already under strain, foreign actors were pushing on it from the outside. We saw what happened to Kenny Chiu. There were smear campaigns, coordinated messaging and falsehoods designed to turn his own community against him. That pressure does not stay contained. It spreads, and it weakens the trust in the entire structure. My family came to this country, escaping from communist Europe, to build a country where we could speak freely and participate in public life without fear. That belief rests on a democratic system that people can trust. When foreign governments start interfering in who gets elected, they are attacking that trust directly. It does not start on election day either, but far earlier. In the nomination races, we have seen reports of buses of non-residents showing up to tip the scales. That is pressure being applied at the very base of the system. If one can shape who gets on the ballot, one can shape everything that follows. This legislation does nothing to stop it. Non-citizens should have no say in our elections, no say in who gets to be on the ballot, and certainly no say in who gets to stand in this House. There is also the question of privacy, which is another part of the structure that should be solid. Back home, Rocky's Bakery in Strathmore sells some of the best hot cross buns one can ever find. When a customer swipes their credit card, a litany of laws kick in to protect that consumer data. Rocky's Bakery follows the rules. It answers to the law. However, political parties in this country think they are above the law. They collect vast amounts of data on Canadians and operate outside of any oversight. There are gaps in the system like this. These sorts of gaps will not stay small; they will widen. Here is the reality. My neighbours are watching election after election turn into a circus. They have heard of and have seen foreign governments trying to influence outcomes. They know their data is being handled under a different set of rules and they are asking a simple question: Is the system as solid as we were told it is? Can they trust the system? This is what needs to happen. We need real oversight of political party data by the Privacy Commissioner. We need serious penalties for anyone working with foreign actors to interfere in our elections. We need a foreign agent registry. We need to crack down on those who are interfering directly in our elections or from the shadows. We need clear rules to prevent these ballot stunts from ever happening again. We need to protect nomination races, because that is where the foundation is first laid. I think the best place for this bill to go is to committee. I am really encouraged by the notion that we collaborate to get this right. I hope the government listens to constructive criticism and to how we can build a system that is reliable and can stand the test of centuries. Specifically, it needs to go to committee because I do not think it is complete. I think more work needs to be done, most importantly, because my neighbours deserve a system that holds. The country deserves a system that holds, one where every citizen can walk in, mark a ballot and know where it stands, where no foreign government can lean on it. That is what we are here to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way. I think he touches on an important part. I had, in my words earlier, alluded to some solutions. I think it is close. I think that sort of notion of “once”, but limited perhaps outside of the constituency, because there is a limited pool of people with experience who know how to run things well. Because of the financial aspect of campaigns, it is important we maintain security around that too. I think it is best studied at committee. It seems reasonable to have other perspectives from witnesses and experts to comment on that, to anticipate the unanticipated. That is where this belongs.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why it needs to be studied at committee. The sharing of data and the unintended consequences of that, and the impacts of privacy of the individual have to be fully vetted out and compared. It deserves sunlight, the discussion of open debate and thorough study. Our democracy is not necessarily supposed to work fast, but it is supposed to be thorough so it can be effective and stand the test of time.

Mr. Speaker, this is important, and it may be one of the most important aspects of this legislation. We need to look at how the finances are treated and get it right. The power rests with the people and is enabled by the money. The adage is to always follow the money. We need to have people knowledgeable about how to audit, conduct, measure, tabulate and ledger the expenses, and to do it with honour, discipline and honesty. However, if we have them spread out too much, then it introduces a lot of problems. The bill needs to go to committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate two outstanding hockey stories from Bow River. First, I congratulate the community of Taber on being named the 2026 Kraft Hockeyville national champions. Through adversity, and with remarkable fortitude, the people of Taber came together and earned this well-deserved victory. It stands as the latest chapter in the proud culture of hockey excellence that the people of Bow River continue to build. Taber's win provides $250,000 to rebuild its arena after it was destroyed, along with the exciting opportunity to host an NHL pre-season game next fall. I look forward to attending this much-anticipated game. Second, I would like to give a huge shout-out to the Brooks Bandits. Three more graduates signed NHL contracts this past week, providing further proof of the world-class development program the Bandits have built. We look forward to their potential NHL debuts. Hockey is thriving in Bow River, and these stories make us all proud. Go, Taber, and go, Bandits!

Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced Bill C-273, the FARM act, to cut red tape and get farmers faster access to proven tools already deemed safe and approved by trusted jurisdictions. The bill reflects recommendations made by the ag committee on regulatory reform in response to industry concerns about costly delays and lack of access that leave our farmers at a disadvantage. It is a practical, no-cost solution that maintains oversight by delivering results. Will the Liberals support this common-sense legislation, listen to the recommendations from committee and industry, and get farmers faster access to the tools they need?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act. Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta did not send me here to sit quietly while farms are run out of business by bureaucrats in Ottawa. Farmers sent me here to fix what is broken. Today, I am introducing the FARM act, a simple and practical way to make life better for Canadian farmers and more affordable for every family that depends on them. For years, our farmers have been buried under layers of red tape, rules that do not make sense, delays that cost them money and barriers that keep them from using the same safe, proven tools their competitors already rely on in the United States, the EU, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, our farmers are told to wait: to wait for approvals, to wait for reviews and to wait while their costs climb and their yields fall. That is not protecting Canadians. That is holding them back. When farmers fall behind, Canadians feel it at the grocery store. The FARM act would change that. It would create a trusted system where products are already approved by at least two of our closest allies and can be made available to Canadian farmers within 90 days. That is not years but days. Canadian reviews still happen, safety remains paramount and the minister will retain the authority to step in if there are concerns. This bill gives ranchers in Strathmore the medications they need to keep their herds healthy. It gives potato farmers in P.E.I. the inputs they need to produce more food. There is no new bureaucracy and no new spending, just common sense. It was written by a farmer for my colleagues in the field. It means stronger yields, lower costs, more food produced right here at home and stronger rural communities. It means some relief for Canadians who are tired of watching their grocery bills climb higher. Canadian farmers are the best in the world. They need the government to get out of the way so they can grow food for families. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the community of Taber in my riding for being named a finalist in this year's Kraft Hockeyville competition and for being selected as Alberta's provincial winner, earning $50,000 for arena upgrades, along with a chance to compete for the $250,000 grand prize and the opportunity to host an NHL pre-season game. This recognition comes at a critical time for Taber. In December of last year, an explosion seriously damaged the town's arena and forced its closure, disrupting the local community, minor hockey and other community events. Taber has a proud hockey tradition. It is the hometown of former NHL star Devin Setoguchi, and its rink has long hosted youth camps led by Calgary Flames alumnus Kris Versteeg, bringing the next generation of athletes together. Winning Kraft Hockeyville is a testament to community spirit, and Taber has shown exactly that in the face of adversity. I wish the community of Taber the very best in the finals, along with the community of Tumbler Ridge, and I congratulate it on a truly deserving community-led effort.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution to this discussion from the hon. member, my colleague. I wonder if he could comment a bit on the lack of consultation with agents like those from the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, and with Orthodox rabbis. There has been no serious consultation on this particular contentious part of the bill, and that feedback would be most informative. There has been none, not at committee or anywhere else, much against what Liberal colleagues and others have said about this.

Mr. Speaker, since I took office, my office has not received more letters, emails, phone calls or petitions on any single issue than on Bill C-9. Every day, dozens of residents in my riding call my office about the bill, and if the Liberals were honest, they would admit they are hearing the same. These families, religious leaders and ordinary Canadians are not confused. They are not misinformed. They are, however, afraid. They are afraid that the bill would chill free speech, they are afraid that it would erode religious freedom, and they are afraid that their own government is no longer listening to them. We have seen a strong, unified voice from religious leaders of all faiths, as well as from civil liberties groups from across Canada, condemning the overreach of the bill. Organizations such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, among dozens of others, have raised serious concerns. In December, 23 of these organizations issued a joint statement outlining their objections to Bill C-9. Let us be clear about something. Hate is real, it is wrong and it must be confronted, but here is the truth this government does not want to admit: Hate has festered in this country on its watch, not because we lack laws but because it has failed to enforce the laws we already have. The Criminal Code of Canada already contains clear hate speech provisions in sections 318 and 320. These cover the public and wilful incitement of hatred and the advocacy of genocide against identifiable groups, and include specific provisions addressing the wilful promotion of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. Canada already has the legal tools to deal with hate speech. We already have the means to prosecute those who incite violence and promote hatred. This is not a failure of legislation; it is a failure of enforcement. Since last year, we have seen this failure first-hand. A man in Toronto was charged with an array of offences, including advocating genocide. After an eight-month anti-Semitic crime spree, he was released on bail even though he was found with multiple loaded firearms. However, the Liberals in December voted down a motion 18 times to study their own Bill C-14, which would have addressed these issues around bail. Instead of fixing enforcement, the government is doing what it always does. It is layering on more laws, more bureaucracy and more confusion, all while pretending to take action. Bill C-9 would go far beyond what is necessary. In doing so, it would put at risk two of the most fundamental freedoms we have as Canadians: freedom of expression and freedom of religion. One of the most concerning elements of the bill is the Liberal-Bloc amendment that would remove long-standing protections for religious speech. These protections are not loopholes. They are not technicalities. They are constitutional guardrails. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly recognized that this religious defence is necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional because of how fundamental freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in a free and democratic society. Let me repeat that. These protections do not exist by accident, but because, without them, the law itself risks violating the charter and the fundamental rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. However, the government, working hand in hand with the Bloc, has chosen to strip them away. Let me ask a simple question. If this was such a good idea, and if this is such necessary legislation, why did the Liberals not support it in 2023, when the Bloc Québécois introduced nearly identical legislation in Bill C-367? That bill also sought to remove sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), the very provisions that protect Canadians expressing religious views in good faith, yet from that time, I cannot find a single record of a Liberal MP standing up to champion it. There was not one. What changed? Did the Liberals suddenly discover principle, or are they now so desperate to pass something, anything, that they are willing to abandon their own cautions and push through a bill that would divide Canadians? Bill C-9 would do more than remove protections. It would lower the threshold for prosecution, it would introduce a new, vague definition of hate, it would remove the requirement for Attorney General consent before charges are laid, and it would eliminate the religious defence. Taken together, these changes would create uncertainty where we need clarity. They would make it easier for individuals to be investigated, charged and prosecuted, not for inciting violence but for expressing views that others may find controversial. This concern is not hypothetical. We heard at committee from a former Liberal justice committee chair, who stated that there is “clear hatred” in parts of religious texts like the Bible and the Torah, specifically referencing books such as Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. He even doubled down and went further, saying these passages “should not be used [as] a defence” and that prosecutors should be able to proceed with charges. Let us think about that for a moment: sacred texts held by millions of Canadians being cited as potential grounds for criminal prosecution. This is not a fringe concern. It is the natural consequence of vague and unclear legislation that will ultimately lead to a chilling of free speech and expression like we have seen in nations such as the United Kingdom. The government says this bill will protect Canadians, but even the so-called safeguards it proposes are weak. The Liberals inserted language claiming the bill would not infringe on charter rights, yet when Conservatives proposed real, concrete protections, they rejected them. At the same time, they used procedural tactics to shut down debate. They cut off discussion. They limited scrutiny. In doing so, they shut out the voices of Canadians, including those most directly affected and concerned by this bill. Conservatives offered a reasonable solution and a clear path forward: Split the bill and swiftly pass the uncontentious sections. However, the Liberals rejected this and took the easy way out, bundling the good with the bad and forcing it through, teaming up with the Bloc to undermine freedom of expression and religious freedom. The justice minister has also confirmed that the bill would apply to online content, which raises serious concerns about the direction Canada is heading. We have already seen attempts by the government to regulate online speech through legislation like the former online harms act. Now we see another step in that same direction, toward a system where Canadians may begin to self-censor out of fear. That is chilling, not because they intend harm but because they are unsure where the line is. This bill is not about filling gaps in the law. It is about covering up failures: failures to enforce existing laws, failures to lead and failures to act when it actually matters. Instead of fixing these failures, the government is trying to mask them with sweeping new legislation that goes too far. Hate speech is wrong, but Canada already has the tools to deal with it. What we do not need is a law that risks punishing the very freedoms that define us. I will stand with the Canadians who have written to me. I will stand with faith communities across the country, and Conservatives will stand for the fundamental freedoms that Canadians expect us to defend. For those reasons, I cannot and I will not support Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I appreciate the question from the member opposite, but such as it is, I do not know of any organizations that I affiliate with that are advocating for hate speech and trying hate speech. The religious organizations I have spoken to, including the United Church, the Catholic bishops and many other pastors and congregations in my riding are absolutely chilled. They are absolutely chilled by the prospect of where this can go, considering the history of the failure to execute by the government on so many different files.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. It attempts to drive at some clarity as to motivation, but the Bloc is the sponsor of that amendment. It would have, and would continue to have, a chilling effect on these faith groups across the country. The government does not have a good record with respect to restraining itself from overreach as its ideologues and ideologies evolve through time according to the whims of the current polls. The current government will find the temptation irreversible to encroach upon the limits of the constitutionality of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot control what happens overseas, but we can control the policies here at home that are making life less affordable. Right now, higher oil prices should be a huge opportunity for Canada. We are blessed with the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, and our allies are asking for reliable energy. Instead of Canadians' getting resources to market, the Liberals keep putting up roadblocks and excuses. They have not approved a single new pipeline to tidewater, and the much-touted Major Projects Office, which was supposed to speed things up, has not approved a single project. Maybe if a pipeline had Liberal insiders connected to it, like a certain wind farm in Nova Scotia, or even Brookfield, the government would actually care about getting it built. The Liberals' industrial carbon tax is driving investment out of Canada, and to make matters worse, they are raising the tax. Canadian Natural recently paused an $8.25-billion project in Alberta because of destructive Liberal policies. Canada should be powering our economy and supplying energy to our allies, so why will the Liberals not get out of the way and scrap the anti-development laws?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of constituents of the riding of Bow River and, in fact, constituents across the country to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of a faith community, and freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, head, heart, health and hands is the 4-H pledge. On March 14, I will be attending the 4-H south region's annual communications event in Alberta, which will host approximately 100 young speakers. I joined 4-H when I was nine years old, and it was there that I learned to stand on my own two feet, speak with confidence and work hard for my neighbours. It was there that I first lived the motto that still guides me today: Learn to do by doing. 4-H provides youth with a structured, hands-on environment where character is built the old-fashioned way. Young people roll up their sleeves and take on real responsibility. Each year, they develop a project that may focus on life skills or raising livestock. They develop skills in the trades, public speaking, leadership, teamwork, parliamentary procedure and community service. They serve their communities and take pride in a job well done. 4-H prepares young people for whatever path they choose. I encourage all members of the House to recognize and celebrate the tremendous work of 4-H and the volunteers who make it possible in Alberta, Canada and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers have warned that uncontrolled Richardson's ground squirrel populations have surged since the loss of strychnine, causing millions of dollars in losses. For decades, farmers used strychnine safely and effectively. Today's alternatives are far less effective. On multiple occasions, the Liberals committed to supporting emergency-use approval. That promise has now been broken, perhaps by the health minister. Alberta and Saskatchewan have called for urgent action and proposed reasonable risk mitigation measures, measures the Liberals have rejected. When will the Liberals approve emergency access to strychnine for provinces that request it?

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for introducing the bill. I really appreciate it. I have spent a lot of time since I came to Parliament visiting my riding and speaking with constituents about their circumstances. The cost of living is palpable across the country, and not just in my home province. A big part of the cost of living crisis is related to the affordability of homes. I do not hear much in the bill's introduction related to affordability, except for the title. There is little substance, other than maybe the monopolization of entry-level housing construction across the country. I understand this is transformation with intent, as the member has spoken to directly. I wonder if he could comment on how the government intends to eliminate or bring down the cost of housing with respect to municipal fees, taxes, delays, the time it takes to acquire a permit and all the stuff related to building new construction. I do not see any of those benefits in this legislation. I just see additional bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's statement and thoughtful words. Could the member comment on the notion that, just like the magic of compound interest, we have what seems to be compound bureaucracy, where we get bureaucracy upon bureaucracy that just gums up the works and makes matters worse? Could the member also comment on how the system could become more efficient to reduce the bureaucratic, administrative and regulatory loads to get homes built faster and more affordably for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. There are so many elements to what the hon. member across the way has discussed. I would like to just begin with the preamble that he recognizes again that I am right, and in fact probably far right, and more right than him. I would ask the member opposite, if the government is so interested in collaborating and so interested in collaborative results and progress at speed, that its members actually consider talking to us ahead of time, before they start the drafting process, to get prior approval. They are fully in charge of the legislative agenda and the calendar. If they wanted to get more done, they could have had more sitting days. I implore them to recognize that they are the guardians of the public purse. With the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimating that $5.4 billion more is needed, where is the money going to come from?